lol, im not even gonna bother getting into it with the magnus humpers then 
the sheets dont lie, have u seen the wilson manifolds v2 ported stocker?
Yes, I am THE Magnus humper that I talk about them all over the EvoM forums and here and everywhere I possibly can as well as my signature and avatarâŠ
Which sheets are you speaking of, the Magnus SMIM that Buschur âtestedâ (which was more like a blind guy playing picking out his favorite porn) or the sheets on a ported stocker?
i wasnt referring to the magnus sheet metal intake in that one post.
i dont think were on the same page of the manifolds here lol.
im saying the new version released of the ported stocker by wilson manifolds performed right on par with a sheet metal intake manifold (i believe it was tested against a DI sheet metal intake) retains all emissions so u dont have to worry about inspections issues.
And that is the beauty behind it.
I still donât understand why someone doesnât make a manifold that incorporates all the factory sensors, especially for the Cali and NY guys. A manifold like that would own all.
Although, I can already see an area that can be improved on the Magnus ManifoldâŠ
Actually that manifold has been proven by other people as well to not be âas goodâ as all the other offerings. Buschur really did have a serious grudge against Magnus because of all the political crap, but never the less, for the money, much much better could be had.
That would be a great manifold if your name was MagnĂșs Ver MagnĂșsson.
Thatâs all I got for this thread.
The manifold that Dave Buschar used in his testing was a very very old design. I have seen the actual piece as it was given back to Marco.
Bing, Iâd vouch for the casting as much as I could for a non moving part. There were no real flaws in it.
Tkkleman, I agree with making a boss for the stock map sensor but thatâs all you need is one for the map sensor. No one uses an EGR and all the map sensor does is look for a change in pressure for proper operation of the EGR. However if you look here this piece allows you retain the stock map sensor and relocate it somewhere properly. Other than that this manifold has spent weeks, and I mean weeks in CFD analysis. It has full cylinder equalization in a 1/60th of a second from when the throttle body is cracked. No offense but I donât think there is anything your naked eye can see that the program hasnât corrected in the design.
http://www.dsmparts.com/customer/product.php?productid=584
Psphinx, call me what you will. Marco is a friend first and foremost. I went out of my way on many occassions to make this product happen and help where I could, as did Sean (tevenor). Marco is our friend first and foremost. Wouldnât you help your friends? Otherwise keep your comments to yourself anything else you would like to say, you can say to my face.
Either way this should be a much needed improvement to the aftermarket for intake manifolds for the 4G63. The last manifold that was really worth a damn was the HKS Kansei and this was designed to produce more power. A properly designed cast manifold is the way to go period. For years everyone has worked with what they had, this is just the next evolution of the process.
Keep the BS out of my thread!
Howâs the throttle response?
Throttle response is nice, not any more off the other manifold which was slightly off from the stocker ( which makes sense ).
As far as the âIntake Testâ, its fucking old news. Buschur had an ax to grind, used the results of a manifold that even now was in question if it was ever a magnus in the first place as he admitted publically that it looked âexactlyâ like another one that was posted which turned out to be a fake, and then did a smear campaign to hurt business. He has admitted as much both in private and public.
And for the 1 test that Dave did, there are at least a dozen other tests and vendors who have dyno proof ( including my own stock car ), where HP increased with the true magnus manifold.
On a personal note, through my own dealings and experiences with Dave going back 5 shootouts and starting in '99, I compare Buschur to a bitchy woman who has her period 51 weeks a year. Sheâs fine as long as you kiss her ass, give her tons of money, and donât piss her off. Say no to her just once, and you are on the shit list and she will do everyone she can to rip you a new one. Itâs all about Dave and will always be all about Dave, regardless of the spin he lays thick on the boards.
<Forrest>And thatâs all I have to say about that</Forrest>
i have chromed RB25 intake manifolds in stock
Although I do agree with you about the MAP sensor working on conjunction with the EGR system, This is not the only function of the MAP sensor, in a ânon-OEMâ format, and your statement of âNo one uses an EGRâ is VERY incorrect. In fact, if you do a little research, you will find out that more and more people are finding the benefits of running and tuning the EGR system in order to optimize it with their set-up of parts. No one using the EGR is as incorrect as it can get, especially with the growing trend of people making the switch to E85, like myself. On my set-up, I was averaging roughly 13.3 mpg on E85, obviously a terrible number. In tuning of the EGR system, along with timing, fuel tables, and EGR operation maps, I brought that mpg number up to roughly 17/18 mpg by simply roughly tuning the EGR system via. ECUFlash to attain better mpg out of E85. If you look at some of the top fastest cars out there, you will notice a trend very easily, some AMS cars are switching to E85, Lucas English is switching to E85, Even Butchur has wandered into the E85 area. With the only con of E85 being the requirement of roughly 30% more fuel to obtain the proper stoiometric ratio to run properly, obviously the EGR holds a grave benefit to helping get the most mpg out of E85 than ever.
Also, in a ânon-OEMâ format, the only function of the MAP sensor is not true. There is also a trend of the switching of the MAP sensor to either a JDM MAP, or the EVO X sensor on the Evo VIII/IXâs. Reason being, it will read over 30psi, which in tuning and data logging, using an OEM sensor with all appropriate tables changes to suit, holds grave benefits not only for the logging of real time manifold pressure values, but other items as well.
Ah, those âother itemsâ I just mentioned. Lets just put it this way, when my motor is back in the car, and I begin the tuning process, I will NOT have a MAF in the car (If things go according to plan). Here are a few notes:
- No MAF
- JDM MAP Sensor
- GM AIT
- Stock ECU.
And by stock ECU, I mean that, and ONLY that. No piggybacks, no EMS, no other stuff other than my GM AIT, GM 3-port boost control solenoid, and JDM MAP, all running off the Stock ECU. Maybe you can figure out what I am doing? Maybe after you figure out that, you can see the importance in the OEM MAP sensor fitment to that manifold. Also, from an Engineers standpoint, as well as working in the Manufacturing Industry for 12+ years, casting in something as simple as an OEM MAP sensor boss and the 4-operations it would take to machine it properly would be miniscule compared to how many people would purchase it because it would be the best viable option for anyone in NYS and CA at the current time. Maybe itâs just me, maybe I am more of a businessman than a mechanic, but in regards to the items I listed above, at a minimum, the OEM MAP sensor fitment alone would make a manifold such as this own all of what is currently offered.
Now, in regards to what my eye can see, I still hold to my statement. With all excellent parts out there for any given application, you always notice specific trend in regards to design of the part, especially after looking at all viable options for a specific part. All of the top manifolds for the Evoâs, and damn near any other given automobile all have a common design trait, even more so, in IRL, Indy Car, CART etc⊠When looking at manifolds used in those applications, as well as the design of almost all Supercar level intake manifolds, it still holds true. I am sure Magnusâs new manifold is leaps and bounds over his older design, and believe me Don, I would love nothing more than to see Marcus embarass Butchur, I still do see something missing that would be of benefit to the design. Regardless if Marcus changes anything or not, I am still hoping very much to see this manifold embarass Butchur and anything Butchur has.
So, in regards to the EGR and OEM MAP sensor bossâs/systems, I stand by my statements, and can show you substantial evidence of any/all the above statements. To date, nobody has made a manifold that has it all. At this point, expecially with Magnusâs manifold being a cast piece, it would be a very easy thing to implement. I wish he would, because if he did, I know I would be first in line to purchase his part. But, for now, I am still stuck with my stock ported and heavily modified intake manifold. One dayâŠ
And I just looked at that link, thatâs a pretty nifty little piece. I wonder if that will fit an EVO MAP. If it does, that would be a very cool piece that would allow you to run at least a JDM/Evo X OEM MAP on ANY manifold you want to.
Nice piece.
My old Magnus had a boss for the stock Map. This Magnus doesnât but a simple map to nipple adapter was built to keep the MAP functionality. Look in my pictures and you will see it mounted to the strut tower brace bracket.
And if you tuned the EGR system along with fuel, timing, etc. then I canât conclude, and neither can you in all honesty that the EGR system was the key change in that system. Does it effect off power fuel consumption? Of course. To the tune of 4 mpg on E85? Based on your evidence, I canât conclude that. Would be interesting to see if you disconnected the EGR after the tuning to see how much your MPG dropped. But even that would be annecdotal at best unless you could mirror the same driving patterns at best.
I say this not to disagree with the benefits of the EGR but to point out that everyone has a different viewpoint on different aspects of the same topic. For instance I donât run the EGR by choice, even though I already worked through and built a replacement EGR system that works with the stock ECU and EGR solenoid but eliminates the stock EGR valve. I still get 26 mpg highway, 21 city driving. Would I get substantially more by âtuningâ the EGR system. I donât believe so.
Ignorance? Yes, based on my evidence shown? What evidence? I havenât shown any in effort to not clog up this thread. If you would like to see all my evidence, then PM me as to not clutter up this thread. Saying that I cannot conclude to anything without knowing or having any background information on my claim is not right on your part. You do not know whether I have evidence or not, and never asked. If you would like conclusive evidence, as well as myself showing you the advancements I have made, feel free to come to Charleston for a vacation. I can set you up quite well at my place, and have a nice time hanging out, and would love to have conversation with someone intelligent. However, Since I bought my ECUFlash cable over 2.5 years ago, and started messing with my stock ECU, I have over 1,200+ data logs on my car ALONE, as well as with the exception of ONE car in Charleston, EVERY EVO in Charleston is tuned by myself, along with a few WRXâs and STiâs. Also, now in Buffalo, there are six Evoâs in Buffalo running my tune now as of a few weeks ago, and two in Colorado. Apparently someone thinks I am doing just fine in the tuning departmentâŠ
Any the irony of my prior posting is that if you venture over to Evom.net, as you already have, you would see quite a few people asking about provisions for the EGR and MAP in the thread of the Magnus AND the new AMS manifold. A trend? MaybeâŠ
But, I guess my head is on fire, and I am not making any sense here. Oh wellâŠ
Nikuk, and thatâs why I wonât post anymore in regards to that topic.
Back on hand, the manifold is indeed a nice piece, as well as providing us Evo owners with more options for parts.
P.S. (I also really hope it shuts Buschur up, as I am very sick of his "non-modesty crybaby attitude. Also for the power potential, if it proves to be a good piece, I will be purchasing one.)
Adding EGR to any manifold has been proven by the major automobile manufacturers to lower gas mileage on gasoline vehicles. Gasoline has double the energy potential as e85 does.
EGR adds a specific amount of exhaust gas into the intake tract depending on criteria seen by the ECU (throttle, rpm, load, coolant temp, etc) This is used to cool the cylinder temperatures as to limit the production of the pollutant NOx.
The wierd part about your post which kinda baffles me, is the fact that EGR is used only during cruise and part throttle applications. So for it to make a difference during wide open throttle is not possible. If you saw a gain of MPG during tuning, it is simply because you took up some of the cylinders filling with inert gas and thus reduced the need for as much fuel otherwise it would have run wayyyy rich. That is how an EGR is designed to work. It limits the amount of fresh air into the cylinder by adding anywhere from 10-50% exhaust gas⊠meaning fuel must be reduced on the fly accordingly.
All major manufacturers have known that EGR 1. Reduces gas mileage 2. Lowers engine performance 3. adds impurities to the intake tract that can cause other components to malfunction over time. This is information that has been known since the inception of the EGR valve. It was a crutch that was needed in order to meet the EPAs mandated fuel and pollution requirements in the 70s. If you also notice that alot of manufacturers are getting away from EGR for all the reasons listed above, they can control the problem other ways now as technology has been developed to disregard the need for an EGR system, automobile manufacturers dream considering it causes problems.
If you are seeing better MPG why not go back and remove EGR and reduce fuel in your map. If you can reduce fuel while adding burnt exhaust gas to your air/fuel mixture safely, that just goes to verify that your map is too rich in that area or your timing is a little advanced for the given fuel.
Point here is that EGR is removed to eliminate dirty unburnable gas from being entered into a manifold and reducing performance. That is why you dont see it on any race engine, F1 engine, CART etc. It is a pollution control device, not some magic MPG wonder box working on the principles of magic and wormholes.
Tom, Iâm not saying you canât tune cars. I totally disagree with your statements about EGR for the simple fact that they are not rooted in basic automotive fundamentals. I do not think you have a clear understanding of just how the system works and is implemented.
The MAGNUS manifold, like all others, eliminates the EGR for the simple fact that it degrades performance and it is one more variable you have to accomodate for when tuning. PERFORMANCE IS WHAT YOU ARE GENERALLY AFTER WHEN YOU PURCHASE AN AFTERMARKET PERFORMANCE PART?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! If you use it with your stock ECU, wonderful, but take a day and remove your manifold and see how much oily black shit is lining your intake runners then do a dyno test back to back on running with EGR and not EGR and then lets talk.
The point here is that this manifold will be king of the hill soon. Donât know what the AMS guys are going to try to bring to the table but they better do something bad ass because like I said this thing has been engineered from the ground up. Something only the OEM manufacturers have taken the time to do.
You need to get your head out of your self righteous âI tune everyones carâ ass.
-
Where did I ever saying about âIgnoranceâ? Or are you referring to me? And you are right. I didnât ask for evidence. You claimed a 4 mpg gain by tuning EGR, fuel, etc. and used that as evidence as to why EGR should be kept and manifold makers should make bosses to accomodate them. Reread what I wrote. I said in a nutshell âFrom what you posted, I canât agree with your assumption that âtuning EGRâ helped your gas mileage.â because I saw no evidence, logs, nothing and donât know anything on how you figured that out and used that â4 mpgâ number to quantify your opinion that the bosses should exist on aftermarket manifold.
-
Scientifically to really formulate a good test you need to isolate every variable so you can prove it was the EGR that gained you the results, regardless if its 1 tune run or 1200 logs. Perhaps you have already done this, which if so, good for you. More effort than I would like to spend considering you should be able to gain more by adjusting fuel maps vs EGR crap. But to each their own.I really can only change my opinion if I see data to the contrary, which may very well be true. But I wouldnât expect you to believe me if I said âI gained 50 hp by disconnecting EGRâ without proof and if I didnât post any supporting proof at all, then I would expect you stand up and go âWait a second. How the fuck did you figure that?â especially if it was phrased âI gained 50 hp from disconnecting the EGRâŠand tuning the car and turning up the boostâ.
-
Chest thumping and telling everyone how great you are and how many cars you tune is a bit childish, especially when you are arguing over the ability of EGR to increase gas mileage, donât you think? It would be like me saying âI have personally worked on DSMs since 98 and all of the ones I worked on still runâ to help solidify my position in an argument about custom intake pipe fabrication. I know a bunch of people who tune cars and are still complete idiots. I prefer to judge people by what they say, how they say it and what they do. Just from earlier posts, my impression was that you a detail oriented guy with a good head on his shoulders. Was I wrong? and to that point, no one is doubting your tuning abilities. Frankly, I thought this would turn into a nice EGR discussion that could be split off instead of a âFuck you, you donât know what you are talking about douchebagâ discussion. Guess I was wrong.
I am going to respond to this one more time, and then I am done. This thread is getting a bit much.
-
Gasoline does not have more energy potential than E85 does. Pound for pound, yes, you are correct, but when used correctly, ie. stoich, E85 has more energy content than gasoline does. This is due to the rough 30% increase necessary for proper stoich. It also has a quicker burn rate than gasoline does, hence more power potential.
-
Your response to mine is baffling me because I never said anything about using EGR at WOT conditions. Where did I ever say I was using EGR in any WOT conditions?
-
I am running to rich in those specifi areas of the map? I wonder if thatâs why my car is running between 15.1-15.6 afrâs at idle and under low throttle/low load areas (Cruise conditions) is running the same. My EGTâs are actually cooler running it on E85 like that than with 93 pump. No, I donât need to retune my car in those areas, the leaner AFRâs complimented by the way my EGR is running gave me the 4 mpg increase with E85. However, this still suck in contrast to what I was getting with 93, but thatâs not what I am debating here.
-
Once again, never implied the EGR system as its own entity was an MPG wonderbox. Nothing is as simple as tuning one single map.
-
I apparently had a clear enough understanding of how the system works in my car from trying different things enough to optimize the system and make it do what I wanted it to do. Unfortunately it took me several months to get it to run correctly, but thatâs another story. When you have complete control over the system as a whole you can tune the EGR system using variables such as high/low load variables, throttle position variables, timing tables etc⊠You can use the EGR to slow the burn rate, increase timing numbers due to the slowed burn rate, and hence, decrease the fuel required.
-
I will do a dyno test back to back, one with it disabled, and one with it enabled. You will not see a difference because the EGR even from the factory is not active under WOT. Itâs only active, in a nutshell, under low throttle, low load areas.
Don, like I said in earlier posts, I really do hope that this manifold proves to be bad ass, I really do. If it does, I know I will be purchasing one for two reasons, performance and to spite Buschur.
Trevenor, you obviously didnât read my posts very well. Let me reiterate:
âI still donât understand why someone doesnât make a manifold that incorporates all the factory sensors, especially for the Cali and NY guys. A manifold like that would own all.â
I said this line in relation to someone making a totally drop in maifold that would enable ANYONE in the US to buy this manifold, and not have to worry about big brother saying you cannot run it and/or having to jump through hoops to get it to pass the required emissions testing. Currently we have a way in ECUFlash to disable the EGR, but we do not have a way to get it to pass emissions rediness testing. To date, nobody has made a fully drop in manifold, that was my whole point, thatâs all.
Trevenor, I agree with you about the whole not turning into this kind of discussion, but when I made a statement about what my end result was in regards to my many months of screwing around and testing on my own car was doubted by you rather quickly, what choice did it leave me but to defend my months of screwing around. I am not here to beat and thump my chest for tuning, it hold no value to me because I am 900 miles away, and I prefer to tune cars that I can monitor regularly. I came up there for two cars specifically, and a bunch of others wanted to join in the fun, and thatâs how it all went. I am back in SC now, and because of the build I am doing on my own Evo now, I am going to stop tuning other peoples cars because I will be concentrating on mine for awhile. In contrast to other tuners out there, I am a tiny little guy in the scheme of things that only does it for the fun of it, because I enjoy it, not for the purposes of making money. I have nothing to prove in regards to my tuning abilities. In fact, I would like to stay out of that game because I donât want the massive liabilities behind it. But, with all the stuff I have screwed around with on my car, yes, you can use EGR to increase gas mileage. Exactly how much, is another story. On my car specifically, I went to great lengths because 13.3mpg sucks, especially when you only have one gas station here that sells E85, for $1.22/gal over what the national average is. Oh well, itâs what I want to run, so I tried whatever I could to maximize it. Maybe it was my mistake for not listing all the things I changed, instead of making the seemingly generalized statement of âTuning my EGR netted me 4mpgâ.
But, I digress. I would like to see this manifold perform, and I ask the question who/what/where/when/how is it going to be tested? I would really like to keep an eye out on it because as I always stated, I really want to see a specific whiney baby put to shame. I would love to hear enough details of the testing so i can be on the lookout for the testing outputs. As far as the EGR discussion, if you would like (I wouldnât mind), lets create another thread and have an intellectual discussion about it. I know there would be lots of interested E85 users that would be interested in hearing about anything we could possibly do to improve the mpg on guys with Evoâs running E85. I know I would.
All Im going to say is that thats super cool that someone took the time effort and R&D to design something from the ground up and not just try to improve on somethnig that already exists.
And that I learned that EGRâs are the suck and I should delete it from my car and put a EGR simulator in my car to get better MPGâs and more powerâŠif i read that right.