I see so many mixed opinions here about the 2.3 LO and not to use it on a 2.4. I have one sitting here that i am debating about installing on mine that is ready to go and bolt on.
Are people not getting gains cause it NOT port matched and NOT 56mm TB?
I wish there was numbers for both.
Noone has tested it against the stock 2.4 intake manifold on a boosted engine. However from the design of it and the numbers others have put down using it on turbo 2.4 I would say go for it. Either way make sure it is port matched.
FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!
Im not comparing to turbo just for NA.
People complain about the HO manifold. Not the LO, one person claimed and 11whp gain with it, but never showed charts.
IF you want it installed, MIkey will do it. just pm me.
My Cav
I give up...
i'm buying a VW those people love trees, so they should love eachother too... "Andy"
I personally do not feel either 2.3 manifold is better than a 2.4 stock manifold for a N/A set-up. The only true way to know is to dyno now and then install it and dyno again.
FU Tuning
Quote:
The only true way to know is to dyno now and then install it and dyno again.
Been done, with dyno graphs to prove it. I don't have the thread on hand but search it up and you'll find it. It showed a decrease in both horsepower and trq. on a stock motor. Only real need for a HO mani and TB is if you have internal work ( best combo = high comp pistons with valve pockets, HO/W41/COMP cams, 3 angle valve job, and a heavy port n polish/match) or a big 'ol snail to go with it.
Thrice . wrote:Quote:
The only true way to know is to dyno now and then install it and dyno again.
Been done, with dyno graphs to prove it. I don't have the thread on hand but search it up and you'll find it. It showed a decrease in both horsepower and trq. on a stock motor. Only real need for a HO mani and TB is if you have internal work ( best combo = high comp pistons with valve pockets, HO/W41/COMP cams, 3 angle valve job, and a heavy port n polish/match) or a big 'ol snail to go with it.
Actually no it has not been done and posted about. You are speaking of a HO manifold, he is asking about a LO manifold which there is a difference. Still I think the out come would be the same.
FU Tuning
My bad, sorry..me and my drive-by postings
....the LO i can see staying the same as stock without any other supporting mods.
ALSO. the car was TUNED for a LD9 intake..... not the HO intake, and he made the same power ant Tq with his set up as wrenchmonkey did with a HO intake LD9, and tuning for it......
but no one read that in the thread it guess.... some people read what they want i guess.
Chris
'02 Z-24 Supercharged
13.7 @102.45 MPH Third Place, 2007 GMSC Bash SOLD AS OF 01MAR08
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:ALSO. the car was TUNED for a LD9 intake..... not the HO intake, and he made the same power ant Tq with his set up as wrenchmonkey did with a HO intake LD9, and tuning for it......
but no one read that in the thread it guess.... some people read what they want i guess.
Chris
When you say tuned for a LD9 manifold you mean stock tune correct? I believe the car had no tuning done. Which is a perfect example. Most mods done by about 80% of the people on this site are bolt on mods. Which means no tuning. Bolt on and go. So with that going that mod is not a good one to do. I think the point was also brought up that wrenchmonkey's car could (not saying it will) make more power with a LD9 manifold and tuning. Until more test are done with different set-up's we will never know.
I guess no read that part that I post and others did as well... some people read and believe what they want I guess.
FU Tuning
I will have to dig up that dyno post... im 95% shure it was tuned.... that day at the dyno.
Chris
'02 Z-24 Supercharged
13.7 @102.45 MPH Third Place, 2007 GMSC Bash SOLD AS OF 01MAR08
Here is the post where the guy dynoed stock manifold and HO manifold on the same day same dyno.
HO manifold dyno
He was not tuned that day.
FU Tuning
John Higgins wrote:Taetsch Z-24 wrote:ALSO. the car was TUNED for a LD9 intake..... not the HO intake, and he made the same power ant Tq with his set up as wrenchmonkey did with a HO intake LD9, and tuning for it......
but no one read that in the thread it guess.... some people read what they want i guess.
Chris
When you say tuned for a LD9 manifold you mean stock tune correct? I believe the car had no tuning done. Which is a perfect example. Most mods done by about 80% of the people on this site are bolt on mods. Which means no tuning. Bolt on and go. So with that going that mod is not a good one to do. I think the point was also brought up that wrenchmonkey's car could (not saying it will) make more power with a LD9 manifold and tuning. Until more test are done with different set-up's we will never know.
I guess no read that part that I post and others did as well... some people read and believe what they want I guess.
Chris's argument is that the engine
NEEDS to be tuned for each manifold to truly prove which is a better match for the engine. Too rich or too lean will both result in lower torque at a given rpm and I don't believe Mastin gave any AFR readouts for any dyno runs with either manifold. For that, I agree with Chris....however....
Mastin's results really only
PROVE one thing, and that is that the HO manifold pushes your powerband higher. You can tell this as the max torque is reached at a higher rpm than with the stock manifold (regardless that amplitude is lower). This is also supported by the fact that the HO manifold uses larger diameter runners. Just from a engineering view, the runners are also shorter and the plenum is larger, which results in resonance effects at a higher rpm which helps with increasing max power with a higher powerband (i.e. longer duration cams). The stock plastic LD9 manifold has longer and smaller diameter runners which are already "tuned" for the stock powerband. You install HO cams or cams with longer duration than HO cams and you will see the benefits the HO manifold has over the stock. This has nothing to do with a boosted engine or whatever people keep talking about (I sadly used to be one of those a while ago), it is simply a matter of where your powerband lies. I personally am only getting around an 86% max VE at ~4500rpm with the HO manifold, (granted I have fuel pressure a little higher, so the true VE numbers are probably a little higher....and the 086 head certainly doesn't help either). I would love to see what the stock manifold would do in comparison, but I already gave Fontana my old "Fontana flange" modified to fit a 2.4 manifold on a 2.3 head...talk about irony.
Regarding the LO manifold though...
I really wouldn't hope for much if any gains from the LO manifold, as it's runners are the same length as the HO except smaller in diameter. So theoretically, it will push max torque lower in the powerband which is better suited for the lower powerband of a stock LD9 engine, but it still has the same length of runner as the HO, so max power is sure to suffer. Plus, it being aluminum increases its weight as well as its ability to heat soak. I would stick with with the stock manifold until you put a set of serious cams in it...and no secret cams don't count.
-
"Youth in Asia"...I don't see anything wrong with that.
Quote:
Chris's argument is that the engine NEEDS to be tuned for each manifold to truly prove which is a better match for the engine. Too rich or too lean will both result in lower torque at a given rpm and I don't believe Mastin gave any AFR readouts for any dyno runs with either manifold.
I do agree tuning should be done with all and any mods done, but given the fact that 90% of the people on this site do not tune, or get tuned and are looking for bolt on parts that dyno proof is perfect info. I can see tuning with the HO manifold gaining power, but I also see tuning with a stock manifold gaining power. I truly do not (never have) feel any 2.3 manifold is suited for a N/A 2.4 in stock trim. Meaning stock compression. I fully built 2.4 might show different, but until someone does it with dynoing both we will never know.
FU Tuning
John Higgins wrote:Quote:
Chris's argument is that the engine NEEDS to be tuned for each manifold to truly prove which is a better match for the engine. Too rich or too lean will both result in lower torque at a given rpm and I don't believe Mastin gave any AFR readouts for any dyno runs with either manifold.
I do agree tuning should be done with all and any mods done, but given the fact that 90% of the people on this site do not tune, or get tuned and are looking for bolt on parts that dyno proof is perfect info. I can see tuning with the HO manifold gaining power, but I also see tuning with a stock manifold gaining power. I truly do not (never have) feel any 2.3 manifold is suited for a N/A 2.4 in stock trim. Meaning stock compression. I fully built 2.4 might show different, but until someone does it with dynoing both we will never know.
I agree 100%
-
"Youth in Asia"...I don't see anything wrong with that.
...all i know is my POS 95 Z24 with a LG0\W41 lost to a stage II SS LSJ, that had a stage III pulley, and tuining by a door, from 20-120
I should port match a LD9 intake and just see.....
Chris
'02 Z-24 Supercharged
13.7 @102.45 MPH Third Place, 2007 GMSC Bash SOLD AS OF 01MAR08
John Higgins wrote:Quote:
Chris's argument is that the engine NEEDS to be tuned for each manifold to truly prove which is a better match for the engine. Too rich or too lean will both result in lower torque at a given rpm and I don't believe Mastin gave any AFR readouts for any dyno runs with either manifold.
I do agree tuning should be done with all and any mods done, but given the fact that 90% of the people on this site do not tune, or get tuned and are looking for bolt on parts that dyno proof is perfect info. I can see tuning with the HO manifold gaining power, but I also see tuning with a stock manifold gaining power. I truly do not (never have) feel any 2.3 manifold is suited for a N/A 2.4 in stock trim. Meaning stock compression. I fully built 2.4 might show different, but until someone does it with dynoing both we will never know.
Dyno numbers would be nice Also for with and without "secret" cams.
How about we start a pool of money and get someone to try each??
wantboost wrote:John Higgins wrote:Quote:
Chris's argument is that the engine NEEDS to be tuned for each manifold to truly prove which is a better match for the engine. Too rich or too lean will both result in lower torque at a given rpm and I don't believe Mastin gave any AFR readouts for any dyno runs with either manifold.
I do agree tuning should be done with all and any mods done, but given the fact that 90% of the people on this site do not tune, or get tuned and are looking for bolt on parts that dyno proof is perfect info. I can see tuning with the HO manifold gaining power, but I also see tuning with a stock manifold gaining power. I truly do not (never have) feel any 2.3 manifold is suited for a N/A 2.4 in stock trim. Meaning stock compression. I fully built 2.4 might show different, but until someone does it with dynoing both we will never know.
Dyno numbers would be nice Also for with and without "secret" cams.
How about we start a pool of money and get someone to try each??
Yes you are correct. I have dyno before and after cams, but I also added a header and it was about a year or so between, but still only picked up 6whp. I actually have posted that info before. I agree that my dyno's are not the best examples because of time and the mods.
FU Tuning
secret cams with or with LO port match mani and TB
