When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
C6 Corvette ZR1 & Z06General info about GM’s Corvette Supercar, LS9 Corvette Technical Info, Performance Upgrades, Suspension Setup for Street or Track
I've been a big fan of MSD's Atomic Air Force intake manifold for the LS7 ever since the product was introduced in early 2015. I was aware the product was coming because MSD contracted out the design work and the engineering firm which developed the MSD is run by an acquaintance of mine. In talking with him back then, I knew the MSD would not have some of the FAST intake manifold's shortcomings.
I installed one of the first manifolds off MSD's production tooling back when my LS7 was stock. This was for a product review I posted to another Corvette-related forum site. I can't give the site's name or post a link because of CF rules, but I can post my chassis dyno results from back then.
Fast forward to late 2020. I still had the same MSD intake, but I had it ported and optimized by Tony Mamo, one of the few people in the country who really knows how to massage an MSD. I've known Tony for a number of years. I met him back when he was the Chief Engineer at Air Flow Research. We became acquainted, in part, because we both owned C5s. Eventually, Tony moved on from AFR and formed his own company, Mamo Motorsports, which is best described as an "air flow specialist".
Mamo Motorsports works mainly with GM Gen 3/4/5 V8s and has extensive experience with improving air flow into those engines. Mamo's core products are: aftermarket cylinder head/camshaft packages, MSD and FAST intake manifold porting and LT1/LT4 and LT5 throttle body porting. This post is focused on Mamo Motorsports' modified MSD manifolds.
This is Tony Mamo's stock of MSD manifolds. No one would have a stock of ported manifolds like this unless the product really worked.
So...what makes a "Mamofied" MSD? Once the manifold upper and lower pieces are separated, Tony's first task is to remove any casting flash from the two parts. He pays special attention to the injector bosses where flash causes fuel puddling if it blocks the injector spray.
"I have had manifolds right out of MSD boxes with half the diameter of the injector bosses blocked with casting flash," Tony told me.
The back of the MSD LS7 manifold and some C6 ZO6es will have a clearance problem between the rearmost bolt holding the two manifold halves together and the firewall. Tony removes some material from the upper and lower pieces then, when the manifold goes back together, he replaces MSD's socket head bolt and washer with a much smaller washer and a bolt with a lower and smaller-diameter pan head. In virtually all cases, those changes eliminate the clearance problem.
This is what causes this...
Mamofication is the fix.
The most labor intensive part of "Mamofication" comes next. About 75% of Tony's work on an MSD goes into reworking the last four-to-five inches of the runners. He reshapes and blends the port exits where those manifolds may have mismatches. Tony increases the runners' cross-sectional area from the now-reworked port exit back up the port runner. Tony also straightens the runners by reshaping what he calls the "hooked wall" of each one. "When I'm finished, a lot of material is removed from one of those manifolds," Tony said, "and the bulk of it comes from the reworked runners."
Before "Mamofication."
During "Mamofication".
After Mamofication
This gives you an idea of the volume of material that is removed from the manifold during "Mamofication".
104 grams is a hair under a quarter of a pound of plastic shavings.
Next, the "snout"–the area just behind the throttle body mounting–gets some attention. Tony enlarges the opening then radiuses the transition from that opening into the plenum. He finishes up the interior work by modifying the injector tunnels for smoother transitions and extra airflow. Finally, he carefully aligns the upper and lower parts of the manifold then reassembles them.
My MSD was at Mamo Motorsports for about two weeks. When I went back to Tony's to pick it up, we I sat in his office for a while and had a wide-ranging discussion about the MSD and FAST LS7 manifolds in both unmodified and ported forms.
"If you compare the quality of the two manifolds right out of the box–the fit and finish of each–the MSD is not as good as the FAST," Tony told me. "The build quality of the FAST is better, however–and this is a big 'however'–once you get past the QC issues and into the performance 'meat-and-potatoes' of the two; MSD is the clear winner. Right out of the box, the MSD makes more power than the FAST and, in ported trim, the performance gap between the two gets even wider.
The MSD is good and Tony says that his work can make it noticeably better.
"The runners in the FAST, each of which has more of a hook at the entrance, are just not as good," Tony continued. "The MSD runners, especially after I rework them, end up straighter and a little shorter. Those improvements make for a more direct path to the back of the intake valve, a key enabler of increased air flow.
"In short, the MSD for LS7s is just a better design and, once it has been properly modified, a Mamo-ported MSD out-performs a Mamo-ported FAST. There is a significant bump in performance across the entire power curve. On a stock engine, at peak power, it can be 18 to 20 horsepower.
"All my modifications," Tony states, "further improve the MSD's already better runner and plenum design making my ported manifold a clear winner on the dyno and at the track," Mamo adds. "While it takes a lot of work–tricks and techniques I've spent five years developing–when I'm done, the larger, straighter, more streamlined runners compound all the good things found in the basic MSD design.
"My modified MSDs are a great horsepower-per-dollar upgrade for an LS7–especially since it's a mod a DIY can install in an afternoon. On just an average heads/cam LS7, most of my customers see a 30-35 horsepower gain at the rear wheels. With more aggressive engine combos, having more cylinder head work and larger cams, customers have seen increases of over 40 horsepower at the tire."
At this point, because the PC laptop I use for calibration work died, I have not finished tuning my engine for my "Mamofied" MSD. As a result I have yet to run on a chassis dyno. When I have data, I'll add it to this article. I placed a build-to-order for a Panasonic Toughbook 55. Supply chain problems have delayed its availability.
What I do have now is some interesting engine dyno data Tony gave me. It's from a test of a "fairly mild" heads/cam/headers LS7 of about 600-hp. It was a "back-to-back" test of a "Mamofied" FAST and a Mamofied MSD. I think the numbers are both impressive and favor the MSD.
Last edited by Hib Halverson; 04-29-2021 at 02:59 PM.
Reason: fixed spelling errors
Thanks for sharing Hib. Has he ever tried a shorter runner?
Hib,
Thanks for all the time invested in the write up and taking the time to visit with me as well. I really appreciate all the effort
JMB, to answer your question I have not because it would take alot of time to do one correctly and its a really limited market. Once opened up and ported properly the standard length runner (which is already shorter than the FAST) will make really good power even to 7500 RPM with really impressive low and midrange torque output also.
A shorter runner doesnt make a manifold better.....in fact the losses from shortening a runner are usually significant over a broader operating range than the gains seen at the top and it would require an engine that was spun pretty high to make it a worthwhile swap at the track.
I feel most people don't realize that shortening a runner comes with significant tradeoffs in part throttle response and lower and midrange power but it certainly does.
That said if you are mainly focused on higher RPM operation and you have a deep breathing set-up with a properly sorted valvetrain that can effectively spin to 7800 RPM a short runner manifold might net you some gains on the dragstrip if you spin it high.
I have that build we are trying to get numbers now with in Nor Cal that has my standard runner length ported MSD and we may try a shorter runner version on that build once we finally sort out the dyno traction issues he is having in its current configuration.
If you mainly road race or street drive the car and tend the keep the RPMs in the low 7K range or less, one of my ported standard length runners is the best intake for overall performance hands down.
You give up too much in the middle and wont have enough RPM to take advantage of where the shorter runner length helps you in those types of applications
This is a reasonably good example of what Im describing.....this is the FAST LS3 with interchangeable runners on the same engine.
Red line power curve is obviously the longer runner....green line is a mid-length and the blue line is a short runner. This comparison shows the dynamics of what I was trying to describe
As the runner shortens, low and midrange torque is compromised and it makes a little more peak and carries better past peak.
The shortest runner in this example really needs to be closer to 9000 RPM's to show a better gain over the medium length runner but check out the losses in the middle of the curve from both of the shorter runners....its fairly significant
There is usually "no free lunch" in this hobby.....gains almost always come with trade offs and playing with intake manifold runner lengths is a perfect example of that situation in practice (no different than larger cams hurting lower RPM performance).
For a more selective unique crowd that has the right set-up to take advantage of it, the shorter runner might make sense if executed properly, but for the majority of the folks reading this, the ported standard length runner is going to make the car alot more fun to drive.
It would be much more explosive in the RPM's that most of you primarily street driving will appreciate from the added torque in the bottom and middle of the curve....and the part throttle response and tip in is better with the longer runner also (engine is simply more efficient in the lower RPM operating range)
Thanks for sharing Hib. Has he ever tried a shorter runner?
Hib,
Thanks for all the time invested in the write up and taking the time to visit with me as well. I really appreciate all the effort
JMB, to answer your question I have not because it would take alot of time to do one correctly and its a really limited market. Once opened up and ported properly the standard length runner (which is already shorter than the FAST) will make really good power even to 7500 RPM with really impressive low and midrange torque output also.
A shorter runner doesnt make a manifold better.....in fact the losses from shortening a runner are usually significant over a broader operating range than the gains seen at the top and it would require an engine that was spun pretty high to make it a worthwhile swap at the track.
I feel most people don't realize that shortening a runner comes with significant tradeoffs in part throttle response and lower and midrange power but it certainly does.
That said if you are mainly focused on higher RPM operation and you have a deep breathing set-up with a properly sorted valvetrain that can effectively spin to 7800 RPM a short runner manifold might net you some gains on the dragstrip if you spin it high.
I have that build we are trying to get numbers now with in Nor Cal that has my standard runner length ported MSD and we may try a shorter runner version on that build once we finally sort out the dyno traction issues he is having in its current configuration.
If you mainly road race or street drive the car and tend the keep the RPMs in the low 7K range or less, one of my ported standard length runners is the best intake for overall performance hands down.
You give up too much in the middle and wont have enough RPM to take advantage of where the shorter runner length helps you in those types of applications
This is a reasonably good example of what Im describing.....this is the FAST LS3 with interchangeable runners on the same engine.
Red line power curve is obviously the longer runner....green line is a mid-length and the blue line is a short runner. This comparison shows the dynamics of what I was trying to describe
As the runner shortens, low and midrange torque is compromised and it makes a little more peak and carries better past peak.
The shortest runner in this example really needs to be closer to 9000 RPM's to show a better gain over the medium length runner but check out the losses in the middle of the curve from both of the shorter runners....its fairly significant
There is usually "no free lunch" in this hobby.....gains almost always come with trade offs and playing with intake manifold runner lengths is a perfect example of that situation in practice (no different than larger cams hurting lower RPM performance).
For a more selective unique crowd that has the right set-up to take advantage of it, the shorter runner might make sense if executed properly, but for the majority of the folks reading this, the ported standard length runner is going to make the car alot more fun to drive.
It would be much more explosive in the RPM's that most of you primarily street driving will appreciate from the added torque in the bottom and middle of the curve....and the part throttle response and tip in is better with the longer runner also (engine is simply more efficient in the lower RPM operating range)
Anyway....hope this helps
Regards,
Tony
Last edited by Tony @ Mamo Motorsports; 04-28-2021 at 12:27 AM.
Thanks for sharing Hib. Has he ever tried a shorter runner?
You'd have to ask Tony Mamo that. All I can say is that, in theory, a shorter runner might be of value if the engine's torque band and peak moves upwards. That's because a shorter intake runner resonates at a higher RPM. My belief is for an street or street/track engine of about 600hp with a 7100 rev limit, the MSD manifold runner length is good as-is. I think shortening the runners would give away too much in the low-mid-range to mid-range.
On the other hand, if you were making 650-700, peak power was 7800 or so, your rev limit was 8000 and your peak torque is 1000-1500 RPM higher, then, yeah, shortening the runners in the MSD might make sense, but....that's my speculation.
To know for sure, ask Tony Mamo.
Last edited by Hib Halverson; 04-28-2021 at 11:47 AM.
Check out the dyno sheets I posted. Interested to know your comments.
Ok, I'll bite.
I think the data you presented–659rwhp–definitely gets some attention on first glance.
I feel that once someone studies it for a while, it is not as informative as it could be because we know little about how the engine used to acquire the data was configured. We have little useful RPM data. Rear wheel speed is not of much value unless we, also, know the axle ratio, the tire height and the gear in which the car was in...all facts one would need to "math-out" the RPM. We also don't have any information as to what correction factor (ie: no correction, standard-corrected or SAE-corrected) had been selected in WinPep during those runs. There also is not air:fuel ratio data.
I think your "information" is presented in a form which can convince less-technically astute observers that shortening intake runners is the "be-all/end-all" for all LS7s which it is, decidedly, not.
I am not as concerned about what peak rear wheel power the car makes as much as I am about what the torque curve looks like with RPM as one scale and torque as the other. Power numbers are more for bullshiting and bragging. While I'm just as guilty as the next guy of bragging sometimes, I also believe that torque vs. RPM numbers tell us more about how the engine will perform in the "real world".
You talk about "explosive" power and that can be a good thing from an engine that is run in a narrow RPM band and with a transmission having narrow ratio spreads, ie: drag racing...but try an engine like that on a road race track and you may find an "explosive" power curve can be very hard to drive if quick lap times are the goal. It also can make for a car that's a handful on the street.
I think you need to learn to use the WinPep software to output digital files of the data then convert them to images rather than trying to use a phone to take a picture of the data on the dyno operator's computer display. Do that and your information will be presented far more professionally.
I noted the dyno operator had 0 SAE Smoothing selected. In that case, the jaggedness of the power and torque curves near their peaks suggests the engine may have been seeing getting some knock retard. Were you taking engine controls data during the testing? If so, was there any knock retard?
I know the person who designed that intake for MSD and he's forgotten more about air flow than most of the rest of us will ever know. With the MSD Atomic Air Force intake manifold, the goal was not a racing manifold for LS7s turning significantly higher RPM than stock and producing significantly higher power numbers than stock. It was to have an intake manifold that would improve torque output of a stock or mildly-modified engine with an RPM range about the same as stock. If MSD had wanted a racing manifold for LS7s turning 7800-8000 RPM, the guy who designed it could have easily adjusted runner length to support that operating regime. There is plenty of power/torque data out there that indicates the MSD out of the box does that and that Tony Mamo's MSDs are good for an even greater improvement.
I think in some situations, shorter runner length might be a plus, but for an LS7 like mine (600-hp at the flywheel and a 7100 RPM rev limit) it would be a poor choice.
I think you have hijacked my thread about what Mamo Motorsports does in an attempt to market your short runner manifolds. That is inappropriate and unprofessional.
I'm surprised that the Corvette Forum moderators have not "zinged" you for marketing your product in a thread I started about an existing Supporting Vendo's product without you being a Supporting Vendor yourself.
Finally, I challenge you:
1) Tell us how you determine the ideal runner length.
2) Send me one of your modified, short-runner manifolds to examine. Don't start with one of Tony's. Start with an MSD right out of the box and let me see just your work. I'll return the manifold afterwards.
3) Become a CF Supporting Vendor and start your own thread(s) to market your product.
Hib what’s wrong with DaZ06 presenting a different look of what the MSD is capable of?
I personally love that he’s testing these things and modifying them to suit different builds that may require a slightly shorter runner to maximize power. In fact, I’ll be throwing one on my build soon to see what she does vs. a Mamo MSD and guess what...Tony is totally down and open to seeing what it will do! Tony is even going to port the short runner version as well, so it will be a true test of what works best on my build.
A short runner MSD is simply NOT the best choice for all builds. I’m pretty sure DaZ06 made that clear so again I’m not sure why your so worked up about him posting here. Guess I’m missing something...
I do not think @Da Z06 was hijacking this thread or trying to advertise his product over Tony's, he was just adding his feedback onto the thread. It is very important to match the entire system together to make optimal power (intake, everything inside the engine, exhaust), the short runner is clearly not for everyone. What we can conclude is that the MSD (regardless of the version) is a far superior intake compared to a lot of the competition, and @Tony Mamo @ AFR does very good work to improve an already good intake manifold. Our first in-vehicle LS7 track attack camshaft featured one of his modified intake manifolds, and he pulled all the way to 7100 RPM (flattened out well past 7100).
I'd be really curious to see if the runner length from the short runner mod is the culprit for achieving larger power from the big power combos, or if it is actually the increase in plenum volume due to removing a chunk of the runner. Maybe even a combination of both. One of the key improvements from stock to MSD is the additional plenum volume, specifically around the runners. Cutting the runners down shorter give you even more volume, so that volume likely becomes a restriction again on the big power applications.
Very nice thread, there is a lot of good data and discussion happening.
Last edited by Katech_Zach; 04-29-2021 at 02:23 PM.
Hib what’s wrong with DaZ06 presenting a different look of what the MSD is capable of?(snip)
I was pretty clear...at least I thought I was...when expressing my opinion and those opinions explained what I thought was "wrong".
Originally Posted by Katech_Zach
I do not think @Da Z06 was hijacking this thread or trying to advertise his product over Tony's, he was just adding his feedback onto the thread.(snip)
As we both know, Zach, the "Master Engine Builders" at Katech have freakin' awesome resources for testing.
I challenge Katech to test a "Mamofied" MSD against one of "DaZ06es" manifolds...as long as "DaZ06" shows us what he can do by starting with a new MSD and not one someone else has already ported...on one of its Street Attack LS7s.
Then post the results for all to read.
Last edited by Hib Halverson; 04-29-2021 at 05:11 PM.
To be clear - I'm not a vendor, nor own any business associated with "mechanic" work as I have my "office" job and my time is very, very, very limited so I pick and choose when and who do I help with any type of intake manifold work. The modification I do is for friends and friends of friends who are looking for another option in regards to their intake manifold. So, I'm not here to sell anything or make money as what the individuals who wants it pretty much covers my expenses for material, electricity and shipping back and forward. I do not seek or advertise and those who choose to reach out to me do so voluntarily.
My intent was not to hijack the thread but to comment and inject some information in support/contribution of the thread.
To answer a few of your quick questions: The car with the "665RWHP" is a 2008 C6Z, 100% SBE. Stock casting heads ported by Greg Good, Hydraulic Cam spec'd by me, and the standard array of bolt-ons with ARH 2" headers. By the way, all gearing (trans/diff) were stock at the time of dyno. The car is not associated with any shop, brand or vendor.
MSD made a great intake but with compromises such as plenum volume, runner length, packaging etc. that is tailored/designed to a wide range of combinations dealing with stock to all out modified and it works. I take that same package and modify it to meet an specific requirement similar to a "custom" sheet metal intake fab to work specifically within a set of parameters. So, the same intake that may work for combination #1 may not be as effective in combination #2; yet, it will out perform the original design. Not cookie cutter approach, just like selecting a camshaft that when well spec'd will gain so much more than an "off the shelf" cam.
Of note: The second dyno I posted (612RW vs 643RW) is a Mamo Ported MSD (612RW) vs the same intake with the modified runners (643RW). This one belongs to a very well respected individual known by you all. This intake went 15x MPH in the 1/4 on a C6Z all motor, LS7. Within that one example, its clear that there were no losses down low and the modified intake showing its potential by early in the midrange.
A "short runner" is not for everyone that is for sure and its trial and error but when you can put all the data together it has the potential to bring the combination together and make great power.
You talk about "explosive" power and that can be a good thing from an engine that is run in a narrow RPM band and with a transmission having narrow ratio spreads, ie: drag racing...but try an engine like that on a road race track and you may find an "explosive" power curve can be very hard to drive if quick lap times are the goal. It also can make for a car that's a handful on the street.
.
Nice write up.
So true. All you need to see a few times is 400 WHP C5 or C6 Corvette NASA ST2 class road course racing cars going around big power cars like the big power cars are dragging telephone poles.
I am not sure I have ever driven a car with an engine that made power so predictably from low RPM as the 440 Tony did for me. Of course it had his massaged MSD on it. Easy to drive, even for me, and fast.
This next version, which should be here in a few weeks, with his reworked heads and SR cam allowing me to keep it in gear longer and avoid having to shift as often should be even better. Keeping the same "Mamofied" MSD on it.
I think the data you presented–659rwhp–definitely gets some attention on first glance.
I feel that once someone studies it for a while, it is not as informative as it could be because we know little about how the engine used to acquire the data was configured. We have little useful RPM data. Rear wheel speed is not of much value unless we, also, know the axle ratio, the tire height and the gear in which the car was in...all facts one would need to "math-out" the RPM. We also don't have any information as to what correction factor (ie: no correction, standard-corrected or SAE-corrected) had been selected in WinPep during those runs. There also is not air:fuel ratio data.
I think your "information" is presented in a form which can convince less-technically astute observers that shortening intake runners is the "be-all/end-all" for all LS7s which it is, decidedly, not.
I am not as concerned about what peak rear wheel power the car makes as much as I am about what the torque curve looks like with RPM as one scale and torque as the other. Power numbers are more for bullshiting and bragging. While I'm just as guilty as the next guy of bragging sometimes, I also believe that torque vs. RPM numbers tell us more about how the engine will perform in the "real world".
You talk about "explosive" power and that can be a good thing from an engine that is run in a narrow RPM band and with a transmission having narrow ratio spreads, ie: drag racing...but try an engine like that on a road race track and you may find an "explosive" power curve can be very hard to drive if quick lap times are the goal. It also can make for a car that's a handful on the street.
I think you need to learn to use the WinPep software to output digital files of the data then convert them to images rather than trying to use a phone to take a picture of the data on the dyno operator's computer display. Do that and your information will be presented far more professionally.
I noted the dyno operator had 0 SAE Smoothing selected. In that case, the jaggedness of the power and torque curves near their peaks suggests the engine may have been seeing getting some knock retard. Were you taking engine controls data during the testing? If so, was there any knock retard?
I know the person who designed that intake for MSD and he's forgotten more about air flow than most of the rest of us will ever know. With the MSD Atomic Air Force intake manifold, the goal was not a racing manifold for LS7s turning significantly higher RPM than stock and producing significantly higher power numbers than stock. It was to have an intake manifold that would improve torque output of a stock or mildly-modified engine with an RPM range about the same as stock. If MSD had wanted a racing manifold for LS7s turning 7800-8000 RPM, the guy who designed it could have easily adjusted runner length to support that operating regime. There is plenty of power/torque data out there that indicates the MSD out of the box does that and that Tony Mamo's MSDs are good for an even greater improvement.
I think in some situations, shorter runner length might be a plus, but for an LS7 like mine (600-hp at the flywheel and a 7100 RPM rev limit) it would be a poor choice.
I think you have hijacked my thread about what Mamo Motorsports does in an attempt to market your short runner manifolds. That is inappropriate and unprofessional.
I'm surprised that the Corvette Forum moderators have not "zinged" you for marketing your product in a thread I started about an existing Supporting Vendo's product without you being a Supporting Vendor yourself.
Finally, I challenge you:
1) Tell us how you determine the ideal runner length.
2) Send me one of your modified, short-runner manifolds to examine. Don't start with one of Tony's. Start with an MSD right out of the box and let me see just your work. I'll return the manifold afterwards.
3) Become a CF Supporting Vendor and start your own thread(s) to market your product.
Sad that you got bent out of shape over DA Zo6 trying to add value to the MSD intake and this post. At zero time did i see him peddle that he was selling these and how much each set was or actually any money or price at all for that matter? Actually you proved that by saying his pictures and data was unimpressive and unprofessional. So you kinda said it yourself lol. To be honest what i think he is trying to do is get Tony involved in taking a look if there is any added value "on top" of Tony's MSD work. Just sayin'.......
I’m a very happy customer of Tony’s with his mamofied MSD on my C6Z06. The man did great work, was timely, fairly priced, and the most constructive to talk to.
I dont mind a discussion about other ways to skin a cat regarding engine mods so to speak but lets cut Hibb some slack here as he is a major contributor and asset to this forum.
The guy invested alot of time visiting my facility twice (an hours drive each way) to write and photograph this "story" if you will. This is the kind of write up that's very detailed and benefits the community. And also Im just going to say it.....lets not pretend DAZ06 isn't selling these intakes with the shortened runners because he certainly is.
Hell my customer Ryan (sicvette) recently bought one (it certainly wasn't "gifted" to him) and we did discuss testing it on the dyno against my standard length ported MSD intake manifold which I'm still confident benefits the majority of the folks reading this based on its design parameters and some of the things Hibb touched on also.
That said all along I have been very forthcoming about the fact some aggressive combos could benefit from the shorter runner length and Ryan's build is certainly a great candidate for a shorter runner to shine so as soon as we get some real dyno data with the car dialed in with the current intake manifold in place you guys will have the opportunity to see what the shorter runners can do but I will be personally very surprised to see a curve that's just better across the board with the shorter runner intake.
Speak to Richard Holdener (extremely knowledgeable engine builder / writer / author with a large YouTube following) and Steve Brule (20 years Westech Dyno operator) and other true experts in this field that dyno hundreds of engines and year and play with this sort of thing all the time (and have had the opportunity to specifically conduct testing related to manifold runner length changes) and they will all agree that 95% of the time a shorter runner will move the curve to the right at the expense of what's to the left. Its always a trade off of some kind....the question is how much do you give up versus what your gaining and that can vary widely. You have to evaluate how the runner change effects the average power in the usable RPM of the engine factoring in your gear spread and the drop in RPM from each gear change.
And for the record.....if I saw an extremely detailed thread like this started (with obvious serious time invested like what Hib did here) and that thread was highlighting another person or another vendors product, even if I felt I had a competing product that was "better" or I had some things to share regarding counter points I simply wouldn't have done so....I would have steered clear of the thread and trust me I have been in this position MANY times.
I would prefer to start my own or hop on a Mamo Motorsports product related thread to discuss the merits of my approach and why I think it might benefit some folks but hey....that's just how I would handle it.
-Tony
Last edited by Tony @ Mamo Motorsports; 04-30-2021 at 10:35 AM.
I dont mind a discussion about other ways to skin a cat regarding engine mods so to speak but lets cut Hibb some slack here as he is a major contributor and asset to this forum.
The guy invested alot of time visiting my facility twice (an hours drive each way) to write and photograph this "story" if you will. This is the kind of write up that's very detailed and benefits the community. And also Im just going to say it.....lets not pretend DAZ06 isn't selling these intakes with the shortened runners because he certainly is.
Hell my customer Ryan (sicvette) recently bought one (it certainly wasn't "gifted" to him) and we did discuss testing it on the dyno against my standard length ported MSD intake manifold which I'm still confident benefits the majority of the folks reading this based on its design parameters and some of the things Hibb touched on also.
That said all along I have been very forthcoming about the fact some aggressive combos could benefit from the shorter runner length and Ryan's build is certainly a great candidate for a shorter runner to shine so as soon as we get some real dyno data with the car dialed in with the current intake manifold in place you guys will have the opportunity to see what the shorter runners can do but I will be personally very surprised to see a curve that's just better across the board with the shorter runner intake.
Speak to Richard Holdener (extremely knowledgeable engine builder / writer / author with a large YouTube following) and Steve Brule (20 years Westech Dyno operator) and other true experts in this field that dyno hundreds of engines and year and play with this sort of thing all the time (and have had the opportunity to specifically conduct testing related to manifold runner length changes) and they will all agree that 95% of the time a shorter runner will move the curve to the right at the expense of what's to the left. Its always a trade off of some kind....the question is how much do you give up versus what your gaining and that can vary widely. You have to evaluate how the runner change effects the average power in the usable RPM of the engine factoring in your gear spread and the drop in RPM from each gear change.
And for the record.....if I saw an extremely detailed thread like this started (with obvious serious time invested like what Hib did here) and that thread was highlighting another person or another vendors product, even if I felt I had a competing product that was "better" or I had some things to share regarding counter points I simply wouldn't have done so....I would have steered clear of the thread and trust me I have been in this position MANY times.
I would prefer to start my own or hop on a Mamo Motorsports product related thread to discuss the merits of my approach and why I think it might benefit some folks but hey....that's just how I would handle it.
-Tony
Tony,
Correct - they are not free just like anything in life. They just cover my expenses and I assure you, what they cover is ALOT less what you charge for your porting, and comparatively enough not even 50% of what a shop would charge for the work/hours invested. By the way, Ryan has not paid a dime to me to get it done so not sure that misinformation you are spreading around. One thing I do Tony, is that I chose and pick who I help with my work so we can scratch that one as it will not happen.
Coincidentally enough Tony, I have spoke to Mr. Richard Holdener who is an expert and shared ideas, dyno sheets and other technical data and he is/was extremely impressed on the results. So are other prominent engineers who are nationally known for their contribution to the motorsports industry/community and other airflow experts who have been very, very excited on the results and data I provided.
Its obvious that there was an agenda with the opening of this thread by OP/MMS - it should of been openly noted that it was an "INFOMERCIAL" post not a technical post for all to comment, share, and contribute. Like that it will keep individuals from posting their own technical findings and just limited to nutswingers posting.
04-27-2021, 07:18 PM
"Mamofied" MSD Manifold Deep Dive
