PDA

View Full Version : Magnum Powers Intake Manifold *Updated 2*



Toms-SC
09-16-2009, 12:48 PM
For discussion purposes

Hey all,

I was doing some poking around the Tork Tech kits and contacted Charles if it would be possible to do something similar to their intake manifolds but trim it down for a V6. It turns out he had designed a intake manifold awhile back for the V6 but stopped short because of the market conditions. He went as far as to getting a sheet metal prototype made up. This is what I know about it:

- Air to air using using front mount intercoolers that is common with the SC, there is not enough room in our valley to house air to water.
- Raised over an inch over stock for better flow.
- Acts as a large plenum so the cylinders can draw from a large volume. This should greatly reduce distribution issues and such concerns.
- Has front entry so the intake manifold can use larger superchargers.
- Cast Aluminum
- The hole in the front would be a 3" hose barb coming from the air to air cooler, or of course if someone wanted they could have an external liquid to air heat exchanger.
- T stat is remotely mounted to allow more room for the supercharger and air passages. See pages 19 and 20 of the Tork Tech install manual to see how it would be similar.
http://shop.torktech.com/images/instructions/installation%20instructions%20M46Kit%20Rev%207.pdf
- Would require aftermarket hood
- IAT could be mounted in or near the intake manifold
- Stock fuel rail if wish
- Uses universal bypass valve from Magnuson, it would be connected between the intake plenum and air leaving the inter cooler
- The intake magnum powers intake manifold would be starting point to a new line of parts including a TVS blower.

http://i32.tinypic.com/14t39so.jpg
http://i25.tinypic.com/htzgq1.jpg

The target price point would be around $600. There would have to be a minimum number of 30 units pre-sold for him to finish design and get the units cast.

Toms-SC
09-16-2009, 12:52 PM
My thoughts;

This design appears to be somewhat universal. If we were to get the V6 Mustang guys on board I think we'd be able get it produced. I like the fact of the front entry system so one could use a larger supercharger or inlet plenum without hitting anything in the back such as the return plenum. It would really open the doors to using off the shelve Whipples/Kennebell kits. For $600 I actually think it is a little low in the price range. :eek:

I'd be willing to bite the bullet for the first order.

fturner
09-16-2009, 01:08 PM
While this is a great idea..... from what I've learned and several discussions, I don't think the intake manifold on our cars is the real issue at this point, but heads are.

Whats the point on putting a huge fancy manifold and a gigantic blower on the motor when even the best ported heads can't handle what we currently have out there :cool:.

Fraser

ricardoa1
09-16-2009, 01:09 PM
Interesting. Hard to commit without some performance data. So will there be a lower tube supplied with this intake. To get thirty of us to commit on something like this I would think it needs to be bolt on.

Supply a redesigned lower intake tube to mate the intake would be nice.

But where is the Tstat housing going to go to? Also it seems a cowl will be necessary so why not make it water IC?

Toms-SC
09-16-2009, 01:19 PM
All good points. I've forwarded him the link to this thread and I'll gather up some questions to ask him. I have no clue where the tstat housing is going to go or if it would come with a new plenum. :eek:

I think the biggest benefit if going to be the universal blower idea. It would now be possible to call up Kenne and get a 2.2 with inlet plenum and bolt it down with very little modification. Offset pulleys could address the snout issue. You'd also be able to run a modified fuel rail.

Fraser,
As per the heads only two people can answer that question. :o

ricardoa1
09-16-2009, 01:27 PM
All good points. I've forwarded him the link to this thread and I'll gather up some questions to ask him. I have no clue where the tstat housing is going to go or if it would come with a new plenum. :eek:

I think the biggest benefit if going to be the universal blower idea. It would now be possible to call up Kenne and get a 2.2 with inlet plenum and bolt it down with very little modification. Offset pulleys could address the snout issue. You'd also be able to run a modified fuel rail.

Fraser,
As per the heads only two people can answer that question. :o

You cannot call up Kenne Bell they only sell kits. Whipple will be the only other choice.

Toms-SC
09-16-2009, 01:34 PM
You cannot call up Kenne Bell they only sell kits. Whipple will be the only other choice.

Your right. Although you could get lucky on ebay. But thinking big picture this would open the doors to Whipple/Ford Racing/VTS/TVS and on and on. :cool:

Roadhawg
09-16-2009, 01:43 PM
As per the heads only two people can answer that question. :o

I think double D let the head issue fade away, as the SC community cannot seem to choose a single design and go with it.

fturner
09-16-2009, 01:48 PM
I honestly think that should be the avenue we head down first and thats to build better heads. If we can have heads that can handle alot more flow and be designed good enough to prevent detonation then those 2.2L and higher blowers and big huge turbo's can be used safely.

The stock heads are very badly designed and very prone to detonation which is limiting alot of the potential of what we can do with these motors.

And frankly, if I was DD I'd just say screw it and get new heads designed and built instead of trying to appease the masses, which we know will never happen, especially around here ;).

Fraser

Toms-SC
09-16-2009, 02:00 PM
Cannot seem to choose a single design and go with it.

This seems to be the case with many things.

The only change I'd like to see with the MP intake manifold is to have a tab on the inlet side that could be drilled out for a proper nitrous injection point. :D

David Neibert
09-16-2009, 02:36 PM
I honestly think that should be the avenue we head down first and thats to build better heads. If we can have heads that can handle alot more flow and be designed good enough to prevent detonation then those 2.2L and higher blowers and big huge turbo's can be used safely.

The stock heads are very badly designed and very prone to detonation which is limiting alot of the potential of what we can do with these motors.

And frankly, if I was DD I'd just say screw it and get new heads designed and built instead of trying to appease the masses, which we know will never happen, especially around here ;).

Fraser

Fraser,

I think the aprox $50K tooling/pattern/prototype/design cost is the biggest obstacle. If I understood correctly, the $50K does not cover the actual cost of building the heads.

You would need to line up a lot of buyers to absorb the up front cost, and it would have to be done without having a product in hand to demonstrate or prove how much extra power the heads would make.

David

fturner
09-16-2009, 02:46 PM
I do realize there is alot of cost up front, but what I can't figure out is why you would go to the expense of tooling up a big fancy intake manifold so you can run a huge blower, where another part of the motor that is more critical will restrict the upgrade and leave you where you where at in the first place so that $600 + say $3000 for a blower kit you spent was for not :rolleyes:.

Guess I'm just trying to be too logical with it all :).

Fraser

S_Mazza
09-16-2009, 02:50 PM
On the other hand, if the heads are stalled ... and the tooling costs are likely to be much higher for those ... wouldn't it make sense to pursue this option in the meantime?

The real win would be to coordinate the port design of this manifold with the most likely head design that may eventually be produced. That way, people can combine them when / if the heads ever come out.

Toms-SC
09-16-2009, 02:59 PM
David,

What is your thoughts on the intake manifold?

David Neibert
09-16-2009, 03:41 PM
David,

What is your thoughts on the intake manifold?

After reading that Mike Tuck's manifold was going to be compatible with existing heads or the new heads, and reading how even a good flowing set of ported heads, don't flow nearly as well with the existing intake manifold attached, and how when tested on the flow bench Mikes intake manifold improved flow on the heads, I think there is enough interest in a better intake manifold to justify producing one in advance of the heads.

I also agree with Fraser that we aren't going to see much in the way of performance gains unless we also improve the heads.

For the record I like Mike's manifold better, mainly because it's designed to accept inverted or top discharge blowers and could also house a liquid IC core. From what I understand that manifold is working well except for some problems with getting equal air distribution to all the cylinders. That may all go away with the addition of a IC core, or it may still require some work.

David

90blkbrd
09-16-2009, 04:47 PM
This proposed intake could also be used in a turbo application with a inlet hat sitting where the supercharger would sit, right?

Toms-SC
09-16-2009, 06:10 PM
Would not even need a hat. That hole at the front is where the air goes. :eek:

super red91
09-16-2009, 08:24 PM
The 3D rendering does'nt make much sense to me?

Air enters from the front and I assume travels underneath the blower until it enters the inlet at the back. From there is travels out the top (just like the stock sc setup) and then goes where?

XxSlowpokexX
09-16-2009, 08:34 PM
Hmm when I said it wasnt the intake desiggnn........(I'm used to it though):rolleyes:

Tooling for the intake is much cheaper as is production costs when compared to a set of heads..Probably why this was worked on first.

If the intake facilitates using a larger blower its worth it. Much like the v8 kits CHarles has out there. WHat sucks is lack of a L/A IC. But then youde be talking prostock height hood clearance needed.... I'd like to hear more about it just to see whats up and what can be done

XxSlowpokexX
09-16-2009, 08:40 PM
And shove a couple of laminovas in there

Toms-SC
09-16-2009, 09:10 PM
The 3D rendering does'nt make much sense to me?

Air enters from the front and I assume travels underneath the blower until it enters the inlet at the back. From there is travels out the top (just like the stock sc setup) and then goes where?

Picture a M90 up top. The air would travel though the blowers inlet plenum, through the supercharger, up the top compressed, through the intercooler and into the front of the manifold. This eliminates the return plenum at the back.

super red91
09-16-2009, 10:25 PM
I see, I was picturing something similar to what edelbrock just recently came out with.

http://www.mustang50magazine.com/techarticles/m5lp_0908_edelbrock_e_force_s197_supercharger/photo_02.html

CMac89
09-16-2009, 10:59 PM
David, it's $40K to have the patterns, core boxes, sand molds, and the first castings from the foundry. Another $10K on top of that to have an intake casted.

You'll always have problems with air distribution, to an extent. Depends on where the discharge port is located. An intercooler will help diffuse the air a bit.

Having heads done isn't completely out of sight. Like others have stated, the head design IS the limiting factor of these motors. Put a better blower/turbo on, you're still polishing a turd.

Toms-SC
09-16-2009, 11:40 PM
Well I'm trying here, if we cannot generate interest for a $600 part what is going to happen when the part is worth $2000? :o

Toms-SC
09-17-2009, 11:38 AM
Pretty large thread up date. Please re-read the first post. I'd be in for 2 manifolds myself.

ricardoa1
09-17-2009, 12:21 PM
Tom, I applaud you for the effort before I vote.
What supercharger kits aside from the MPX will this blower support? And how will this fit under the stock hood? or is this only intended as a race part and up to the user to figure things out?

ricardoa1
09-17-2009, 12:25 PM
I see, I was picturing something similar to what edelbrock just recently came out with.

http://www.mustang50magazine.com/techarticles/m5lp_0908_edelbrock_e_force_s197_supercharger/photo_02.html


thats a slick set up. But we dont have the room to do that, the valley is too small. But I noticed how complex that kit is and and inlet and hub are in the same place. I feel like there is a small restriction in the kit, but it was very well thought out.

rzimmerl
09-17-2009, 12:34 PM
Interested but need a couple questions like will it fit under a stock hood, IAT sensor relocated where, what fuel rails are used?

Toms-SC
09-17-2009, 12:41 PM
I could assume things but I'll let him answer them. Keep the questions coming and I'll send them to him tonight; he has been great at getting back to me.

Will it fit under a stock hood?
Where does the IAT sensor go?
What fuel rails are used?
What supercharger kits aside from the MPX will this blower support? :D
How will the bypass system work? will it be from the back of the manifold?

ricardoa1
09-17-2009, 12:53 PM
Bypass system? will it be from the back of the manifold?

Toms-SC
09-17-2009, 12:57 PM
Did not even think of that. :eek: Added.

fturner
09-17-2009, 03:29 PM
I just voted no as I don't see the reason of putting the cart before the horse as what we have flows well enough because of the heads that we have. I'd rather see efforts made and money's put to getting better heads first than an intake manifold that will have no benefit to us and use everyone's money up so we never end up with heads.

:D
Fraser

Ira R.
09-17-2009, 04:03 PM
Intake manifold first. I like the heads I have now and frankly I agree with Casey that there is only so much you can do with them, regardless of any new models that might be developed. But it seems as if the purpose of this new design is to build something that will fit several applications to make it cost effective to manufactor and market. I think there are still too many questions about this proposed intake for me to commit to anything at this time.

I myself would prefer to see something more specific to our needs and could be convinced to pay a little more for it simply because it is designed for our engines. And I can easily see a $600 part being of great interest to the masses because it has to increase power levels regardless of any other mods you might have.

In the meantime, although I will continue to follow this thread with interest, I will wait until I have seen more information on the "Tuck Intake Manifold' before committing to anything.

Ira

Toms-SC
09-17-2009, 04:25 PM
I myself would prefer to see something more specific to our needs and could be convinced to pay a little more for it simply because it is designed for our engines.

Could you expand on this a little bit Ira?

Remember folks, this is a design discussion. If we can agree on changes or features we'd like to see in the manifold Charles would most likely be willing to see it through.

Something I'm tired of is waiting.

ricardoa1
09-17-2009, 05:18 PM
I guess I dont see the point of it either unless it opens up the road for a bolt on supercharger set up. For example if he teams up with Whipple and orders a 2.3blower the correct size snout and one of those nifty inlets or maybe make one himself, a bypass valve and a correct top with matching IC tubes to kis kit or a stock IC. That will be the only reason for taking on something like this. The manifold will not give us magic HPs numbers, others have tried raising the manifold and cutting out the triangle in the middle and test seem to show that its not worth lots of gains.
So is Charles going to put his MPX star child to the side and make a kit>
I am sure at that point the mustangs guys will also have their eyes open.

Toms-SC
09-17-2009, 05:37 PM
Or a TVS for that matter. :eek: But what is the market willing to bear? From what I see right now; 0 to nothing. :o

Stupid Canuck
09-17-2009, 09:22 PM
Looks like that intake pretty much demands a FMIC and significant fabrication. For that alone, I have to vote "wait and see". Thanks for the effort though.

A complete twin screw or TVS kit would be nice. Many don't have the fabrication skills and tools. The stumbling block for a kit on our cars is the old EECIV and OBD1. No generic tunes for us.

CMac89
09-17-2009, 10:34 PM
A big thing about intakes is that people are picky bastards when it comes to design. Like most other communities, people will build their car based on what is the best available, but others want everything built for their car. It's like buying your family a la carte meals instead of a few value meals.

Like the Pontiac Ram Air 5 program I have going on. We had the heads casted for race and street guys. Then we built one intake manifold. People buy it up and they work with what it is, gladly.

If an intake manifold calls for a FMIC setup, which you need anyways to take max benefit, then build one. Anything else doesn't make sense.

Ira R.
09-18-2009, 12:02 AM
Could you expand on this a little bit Ira?

Remember folks, this is a design discussion. If we can agree on changes or features we'd like to see in the manifold Charles would most likely be willing to see it through.

Something I'm tired of is waiting.

I guess what I mean is that if it is built with our application in mind that is one thing because otherwise it is not something everyone can take advantage of. I also think if something is going to be developed it needs to be something that can be beneficial to all of us regardless of power level. I don't see that increasing power by 20% on a stock engine would generate much interest. Increasing power by 20% on Mr. Neibert's engine however would certainly turn a few heads.

But if in order to make it economically feasible it has to be a more generic design to work on a variety of v6's so the mustang or lightning guys can take advantage of it also then I don't know that I would be interested. I don't think I am looking for something that would require even more modifications to make it work. I'm not interested in having to raise the hood line for example to make it fit. At least not right now.

I don't know that this addresses the issue of design though. I think any design that works would be a vast improvement, but I also don't know that I am willing to commit to one until I hear more about it. The fact that MP will consider putting one together for us if we can generate enough interest in many ways seems a bit backwards to me. Let the manufacturer produce the product and let's see who all will buy it. Of course I realize we are a specialty market and he isn't making anything that he doesn't think he can sell in some quantity. Business is still business after all. But that's where I'm at right now.

Ira

Toms-SC
09-18-2009, 12:02 AM
Thanks Ira, good points.

I've asked him all the questions in the thread. Let's see what we get back.

David Neibert
09-18-2009, 09:01 AM
Tom,

I went out and took a close look at what it would take to adapt the MP manifold to my motor and there is so much stuff that would need to be changed, I can't see how it would be pratical even if it added 50 HP. The inlet would be located just above where my main belt tensioner pulley is now.

I think a raised roof manifold with a bigger return plenum (similar to the Randy Baker manifold/plenum) would be something more people would be interested in. I would also like to retain the t-stat in the manifold, but have it relocated a little further forward to allow for longer blowers.

David

Toms-SC
09-18-2009, 12:18 PM
First post was updated with his responses. This intake manifold was to lead to greater things down the road but as he put it "the stars are not lined up for this one". The TVS blower would have been sweet.

Thanks for the interest everybody. If anything this has gone to shown how passionate we are about our cars and the fact we cannot agree on a damned thing because we care about them too much. :D

Toms-SC
09-18-2009, 12:33 PM
Tom,

I went out and took a close look at what it would take to adapt the MP manifold to my motor and there is so much stuff that would need to be changed, I can't see how it would be pratical even if it added 50 HP. The inlet would be located just above where my main belt tensioner pulley is now.

David

I know, things are never easy with this car. Although it is a radical change from the norm getting rid of that return plenum all together has many benefits. I wish one was on a car and just not on paper so we could all see how it would play out.

ricardoa1
09-18-2009, 12:43 PM
Why a TVS? Are we going to go into this discussion again?
How about charles contacting eaton and have them supply a set of TVS rotors and udating the tooling for the MPX so that it carries a TVS rotor pack. That might be a better idea for a better blower at a minimum cost. Then we can worry about the heads at a later date.


Dont give up yet. This is just too early in the making. You need more details. Offering a $600 manifold and nothing else is not the correct way of approaching this IMO.

fturner
09-18-2009, 02:20 PM
Looks like that intake pretty much demands a FMIC and significant fabrication. For that alone, I have to vote "wait and see". Thanks for the effort though.

A complete twin screw or TVS kit would be nice. Many don't have the fabrication skills and tools. The stumbling block for a kit on our cars is the old EECIV and OBD1. No generic tunes for us.

The EEC IV and OBD1 is not a stumbling block for us. We can grab more data out of the EEC IV than you will ever get out of OBDII. Also, in simplicity terms, its easier to tune the EEC IV than an EEC V.

In otherwords, that cannot be used for an excuse anymore :cool:.

AND I shudder at the thought of running a pre generated generic tune on any car except as a base point. You still need to tune the car to be completely safe and get the most out of the performance parts. Doing otherwise is ludicrous.

Fraser

bigpoppa822
09-18-2009, 02:32 PM
What would be the options in terms of bolt holes on the manifold? I imagine people would be going with everything from the MPx to Whipples to ARs to Kenne Bells, I imagine they all don't have the same bolt holes.

bowez
09-18-2009, 06:24 PM
$600 anit bad, but personally I'm not looking for a monster of an SC so if I would need a new hood and FMIC I say no.

As for whether to do heads first, I say no. I like what I'm seeing out of a DI head and if we can use the profits off a intake to get heads off the ground they might actually happen.

I would rather lower the engine than change the hood.

kws6000
09-23-2009, 08:17 PM
This project is officially dead.

kws6000
09-23-2009, 08:21 PM
Do not count on any new products of any magnitude for this application,such as new cast heads...


Collectively this group has no money which makes product development prohibitive ,unless the vendor wants to lose money.

XxSlowpokexX
09-23-2009, 09:27 PM
Do not count on any new products of any magnitude for this application,such as new cast heads...


Collectively this group has no money which makes product development prohibitive ,unless the vendor wants to lose money.

Collectively as a group this would inculde v6 mustangs if talkin universal intake such as this. However they are hell bent on using split port heads at this point. Making money depends on initial tooling costs. How many units would need to be sold...Apparently MP has made money on its superchargers, IC's, inlets, tops>>>Enough money to warrent tooling ...And an intake would be relatively simple compared to heads lets says.

In my opinion though if it isnt a bolt on type intake...You wont ever make money on it...Same goes for heads...So as cool as this intake seemit would cater to both SC and stang guys.... It would definitely have a limited consumer base. IMO moreso then a bolt on SC intake

Hock
08-07-2011, 04:06 PM
Collectively as a group this would inculde v6 mustangs if talkin universal intake such as this. However they are hell bent on using split port heads at this point. Making money depends on initial tooling costs. How many units would need to be sold...Apparently MP has made money on its superchargers, IC's, inlets, tops>>>Enough money to warrent tooling ...And an intake would be relatively simple compared to heads lets says.

In my opinion though if it isnt a bolt on type intake...You wont ever make money on it...Same goes for heads...So as cool as this intake seem it would cater to both SC and stang guys.... It would definitely have a limited consumer base. IMO moreso then a bolt on SC intake

Thinking more on the line of making this a product that would be more viable for the Mustang side and their split port heads. Does anyone think that making this a 2 piece modular intake would be a good idea?

That would make it more popular to the Mustang crew that want to do a M90 swap and keep their heads. It would also allow for us to be able to swap to the split port heads if we so desired but for those that wanted to stay with the standard SC heads we would have that option also.

I think the best method of production would be casting both half's. The lower section, the valley pan and flanges, could either be casted for the 2 different style heads or the ports could be added later by CNC for the application.

Yes I'm reviving this for discussion purposes as this is something that we could benefit from.

94v6kid09
08-08-2011, 12:32 AM
i like this idea ^^^

r1dd1ck913
08-22-2011, 08:57 AM
I would buy one.

Toms-SC
08-22-2011, 11:44 AM
I believe this idea is dead, however if somebody wishes to contact Charles perhaps we can do a group buy similar to the 95MM TB. The issue surrounding the intake manifold is the lack of hood space and what to do with the return plenum.

XxSlowpokexX
08-22-2011, 10:14 PM
You know me ill buy anything

CMac89
08-22-2011, 10:49 PM
You know me ill buy anything

And neeevvveerrr put it oooonn!!

XxSlowpokexX
08-22-2011, 10:54 PM
nooooooooooooooo so far I have everything onmy car xcept the long tubes.....Its just slow as poop

Sampo
08-24-2011, 03:10 AM
You know me ill buy anything

Just like me.:D

ganuolfthegrey
02-26-2012, 10:26 PM
i wouldn't worry about hood clearance. if you have the money to mod your car. you have enough money to buy a cheap hood.