M20 Management shootout, MS2 vs Haltech vs?

[berlow94]

I think an m54 manifold would be killer on an m20, but i don't think it's ever gonna happen if no one even went through with a simpler m50 intake swap. People have been trying everything to delete the crab any way possible for a while. Someone even ran one with a m70 intake on motronic but no 24v stuff I've seen.

Does anyone have an M54 manifold laying around? I know the M54 intake ports are a different shape than E36/E34 engines.

Curious what the bolt pattern and spacing looks like. I wonder how involved making an adaptor plate would be.

For us standalone Ecu guys, converting to E-throttle would be an awesome upgrade as well!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[digger]

I think the answer here is a variable volume intake manifold.
Porsche Vario-ram or BMW DISA.

I wonder if we could adapt an M54 manifold to the M20.

Anyone have any ideas about that?

I'm not sure why you're against a single throttle body on a m20 with RHD forming the basis for it. Isn't that the style of manifold you use ? For sure a multi stage thing is good when done correctly but it's funny some m54 guys are trying to get away from the m54 manifold

[berlow94]

I'm not sure why you're against a single throttle body on a m20 with RHD forming the basis for it. Isn't that the style of manifold you use ? For sure a multi stage thing is good when done correctly but it's funny some m54 guys are trying to get away from the m54 manifold

The m54 guys getting away from the DISA manifolds are the same group of idiots converting s54 throttles to cable actuation.

I think that the RHD based manifold could be a good idea if the volume was done properly.
AND
If it could possibly increase upper end flow as well as bottom end torque.

That is all assuming that the head does flow more air than the stock manifold can actually handle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[digger]

The m54 guys getting away from the DISA manifolds are the same group of idiots converting s54 throttles to cable actuation.

I think that the RHD based manifold could be a good idea if the volume was done properly.
AND
If it could possibly increase upper end flow as well as bottom end torque.

That is all assuming that the head does flow more air than the stock manifold can actually handle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

John from WOT-tec posted some graphs and the OEM manifold does NOT compliment the cylinder head from a flow perspective, the length of the manifold and the excessively small plenum doesn't help either. So its tough to get more than 210-220whp from it.

[jonnip]

I have syvecs s6


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[squidmaster]

nah

[digger]

was done using a flow bench like for a cylinder head best i can tell.

stock bare head (GREY)
head + OEM intake(DARK BLUE)
head + RHD (RED)



back in 2008 i remember having a manifold and TB flow test by itself and the numbers were high 150's low 160's drawing though a single runner others blocked i recall.

[berlow94]

was done using a flow bench like for a cylinder head best i can tell.



stock bare head (GREY)

head + OEM intake(BLACK)

head + RHD (RED)







back in 2008 i remember having a manifold and TB flow test by itself and the numbers were high 150's low 160's drawing though a single runner others blocked i recall.

You say red, gray, and black but I see red, green, and blue...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[squidmaster]

I see red grey and blue hahaha

[digger]

You say red, gray, and black but I see red, green, and blue...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dark blue looked black on my monitor at an angle haha

[digger]

I'm surprised to see that the bare head doesn't flow better even at lower lift. I guess the reason I see a difference in my testing is because I have each cylinder firing in normal order, so drawing in air in a set amount of time (most test I run at ~6000rpm) and then blocking flow. This has a play on back pressure and resonance, so the results we see are how much air it's able to draw within the valve open time, rather than just at certain lift, which is far less limiting having a steady flow

how are you testing it?

i wouldnt expect the manifold to have much impact on low lift flow, the valve aperture is dictating the flow and at low lifts the area of the aperature is much smaller than a round pipe 35-40mm ID

[squidmaster]

Using time dependant CAD flow software like the links I've posted.

It's not that the pipes are too small, it's simply the way air moves through the manifold and runners. When one valve opens it draws air from the other runners with closed valves as well as from the throttle body. When the design is poor and the each intake cycle affects the other negatively, the response time and overall flow are decreased. Just look at the m20 graph I posted.

[digger]

can you post an animation?

yes the pipes are not too small for most NA engines iirc the min area is 35mm ID equivalent, the length is wrong for the rpm you need to make hp.

you should get hold of ENGMOD4T its a great 1D sim reasonably priced, since it seems like you are developing something. you can look at areas, lengths, volumes, split plenums resoance boxes all sorts things can be modelled and how it affects the whole process rather than tell it some assumed boundary condition.... as each manifold will have a different boundary condition

[squidmaster]

nope

[squidmaster]

what? No, the boundary conditions have nothing to do with the manifold.

the ENGMOD4T website looks like it hasn't been updated since windows XP and they use comic sans. There's no info about how to get the software either, other than a contact form. I'll see if they're still alive though, seems like neat software