Two seperate FDs in NZ( same owner) back to back on the same dyno, with same tuner etc. Only thing changed was UIM + retune( had to add more fuel).
Back to back dyno results have been pretty consistent as this is the 10th car to do so. We've got about 60 left in stock untilt the next batch, have already shipped 150+ out to owners over the last few months.
https://turbosource.com/products/tur...ntake-manifold

As soon as all of our semi and sideport lowers are in stock, will have a lot more dyno charts to share. Also finishing up the 74mm DBW adapters, so we can get some 82 vs 74mm throttle body dyno results.




medium street port, T4 1.05 EWG 9174 Pump gas, stock lower intake manifold/TB 14 psi


EWG T4 1.45 9180, half bridge, Xcessive LIM, stock TB, pump gas with water injection 21 psi

Same T4 1.45 9180 car as above

 

Shout-out to Turblown! Ordered one of these, had a tracking number 4 minutes later, LOL! Manifold arrived next business day to Canada (another lovely piece).

Love the products and the support - pumped to get this on the car.

Keep up the great work dude, it is appreciated!

 

i have some comparative data re the Turblown UIM.

from a 3rd gear road run last week:

5000..... 434 hp..... 456 tq..... 21.1 boost..... 11.72 AFR
5500..... 494.......... 472......... 22.8............... 10.82
6000..... 494......... 432.......... 23.1................. 9.91
6500..... 518......... 410.......... 23.0................. 9.80
7000..... 507......... 380.......... 22.8................. 9.66
7500..... 599........ 419........... 22.4................ 10.0

8008..... 611.........401........... 22.0................ 10.30

i have an excel file of 79 dyno charts, all corrected to SAE. hp at 5000-7500 in 500 increments.

power distribution V RPM. all but one are single turbo


............average 79 entries........ my recent run

5000..... ....12.2%.......................... 14.08
5500......... 14.7..............................16.06
6000......... 16.8............................. 16.06
6500......... 18.2............................. 16.83
7000......... 19.0............................. 17.46
7500......... 18.8............................. 19.47

my biggest concern re the Turblown UIM was low end power. as you can see in the 5000-5500 area the manifold performed very well. it also ran well at top end. the AFRs, being rich in the middle of my run may have had some influence on the distribution but it still remains that the manifold is not handicapped low to mid range. run interrupted at 8008/114 mph as started to go sideways... 55 degrees, cold tires and pavement.

base fuel 60% ethanol balance 93 pump plus additional 3% BTUs from methanol AI. GT40-1150. Turblown UIM, Xcentric LIM, CPR turbo manifold, 3 inch exhaust, wastegate plumbed into DP. Link Extreme supplied the brains.

 

full throttle runs look good!
How does it drive (compared to staged UIM) at part throttle, around town or cruising before the secondary throttles open ?

 

i have had the same system (ports, intercooler, turbo manifold) on my car since 2012. i have owned a Garrett GT4094r, a Borg Warner SX-E 62, Borg Warner EFR9180 and currently a Garrett G40-1150.

the G40-1150 is superior to the EFR 9180 as to having less back pressure (EMAP). crossover point is 600 rpm later w the Garrett v the 9180.... 6550. (more boost than backpressure till 6550) . also at 8008 rpm, 611 hp 22 psi, backpressure is only 37% more than boost. 3 inch exhaust wastegated into the DP.

no doubt the turbo contributes to these metrics but so does the manifold.

at no time, ever, did i get the feeling that the pedal was ahead of the turbo, including around town... and this is a 860 rotary rwhp turbo.

 

I'm not sure that quite addressed neit's point as it referred more to transient turbo response than the throttle response. Dyno runs are done at wide open throttle and while it is all very interesting to look at power at WOT at 3,000, these are conditions rarely seen in a street car. I therefore do not think it is valid to infer because power is not lost at lower rpm on the dyno that the difference would not be felt in real world street driving.

Where the staged primary/secondary throttle arrangement is likely to play a huge role is at part throttle, before the secondaries even open, and in transient throttle changes in lower gears and under 80kph where street cars live almost all the time. This is where the unique "dynamic effect intake system" Mazda designed for the 13B-REW (and published a whole SAE paper on) comes into play.

now none of this actually matters for performance focussed cars that want to live at WOT most of the time, which is who the intake upgrades are actually designed for. But it may be noticeable for a person whose car spends most of its time driving around town. My own experience is that playing around with the primary vs secondary staging on rotaries makes a huge difference in this area. Switching from staged throttle to a very big single plate plus plenum style intake vs the dynamic effect intake on the FD would likely result in tangible reduction in intake air velocity at lower throttle opening angles. This wouldn't show on a full WOT run on a dyno but it would be felt when driving around in a street car.

 

i completely agree w post 6. the OE manifold is way better than many think for a couple of reasons:

the twin U shaped runners take advantage of the monster power impulses created when an intake port closes as they reflect back to the other opening port

the primary intake runner is mostly kept separate all the way from the butterfly to the intake port

i had my concerns re (any) open plenum replacement UIM.

it is close to impossible to quantify transient metrics... 'mostly has to be subjective.

i think of this dynamic as to whether the motor is ahead of or behind the pedal. at various times i have had a power response behind my pedal. it is very apparent. other times i have had a situation where the motor just wanted to run. ahead of the pedal. even w this fairly large turbo my setup is clearly ahead of the pedal... and this is all the time including putting around town.

this positive dynamic ( transient response) is influenced by many factors... intake configuration including intercooler, UIM, LIM, fuel, ignition, ports, turbo manifold, turbo, wastegate and exhaust. my dual purpose system is optimized. since there are many factors my conclusion re the UIM is that it did not negatively influence the overall performance.

my concerns re the loss of the 2 factors (above) proved to be not an issue.

 

i did pay retail for the manifold so i am offering my objective opinion