Chad's MPI intake

[Lizzord30]

Just forget about HP Its kinda overrated its all about TQ curve Idealy you want alot of tq everywhere! If you can make 300tq from 2k to 6k that is better then making 300tq from 6k to 7k but almost none below 5k. More TQ at higher rpm the better if you dont loose at the mid or bottom end.

 

Basicly you want the TQ to start as low as you can without dropping off at the top end. Its all about the average tq avalible as the RPMS you want to use. Its great to have low end TQ but still have your peak TQ above 5252. That is my goel! Flat TQ starting low rpm and peak above 5252.

 

But like patra said HP is directly related to TQ.

 

Personally I think the Magan is not the best but its also pretty decent for the 2.6. Could use a larger plenum and larger ports, should note depending how the intake id modded for RWD how large the Plenum is. My one intake had a large flang and probably adds like 10% more volume for the plenum as my other magna intake.

 

Like Jsz is saying I would go with a intake that is custom once you have gone with a high flow head, Magna with high ports and no groove on the intake service for Jet valve air passages You can port the head out to have a good deal larger ports and actually decent amount larger then the magna intake could be ported. (I have this head but just port matched not the best but It will do for now).

[Funky Phil]

Most of yall just enjoy doing it wrong and then blaming it on long stoke..... Spend less time stroking your own excuses and youll make the HP. The only place a magna held a magical HP record is on this forum. GATO, FIP and EIP have been the top runners for a long while.

 

Chads seems like a nice piece but I have yet to personally test it. But from looking at it, I dont like how much the velocity stacks protrude for a boosted engine.

[Funky Phil]

Peak numbers always blind people.

[jszucs]

god dude. how on earth are you able to rationalize arguing against a math equation?????

 

read my words a few times if you need to.

 

if you increase TQ at a particular RPM, then you make more HP at that particular RPM.

 

Because of this. The relationship while fixed is not linear.

 

Why does power continue to increase after torque decreases?

Remember that the power is essentially the product of the RPM and the torque. When the torque peaks at a certain RPM and starts to drop off, the decrease is small and is not enough to offset the increasing RPM, so the overall product still increases. Eventually the decrease in torque becomes large enough that it outweighs the increase in RPM and we see the power start to drop. Because of this, the power peak will always be after the torque peak.

Edited June 4, 2013 by jszucs

[patra_is_here]

dude again, how does that invalidate my statement? 'non-linear' is not the equivalent of 'not-direct'

 

there is a direct relationship between TQ and HP because HP is a function of TQ and RPM

 

Horsepower = (Torque x Engine Speed)/5252

 

look, i'll do some super simple examples with RPM at 2000 on a very simple engine (small numbers, but valid nonetheless)

 

19 = (50 x 2000)/5252

 

22 = (60 x 2000)/5252

 

26 = (70 x 2000)/5252

 

HP increased directly as TQ increased.

now same with RPM at 7000

 

66 = (50 x 7000)/5252

 

80 =(60 x 7000)/5252

 

93 = (70 x 7000)/5252

 

now the reason we say its NON-LINEAR is because look at the gains. in our first example, we had increased the TQ by 20 and netted a 7 HP gain.

while in the second example, we increased the TQ by 20 and netted 27 HP increase.

 

now, there IS a relationship between TQ and RPM where if one is dropping at the same rate opr faster than the other is increasing so that their product remains the same or less, then of course you'd see no increase in HP. for most engines, as the RPMS go up, it's harder and harder to keep the TQ from dropping faster than RPMs are increasing, thus, HP falls off.

Edited June 5, 2013 by patra_is_here

[JAinsworth]

And how long are you two going to beat this dead horse? Take it to PMs. Jimmy

[patra_is_here]

it's directly related to the topic. chads runners vs magna runners.

[JAinsworth]

I'm not going to argue the point, take it elsewhere. You two have made it personal; enough is enough. Jimmy

[Technology]

I think it's time we pooled our money as a community and designed a new, bolt-on, sohc head with ports, valves and combustion chambers designed for high horsepower.

 

You guys really are beating a dead horse with this topic. On my car, I made nearly the same horsepower at very similar boost with the EIP intake as I did with the Magna, but with the magna, I made more torque earlier, and it fell off sooner.

 

Real world testing with proof > trying to convince someone (who can't be convinced) with a good math equation.

[patra_is_here]

oh don't think we're making it personal at all. if I was, I apologize to jzucs. I didn't feel he was making it personal towards me, so no apology needed. but i think we've exhausted all the content anyhow.

[jszucs]

I think it's time we pooled our money as a community and designed a new, bolt-on, sohc head with ports, valves and combustion chambers designed for high horsepower.

 

You guys really are beating a dead horse with this topic. On my car, I made nearly the same horsepower at very similar boost with the EIP intake as I did with the Magna, but with the magna, I made more torque earlier, and it fell off sooner.

 

Real world testing with proof > trying to convince someone (who can't be convinced) with a good math equation.

 

I fully understand the math. And completly agree with the results you will get. My issues with the equasion is after that peak torq can fall off, and HP still go up so that breaks the equasion with RPM increases. Look at a dyno of a crotch rocket making 150 HP at 17000 RPM and 25 foot pounds.

 

And I appoligies was not trying to make it person.

[Funky Phil]

yep, tq depletes as does HP. But your looking at a snapshot. Its the fact that it made 25tq (your number), and then breathes well enough to hold it all the way to 17000rpm (your number). But even then, thats only like 80hp lol

 

You have to always remember, people generally dont want HP for the number. They want thier car to be quick/fast. That means tire speed and that is directly related to engine RPM no matter how you cut it.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Funky Phil

[jszucs]

yep, tq depletes as does HP. But your looking at a snapshot. Its the fact that it made 25tq (your number), and then breathes well enough to hold it all the way to 17000rpm (your number)

 

You have to always remember, people generally dont want HP for the number. They want thier car to be quick/fast. That means tire speed and that is directly related to engine RPM no matter how you cut it.

 

I was not really trying to bring the "work" variable into it, as that hoses things up even more. I gave the crotchrocket dyno runs as an extream example of where torq plumets after peek yet you still gain HP where the math fails the real world.

 

But yes that is exactly it "You have to always remember, people generally dont want HP for the number" and this motor is made for torq and lower reves. Put as long or as short a runner as you want, as long as both flow enough your going to still bottle neck at the head, and the lack of ablity to independantly tune an intake and exaust cam.

[lionbull]

2 pages of theortical crap and the magna wins lol

[jszucs]

2 pages of theortical crap and the magna wins lol

 

No really nether win. Until we solve the weakest link (head flow and lack of ablity to contorl intake and exaust valve timing independantly) runner length is moot. There are bigger advantages to gain ether way you want to go Torq or HP in other ways.

[lionbull]

No really nether win. Until we solve the weakest link (head flow and lack of ablity to contorl intake and exaust valve timing independantly) runner length is moot. There are bigger advantages to gain ether way you want to go Torq or HP in other ways.

 

i agree on the runner length that it is moot for the g54b. Yes we cannot control cam etc. I don't know if there is a significant difference in performance

with any intake made for our cars. I think in a DOHC you can pinpoint the difference more accurately. They did a comparism between the stock 4g63 intake and all the big boy intakes. Guess which was preferred? You guessed it. the stock one because it feels good all around. The guys that race their cars on the track preferred the magnus but the stock pretty much out performed all the rest in low/midrange. Why do we think we need a better intake? We need a better head, especially the exhaust side

[jszucs]

Why do we think we need a better intake? We need a better head, especially the exhaust side

 

You know at first I though we did need a better head. There are just not really opitons. Maybe it's me growing up, and not caring any more but I am fine with living within our limits and loving the car for what it is. I guess kind of the Rolls Royce attitude..... IE how much HP does it have "sufficient" If I was limited to 400 450 I could call the sufficient.

 

And sure it was a bit harder, and might have cost allot more money to make that power range then could have been done with may other motor options..... BUT I HAVE A STARQUEST, and while there are sitll a few startquests out there... this one is mine

[Shelby]

I feel like a 69 VW bug at a Mopar Hemi car show

[SSG_CARTER]

I know this back from the tombs, but this intake flat out works, and well I might add.it’s been pushing a turbo most thought would laggy. Believe me it’s not . 

[860QuestTuner]

Is Chad still doing these?

[SSG_CARTER]

Not sure if he comes around here much anymore. I will see if I can find an email. 
The intake works great btw. 

[860QuestTuner]

Thanks, I know if stuff was prime, I had a link for him saved but doesn't work now.

[scott87star]

Tim Ennis, aka motocamTim is now selling Chad manifolds.

Edited May 10, 2022 by scott87star