mrfred

iTrader: (50)

Took way longer than expected, but I finally was able to finish up a pretty decent comparison between two of the newer stock frame turbo tubular manifolds available for the Evo. First off, I would like to thank Aaron, Lucas, Jake, Jeff, and TJ at English Racing for all their help in making this comparison happen.

This is a comparison between the FiD and ToxicFab stock frame turbo tubular manifolds. I was in the process of gathering parts a nice stock block street setup and decided that a tubular manifold would be a good addition. I originally had purchased just the FiD manifold, but then the ToxicFab hit the streets just a few days after I placed my order for the FiD, and I decided that it would be fun to do a comparison, so I bought it as well. I bought these two manifolds for several reasons. 1) Both manifolds have dyno data to back up their product. 2) Both are competitively priced. 3) Both offer a lifetime warranty. There are some things that differentiate the manifolds though:

FiD manifold - More thoughtful design aimed getting the good horsepower gains while trying to loose as little as possible in spool. It is an equal length header, it has a more optimized collector (more narrow collector angle, primaries better aimed down the hotside inlets), and it uses 1.25" tubing to (in theory) help keep up exhaust velocity for better response. 100% 304 SS materials. Construction quality is good, and it definitely is stout enough to last forever, but the alignment between a few of the tubing segments is a bit off. Another gripe is that the transition from the exhaust port to the 1.25" tubing is a bit abrupt for my taste.

ToxicFab manifold - Construction quality is second-to-none. The welds are all beautiful, and every segment is perfectly aligned. It utilizes 1.5" tubing, so you know that it can handle high amounts of exhaust flow. It utilizes that same type of transition from the exhaust port to the primary as the FiD, but because the tubing is 1.5" diameter, the transition is a little less abrupt. Collector design is not as good. Uses non-stainless material for the flanges.

So how about some dyno charts. Testing was done on my recently updated Evo 9. Mods are:

- scheides' heavily ported BBK Full
- cold air intake setup
- HKS 274/278 cams
- ETS v2 LICP
- ETS 3.5" FMIC
- Titek v2 O2 housing
- Helix v2 DP
- Mil.Spec 100 cps cat
- RRE Stealth cat-back
- Walbro
- Wilson fuel rail
- FIC1100 cc/min injectors
- SpoolinUp COP
- ECU-based boost control, 27 psi, tapering to 25 psi
- E85
- tuned by me

Dyno testing of the two manifolds was done about three weeks apart. I really wanted to test both on the same day to eliminate the air temperature as a variable, but it didn't work out. It was cooler during the FiD manifold dyno testing, but humidity was also much higher, so the DynoJet correction factor was exactly the same for testing of the manifolds. I was able to do some road dyno testing as well, and the runs were done only a few hours apart.

Here are the DynoJet results. Testing of the two manifolds is shown alongside with a dyno run from my stock Evo 9 turbo on the stock exhaust manifold. As can be seen, the FiD and ToxicFab manifold essentially lie right on top of each other. There are a few consistent differences between the two manifolds on the dyno. 1) The FiD manifold does promote a slightly earlier spool-up response when doing a typical dyno run. We weren't able to get any data on spoolup response time going WOT, say at 4500 rpm, but based on my daily driving experience, I think the FiD would be spool up slightly quicker. 2) The FiD manifold does seem to drive the turbo a bit harder. This can been seen in the higher boost from the FiD manifold when using the baseline WGDC curve that I made for the ToxicFab manifold. The FiD initially boosts a little higher, and then the boost control correction algorithm kicks in and lowers the WGDC to bring the boost closer to the 27 psi target. The higher boost does correspond to areas of higher power than the ToxicFab.


Here are the road dyno results. Unlike the dyno runs, these runs were done only a few hours apart. Same section of road. A correction factor has been applied to make the peak power numbers relatively closely match the DJ results (the same correction factor was used for both manifolds). As with the DynoJet runs, HP and TQ are pretty equivalent for the two manifolds. Besides logging the usual parameters, I also took advantage of the EGT bung I had installed on both manifolds to put together an exhaust manifold pressure measurement setup. I was really curious to see if there would be a significant difference in exhaust manifold pressure at higher airflow rates where I thought maybe the FiD 1.25" primaries might start choking flow. As can be seen, the pressures are very similar.


Daily driving with both manifolds feels about the same, but I want to get a little more seat-time before I put down a more in-depth opinion.

In the end, both manifolds have their strengths, and both produce about the same horsepower and torque, at least for my setup. I don't think anyone can go wrong with either of these manifolds.

EvoIX2240

iTrader: (13)

Very nicely put together. Thank you for the time put in for this. These types of post are very resourceful.

ToxicFab

iTrader: (42)

Thanks mrfred! I appropriate all the time and effort put into all this data you gathered for the people of evom! Very cool stuff!
Thanks!

l2r99gst

iTrader: (2)

I love the addition of the exhaust backpressure measurements. Not something we get to see that often.

Fast_Freddie

iTrader: (50)

I guess the hypothesis of the bigger runner on stock frame turbos was kinda defunked with this test... great test as always Mrfred!

FiD-Turbo.com

iTrader: (2)

MrFred, thanks for going to great lengths to spend the time and money to put this manifold test together. I'm sure I'm also speaking for the evoM community when I say that we really appreciate the detail writeup and test data that you provided for the manifold comparison.

Thanks again,
MrC

s.e.a.n.

iTrader: (10)

Very nice comparison!

nonschlont

iTrader: (3)

excellent write-up M! Very detailed, as usual!

EvolutinIX

iTrader: (10)

I have been looking forward to this comparison for months, very well done! Thank you for taking the time and your hard earned money to put this test together. Look forward to you driving impressions of both or any other input, thank you again sir!

Ps you can sell me the one your not using jk!

mrfred

iTrader: (50)

Thanks everyone for the compliments. Yeah, I still have to decide which one to sell.

L888Apex

iTrader: (94)

Definitely a very nice write up too bad in socal we can't run either one

EVO8LTW

iTrader: (41)

Thanks for the review. I'm surprised that they were so similar given the difference in primary size. As far as the road comparison, were the timing numbers identical in the logs? It's so hard to compare sometimes with the stock ECU because of how inconsistent it can be.

EVO IXMR

iTrader: (6)

Good test on both manifolds and they both have nice designs to them with looks of great quality. I would be hard for me to choose between the two.

mrfred

iTrader: (50)

Exact same tune, and essentially no knock in either run, so timing should be identical. I can post up the timing logs as well though if you like.

cij911

iTrader: (14)

mrfred - you need to update your signature - something more like 470+whp on xx turbo....