hardcoreep
Member +
There is no restriction in these turbo manifolds as they are basically just a hole once cut.
We've been using these 4E NA manifold for years now, so I don't know where to even look for dyno sheets. What I remember is that the NA manifold in its standard form capped top end power because the surge tank area is smaller than the turbo intake manifold. Basically as boost increased the manifold could no longer hold the volume. To counter this problem one of the users, mt friend, came up with a design solution, extend the surge tank to the same volume as stock. The result is that it can handle higher boost levels, but the runner design still dictates the powerband. It is not an issue of throttle body. Big turbochargers like expansion area and that manifold doesn't provide it.
You must forgive the lack of recorded data, but this stuff is rather old to us. Most of us have moved past this stage years ago. My final test of the NA intake manifold was in 2001. These two manifolds are for cheap 200whp street set-ups, proven, and everyone runs them.
We've been using these 4E NA manifold for years now, so I don't know where to even look for dyno sheets. What I remember is that the NA manifold in its standard form capped top end power because the surge tank area is smaller than the turbo intake manifold. Basically as boost increased the manifold could no longer hold the volume. To counter this problem one of the users, mt friend, came up with a design solution, extend the surge tank to the same volume as stock. The result is that it can handle higher boost levels, but the runner design still dictates the powerband. It is not an issue of throttle body. Big turbochargers like expansion area and that manifold doesn't provide it.
You must forgive the lack of recorded data, but this stuff is rather old to us. Most of us have moved past this stage years ago. My final test of the NA intake manifold was in 2001. These two manifolds are for cheap 200whp street set-ups, proven, and everyone runs them.
Last edited: