Tim@TBDevelopments
Lifer
yeah i know what you mean.
i wander if this would work with an ARC topmount ic?
Tim
i wander if this would work with an ARC topmount ic?
Tim
ACIS manifold video???
- Thread starter gorganl2000
- Start date
weeJohn
Lifer
I did do a dyno run and disconnected the changeover solenoid so the mani stayed on the long runners and the power dropped off considerably (about 10 bhp from memory) at the top end.
Hard to tell if that made a 10bhp improvement over the stock mani, but I am soon to try changing over a few parts to stock items and check power differences on a dyno and this may be one of them, so i will keep you posted lads.
Hard to tell if that made a 10bhp improvement over the stock mani, but I am soon to try changing over a few parts to stock items and check power differences on a dyno and this may be one of them, so i will keep you posted lads.
hardcoreep
Member +
The point of the manifold is not to make peak power. Given its dimensions and runner lengths I don't see how it could perform better than the stock intake manifold. What its supposed to do is allow a larger turbocharger to be used without the loss of low-end performance. This is why its tested with runners open/runners closed to find the operational crossover rpm where the powerband of the longer runners and powerband of the shorter runners are.
gorganl2000
Lifer
being the nice person that i am...lololol
here's some info i have that should be helpful
i did some more measuring on the 5efhe acis manifold,,, here's what i found
small ports measure 26mm * 31mm ---ovalish in shape---area = 633 mm sq
large ports measure 39mm ---circular in shape----- area = 1195 mm sq
5efhe throttle body is 50mm----just like the stock 4efte one
acis dual intake runners are 37mm * 28mm ----where it connects to the head ----area = 814 mm sq
i can measure runner lenghts as well over the weekend if you like
Now, does anyone have dimensions for the stock 4efte manifold...maybe someone who cut it in half or used a modified the plenum on stock runners
PS- i just added the areas to these measurements, the length of the runners i guess could help with calculating volumes
here's some info i have that should be helpful
i did some more measuring on the 5efhe acis manifold,,, here's what i found
small ports measure 26mm * 31mm ---ovalish in shape---area = 633 mm sq
large ports measure 39mm ---circular in shape----- area = 1195 mm sq
5efhe throttle body is 50mm----just like the stock 4efte one
acis dual intake runners are 37mm * 28mm ----where it connects to the head ----area = 814 mm sq
i can measure runner lenghts as well over the weekend if you like
Now, does anyone have dimensions for the stock 4efte manifold...maybe someone who cut it in half or used a modified the plenum on stock runners
PS- i just added the areas to these measurements, the length of the runners i guess could help with calculating volumes
Last edited:
Tim@TBDevelopments
Lifer
well the idea of this type of manifold is playing with velocities of the gases in the runners entering the head. faster moving gase will produce more responce and torque low down, normally the only way to do this is to have a more restrictive runner so that the gases have to speed up entering the engine but this means very restrictive top end and loss of power, so you have a larger diameter short length runner to provide optimal top end flow.
now i know this is called accustics but it will play alot less of a part than the gas velocitie properties it also gives. for anyone that doesn't know accustics of an engine are to do with pressure waves formed inside the engine that travel back and forth from the intake to the exhaust tip and back again, you want to time these waves with the opening of the intake valves to help pull mixture into the cylinders. now my arguement with just putting it onto another engine is fundimentally wrong. 1 the orignal engine is a 1.5 so runner length is calculated for that, the harmonics from a 1.3 to a 1.5 is totally different, its also calculated with the standard exhaust length, diameter and the same with the intake. So being a turbo the intake length is totally different again so there for messes up accustic calculations. Then throw a turbocharger into the mix which totally makes a mess of accustic waves because of the turbine and compressor blade interaction.
that being said this will give the same result to any 4e what ever the turbocharger not just designed for larger. although a car with poor lown down port velocities caused by very large cams this will help speed things up and remove some of the lumpyness associated with those. (in theory)
just thought i would put that up that this manifold is more a complicated play on port/plenum velocities over accustic wave theory as it was designed for, which is good really because if it was down to accusstics along i doubt it would do bugger all on the 4e lol.
think gorgannl2000 is onto the right track, if we can get runner dimentions of the standard 4e manifold and length i can work out some basic flow numbers for standard runners and the acis mani and see where the improvement is. ideally i'd like to see longer runners giving a much higher velocities and the shorter giving more flow than the 4e but its anyones guess at the moment.
Tim
ps, anyone know if this will fit a ARC TMIC?
now i know this is called accustics but it will play alot less of a part than the gas velocitie properties it also gives. for anyone that doesn't know accustics of an engine are to do with pressure waves formed inside the engine that travel back and forth from the intake to the exhaust tip and back again, you want to time these waves with the opening of the intake valves to help pull mixture into the cylinders. now my arguement with just putting it onto another engine is fundimentally wrong. 1 the orignal engine is a 1.5 so runner length is calculated for that, the harmonics from a 1.3 to a 1.5 is totally different, its also calculated with the standard exhaust length, diameter and the same with the intake. So being a turbo the intake length is totally different again so there for messes up accustic calculations. Then throw a turbocharger into the mix which totally makes a mess of accustic waves because of the turbine and compressor blade interaction.
that being said this will give the same result to any 4e what ever the turbocharger not just designed for larger. although a car with poor lown down port velocities caused by very large cams this will help speed things up and remove some of the lumpyness associated with those. (in theory)
just thought i would put that up that this manifold is more a complicated play on port/plenum velocities over accustic wave theory as it was designed for, which is good really because if it was down to accusstics along i doubt it would do bugger all on the 4e lol.
think gorgannl2000 is onto the right track, if we can get runner dimentions of the standard 4e manifold and length i can work out some basic flow numbers for standard runners and the acis mani and see where the improvement is. ideally i'd like to see longer runners giving a much higher velocities and the shorter giving more flow than the 4e but its anyones guess at the moment.
Tim
ps, anyone know if this will fit a ARC TMIC?
hardcoreep
Member +
The manifold was designed for a 1.5 litre NA. The 4EFTE is turbocharged and therefore would overcome any issue you may believe based on the airflow through the engine. Turbocharged engines don't use pluse matching for intake due to a turbocharger's delivery. What Turbo engines like on their intake is volume and short runners, and most aftermarket turbocharged intake manifolds follow this design.
Having used and tested the 1300cc NA equal length manifold on a 4EFTE it works exactly as suspected, boosting low end torque, but capping top end horsepower since a) that manifold has central point delivery and b) not enough plenum volume. To get back to similar performance to the stock turbo manifold, you have to lengthen the plenum.
In the ACIS manifold, the longer thinner runners boost the speed of the air mass increasing torque. At high rpm when the butterflies open, this increases the speed at which the plenum volume can be emptied.
My own experience with the ACIS, single stage activation set-up, indicates that it allows a larger than normal turbocharger to be used and can support the top end flow of such a turbocharger. This eliminates the issues stated above and was confirmed with a comparison with a similar spec car using the stock manifold, smaller turbo and within the same hp range. The eManage wasn't available when tested, much less any aftermarket ECU at a decent price range that can currently control a solenoid using an internal map like the EMU.
And honestly, the whole point of the manifold is to change power delivery. That's why you're using it. If you wanted a powerband that mirrored stock, you'd have to mix and match turbochargers till you're crazy or broke as that's the single biggest influence on its shape.
Having used and tested the 1300cc NA equal length manifold on a 4EFTE it works exactly as suspected, boosting low end torque, but capping top end horsepower since a) that manifold has central point delivery and b) not enough plenum volume. To get back to similar performance to the stock turbo manifold, you have to lengthen the plenum.
In the ACIS manifold, the longer thinner runners boost the speed of the air mass increasing torque. At high rpm when the butterflies open, this increases the speed at which the plenum volume can be emptied.
My own experience with the ACIS, single stage activation set-up, indicates that it allows a larger than normal turbocharger to be used and can support the top end flow of such a turbocharger. This eliminates the issues stated above and was confirmed with a comparison with a similar spec car using the stock manifold, smaller turbo and within the same hp range. The eManage wasn't available when tested, much less any aftermarket ECU at a decent price range that can currently control a solenoid using an internal map like the EMU.
And honestly, the whole point of the manifold is to change power delivery. That's why you're using it. If you wanted a powerband that mirrored stock, you'd have to mix and match turbochargers till you're crazy or broke as that's the single biggest influence on its shape.
Last edited:
gorganl2000
Lifer
i doubt it will fit with the arc tmic----the inlet from the arc would have to be modified i suspect
as i know it pushes the stock throttle body to the right a bit (if you are standing in front the car)
i've only ever seen it run with FMIC, and u have to adjust the piping when you switch from the 4efte intake to the 5efhe acis
as i know it pushes the stock throttle body to the right a bit (if you are standing in front the car)
i've only ever seen it run with FMIC, and u have to adjust the piping when you switch from the 4efte intake to the 5efhe acis
gorganl2000
Lifer
hardcoreep
based on this statement, i'm asking a question
in your opinion, do you think the stock 4efte intake manifold will yield relatively more/less/same top end and peak power than the 5efhe acis intake manifold on the same set-up 4efte/5efte turbo car?---assuming we could fit both manifolds and dyno the car on the same dyno in the same day....lololol
yeah i know its a lot of assuming, but none the less,,,,just for discussion sake
i agree if we wanted peak power, and that was the main concern, then we could get a custom manifold built with some short runners and hugh plenum like some i've seen
but i'm trying to keep this comparison between the 4efte intake and 5efhe acis intake manifolds for now
i'm going to get some dimension for the acis runner lenghts this weekend and runner lengths for the 4efte intake as well
does anyone know the internal runner dimensions of the stock 4efte intake manifold?...as i asked before
Last edited:
hardcoreep
Member +
From what I remember the stock 5E intake manifold performed better in regards to where the power peaked. I couldn't make a direct comparison because the cars tested at the time were using two difference turbochargers, the non-ACIS car had a IHI hybrid and the ACIS car was using a T3/T4, had JAM Racing cams, and a 9000rpm rev limit. On the T3/4 car the combination of turbo size (backhousing) and cams had moved power high in the rpm band and left very little bottom end power with the stock manifold. Going to the ACIS manifold and using the SDS trigger around 5000rpm saw peak power reduced, but positive gains before activation. At some point it was eventually set between 3000 - 5000rpm, I can't remember right now. However, peak power did drop.
gorganl2000
Lifer
thanks hardcoreep
good info
good info
gorganl2000
Lifer
well i measured the acis manifold runners
here are the approximate lenghts----i say approximate because its quite hard to measure them all accurately given the way they are casted
i've measured from the bottom of the plenum to the outer edge where the manifold would connect to the head (flange)
http://www.tercelreference.com/tercel_info/component_library/5efhe_intake_manifold_acis_2.jpg
i've measured along the back of the runners
http://www.tercelreference.com/tercel_info/component_library/5efhe_intake_manifold_acis_10.jpg
the long runners measure about 15 inches
the short runners measure about 10 inches
i will measure the 4efte runners lenght next week...or maybe someone here can do it who has the 4efte intake manifold at hand
gorganl2000
Lifer
http://board.tercelonline.com/viewthread.php?tid=38770
this tread shows what i believe to by the 5e equivalent of the 4efte intake manifold
http://www.tercelreference.com/tercel_info/component_library/5efe_intake_manifold_1.jpg
http://www.tercelreference.com/tercel_info/component_library/4efte_5efhe_nonacis_intake_manifold.jpg
its cut to fit a new custom plenum
no dimensions, but it gives you an idea of how the 4efte manifold stands
the 4efte/5efe runners look a little similar to the 5efhe longer runners, shape and size wise.....man i really wish we had the dimensions for them
http://www.tercelreference.com/tercel_info/component_library/5efhe_intake_manifold_acis_6.jpg
this tread shows what i believe to by the 5e equivalent of the 4efte intake manifold
http://www.tercelreference.com/tercel_info/component_library/5efe_intake_manifold_1.jpg
http://www.tercelreference.com/tercel_info/component_library/4efte_5efhe_nonacis_intake_manifold.jpg
its cut to fit a new custom plenum
no dimensions, but it gives you an idea of how the 4efte manifold stands
the 4efte/5efe runners look a little similar to the 5efhe longer runners, shape and size wise.....man i really wish we had the dimensions for them
http://www.tercelreference.com/tercel_info/component_library/5efhe_intake_manifold_acis_6.jpg
weeJohn
Lifer
A bit later than promised but here are a few interesting results for you all.
Swapped my ACIS mani with a stock mani today, and lost about 15 bhp and about the same in ft/lbs torque. Now nothing was changed on the map so it is possible that a few tweaks could get some or all of that figure back, I will let someone else thrash that one out lol.
More interesting was this, I had my changeover point set at 5200 rpm. As there was a little flat spot in the torque curve so it was dropped to 4500rpm. The result was torque building sooner down the rev range but on the same plane as the last setting. It was dropped again and discovered that 3800 rpm was the best changeover point for set up, giving a wider power band and torque increasing quite a bit after 3800 rpm compared to before it. Torque did not increase its max value but the top of the torque curve widened each time. Did a few runs without the changover and staying on the long runners is bad for torque and power, looking at the graphs, staying on the short runners will kill a lot of power low in the rev range.
I will get print outs of the runs to let you see them, very interesting. I am still convinced this set up, especially with the larger throttle body, would suit a large flowing turbo rather than a small one. I am still not getting a power figure that my total set up should deliver, its possible my turbo is on its way out so I would like to see if the 15 increase could become more with a fresher blower.
Swapped my ACIS mani with a stock mani today, and lost about 15 bhp and about the same in ft/lbs torque. Now nothing was changed on the map so it is possible that a few tweaks could get some or all of that figure back, I will let someone else thrash that one out lol.
More interesting was this, I had my changeover point set at 5200 rpm. As there was a little flat spot in the torque curve so it was dropped to 4500rpm. The result was torque building sooner down the rev range but on the same plane as the last setting. It was dropped again and discovered that 3800 rpm was the best changeover point for set up, giving a wider power band and torque increasing quite a bit after 3800 rpm compared to before it. Torque did not increase its max value but the top of the torque curve widened each time. Did a few runs without the changover and staying on the long runners is bad for torque and power, looking at the graphs, staying on the short runners will kill a lot of power low in the rev range.
I will get print outs of the runs to let you see them, very interesting. I am still convinced this set up, especially with the larger throttle body, would suit a large flowing turbo rather than a small one. I am still not getting a power figure that my total set up should deliver, its possible my turbo is on its way out so I would like to see if the 15 increase could become more with a fresher blower.
Last edited:
weeJohn
Lifer
wee john did ya burst into the 300 club
i need an update
No mate, air flow is good down low but dies off at the top so we think there may be a problem with the turbo.
Close but not quite lol. It will get me the 12 I have been searching for the last 2 years so I will be happy enough come March.
Sean/GT beater said you might even race this year, any truth in that or is he winding again?
hardcoreep
Member +
I agree totally, which was the point of our using it in the first place. To allow a bigger than normal turbo with cams without the natural low end loss.
However, are you using a single trigger point, as this was our initial point of contention. As with the bajan car a huge part of the effort is to have it operate like factory based on throttle/load positions.
billybob
Untrusted Seller
yes john il be doing abit later over here in the year lol im hitting the pod first ,,as ive always said i want the car up to spec for my standerds ive runn over the 300 mark when it runs 400 /more
il be off to the pod hit and run job yanoit will be 400 odd this month hopefully with the upgrades i have ,,,no nos
