Skunk2 BP intake manifold
11-08-2017 | 09:11 PM
#122
Senior Member
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 1,119
Total Cats: 166
From: Austin, TX
0
11-08-2017 | 10:58 PM
#125
Oh and random s2 intake speculation here....pick whatever
2
11-17-2017 | 06:21 PM
#126
Newb
Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 10
Total Cats: -1
From: Horn Lake, Ms
For $400 it doesn't seem like a bad buy considering squaretops tend to be more expensive except for the one unicorn on Ebay.
0
11-17-2017 | 10:42 PM
#127
Newb
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 13
Total Cats: 1
I've got currently 18 Squaretop Manifolds Stateside if anyone needs one...have really been holding off making any posts about them for the longest time however I think it is probably time to flood the market with them at this point...so much for the "hard to find"...
0
11-17-2017 | 10:45 PM
#128
I've got currently 18 Squaretop Manifolds Stateside if anyone needs one...have really been holding off making any posts about them for the longest time however I think it is probably time to flood the market with them at this point...so much for the "hard to find"...
0
11-17-2017 | 11:13 PM
#129
I've got currently 18 Squaretop Manifolds Stateside if anyone needs one...have really been holding off making any posts about them for the longest time however I think it is probably time to flood the market with them at this point...so much for the "hard to find"...
__________________
1
11-18-2017 | 08:12 AM
#130
Newb
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 16
Total Cats: -3
Great results! (By this I mean real world results) I would consider this or a flattop on my 01 swapped 94 for simplicity's sake especially if it makes more FI.
0
11-19-2017 | 11:42 AM
#131
A few more hp between 7000-8000 just like the stock engine. The difference was the S2 lost a bunch of midrange in the process. That surprised us.
The plot line you see above the rest in the midrange is the square top. We repeated it a few times heat soaked and it stayed within 2whp. Of note was the way the S2 died at 7700. We had the fuel cut set at 8100 for the S2. The square top kept pulling past where the S2 nosed over so we bumped the limiter to 8300. This again, surprised us. While the S2 clearly flows more at peak, it does so only in a narrow rpm band then chokes. Perhaps that is the result of careful 2nd order resonance optimization but lower average velocity? That's the same type of thing with intake ports with big CFM numbers but low velocity. One big dyno peak but nothing before or after.
We saw the S2 gain about 6whp for an 800rpm window up high but lost the same 6whp over 1400rpm in the midrange. For a 6 spd car, it could be personal preference either way. For a 5 spd car with the wider ratios, the square top would be faster.
No gains form the spacers. We're putting the square top back on for Super Lap this week. So N/A at least, we're not seeing much to get excited about. How about those used square top price fluctuations?
It will be a few weeks before we get it on Bullet with the TSE EFR6258 kit. Based on these results though, I'm not expecting any gains there either.
The plot line you see above the rest in the midrange is the square top. We repeated it a few times heat soaked and it stayed within 2whp. Of note was the way the S2 died at 7700. We had the fuel cut set at 8100 for the S2. The square top kept pulling past where the S2 nosed over so we bumped the limiter to 8300. This again, surprised us. While the S2 clearly flows more at peak, it does so only in a narrow rpm band then chokes. Perhaps that is the result of careful 2nd order resonance optimization but lower average velocity? That's the same type of thing with intake ports with big CFM numbers but low velocity. One big dyno peak but nothing before or after.
We saw the S2 gain about 6whp for an 800rpm window up high but lost the same 6whp over 1400rpm in the midrange. For a 6 spd car, it could be personal preference either way. For a 5 spd car with the wider ratios, the square top would be faster.
No gains form the spacers. We're putting the square top back on for Super Lap this week. So N/A at least, we're not seeing much to get excited about. How about those used square top price fluctuations?
It will be a few weeks before we get it on Bullet with the TSE EFR6258 kit. Based on these results though, I'm not expecting any gains there either.
0
11-20-2017 | 01:32 AM
#132
ʎpunq qoq
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 604
Total Cats: 201
From: Western Australia
I don't think it's the intake manifold choking the flow at high rpm, it's the cams. The small variance between the flat top and the S2 is just different locations of harmonics rather than any sort of flow restriction through the manifold. To me it doesn't look like the cams are very big considering the minimal harmonic movement and also the power is nosing down so early. Maybe 264 degree or something around that. The cams would need to be up nearer to the 300 degree range to get the power to continue pushing up past 8000 where it needs be for this manifold to flow.... then again maybe the curved runners just aren't working.
I think the conclusions are still good though. This manifold won't really do much on a typical N/A build but it's basically on par with a flat top. On a purpose built race engine targeting max power maybe it starts to work, but then it will still need everything pushed to the limits to be better than a flat top and then at that point a modified Honda S2 with it's straight runners or large ITBs would be better again.
I think the conclusions are still good though. This manifold won't really do much on a typical N/A build but it's basically on par with a flat top. On a purpose built race engine targeting max power maybe it starts to work, but then it will still need everything pushed to the limits to be better than a flat top and then at that point a modified Honda S2 with it's straight runners or large ITBs would be better again.
0
11-20-2017 | 09:10 AM
#133
Agreed. The radically curved runners are not doing the S2 manifold any favors. At the point where it is starting to flow one would probably be better off building a straight runner manifold from scratch.
On a side note we have decided not to do the turbo evaluation. As I doubt anyone else will ever perform controlled testing the world will just have to remain guessing. Based on what I've learned about manifolds I would expect it to have essentially the same effect that it did on our normally-aspirated builds. That is to say, my guess is no useful gains with F/I.
On a side note we have decided not to do the turbo evaluation. As I doubt anyone else will ever perform controlled testing the world will just have to remain guessing. Based on what I've learned about manifolds I would expect it to have essentially the same effect that it did on our normally-aspirated builds. That is to say, my guess is no useful gains with F/I.
__________________
0
11-20-2017 | 09:17 AM
#134
I agree. No disappointment from this mt.netter! Once again thanks for taking the time to evaluate this product and give the community some data driven results. I hope going forward everyone puts this amount of detail into their product lines(the detail you put into dynoing that is). Disappointed in Skunk2 or whatever they are called.
0
11-20-2017 | 03:50 PM
#136
Newb
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 23
Total Cats: 1
From: In the Cloud
Because taking a quick picture or saying anything specific about the cuts required for installation is hard, here's the info on mounting this to the NB2 head.
The problem is the frontmost upper stud hole. The extra height there for compatibility between heads is too high for the FPR on the NB2 fuel rail. I imagine the story's the same on the NB1. The (laughably useless) thicker gasket would reduce the severity of cut required, but generally speaking on the NB2 you can just cut off the whole top stud hole there.
The problem is the frontmost upper stud hole. The extra height there for compatibility between heads is too high for the FPR on the NB2 fuel rail. I imagine the story's the same on the NB1. The (laughably useless) thicker gasket would reduce the severity of cut required, but generally speaking on the NB2 you can just cut off the whole top stud hole there.
1
11-20-2017 | 04:08 PM
#138
Newb
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 23
Total Cats: 1
From: In the Cloud
Eh, just used what I was given. Not my engine or car. :>
If it needs to be swapped out later so be it. It's a pretty easy job.
If it needs to be swapped out later so be it. It's a pretty easy job.
0
11-25-2017 | 03:16 AM
#139
Agreed. The radically curved runners are not doing the S2 manifold any favors. At the point where it is starting to flow one would probably be better off building a straight runner manifold from scratch.
On a side note we have decided not to do the turbo evaluation. As I doubt anyone else will ever perform controlled testing the world will just have to remain guessing. Based on what I've learned about manifolds I would expect it to have essentially the same effect that it did on our normally-aspirated builds. That is to say, my guess is no useful gains with F/I.
On a side note we have decided not to do the turbo evaluation. As I doubt anyone else will ever perform controlled testing the world will just have to remain guessing. Based on what I've learned about manifolds I would expect it to have essentially the same effect that it did on our normally-aspirated builds. That is to say, my guess is no useful gains with F/I.
I am tracking with the curved runner, but come on.
-18
11-25-2017 | 03:22 AM
#140
Or you could pony up for a manifold and dyno time, instead of bitching on the internet, which is free. From what I see (being an owner of a squaretop boosted built motor) what Emilio has projected for the outcome of that dyno test is spot on, and were it my money, I wouldn't spend it.
1
