FiD-Turbo.com Tubular Exhaust Manifold Testing and new high whp for BeaterX--Round1!
Feb 7, 2011, 10:13 AM
#1
FiD-Turbo.com Tubular Exhaust Manifold Testing and new high whp for BeaterX--Round1!
Background:
So last summer I had the opportunity to do some testing with MAP's tubular exhaust manifold. It has served me well! Before I did the test with MAP I had committed to buying a manifold from FiD-Turbo.com. A local buddy had great results with one on his IX and I was super pumped for similar results on the X! So now I have two bad-*** tubular manifolds, what's the best thing to do? Pit them against each other! LOL seriously though I wasn't really looking forward to it, but I'm the kind of guy that wants to know these things!
I had dyno time scheduled already so all I had to do was convince Shane@DB Performance to let me spend extra time on the dyno swapping manifolds. Holy crap was that an understatement. We ran into problems and ended up completing this test at nearly 4am! Narrowly avoided a cross-threaded bolt breaking off in the turbine housing, two hour run in the middle of the night to borrow a rear CAS (thanks murlo!), and bloody knuckles all the way....but we got it done!
Initial review between the two manifolds (visually) is here:
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...ap-vs-fid.html
If you're not familiar with the saga of BeaterX, feel free to catch up (but it's not important for this thread):
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...ew-beater.html
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...-ton-pics.html
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...-what-now.html
At long last the manifold came. It is designed differently from the MAP manifold, cyls 1/4 and 2/3 feed the opposite scrolls of the turbo inlet and thus the runner design is different. The tubing is the same diameter, the flange head flange looks to be of the same mega high-quality piece, and while the welding technique looks different, it's still absolutely top notch!
The Setup:
It's Minnesota. It's cold. It's snowy. Literally had to drive the car on the dyno for a while to get the ice chunks filling the wheel wells to melt off so we could get traction on the dyno. Testing was performed in DB Performance's dyno bay which stayed a balmy 65° throughout the test. This is really the shakedown runs for my new motor. It's all broken in and is being tuned with the same injectors/maf/fuel as before so we started by making sure the fuel was nice and flat and then tweaked boost/mivec/timing to get the most out of this setup. We quickly realized that the car was simply out of fuel (pump or injector or both) for the parts combo on the car, so we had to keep boost very conservative, around 22psi. After tuning was finished we got good baseline runs, swapped manifolds and then repeated the runs.
Specific info on the car:
2008 EvoX
aFe stage2 intake
perrin inlet
CBRD BBX turbo (ported)
Custom UICP
Buschur FMIC
Stock LICP/TB/IM
DW 800cc injectors
DB Performance Ported head
Supertech dual valvesprings and +1mm valves
Kelford 214-B cams
MAP Stage 1.5 Shortblock
MAP then FiD-Turbo.com exhaust manifolds
MAP O2-eliminator downpipe
Megan Test Pipe
Magnaflow Catback
Hybrid MBC/3-port boost control (3-port is essentially turned off, due to lack of fuel support)
DB Performance Tune
We did EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to keep as many factors the same from run to run while the test was being performed. Timing. AFR. IAT. Ambient Temp. Boost. Etc. Etc. Etc. I will defend this until I'm blue in the face. If you want to argue or cause trouble, go nuts; I may not even bother responding. I've done this before, and I promise you we were careful!
Pics from the swap: FiD-Turbo.com (left--coated by Primo Performance), MAP (covered in road salt--this car is my DD!) on the right:
The Test:
First up, we knew this would be close. These are both top-notch manifolds, similar idea with slightly different implementation. I want this first graph to show the basic idea of how *all* of the data looked from that night. I can only overlay 4 graphs at a time, but this gives you a good idea of what it all looked like spread-wise:
In the real world, these manifolds perform very very similarly.
Here's a good representation of what we saw. The FiD manifold seemed to make nearly identical power, but at just under 1psi less boost. This was confirmed with 3-4 dyno pulls. Timing, fuel, and boost settings were not adjusted at all.
run63: MAP, run69: FiD
The FiD manifold seems to make power a little bit earlier, but it also had a leaner afr on several pulls:
In the end, I was happy. Both manifolds are built to bad-*** quality standards, make damn good power, and my car ran very consistent through the entire test! Still, the tune was SO conservative, I mean c'mon, 22psi? I wish I was running 30+psi on this turbo or an FP Black and really see what these would do! But I'm not. My MAF is maxed out, as are my injectors and fuel pump. But how far will they go? I asked shane if we could do *one* more pull with boost up a few more cranks, and he should let off when he saw any major knock or higher than 12.5 AFR. Never saw either of the two. This is at around 3:30am.
WOOT! 400whp on dyno dynamics on pump gas! Fuel system is absolutely maxed. Boost peaks at 27 but tapers all the way down to 23 at 8000rpm. With a little BCS love I should be able to get this to run a nice solid 26-27psi to 8000+ and we will then see what it will do! I turned the boost back down afterwards, this car will get an upgraded fuel pump for safety's sake sometime soon and that will lead the way to other fun stuff down the road.
Final Thoughts:
Don't buy either of these manifolds, they're a PITA to install! Seriously though when I first did the manifold test with MAP's manifold last summer, I saw freaking IMPRESSIVE gains, and FiD's offering stacks right up with it. I think on most cars, the ultimate difference between these two manifolds will be negligible. I would gladly run either on my car and I would gladly recommend either to anyone on the market.
Thanks for reading.
Further Thoughts!
MAP has offered to re-do this test on their dyno. My car has been apart so much the past few months this is hard for me to consider; this is my DD and I need it to get to work every day. My wife is ready to kill me from the hours I've put into this thing recently so I am nominating someone else for this second test: Murlo! All we need is another FiD manifold and he can use my original MAP manifold for the test. Here's a big high-five for friendly competition!
So last summer I had the opportunity to do some testing with MAP's tubular exhaust manifold. It has served me well! Before I did the test with MAP I had committed to buying a manifold from FiD-Turbo.com. A local buddy had great results with one on his IX and I was super pumped for similar results on the X! So now I have two bad-*** tubular manifolds, what's the best thing to do? Pit them against each other! LOL seriously though I wasn't really looking forward to it, but I'm the kind of guy that wants to know these things!
I had dyno time scheduled already so all I had to do was convince Shane@DB Performance to let me spend extra time on the dyno swapping manifolds. Holy crap was that an understatement. We ran into problems and ended up completing this test at nearly 4am! Narrowly avoided a cross-threaded bolt breaking off in the turbine housing, two hour run in the middle of the night to borrow a rear CAS (thanks murlo!), and bloody knuckles all the way....but we got it done!
Initial review between the two manifolds (visually) is here:
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...ap-vs-fid.html
If you're not familiar with the saga of BeaterX, feel free to catch up (but it's not important for this thread):
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...ew-beater.html
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...-ton-pics.html
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...-what-now.html
At long last the manifold came. It is designed differently from the MAP manifold, cyls 1/4 and 2/3 feed the opposite scrolls of the turbo inlet and thus the runner design is different. The tubing is the same diameter, the flange head flange looks to be of the same mega high-quality piece, and while the welding technique looks different, it's still absolutely top notch!
The Setup:
It's Minnesota. It's cold. It's snowy. Literally had to drive the car on the dyno for a while to get the ice chunks filling the wheel wells to melt off so we could get traction on the dyno. Testing was performed in DB Performance's dyno bay which stayed a balmy 65° throughout the test. This is really the shakedown runs for my new motor. It's all broken in and is being tuned with the same injectors/maf/fuel as before so we started by making sure the fuel was nice and flat and then tweaked boost/mivec/timing to get the most out of this setup. We quickly realized that the car was simply out of fuel (pump or injector or both) for the parts combo on the car, so we had to keep boost very conservative, around 22psi. After tuning was finished we got good baseline runs, swapped manifolds and then repeated the runs.
Specific info on the car:
2008 EvoX
aFe stage2 intake
perrin inlet
CBRD BBX turbo (ported)
Custom UICP
Buschur FMIC
Stock LICP/TB/IM
DW 800cc injectors
DB Performance Ported head
Supertech dual valvesprings and +1mm valves
Kelford 214-B cams
MAP Stage 1.5 Shortblock
MAP then FiD-Turbo.com exhaust manifolds
MAP O2-eliminator downpipe
Megan Test Pipe
Magnaflow Catback
Hybrid MBC/3-port boost control (3-port is essentially turned off, due to lack of fuel support)
DB Performance Tune
We did EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to keep as many factors the same from run to run while the test was being performed. Timing. AFR. IAT. Ambient Temp. Boost. Etc. Etc. Etc. I will defend this until I'm blue in the face. If you want to argue or cause trouble, go nuts; I may not even bother responding. I've done this before, and I promise you we were careful!
Pics from the swap: FiD-Turbo.com (left--coated by Primo Performance), MAP (covered in road salt--this car is my DD!) on the right:
The Test:
First up, we knew this would be close. These are both top-notch manifolds, similar idea with slightly different implementation. I want this first graph to show the basic idea of how *all* of the data looked from that night. I can only overlay 4 graphs at a time, but this gives you a good idea of what it all looked like spread-wise:
In the real world, these manifolds perform very very similarly.
Here's a good representation of what we saw. The FiD manifold seemed to make nearly identical power, but at just under 1psi less boost. This was confirmed with 3-4 dyno pulls. Timing, fuel, and boost settings were not adjusted at all.
run63: MAP, run69: FiD
The FiD manifold seems to make power a little bit earlier, but it also had a leaner afr on several pulls:
In the end, I was happy. Both manifolds are built to bad-*** quality standards, make damn good power, and my car ran very consistent through the entire test! Still, the tune was SO conservative, I mean c'mon, 22psi? I wish I was running 30+psi on this turbo or an FP Black and really see what these would do! But I'm not. My MAF is maxed out, as are my injectors and fuel pump. But how far will they go? I asked shane if we could do *one* more pull with boost up a few more cranks, and he should let off when he saw any major knock or higher than 12.5 AFR. Never saw either of the two. This is at around 3:30am.
WOOT! 400whp on dyno dynamics on pump gas! Fuel system is absolutely maxed. Boost peaks at 27 but tapers all the way down to 23 at 8000rpm. With a little BCS love I should be able to get this to run a nice solid 26-27psi to 8000+ and we will then see what it will do! I turned the boost back down afterwards, this car will get an upgraded fuel pump for safety's sake sometime soon and that will lead the way to other fun stuff down the road.
Final Thoughts:
Don't buy either of these manifolds, they're a PITA to install! Seriously though when I first did the manifold test with MAP's manifold last summer, I saw freaking IMPRESSIVE gains, and FiD's offering stacks right up with it. I think on most cars, the ultimate difference between these two manifolds will be negligible. I would gladly run either on my car and I would gladly recommend either to anyone on the market.
Thanks for reading.
Further Thoughts!
MAP has offered to re-do this test on their dyno. My car has been apart so much the past few months this is hard for me to consider; this is my DD and I need it to get to work every day. My wife is ready to kill me from the hours I've put into this thing recently so I am nominating someone else for this second test: Murlo! All we need is another FiD manifold and he can use my original MAP manifold for the test. Here's a big high-five for friendly competition!
Feb 8, 2011, 09:31 AM
#5
I had to send our manifold to HB speed because he was primarily an FP advocate at the time, and I didnt want any people claiming favoritism because a manifold would be paired with our turbo or something of the like.
hard to get conclusive data on the testing...
even if the temps or humidity change between runs... that can change numbers..
good general showing....
cb
hard to get conclusive data on the testing...
even if the temps or humidity change between runs... that can change numbers..
good general showing....
cb
Feb 8, 2011, 04:58 PM
#6
Everyone grow up and quit arguing or being pissed at me or other vendors/shops it is SAD. At the end of the day we should be working together to make these cars perform better, not complain that this and that was done unfairly. Why in the hell would I try and stack this test, it is for MY CAR! These little grudge matches that develop between shops are downright childish. Everyone needs to get over themselves and realize that there are multiple ways to skin a cat and there might not be a best way other than to just do it together over a beer.
Look past the extra that was posted and at the original back-to-back test! Why or how on earth would I stack or skew a test that shows that they perform nearly identically.
FiD, please reconsider the extra data that you posted, it is really not fair to the test. Boost was adjusted to try and bring things inline and IMHO enters the uber-grey area of a true back-to-back test. Take the original data that I posted for what it is, they performed the same and your manifold did it with about .7psi less boost across the board. Weather can account for a bigger change than this in the real world.
MAP is ready to strangle me I'm sure but let me publically say that I'm sorry for dragging them into this. I should have just done tuning on their manifold, swapped on a stocker, done some pulls, then swapped on the FiD and published only those results. But honestly who would I be kidding? I wouldn't give a rip, I know these manifolds will kick the **** out of a stock manifold. End of the day I want to know which one outperforms the other and which one I want to keep on my car. Furthermore had I not published that angle everyone and their mom would have simply asked me and I would have told them the god's honest truth: these manifolds perform nearly identically and both are very high quality pieces--I would run either!
Last edited by Noize; Feb 14, 2011 at 04:17 PM. Reason: word filter
Feb 8, 2011, 05:10 PM
#7
MAP has always treated me with amazing service and fantastic prices and I will always recommend them to people.
SIDE STORY TIME!
Two weeks ago after my car being down for two months and then doing a tragic/epic clutch job in my garage, my wife was ready to kill me if I touched another wrench. She had the flu and then a cold but as luck would have it I came upon a stranded 1G DSM on the side of the freeway near my house. The neck had broken off the radiator but the guys in the car didn't know any better. They had been stranded on the side of the road for an hour and it was like -10°F out, serious kill you cold. We ended up limping their car back to my house and at MIDNIGHT on a SATURDAY I we were able to get an in-stock aluminum radiator from MAP and get these guys back on the road.
It was seriously epic and I'll never forget it. My wife anna was furious but I saved 3 guys w/ some hot chocolate and hospitality. Perhaps that then led to the shortening of the manifold test which still lasted way too long.
Last edited by Noize; Feb 14, 2011 at 04:24 PM.
Trending Topics
Feb 8, 2011, 05:16 PM
#8
Dude I was standing there the entire time reviewing logs with Shane (DB Performance). There were ZERO changes made to the ecu in any way during the entire test. Even afterwards when we did the 400whp pull, all we did at that point was crank the MBC a few turns and the tune was UNCHANGED!
Everyone grow up and quit arguing or being pissed at me or other vendors/shops it is SAD. At the end of the day we should be working together to make these cars perform better, not complain that this and that was done unfairly. Why in the hell would I try and stack this test, it is for MY CAR! These little grudge matches that develop between shops are downright childish. Everyone needs to get over themselves and realize that there are multiple ways to skin a cat and there might not be a best way other than to just do it together over a beer.
Look past the extra that was posted and at the original back-to-back test! Why or how on earth would I stack or skew a test that shows that they perform nearly identically.
FiD, please reconsider the extra data that you posted, it is really not fair to the test. Boost was adjusted to try and bring things inline and IMHO enters the uber-grey area of a true back-to-back test. Take the original data that I posted for what it is, they performed the same and your manifold did it with about .7psi less boost across the board. Weather can account for a bigger change than this in the real world.
MAP is ready to strangle me I'm sure but let me publically say that I'm sorry for dragging them into this. I should have just done tuning on their manifold, swapped on a stocker, done some pulls, then swapped on the FiD and published only those results. But honestly who would I be kidding? I wouldn't give a rip, I know these manifolds will kick the **** out of a stock manifold. End of the day I want to know which one outperforms the other and which one I want to keep on my car. Furthermore had I not published that angle everyone and their mom would have simply asked me and I would have told them the god's honest truth: these manifolds perform nearly identically and both are very high quality pieces--I would run either!
Everyone grow up and quit arguing or being pissed at me or other vendors/shops it is SAD. At the end of the day we should be working together to make these cars perform better, not complain that this and that was done unfairly. Why in the hell would I try and stack this test, it is for MY CAR! These little grudge matches that develop between shops are downright childish. Everyone needs to get over themselves and realize that there are multiple ways to skin a cat and there might not be a best way other than to just do it together over a beer.
Look past the extra that was posted and at the original back-to-back test! Why or how on earth would I stack or skew a test that shows that they perform nearly identically.
FiD, please reconsider the extra data that you posted, it is really not fair to the test. Boost was adjusted to try and bring things inline and IMHO enters the uber-grey area of a true back-to-back test. Take the original data that I posted for what it is, they performed the same and your manifold did it with about .7psi less boost across the board. Weather can account for a bigger change than this in the real world.
MAP is ready to strangle me I'm sure but let me publically say that I'm sorry for dragging them into this. I should have just done tuning on their manifold, swapped on a stocker, done some pulls, then swapped on the FiD and published only those results. But honestly who would I be kidding? I wouldn't give a rip, I know these manifolds will kick the **** out of a stock manifold. End of the day I want to know which one outperforms the other and which one I want to keep on my car. Furthermore had I not published that angle everyone and their mom would have simply asked me and I would have told them the god's honest truth: these manifolds perform nearly identically and both are very high quality pieces--I would run either!
You are not sponsored. You want the best parts on your car. I don't see what you would have to gain if you made one manifold outperform the other since you could do that with either one of them.
-Jalal
Last edited by Noize; Feb 14, 2011 at 04:19 PM. Reason: Word filter
Feb 8, 2011, 05:18 PM
#9
is. I don't hold grudges and I should hope that others here won't either. MAP is local to me and is part of a pretty sweet community we have here in Minnesota that is just a corner of a pretty sweet community we have nationally and even globally.
MAP has always treated me with amazing service and fantastic prices and I will always recommend them to people.
SIDE STORY TIME!
Two weeks ago after my car being down for two months and then doing a tragic/epic clutch job in my garage, my wife was ready to kill me if I touched another wrench. She had the flu and then a cold but as luck would have it I came upon a stranded 1G DSM on the side of the freeway near my house. The neck had broken off the radiator but the guys in the car didn't know any better. They had been stranded on the side of the road for an hour and it was like -10°F out, serious f*cking kill you cold. We ended up limping their car back to my house and at MIDNIGHT on a SATURDAY I we were able to get an in-stock aluminum radiator from MAP and get these guys back on the road.
It was seriously epic and I'll never forget it. My wife anna was furious but I saved 3 guys w/ some hot chocolate and hospitality. Perhaps that then led to the shortening of the manifold test which still lasted way too long.
MAP has always treated me with amazing service and fantastic prices and I will always recommend them to people.
SIDE STORY TIME!
Two weeks ago after my car being down for two months and then doing a tragic/epic clutch job in my garage, my wife was ready to kill me if I touched another wrench. She had the flu and then a cold but as luck would have it I came upon a stranded 1G DSM on the side of the freeway near my house. The neck had broken off the radiator but the guys in the car didn't know any better. They had been stranded on the side of the road for an hour and it was like -10°F out, serious f*cking kill you cold. We ended up limping their car back to my house and at MIDNIGHT on a SATURDAY I we were able to get an in-stock aluminum radiator from MAP and get these guys back on the road.
It was seriously epic and I'll never forget it. My wife anna was furious but I saved 3 guys w/ some hot chocolate and hospitality. Perhaps that then led to the shortening of the manifold test which still lasted way too long.
Chris, i <3 you.
-Jalal
Feb 9, 2011, 05:39 PM
#11
Well it is looking like myself along with Scheides who offered his help, will be hauling my car over to MAP for additional testing. Scheides is a lot more familiar with logging/monitoring than myself so he said he would help.
Chris is confident when pushed their manifold will show its colors and I hope that is true.
Regardless, more testing will ensue and MAP will get to see it with their own eyes as they said they wanted to. Also as Chris mentioned here he would share results even if they are unfavorable and I hope that to be the case.
I was originally going to help testing with the FID one on a high HP build and would've loved to help them out, but to be fair Chris (MAP) and myself have been working to get high HP testing done on his manifold. So that is what I am doing and I just hope the testing on my car doesn't stir up more ****.
Look for more testing upcoming in the next few weeks.
Chris is confident when pushed their manifold will show its colors and I hope that is true.
Regardless, more testing will ensue and MAP will get to see it with their own eyes as they said they wanted to. Also as Chris mentioned here he would share results even if they are unfavorable and I hope that to be the case.
I was originally going to help testing with the FID one on a high HP build and would've loved to help them out, but to be fair Chris (MAP) and myself have been working to get high HP testing done on his manifold. So that is what I am doing and I just hope the testing on my car doesn't stir up more ****.
Look for more testing upcoming in the next few weeks.
Feb 9, 2011, 06:03 PM
#12
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Manassas, VA
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it is looking like myself along with Scheides who offered his help, will be hauling my car over to MAP for additional testing. Scheides is a lot more familiar with logging/monitoring than myself so he said he would help.
Chris is confident when pushed their manifold will show its colors and I hope that is true.
Regardless, more testing will ensue and MAP will get to see it with their own eyes as they said they wanted to. Also as Chris mentioned here he would share results even if they are unfavorable and I hope that to be the case.
I was originally going to help testing with the FID one on a high HP build and would've loved to help them out, but to be fair Chris (MAP) and myself have been working to get high HP testing done on his manifold. So that is what I am doing and I just hope the testing on my car doesn't stir up more ****.
Look for more testing upcoming in the next few weeks.
Chris is confident when pushed their manifold will show its colors and I hope that is true.
Regardless, more testing will ensue and MAP will get to see it with their own eyes as they said they wanted to. Also as Chris mentioned here he would share results even if they are unfavorable and I hope that to be the case.
I was originally going to help testing with the FID one on a high HP build and would've loved to help them out, but to be fair Chris (MAP) and myself have been working to get high HP testing done on his manifold. So that is what I am doing and I just hope the testing on my car doesn't stir up more ****.
Look for more testing upcoming in the next few weeks.
MrC
Feb 9, 2011, 06:15 PM
#14
Same thing I told you on facebook. I have been honest with you with my plans the whole time.
My original plan was either to test your manifold at DB or MAP's at MAP...both of them would be vs my current ported stocker.
With how this nonsense has gone down lately I told Chris I had doubt about doing this, but frankly I can't let that discourage me from getting a nice new mani and going for my 600whp goal. I honestly agree with Scheides that both mani's are slick and well designed.
Going with MAP's at this point made the most sense as they said they would take care of the install/dyno and Scheides has his that he is going to give me a deal on as he doesn't need two mani's.
I told you straight up I would never buy a manifold from you only to get involved in this testing, i don't think that's fair.
Scheides and I will be there for the testing and I am not into funny business. If Chris has other plans lined up for testing that is his deal not mine. My thing was testing vs. a ported stocker.
My original plan was either to test your manifold at DB or MAP's at MAP...both of them would be vs my current ported stocker.
With how this nonsense has gone down lately I told Chris I had doubt about doing this, but frankly I can't let that discourage me from getting a nice new mani and going for my 600whp goal. I honestly agree with Scheides that both mani's are slick and well designed.
Going with MAP's at this point made the most sense as they said they would take care of the install/dyno and Scheides has his that he is going to give me a deal on as he doesn't need two mani's.
I told you straight up I would never buy a manifold from you only to get involved in this testing, i don't think that's fair.
Scheides and I will be there for the testing and I am not into funny business. If Chris has other plans lined up for testing that is his deal not mine. My thing was testing vs. a ported stocker.
Feb 9, 2011, 06:36 PM
#15
That isn't really my goal, but his. I am more interested in comparing my current setup to a tub mani setup, that's all I want out of this.
Chris is helping me out with install etc so if that is his plan he is welcome to it, I am in debt for him helping me out.
I will do what I can to keep it fair, obviously people will always have doubts, but more data never hurts.
edit: Furthermore, if you trust DB's test, which I personally trust myself, I don't see why you would worry about more testing.
All I see happening from this is the possibility that the MAP design works better at higher HP, but who knows, I sure don't.
Last edited by murlo26; Feb 9, 2011 at 06:43 PM.