New Cougar Forum banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,612 Posts
oooooo shiny!!! haha a friend of mine used some of their parts for an older porsche he built his own intake manifold and turbo manifold, i dont remember where he got the turbo manifold piping from...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
223 Posts
Huh? No split port intake stuff? ....lol

Looks cool, however I'm working with another manifold off of a 2002-2005 Duratec 3.0L engine that is variable volume that should get me the results I'm looking for.

-Dom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Huh? No split port intake stuff? ....lol

Looks cool, however I'm working with another manifold off of a 2002-2005 Duratec 3.0L engine that is variable volume that should get me the results I'm looking for.

-Dom
I know I know I know! :biggrin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
796 Posts
Huh? No split port intake stuff? ....lol

Looks cool, however I'm working with another manifold off of a 2002-2005 Duratec 3.0L engine that is variable volume that should get me the results I'm looking for.

-Dom
That wouldn't happen to be the domestic non VVT 3.0L that you were talking about earlier .... I didn't know there was a 3.0L with any type of variable intake, besides the new jag that is due out.... very interesting.... does it vary the intake runner length with rpm ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
Huh? No split port intake stuff? ....lol

Looks cool, however I'm working with another manifold off of a 2002-2005 Duratec 3.0L engine that is variable volume that should get me the results I'm looking for.

-Dom
Split port manifolds are cast, while Ross offers extruded parts. So of course you don't see split port parts. To make a splitport, the UIM would be tubular like someone made several years ago.

Their parts are very expensive. The idea of having custom larger plenum(s) is nice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
223 Posts
That wouldn't happen to be the domestic non VVT 3.0L that you were talking about earlier .... I didn't know there was a 3.0L with any type of variable intake, besides the new jag that is due out.... very interesting.... does it vary the intake runner length with rpm ?
It has a "flapper" valve that turns off half the plenum size which decreases runner length and plenum volume. This has been commonly used on alot of import cars and domestic models. When I get it all finished and dyno'd I'll release all the details of what it is, where it came from and if/how it benefits my engine build.

-Dom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
796 Posts
It has a "flapper" valve that turns off half the plenum size which decreases runner length and plenum volume. This has been commonly used on alot of import cars and domestic models. When I get it all finished and dyno'd I'll release all the details of what it is, where it came from and if/how it benefits my engine build.

-Dom
Looking forward to seeing that, Maybe it'll be something to add to the list of things for my 3L
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
765 Posts
It has a "flapper" valve that turns off half the plenum size which decreases runner length and plenum volume. This has been commonly used on alot of import cars and domestic models. When I get it all finished and dyno'd I'll release all the details of what it is, where it came from and if/how it benefits my engine build.

-Dom

Wow, so you're actually going back to using an intake manifold runner control...IMRC system......
Well if the OEM engineers were good enough to design it and felt it was important, then I'D USE IT too. :tongue:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
Wow, so you're actually going back to using an intake manifold runner control...IMRC system......
Well if the OEM engineers were good enough to design it and felt it was important, then I'D USE IT too. :tongue:
Lets not confuse the issue. It is a true oval manifold with a valve to alter plenum volume/runner length. We can use the strength of BOTH valves pulses for two predetermined RPMs instead of one pulse for each RPM like the 2.5L. Much stronger resonance effect which will equate to better cylinder filling.

This is a case where a part was designed/engineered to work together with other parts. Not to mention the port area is much better...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
208 Posts
I like the idea we were tossing around doing a dual TB setup where the secondairies are switch over to a TB control for the different runner controls. The guy works looks prestige I would be curious to what the numbers ended up being. Joey



You guys recall that guy with the Merkur who was building a barrel type manifold for the Duratec?
Stage1
Stage2
Stage3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
223 Posts
Wow, so you're actually going back to using an intake manifold runner control...IMRC system......
Well if the OEM engineers were good enough to design it and felt it was important, then I'D USE IT too. :tongue:
Why? It's clearly inferior to the SVT (page taken from your playbook)? Or is there room for more than one "superior" intake design now that someone has actually looked around for a better answer on oval port systems?

I like the idea we were tossing around doing a dual TB setup where the secondairies are switch over to a TB control for the different runner controls. The guy works looks prestige I would be curious to what the numbers ended up being. Joey
Interesting idea. Sounds exactly like an idea Terry talked about a month or so ago.... Hmm. I wonder how that idea got around...

-Dom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
765 Posts
Lets not confuse the issue. It is a true oval manifold with a valve to alter plenum volume/runner length. We can use the strength of BOTH valves pulses for two predetermined RPMs instead of one pulse for each RPM like the 2.5L. Much stronger resonance effect which will equate to better cylinder filling.

This is a case where a part was designed/engineered to work together with other parts. Not to mention the port area is much better...
Hopefully. I still changes the intake tract length which is the same concept though as I stated before I think it might be more reliable and it is definitely simpler. I hope it does work well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
765 Posts
Why? It's clearly inferior to the SVT (page taken from your playbook)? Or is there room for more than one "superior" intake design now that someone has actually looked around for a better answer on oval port systems?
-Dom
c'mon, no baiting now. You want to prove you can be civil then lets do that. No one said it is inferior to anything. It's totally different than the non-divided plenum for the ovalport. As I said in the other comment I believe it is used on the sport version of the mondeo, the ST220 3L.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
208 Posts
[

Interesting idea. Sounds exactly like an idea Terry talked about a month or so ago.... Hmm. I wonder how that idea got around...

-Dom[/QUOTE]


Well the idea was brought up by Worldtour to do his NA car long time ago plus I never even knew you had a site to know if Terry even mentioned the idea. Even if I would have heard it from someone else I am sure no one has tried the idea because of money versus the power gains would be hard to justify. I know you are poking at me trying to get me all pissed off but I am over that I am just out to make new products work rather it old news are new. The setup was going to be high CR with some custom manifold but like you I won't have time to dip into anymore products for awhile. joey
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
223 Posts
[

Interesting idea. Sounds exactly like an idea Terry talked about a month or so ago.... Hmm. I wonder how that idea got around...

-Dom
Well the idea was brought up by Worldtour to do his NA car long time ago plus I never even knew you had a site to know if Terry even mentioned the idea. Even if I would have heard it from someone else I am sure no one has tried the idea because of money versus the power gains would be hard to justify. I know you are poking at me trying to get me all pissed off but I am over that I am just out to make new products work rather it old news are new. The setup was going to be high CR with some custom manifold but like you I won't have time to dip into anymore products for awhile. joey
Nahh, that wasn't my intention. From the outset - it sounded similar. After I read it a couple more times - 2 different paths. All good though... seemed weird to me at first reading what sounded like similar ideas. Then after reading it a couple more times (sometimes you are a little hard to follow the first pass) I figured out it was 2 different things. I was only pointing out something - I didn't prod or poke at you did I?

-Dom
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top