Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I couldnt find the thread in which i posted the extrude honed manifold flow results(??), if anyone can find it please link.

I found another thread and will follow on from this..

"There is one bloke. I forget his alias. Orange R33 in his Sig.

I believe he had UAS power port/extrude hone his std exh. manifold but he is/was oversea's so he was unable to test.

He's running a gt2835 and currently making up around 280rwkw.

I'm very keen on seeing his results. Maybe UAS could shed some light on if the extrude honed std exh. manifold allows it to push considerably more than the 300rwkw brick wall the std exh. manifold usually see's."

Well the car has just been dynoed, and.....

no power increase at all. I havent seen the dyno sheet as im still overseas, but from what i heard from my brother was that they played around with it for ages in search of more, but came up with nothing. If anything it made the same power at slightly less boost im told.

It is certain that the extrude honed manifold flows more, and i think the lack of results is most likely due to the turbo itself, maybe even the wastegate issue that many people mention (but personally i just think its out of puff). Seeing that the 2835 is not commonly known to push up and past 300rwkw, id really need to put a 3037 on there to see if the stock manifolds brick wall can be pushed.

I know many were eagerly awaiting these results, its a shame theres nothing exciting to share,

cheers :/

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Could you have a graph overlay posted up showing before/after comparison?

Shame that there was no quantifiable improvement, but it'd be interesting to hear if there was any different on-road feel to how it drives. I tend to agree that ~280rwkW should be pushing the max flow capabilities of the 2835.

What sort of price range to have the extrude hone done?

it may be some time until i get the graph but will see what i can do.

Spoke to my engine builder today and he thinks the same, that with a bigger turbo you would most likely see differences compared to the stock mani.

dont quote me as im not sure (was a long time ago) from memory just over $400? And was done buy a place in melbourne i think, if anyone can dig up the original thread there should be the details... ill have another look.

what size is the rear housing on the 2835? I'd say that is the problem if its only a 0.63.

Then again, the compressor technically shouldn't go any higher than 280rwkw as it just isn't designed to.

Shame the turbo isn't a GT3037.

I've had an SR20 6boost manifold done by Andrew Sanders at Specialised Power Porting who is based out of Mt Helen (near Ballarat I believe - not sure because I'm in Perth). From memory cost was around $550.

i do not see how it will add power

i can see how it would increase car response ramping on boost but not power increase

its likely youll gain some more torque / power earlier but overall peak should be the same

if you did the same to the turbine housing then i would say peak power could increase

In much the same way as increasing A/R size of the turbine housing, extrude honing should allow the manifold to increase its mass-flow capacity. ie. it can just put more exhaust flow through more efficiently. You have to look at it from the perspective of pressure gradient across the engine, not just inlet boost pressure. That the car did not make any higher peak power supports the general observation that the stock manifold is good for ~ 300rwkW of flow, and a 2835 with 0.68 A/R turbine is a touch short.

Waiting for comments from those who have exceeded 300kW with those components, but also want to know how comfortably and reliably it was done...

I'm glad you shared the results.

For better or worse it adds to the knowledge base and takes it a step beyond the "i reckon based on numbers" type thinking that a lot of us end up having to do based on lack of actual results.

Simple answer, $400 can be better spent elsewhere if chasing sub 300rwkw, much like .63 IW 3071 doesn't work :D

Another interesting test would be to swap for an aftermarket low mount manifold made from stainless or similar. As there seem to be a whole bunch of sceptics about what performance gains a Jap brand exhaust manifold actually produces. Although not sure there are too many RB25 low mount off-the-shelf manifolds kicking around. Throw in tuned length and there are so many combinations that I would like to test haha :D

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • @Haggerty this is your red flag. In MAP based ECU's the Manifold pressure X RPM calculation is how the engine knows it is actually...running/going through ANY load. You are confusing the term 'base map' with your base VE/Fuel table. When most people say 'base map' they mean the stock entire tune shipped with the ECU, hopefully aimed at a specific car/setup to use as a base for beginning to tune your specific car. Haltech has a lot of documentation (or at least they used to, I expect it to be better now). Read it voraciously.
    • I saw you mention this earlier and it raised a red flag, but I couldn't believe it was real. Yes, the vacuum signal should vary. It is the one and only load signal from the engine to the ECU, and it MUST vary. It is either not connected or is badly f**ked up in some way.
    • @Haggerty you still haven't answered my question.  Many things you are saying do not make sense for someone who can tune, yet I would not expect someone who cannot tune to be playing with the things in the ECU that you are.  This process would be a lot quicker to figure out if we can remove user error from the equation. 
    • If as it's stalling, the fuel pressure rises, it's saying there's less vacuum in the intake manifold. This is pretty typical of an engine that is slowing down.   While typically is agree it sounds fuel related, it really sounds fuel/air mixture related. Since the whole system has been refurbished, including injectors, pump, etc, it's likely we've altered how well the system is delivering fuel. If someone before you has messed with the IACV because it needed fiddling with as the fuel system was dieing out, we need to readjust it back. Getting things back to factory spec everywhere, is what's going to help the entire system. So if it idles at 400rpm with no IACV, that needs raising. Getting factory air flow back to normal will help us get everything back in spec, and likely help chase down any other issues. Back on IACV, if the base idle (no IACV plugged in) is too far out, it's a lot harder for the ECU to control idle. The IACV duty cycle causes non linear variations in reality. When I've tuned the idle valves in the past, you need to keep it in a relatively narrow window on aftermarket ecus to stop them doing wild dances. It also means if your base idle is too low, the valve needs to open too much, and then the smallest % change ends up being a huge variation.
    • I guess one thing that might be wrong is the manifold pressure.  It is a constant -5.9 and never moves even under 100% throttle and load.  I would expect it to atleast go to 0 correct?  It's doing this with the OEM MAP as well as the ECU vacuum sensor. When trying to tune the base map under load the crosshairs only climb vertically with RPM, but always in the -5.9 column.
×
×
  • Create New...