:::RHMT::: Real Home Made Turbo

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Daspoop/Trevor YOU WILL BE MISSED, RIP (link)  :'(

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: log manifold cons  (Read 6925 times)

ctr99ek

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 147
log manifold cons
« on: May 10, 2009, 04:32:38 AM »

I know that they create lots of backpressure and do not flow as well as other manis, but what hp can i expect with one, i made 265 with a 50 trim turbo with .48 hotside.  i want to change to the .63.  i seen that ef made 400+ with a huge turbo but i still want to keep my a/c and p/s.  anyone know what is the average power made on the log?
Logged

j.h.christ

  • Certified OG
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6347
  • Compl3x is a giant faggot
Re: log manifold cons
« Reply #1 on: May 10, 2009, 04:33:54 AM »

Logged
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/8090/lolcart.gif
"quotquotI spent most of my money on booze and women. The rest I just wasted."quotquot

hotrex

  • Certified OG
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13021
  • rough riding niggas since 2002
Re: log manifold cons
« Reply #2 on: May 10, 2009, 10:20:44 AM »

i use an average equivilence of 37 hp to push out my huge logs.


Logged
1. nbspnbsp choda nbspnbsp 584 up, 134 down
 area between your bag and your asshole
Johnny bliss'#039#039s mom really worked my choda yesterday, I wont be able to ride my bike for a week

MTZ

  • Webadmin
  • Certified OG
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1770
Re: log manifold cons
« Reply #3 on: May 10, 2009, 04:49:11 PM »

i use an average equivilence of 37 hp to push out my huge logs.




dam !! usually takes me 10hp, they just drop right out
Logged
ur fucking feet are disgusting.

btw that nail prolly rotted from u fingering widebody in the ass

its called toering

chris

  • Guest
Re: log manifold cons
« Reply #4 on: May 10, 2009, 04:59:17 PM »

mid 9's 8 years ago with a log you need more than that
Logged

Joseph Davis

  • Verbal Assault Technician
  • RHMT Moderator
  • Certified OG
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34733
  • Eugenics prevents retards like widebody93
    • TURBO THIS
Re: log manifold cons
« Reply #5 on: May 10, 2009, 06:36:52 PM »

You aren't going to see jack or shit by way of a power difference if you trade an OEM .48 housing for a .63 housing.

Try a bigger turbo, traditional 7" compressor scroll T3/T04E hybrids aren't exactly large.

HiProfile

  • Certified OG
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4564
  • Injector Kingpin
Re: log manifold cons
« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2009, 11:22:05 AM »

I know that they create lots of backpressure and do not flow as well as other manis, but what hp can i expect with one, i made 265 with a 50 trim turbo with .48 hotside.  i want to change to the .63.  i seen that ef made 400+ with a huge turbo but i still want to keep my a/c and p/s.  anyone know what is the average power made on the log?

People have taken tubular logs past 500whp. AFAIK nobody has actually logged backpressure between various manifolds, pun not intentional. They just come up with the theory that since 2 runners fire towards each other, it must be bad -- dispite those cylinders having the greatest seperation between firing (one fires when the other's valve is closed). They don't flow the best, but they're not going to hold you back a ton.

I'm going to guess you did 265whp at a wimpy 10psi or something? I've seen stock SOHC's come close to that with logs & equally sized turbos when they used the stock MAP. Upgrade to a 2.5/3/4 bar MAP sensor and quick pussyfooting around. Most turbos are night and day difference between 10psi and 20psi.
Logged
they mspainted dildoes in my mom'#039#039s hand, in a picture of her in a hospital bed. -JD
dem gurls need some boobz! -Engloid

ctr99ek

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 147
Re: log manifold cons
« Reply #7 on: May 12, 2009, 05:02:45 PM »

thank you for an actual good reply.  i made 265 at 18 psi with a log mani, 2.5in dp open with a/c and p/s.  6inch intercooler, 2in hotside piping and 2.25 in to TB.  stock head and intake setup.  gm 3bar  precision sc50  .48/.60
Logged

crxrocks

  • Certified OG
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1632
Re: log manifold cons
« Reply #8 on: May 13, 2009, 12:18:18 AM »

I made 288 hp on almost the exact same setup on my DOHC ZC.  SC50, log manifold, 2.5" downpipe and 2" charge pipes.

I currently have it ripped apart being replaced with a ramhorn manifold and 3" downpipe.  We'll see what affect it will have on the setup.
Logged

88dx

  • Certified OG
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7885
Re: log manifold cons
« Reply #9 on: May 13, 2009, 01:13:39 AM »

LOGS are Badass  :noel:

Logged

Joseph Davis

  • Verbal Assault Technician
  • RHMT Moderator
  • Certified OG
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34733
  • Eugenics prevents retards like widebody93
    • TURBO THIS
Re: log manifold cons
« Reply #10 on: May 13, 2009, 01:37:40 AM »

I know that they create lots of backpressure and do not flow as well as other manis, but what hp can i expect with one, i made 265 with a 50 trim turbo with .48 hotside.  i want to change to the .63.  i seen that ef made 400+ with a huge turbo but i still want to keep my a/c and p/s.  anyone know what is the average power made on the log?

People have taken tubular logs past 500whp. AFAIK nobody has actually logged backpressure between various manifolds, pun not intentional. They just come up with the theory that since 2 runners fire towards each other, it must be bad -- dispite those cylinders having the greatest seperation between firing (one fires when the other's valve is closed). They don't flow the best, but they're not going to hold you back a ton.

I'm going to guess you did 265whp at a wimpy 10psi or something? I've seen stock SOHC's come close to that with logs & equally sized turbos when they used the stock MAP. Upgrade to a 2.5/3/4 bar MAP sensor and quick pussyfooting around. Most turbos are night and day difference between 10psi and 20psi.

Eh, the individual cylinder trims on a log manifold 1.8 liter in the 400 whp range are pretty uneven.  It's mostly cyls 2 and 3, as usual, because being thermally landlocked in the middle of the engine plus the pretty much equally crappy restriction to flow across the runners means that they have a much higher ratio of building heat to shedding heat.  It's not the flow, per se, as it is the rate of heat buildup and the use of fuel as coolant that affects the trims.  But, whatever.


thank you for an actual good reply.  i made 265 at 18 psi with a log mani, 2.5in dp open with a/c and p/s.  6inch intercooler, 2in hotside piping and 2.25 in to TB.  stock head and intake setup.  gm 3bar  precision sc50  .48/.60

Sounds par for course.  I make about 300 at 18 on a 9:1 Z6 with the same turbo and a ramhorn, but I think the 2.5" charge pipe and better IM/TB means just as much as that plus it's cheaper to boot.

88dx

  • Certified OG
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7885
Re: log manifold cons
« Reply #11 on: May 13, 2009, 01:39:33 AM »

Dont listen to JD Logs are best
Logged

Joseph Davis

  • Verbal Assault Technician
  • RHMT Moderator
  • Certified OG
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34733
  • Eugenics prevents retards like widebody93
    • TURBO THIS
Re: log manifold cons
« Reply #12 on: May 13, 2009, 01:50:19 AM »

Only to 399 whp, after that you must sell your soul for a full rice kit.

Joseph Davis

  • Verbal Assault Technician
  • RHMT Moderator
  • Certified OG
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34733
  • Eugenics prevents retards like widebody93
    • TURBO THIS
Re: log manifold cons
« Reply #13 on: May 13, 2009, 09:06:27 AM »

Geoff Ricer called me this morning and thanked me for plugging his product.  He's sending me a correctly backpurged stainless steel cookie by way of thanks.  OCZC ain't got nothin' on full rice.

92CXyD

  • Twincharged Smeghead
  • Global Moderator
  • Certified OG
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6787
  • I look around and all I see is Smegheads
Re: log manifold cons
« Reply #14 on: May 13, 2009, 03:51:51 PM »

all this reading about logs make me think of this:

log

Log Commercial Ren and Stimpy

Ren and Stimpy - International LOG

ctr99ek

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 147
Re: log manifold cons
« Reply #15 on: May 14, 2009, 03:47:18 AM »

i actually remmeber that ^^
Logged

SirDragsAlot

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 45
  • if you aint baggin' you aint draggin'
Re: log manifold cons
« Reply #16 on: May 20, 2009, 11:04:06 PM »

given the fact that a turbo creates a certain amount of backpressure, i doubt the design of the manifold seriousley contributes to any additional backpressure, unless it is made from 1/2 square tubing.  i find that sticking with runners equal or a bit larger than the stock flanges should do fine
Logged

Joseph Davis

  • Verbal Assault Technician
  • RHMT Moderator
  • Certified OG
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34733
  • Eugenics prevents retards like widebody93
    • TURBO THIS
Re: log manifold cons
« Reply #17 on: May 21, 2009, 10:11:22 AM »

given the fact that a turbo creates a certain amount of backpressure, i doubt the design of the manifold seriousley contributes to any additional backpressure.

Turbos don't create "backpressure," poorly designed turbo manifolds and poorly chosen turbos do.  There are quire a lot of turbo setups that make far far more intake manifold pressure than turbine pressure, which can't be said for NA car as the exhaust always has more pressure than the intake.  Also, log manifolds contributes to more manifold pressure than any other design, that's why they traditionally spool the fastest.  You won't break any power records on one, but they don't hurt power production in low or intermediate power levels.

Also, don't ever say backpressure ever again.  It's a trash word that means nothing.

92CXyD

  • Twincharged Smeghead
  • Global Moderator
  • Certified OG
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6787
  • I look around and all I see is Smegheads
Re: log manifold cons
« Reply #18 on: May 21, 2009, 11:01:30 AM »

given the fact that a turbo creates a certain amount of backpressure, i doubt the design of the manifold seriousley contributes to any additional backpressure.

Turbos don't create "backpressure," poorly designed turbo manifolds and poorly chosen turbos do.  There are quire a lot of turbo setups that make far far more intake manifold pressure than turbine pressure, which can't be said for NA car as the exhaust always has more pressure than the intake.  Also, log manifolds contributes to more manifold pressure than any other design, that's why they traditionally spool the fastest.  You won't break any power records on one, but they don't hurt power production in low or intermediate power levels.

Also, don't ever say backpressure ever again.  It's a trash word that means nothing.

Reading this reminds me of poeple who believe they have to have some backpressure on their NA 4-stroke engines. Because if they do not have backpressure they will damage the exhaust valves.  :o ::) ;D

dvst8r

  • Certified OG
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3737
  • Unobtainium
Re: log manifold cons
« Reply #19 on: May 21, 2009, 12:19:25 PM »

Reading this reminds me of poeple who believe they have to have some backpressure on their NA 4-stroke engines. Because if they do not have backpressure they will damage the exhaust valves.  :o ::) ;D

I always wondered where that started. I remember even as a kid, guys with v8's saying have to have some exhaust or it will burn the exhaust valves ect... But then on my first trip to the track seeing a rail with 4 individual tubes, none more then 18" long. After that I was sure it was an urban legend, but still to this day, I wonder how it started?
Logged
There are two kinds of people: Sheep and sharks. Sharks are winners and they don'#039#039t look back '#039#039cause they don'#039#039t have necks. Necks are for sheep.

92CXyD

  • Twincharged Smeghead
  • Global Moderator
  • Certified OG
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6787
  • I look around and all I see is Smegheads
Re: log manifold cons
« Reply #20 on: May 21, 2009, 12:39:47 PM »

Reading this reminds me of poeple who believe they have to have some backpressure on their NA 4-stroke engines. Because if they do not have backpressure they will damage the exhaust valves.  :o ::) ;D

I always wondered where that started. I remember even as a kid, guys with v8's saying have to have some exhaust or it will burn the exhaust valves ect... But then on my first trip to the track seeing a rail with 4 individual tubes, none more then 18" long. After that I was sure it was an urban legend, but still to this day, I wonder how it started?

Yeah I've wondered about that urban legend.  ;D

Maybe somebody was comparing 4-stroke to 2-stroke b/c I think you need a little backpressure in a 2-stroke for the reed valves to close properly or may that is a myth also. ;D

Joseph Davis

  • Verbal Assault Technician
  • RHMT Moderator
  • Certified OG
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34733
  • Eugenics prevents retards like widebody93
    • TURBO THIS
Re: log manifold cons
« Reply #21 on: May 21, 2009, 02:58:47 PM »

Most people who think they know everything about cars can't remember highschool physics.

Tim

  • Certified OG
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2632
Re: log manifold cons
« Reply #22 on: May 29, 2009, 07:38:45 PM »

Reading this reminds me of poeple who believe they have to have some backpressure on their NA 4-stroke engines. Because if they do not have backpressure they will damage the exhaust valves.  :o ::) ;D
The only person that ever told me this also used to huff gasoline on a regular basis and now talks rrrreeeeaaaall sssslllllooooowww  :?:

I never realized any other type of person ever gave it much credit.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2009, 07:41:12 PM by Tim »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up