Intake Manifolds - THE Tuner, RS4, S4 Late Model

[narth327]

Here are some pics of all 3 manifolds along with some dimensions that I find interesting, specifically calculated cross section area and pecentage increase.

THE Tuner manifold has RS6 TB option, also to note, the grind marks are from me being obsessive and smoothing out some of the casting, it comes very nice as is.
RS4 is paired with a Porsche TB, cheaper and easier to get.

Throttle Body Diameter, Area
THE Tuner 82mm, 5281mm2, +11% RS4, +21% S4 Late
RS4 74mm, 4301mm2, +9% S4 Late
S4 Late 68mm, 3632mm2

Entry Diameter, Area
THE Tuner 51mm, 2043mm2, +63% RS4, +101% S4 Late
RS4 40mm, 1257mm2, +23% S4 Late
S4 Late 36mm, 1018mm2

Outlet HeightxWidth, Area
THE Tuner 30x58mm, 1547mm2, +16% RS4, +54% S4 Late
RS4 27x55mm, 1329mm2, +32% S4 Late
S4 Late 27x43mm, 1005mm2

Throttle Body - plate diameter, measured at the plate/shaft
Entry - runner entry, measured inside the plenum at the velocity stacks, when you remove the bottom panel you can see them.
Outlet - runner outlet, height and width of the port that connects to the head

Left to Right, Top to Bottom
THE Tuner, OE RS4, OE S4 Late Model

[Mocke]

Flowtest.

[zatch_303]

Thanks for doing some testing!

[S4James]

Anyone ever tested them for making power? Like a ported s4 manifold vs rs4 vs tte? Logs, dyno, etc? Flow benching doesnt tell us much


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

[CELison]

Agreed. Big difference between flow bench testing and the real world.

[MCP]

I think the gains you will see depends heavily on what turbo and set up you are testing this on. I'm doubtful this would show any crazy gains until you get into the higher hp builds where the turbo's are flowing at least 40+ lbs/min. For example how the s4 intake manifold, in my opinion, was perfectly sized for a k03's flowrate and then that manifold was redesigned for the rs4 to match the higher flow of the K04s, Im positive that this manifold is a better option for these higher flowing turbos that are now more readily available on the market. I agree that a number would be nice to see, but each build varies so much from one to another that those numbers would not represent much unless your build was identical to the vehicle being tested.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Audizine mobile app

[CELison]

Anything RS6 sized turbos and up would be nice to see. It doesn’t have to be a specific set up, just some sort of real world data showing the bigger intake systems make an actual difference. It’s quite a lot of money for what I would imagine are minimal gains unless you have an all out set up. If it was a couple hundred bucks, then yeah sure, but this stuff is a decent chunk of change.

[Uncle S4]

At what point does the stock (non ported/polished) S4 manifold become a bottleneck?

Would it be from stage II that the RS4 manifold sees noticeable benefits in power, tq and response vs the cost associated with it?

[CELison]

Back in the long long ago, AWE dyno’d a K04 car with an RS4 IM and found 0 gains. So bigger than K04s least.

[mikeb17]

At what point does the stock (non ported/polished) S4 manifold become a bottleneck?

Would it be from stage II that the RS4 manifold sees noticeable benefits in power, tq and response vs the cost associated with it?

I ran the stock manifold up to 830 whp 😂
I plan on buying a bigger manifold in the future. When I do, I’ll take before and after logs.

[Uncle S4]

I ran the stock manifold up to 830 whp 😂
I plan on buying a bigger manifold in the future. When I do, I’ll take before and after logs.

Will be interested in the response/low down tq difference.

Im thinking since stage II+ is getting close stock RS4 figures it would benefit from the RS4 manifold a tiny bit. As would doing exhaust manifolds. But tbh the cost of RS4/THE manifold and or exhaust manifolds is only worth it when really pushing K04 limit and up.

CELison I have had a search and couldn't find AWE comparison, it must have been bit before my time, do you have link handy?

[CELison]

Sorry it was an RS4 Y pipe. Whoops.

[mikeb17]

Will be interested in the response/low down tq difference.

Im thinking since stage II+ is getting close stock RS4 figures it would benefit from the RS4 manifold a tiny bit. As would doing exhaust manifolds. But tbh the cost of RS4/THE manifold and or exhaust manifolds is only worth it when really pushing K04 limit and up.

CELison I have had a search and couldn't find AWE comparison, it must have been bit before my time, do you have link handy?

To be honest, you need quite a bit of air before the port size, tb inlet and such becomes relevant. I use to run flow simulations all the time and with pressurized air. Sometimes the actual air velocity from smaller ports works in your favor. I think (keyword "think") most cars wouldnt benefit until the 500+ whp range. Similar to the 2.8 heads results. When a K04 car uses 2.8 heads all it does is move the power band to the right. When an RS6 car uses 2.8 heads they gain some top end. Flow results are nice and handy but they arent the end all when it comes to results.

[S4James]

If I do anything its going to be something that matches the port size of my 2.8 heads. I trust this 034 adapter spacer as far as I can throw it.

[NOTORIOUS VR]

I'd think the majority of the people who are driving around with 2-3+ BAR pressure is where larger intake manifolds will shine.

High HP levels = high CFM = high air speed/velocity which becomes an issue with creating turbulence, etc.

Opening ports, runners, TB and TB openings will reduce restrictions on at high CFM and therefore slow down critical air speeds back to sane numbers.

At least that's how I see it.

Air flow/bench testing really doesn't do much when it comes to dynamic operations in a motor to be very honest. Or at least it should never be used blindly as a end all data set.

[MCP]

Well put.

I'd think the majority of the people who are driving around with 2-3+ BAR pressure is where larger intake manifolds will shine.

High HP levels = high CFM = high air speed/velocity which becomes an issue with creating turbulence, etc.

Opening ports, runners, TB and TB openings will reduce restrictions on at high CFM and therefore slow down critical air speeds back to sane numbers.

At least that's how I see it.

Air flow/bench testing really doesn't do much when it comes to dynamic operations in a motor to be very honest. Or at least it should never be used blindly as a end all data set.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Audizine mobile app

[VR6Bomber]

At the sake of stating the obvious and maybe repeating what smarter people have already said;

Unless you have worked out heads and have a solution for the stock exhaust manifolds (yes I know THE has tubular manifold$)
I can't imagine that investing in a monster IM is going to net you much flow into the motor

They are nice ass pieces no doubt, but these need to be part of a complete solution to see actual gains.

[darren p.]

Sorry it was an RS4 Y pipe. Whoops.

That makes more sense, thanks for the correction...you had me second guessing some recent purchases.

They are nice ass pieces no doubt, but these need to be part of a complete solution to see actual gains.

Agreed, I don't think these should be thought of as, "Oh let me put THE-Tuner IM on and see the great results" as opposed to a more holistic approach to building up the entire intake piping to 63mm around the compressor housings with the rest of their pipes and THE exhaust manifold.

Good discussion!

OP, thanks for taking the time and effort to do all of this!

[Uncle S4]

Good to see we have all grown up a bit now

Where's FlyboyS4?

[S4James]

FFS why dont you just say Beatlejuice three times while you are at it.

[narth327]

I'd think the majority of the people who are driving around with 2-3+ BAR pressure is where larger intake manifolds will shine.

They are nice ass pieces no doubt, but these need to be part of a complete solution to see actual gains.

yup, gotta lower the backpressure and increase the flow, at 2+ Bar, the pressure ratio that these setups are running are way out of the efficiency range of their design intent, but like VR6Bomber said, its the balance of the whole SYSTEM, not just 1 part, like most focus on.

[Mocke]

Making power is all about the flow. Whatever you can do to lower the boost pressure and maintain the output.

Its vary hard - i would say practicly impossible to meassure a single product performance IRL.
Thats what flowtests are for.

We have seen extraordinary results from a rs6 framed turbos with THE complete Intakes used.
Here is some

Loba600 on straight pump Ron98 ( US 93) with 1.9 - 1.6bar boost making 630bhp
That is alot of power for this size turbo and petrol used.




TTE880 under 2 bar peak and 1.8 bar hold. Also straight pump 98 only.




Naturally, bigger the setup - better the results.

[S4James]

850whp on basically stock manifolds tells me that its not catastrophically bad. People are routinely making 600-700+ chp on rs6 hybrids without paying much attention to the entire system... The problem with these sorts of individual product tests is most people treat them like video game powerups.. Buy this loot box and add the power numbers on the box to your theoretical HP. Its dumb but thats the reality.

That's how this stuff is always marketed so people believe it. Nobody wants to hear that the 1000$ they just dropped will require an engine pull and another 5 grand in parts to make the extra power the first part is capable of. So even if nobody from TTE is promising X amount of power, the vast majority assume that bolting this part on, will still give them some sort of gain.

[Mocke]

The Intake manifold discussed is from THE-Tuner.
Has nothing to do with TTE, and neither do I have.

I can supply any parts incl G25 Garrets if needed or whatever. TTE turbos is just one product inline in our shop. So, please do not adress me as one of TTE people. I am not and i have never been. I have used, and i have been working with thir products and i have a lot of experience with their products, Its a working partner to us among many more around the world. Simple as that.

Flowtests has been performed by a Flyboy on this forum with loads of diff parts and has been treated like a Bible.
Flowtest i performed was done independently of THE- Tuner, as i myself wanted to see difference. Its also done by a shop that has more than 30 years of competing in Volvo NA pro class in Sweden.
These people are all about porting and meassuring flow to heads and Intakes etc... as there is no Force induction In their class.

However, liking or agreeing with results is free of choice.

[Mocke]

Double post

[Meow]

I am shocked that larger cross sectional area has a larger flow rate. Just shocked.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/...lume-flow-rate


Joking aside, its cool to see flow bench percents but flow bench percents absolutely do not equate to engine airflow percents (horsepower increase).

Fun stuff about different intakes with boost:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zILMP1BR9A8



Summary of video- ( DO NOT TAKE THIS AS SHORT VS LONG RUNNER AND WHICH ONE IS BETTER, IT IS AN EXAMPLE THAT FLOW IS NOT EVERYTHING)

NA Results with lower flowing long runner manifold: 528 hp and 479 ftlb tq
NA Results with higher flowing short runner: 529 hp peak (makes far less power under the curve)

Boosted Results with lower flowing long runner: 929 hp and 796 ftlb tq
Boosted Results with higher flowing short runner: Makes even less power and torque under the curve for the same boost


Getting good power out of an intake manifold really has nothing to do with flow unless its a major restriction in the system. Intakes are tuned for runner length to match an engine flow and rpm, boost just stacks on top of that. The intake that outflows on the flow bench does not equate to more power in the powerband of the engine. The tuning has to do with wave resonance of the engine chamber, head porting, rpm, cam timing, runner size and plenum size to improve cylinder filling within that RPM range.

With the right changes to all the variables you can make a longer runner hit harder at high rpm off a lower order wave for the resonance. Its somewhat complicated... cam timing gives you a window of time, speed of sound only changes with temp (pressure waves travel at the speed of sound), Wave propagates at intake valve opening and is reflected at runner end. Weaker pulse at higher order but lower flow loss with short runner, Use the 2nd 3rd or 4th wave to pack at intake valve closing. With the right measurements of the cam timing you can tune the runner length for the engine.

You can kind of think of it as you are riding the pressure wave in like a surfer rides a wide in, and if your runner length is tuned just right you can ride that wave and pack in the combustion chamber between the time the intake valve opens and intake valve closes (at a certain rpm).



All that being said, the THE Tuner runners look close to stock length which might be OK since the stock was designed for using mild cams (2.7 or rs4 are similar enough) and I have yet to see engine dyno or even chassis dynos on different intakes on a 2.7t engine. The stock runner length is probably using a 3rd or 4th order wave. 5th order has no real gains and 2nd order usually requires real high rpm ranges.

[Meow]

I'd think the majority of the people who are driving around with 2-3+ BAR pressure is where larger intake manifolds will shine.

High HP levels = high CFM = high air speed/velocity which becomes an issue with creating turbulence, etc.

Opening ports, runners, TB and TB openings will reduce restrictions on at high CFM and therefore slow down critical air speeds back to sane numbers.

At least that's how I see it.

Air flow/bench testing really doesn't do much when it comes to dynamic operations in a motor to be very honest. Or at least it should never be used blindly as a end all data set.

See my previous post, CFM really doesnt have much to do with it.

[Meow]

Another example of 3 back to back runs with different runner lengths.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0T9CD0AQCo



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cMCi8L3qDE

[NOTORIOUS VR]

See my previous post, CFM really doesnt have much to do with it.

Very possible - I was just talking out loud to myself.... in public

Although in my mind port/runner velocity still does have something to do with it somewhere... somehow...

Another example of 3 back to back runs with different runner lengths.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0T9CD0AQCo



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cMCi8L3qDE

Neat! That new plenum design picked up a bunch of power!

[Meow]

Very possible - I was just talking out loud to myself.... in public

Although in my mind port/runner velocity still does have something to do with it somewhere... somehow...



Neat! That new plenum design picked up a bunch of power!

Matching the plenum size with the turbo/engine size is pretty important too... going big plenum seems to pick up a lot on the 2.7t anecdotally, wish i had better evidence of that.

The velocity of the air is rapidly changing in the intake runner. Thats why you need to look at pressure waves. As light as it is, air does have momentum... lol.


So theres a lot of ways to optimize power, increasing intake port size is mostly done if you want to shift that power band to the right... which maybe you do if you have a bigger turbo and your target peak torque is 5500rpm not 4000rpm. Its best to match that with a cam too.

GT power is a really fun software that lets you play around with all this and simplify/complicate things as much as you want. If you are bored, check it out lol.

[jibberjive]

All that being said, the THE Tuner runners look close to stock length which might be OK since the stock was designed for using mild cams (2.7 or rs4 are similar enough) and I have yet to see engine dyno or even chassis dynos on different intakes on a 2.7t engine. The stock runner length is probably using a 3rd or 4th order wave. 5th order has no real gains and 2nd order usually requires real high rpm ranges.

With the packaging constraints of the 2.7t, and in 2001, I doubt that the stock runner length was exactly optimized for peak power (especially as most OEM's try to maximize BSFC, and highly prioritize fuel mass consumption). Stock length is probably a decent middle ground though, considering the results throughout the years.

Engineering Explained did a good video that illulstrates some of what you're talking about with the cam timing/resonance tuning etc.



I imagine that there may be some power left on the table, but there isn't a whole lot of room to play with in regards to substantially altering the runner length. I would be curious though.

-----

If there are any high-ish HP cars who would be interested in A/B testing different runner lengths on a big port intake manifold, shoot me a PM. An ideal candidate would be currently running a stock intake manifold/throttle body, 2.8 or RS4 cams, RS6 or larger turbos and have already dyno'd on their current configuration.

I ran the stock manifold up to 830 whp 😂
I plan on buying a bigger manifold in the future. When I do, I’ll take before and after logs.

Stock throttle body? I may get in touch about beta testing different configurations, if you're interested.

[S4James]

ugh.. love to volunteer but no dyno for miles..

[mikeb17]

With the packaging constraints of the 2.7t, and in 2001, I doubt that the stock runner length was exactly optimized for peak power (especially as most OEM's try to maximize BSFC, and highly prioritize fuel mass consumption). Stock length is probably a decent middle ground though, considering the results throughout the years.

Engineering Explained did a good video that illulstrates some of what you're talking about with the cam timing/resonance tuning etc.



I imagine that there may be some power left on the table, but there isn't a whole lot of room to play with in regards to substantially altering the runner length. I would be curious though.

-----

If there are any high-ish HP cars who would be interested in A/B testing different runner length's on a big port intake manifold, shoot me a PM. An ideal candidate would be currently running a stock intake manifold/throttle body, 2.8 or RS4 cams, RS6 or larger turbos and have already dyno'd on their current configuration.




Stock throttle body? I may get in touch about beta testing different configurations, if you're interested.

Yep! It is the stock IM and stock TB.

[S4James]

LOL... i love that!

[Meow]

Yep! It is the stock IM and stock TB.

Mikey Mikey, your car is a beast! Hope to see it back up with a new HG soon.

[mikeb17]

I’m going to run a log on my 750 whp file and then record a log with my intake manifold I’m modifying. It’ll be interesting to see if the plenum expansion and runner porting do much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mikeb17]

If we really want to dig in, I could rent a dyno and swap intakes to see what the differences are. Since everything on my car is built except the intake and TB it would make for some interesting data.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NOTORIOUS VR]

Although nothing more than some numbers were written on a web forum (VWVORTEX) - some years ago INA reported/listed hp and tq gains by just swapping to a larger TB... he tested from stock to 82 or 85mm going from memory and the sweet spot seemed to be right around 78mm.

Maybe considering getting a 78mm Bosch TB for the new modded IM as well?

[ReggieNoble]

This may be the thread your talking about

TECH : TEST 1 OF 3 | Throttle Body Sizing https://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?t=4690902

[jibberjive]

Although nothing more than some numbers were written on a web forum (VWVORTEX) - some years ago INA reported/listed hp and tq gains by just swapping to a larger TB... he tested from stock to 82 or 85mm going from memory and the sweet spot seemed to be right around 78mm.

Maybe considering getting a 78mm Bosch TB for the new modded IM as well?

Of note is that that is on an engine 1/3 smaller than ours and at a ~450hp output (and corresponding turbo flow). I don't think that most of the people that are going to spend this type of money on an intake are looking to be around the 450hp area.

If we really want to dig in, I could rent a dyno and swap intakes to see what the differences are. Since everything on my car is built except the intake and TB it would make for some interesting data.

I will likely be in touch



It's interesting to see various stock components that can/have been used in relatively high-powered setups. You see tial 770 builds doing like 700whp on stock exhaust manifolds with all huge intake stuff, and then you see cars like Mike's, with the hot side pipes having custom short-runner side mount exhaust manifolds, but with stock IM/TB. It's interesting. I imagine at that level, one has likely already reached the point of diminishing returns, and I'm not sure how much more power can be squeezed out of those particular turbos. The things like exhaust manifolds/intake manifold/throttle body I imagine will more easily help the person at 550whp to reach 800whp than it will for the person at 800whp to reach 1000+whp on relatively small turbos.