FD to FC intake manifold adapter
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 3,881
Likes: 3
From: Jacksonville, Tampa & Tallahassee
Nice port work!
Definitely more work than its worth for an engine that's already in the car though. I'll keep my fingers crossed that someone comes out with a real adapter. (Real = aligns the ports, NOT just a pretty piece of aluminum with straight holes cut in it which still requires porting, thus defeating the purpose of an adapter)
Definitely more work than its worth for an engine that's already in the car though. I'll keep my fingers crossed that someone comes out with a real adapter. (Real = aligns the ports, NOT just a pretty piece of aluminum with straight holes cut in it which still requires porting, thus defeating the purpose of an adapter)
Allow me to clarify. I'm not hating on the workmanship at all. I could barely do a better porting job myself. My issue is with the claim that converting the ports to bulbous amoeba shapes is a better idea than a well executed spacer. RobXX7 excellent pics show the limitations of port "matching".
1) The remaining thin wall around the periphery of the ports creates a marginal sealing surface. This is especially true on the FD-upper side. No way can you use a metal FD gasket. You can execute a workaround by hacking a custom gasket, but per my original point, it's ghetto. Also note that the UIM, TB and elbow are all cantilevered from the Upper-to-Lower intake flange. Removing material here induces even hight stresses than normal and likely risks failing this joint altogether. Bad news.
2) Enlarging the ports at the flange edges creates a pocket that distorts and disturbs the flow. Note that there is a always a port 'diameter' transition from FC-FD for both the primary and especially the secondary. A spacer can execute this transition in a much smoother way. I'd even bet that a small (<0.10") step produces less loss than bulging ports (although I can't easily prove it).
And to the confused posters that think breaking the edge of the port where it necks down due to casting tolerances is "porting" you need a clue. If you are too much of a slacker to break the edge of the Aluminum manifold corner, maybe the job of installing a FD upper is more effort than you can handle since you'll have to replace mounting studs, mod the oil filler, and splice the TPS connector also.
3) Anyhow, I do appreciate RobXX7 for putting himself out there on the forum. I suspect that his flanges look better than most "spacer hating" porterz. Which leads to another point: doing a port match takes skill and planning to execute correctly. Most people you are trying to convince to go spacerless probably won't do as well. Good thing used manifolds can be bought cheaper than a $180 spacer kit. Enough said.
1) The remaining thin wall around the periphery of the ports creates a marginal sealing surface. This is especially true on the FD-upper side. No way can you use a metal FD gasket. You can execute a workaround by hacking a custom gasket, but per my original point, it's ghetto. Also note that the UIM, TB and elbow are all cantilevered from the Upper-to-Lower intake flange. Removing material here induces even hight stresses than normal and likely risks failing this joint altogether. Bad news.
2) Enlarging the ports at the flange edges creates a pocket that distorts and disturbs the flow. Note that there is a always a port 'diameter' transition from FC-FD for both the primary and especially the secondary. A spacer can execute this transition in a much smoother way. I'd even bet that a small (<0.10") step produces less loss than bulging ports (although I can't easily prove it).
And to the confused posters that think breaking the edge of the port where it necks down due to casting tolerances is "porting" you need a clue. If you are too much of a slacker to break the edge of the Aluminum manifold corner, maybe the job of installing a FD upper is more effort than you can handle since you'll have to replace mounting studs, mod the oil filler, and splice the TPS connector also.
3) Anyhow, I do appreciate RobXX7 for putting himself out there on the forum. I suspect that his flanges look better than most "spacer hating" porterz. Which leads to another point: doing a port match takes skill and planning to execute correctly. Most people you are trying to convince to go spacerless probably won't do as well. Good thing used manifolds can be bought cheaper than a $180 spacer kit. Enough said.
I appreciate your comments. The person who ported those ports engines for other so called engine builders, he is one of the best around. I tend to put more trust in him then random internet folks and i dont mean that in a derogratory way towards anyone, you just tend to trust those people who you know do this more then anyone else.
Others before me have years on thier ports with no catastrophic failures
Where are these spacers with that offer smooth transitions for the ports? It cant be done unless its very thuck, which aint clearing under the hood
Others before me have years on thier ports with no catastrophic failures
Where are these spacers with that offer smooth transitions for the ports? It cant be done unless its very thuck, which aint clearing under the hood
I used a custom spacer to adapt my s4 lim to my fd uim. its 3/4 inch thick with nice port transitions, I used two stock tii lim- uim gaskets one each side, the one to the fd side, I modified the tii gasket never leaked for 7+ year. I had to enlongate the mounting holes alittle further then rob tho. I can swap injectors on the fly tho no need to remove the manifold
spacer
I used a custom spacer to adapt my s4 lim to my fd uim. its 3/4 inch thick with nice port transitions, I used two stock tii lim- uim gaskets one each side, the one to the fd side, I modified the tii gasket never leaked for 7+ year. I had to enlongate the mounting holes alittle further then rob tho. I can swap injectors on the fly tho no need to remove the manifold
I have been thinking about building a spacer so i can do the same.Mine is 2 crowed and with the FPR on the way i cant see them at all
People will alway criticize about something. That just a nice by product, I also get nice cool ait's with the spacer raising it off the hot motor about an inch, it also puts the manifold right under the tii cowl on the hood best of both worlds. I used the fd tb, and greddy elbow with no modification and it allowed plenty of room for the fpr to sit behind/ next to the alt.
The engine bay is still the same temperature, so i doubt the difference is really noticeable.
Getting engine bay temps down is the best way to lower the IAT
in stock form i had IAT's of 30-40 celcius on a normal day, ive even seen 50 in some occasions
I could not lay my hand on the strutbrace after some normal city driving.
Now with the v-mount and proper ducting which prevents the hot air from getting into the engine bay, my IAT's are around 15-20C, and after some hard driving even the inlet manifold is cool to the touch.
its more the spacer putting the manifold right under the hood scoop. I can stick my hand thru it and touch the manifold.. I also know there not much being done there but it is something
I did take mine for a spin yesterday and my friend did put his hand on the manifold and told me this **** is really cool kinda cold nice and that was right after a decent wide open run in third an fourth gear,i do thing that the hood scoop works a little plus i have a nice intercooler and turbo blanket.
Thats the first decent bolt-on adapter i've seen.
They did a good job, if they do not ask an arm and limb for it..
I am still glad i just portmatched it all, otherwise i would have had issues with my strutbar
They did a good job, if they do not ask an arm and limb for it..
I am still glad i just portmatched it all, otherwise i would have had issues with my strutbar
I'll be getting one of those as soon as I can get my greedy hands on an FD UIM. That is one hell of a price for all that machine work!