VTT Tests N54 Intake Manifolds: Part 1 (center feed)

Discussion in 'N54' started by [email protected], Jan 23, 2017.

Trader History (0)
  1. As some of you guys have heard (or read), in pursuit of all things awesome, we have decided to do some testing on the recent group of N54 intake manifolds out on the market. They're all being tested on our E90 6MT GC car. Since we had all the Center feed manifolds, and they are the easiest to test, we went ahead, and did those today. We'll do the front facing for the next round. Part one of the Manifold Testing is as follows.

    Format:

    Format was as follows, 5 runs for each manifold all done as close to 160 Oil Temps as possible, with a 10 minute cool down between runs. Highest run, and lowest run are thrown out, average of 3 remaining are taken. AEM Logs were taking for each for boost reading as the MHD logs are not accurate on boost. Peak Boost, and boost at 7000RPM also highest, and lowest thrown out, average of remaining 3. Temps from all runs were done with an infrared Thermometer at the same spot on each manifold. A reading was done before each run, and right after. Again highest, and lowest thrown out, average of the remaining 3. Highest IAT reading as seen in the MHD log taken, same format highest, and lowest thrown out. We chose to use UNCORRECTED numbers for this test, and its the actual data the car putting down with no corrections done to it. As for power, and consistency. We won't even get into the fact that our GC Equipped N54 did 15 runs today, the highest was 797WHP, and not a single one was under 761WHP, It averaged almost 780WHP, with only one aborted run due to spark induced misfires. Pretty consistent for stock location turbos, DI ONLY...
    Car Details:
    2008 E90 6MT
    Open Deck, Forged Rods / Piston
    Ported head / Stock valve train
    VTT GC Turbos
    VTT Inlets / Charge pipe
    VTT DCI
    VTT Double Barrel Shotgun DI ONLY PI is not even installed on the car
    Custom LPFP Consisting of VTT Bucketless in-tank feed pump, Triple Walbro LPFP with Radium Surge Tank
    BMS Downpipes
    AD-e Intercooler
    Custom PCV System
    AEM AQ-1 Data logging system
    Tuning by V8Bait
    100% E85
    Cliff Notes:
    If anyone is interested in cliff notes before we dump data on you: The data clearly shows an intake manifold even at almost 800WHP is a poor investment as a power adder, as unbelievable as it may seem, each manifold averaged almost exactly 778WHP. So obviously power is not going to be the deciding factor here. With that in mind, of the 3, the clear winner is the stock manifold. If you want to upgrade from stock, BKC is the way to go, although fitment on the BKC is poor; basically the charge pipe is against the shock tower, and I had no where to run the rear inlet; I had to move a ton of things around etc. The BKC runs close to the same temps as stock, it does make an average of 9 more WTQ but I mean is it worth the hassle when working on the car? As for the EOS, not only does it weigh almost 3 times as much as the stock manifold, and 6.1 more than the BKC, it shows consistently higher temps, and consistently lower WTQ numbers than either of the other two. All this while needing to average almost a FULL 2 PSI more boost to make the same power, and less TQ. With no further fanfare here is the data.

    Intake Manifold Test (Center Feed)
    Stock

    StockMan.JPG
    StockDyno.jpg
    Manifold Weight ready to Run 7.4Lbs
    Power / TQ
    Run 1 – 775/758
    Run 2 – 763/740 Lifted Early Spark Break up
    Run 3 – No Reading
    Run 4 – 776/736
    Run 5 – 783/731
    Average Power / TQ – 778/742
    Boost

    Run 1 – Peak 31.55 PSI / 7000RPM 25.91 PSI
    Run 2 – Peak 30.69PSI / Aborted run due to Spark Break up
    Run 3 – Peak 30.94PSI / 7000RPM 26.12PSI No Dyno Reading
    Run 4 – Peak 30.40 / 7000RPM 25.98PSI
    Run 5 – Peak 30.25PSI / 7000RPM 25.56PSI
    Average Boost - Peak 30.67PSI / 7000RPM 25.81PSI
    Temps

    Run 1 - Peak IAT 79F / Infrared Beginning of run 68F – End of Run 71F
    Run 2 - Peak IAT 70F / Infrared Beginning of run 69F – End of Run 72F
    Run 3 - Peak IAT 77F / Infrared Beginning of run 66F – End of Run 69F
    Run 4 - Peak IAT 72F / Infrared Beginning of run 68F – End of Run 69.5F
    Run 5 - Peak IAT 72F / Infrared Beginning of run 64F – End of Run 67F
    Average Temps – Peak IAT 74.3F / Infrared Beginning of run 66.6F – End of Run 69.1F


    EOS V1
    EOS.JPG
    EOSdyno.jpg
    Manifold Weight ready to Run 17.9 Lbs
    Power / TQ
    Run 1 – 780/762
    Run 2 – 774/733
    Run 3 – 797/714
    Run 4 – 777/713
    Run 5 – 779/719
    Average Power / TQ – 778/722
    Boost

    Run 1 – Peak 33.70 PSI / 7000RPM 27.12 PSI
    Run 2 – Peak 32.55PSI / 7000RPM 27.06PSI
    Run 3 – Peak 31.98PSI / 7000RPM 27.08PSI
    Run 4 – Peak 32.21 / 7000RPM 27.42PSI
    Run 5 – Peak 32.40PSI / 7000RPM 27.54PSI
    Average Boost - Peak 32.38PSI / 7000RPM 27.20PSI
    Temps

    Run 1 - Peak IAT 97F / Infrared Beginning of run 93F – End of Run 99F
    Run 2 - Peak IAT 100F / Infrared Beginning of run 100F – End of Run 104F
    Run 3 - Peak IAT 100F / Infrared Beginning of run 102F – End of Run 106F
    Run 4 - Peak IAT 100F / Infrared Beginning of run 104F – End of Run 102F
    Run 5 - Peak IAT 100F / Infrared Beginning of run 98F – End of Run 101F
    Average Temps – Peak IAT 100F / Infrared Beginning of run 100F – End of Run 102.3F


    BKC Sheet Metal
    BKC.JPG
    BKCdyno.jpg
    Manifold Weight ready to Run 11.8 Lbs
    Power / TQ
    Run 1 – 761/753
    Run 2 – 775/752
    Run 3 – 777/747
    Run 4 – 782/741
    Run 5 – 792/756
    Average Power / TQ – 778/751
    Boost

    Run 1 – Peak 32.39 PSI / 7000RPM 26.22 PSI
    Run 2 – Peak 30.57PSI / 7000 25.48PSI
    Run 3 – Peak 29.84PSI / 7000RPM 25.41PSI
    Run 4 – Peak 29.82 / 7000RPM 25.03PSI
    Run 5 – Peak 30.85PSI / 7000RPM 25.65PSI
    Average Boost - Peak 30.42PSI / 7000RPM 25.51PSI
    Temps

    Run 1 - Peak IAT 104F / Infrared Beginning of run 81F – End of Run 86F
    Run 2 - Peak IAT 73F / Infrared Beginning of run 72F – End of Run 76F
    Run 3 - Peak IAT 72F / Infrared Beginning of run 74F – End of Run 72F
    Run 4 - Peak IAT 72F / Infrared Beginning of run 72.5F – End of Run 71.5F
    Run 5 - Peak IAT 77F / Infrared Beginning of run 68.5F – End of Run 72.5F

    Average Temps – Peak IAT 74F / Infrared Beginning of run 72.8F – End of Run 73.5F

    MHD Logs are here: http://www.datazap.me/u/vargasturbotech


    No one tests things as hard as we do. Round 2 coming up soon....

    Chris
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2017
  2. AD-ENG

    AD-ENG Specialist Vendor

    74
    What intercooler?
     
  3. Some questionable guys do our intercoolers... AD something or other. ;) Updated.
     
  4. omarmarji

    omarmarji Specialist Vendor

    96
    NY & AZ
    N54 135i
    Great work chris too bad tony is gay
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  5. doublespaces

    doublespaces Administrator

    AZ
    2009 E93 335i
    Is there any particular reason the second manifold is ran ~30* higher than the other two? Seems like that would have an impact no?
     
  6. omarmarji

    omarmarji Specialist Vendor

    96
    NY & AZ
    N54 135i
    I would assume because of the cast material
     
  7. Tony@VargasTurboTech

    [email protected] Sergeant Vendor

    We didt't run the manifold higher. That's the temp the manifold reached after warming the car up to operating temps. Meaning the EOS manifold heat soaks from the head, and held onto this extra heat the entire 5 runs. Not surprising since it is a huge hunk of cast aluminum, that weighs 18 lbs. Every manifold was tested indentical. Temp variance is due to the manifold, and its properties. Nothing else
     
  8. doublespaces

    doublespaces Administrator

    AZ
    2009 E93 335i
    So tell me how that makes the IAT's 30* higher also. If we were measuring temps after the manifold, that would make sense to me.
     
  9. omarmarji

    omarmarji Specialist Vendor

    96
    NY & AZ
    N54 135i
    +1 to what tony said
     
  10. Tony@VargasTurboTech

    [email protected] Sergeant Vendor

    Also keep in mind. We had EOS on the car already, so runs 1-5 were EOS, meaning it was the ONLY manifold that benefited from a car that sat on the dyno overnight, and was 100% cold before bringing up to 160 oil temps. The BKC got about an hour cool down for lunch, and the stock manifold only got 20 minutes cause it was an easy swap. With this in mind, it sill picked up 30 more degrees from the head, and held it through all 5 runs.
     
  11. doublespaces

    doublespaces Administrator

    AZ
    2009 E93 335i
    The manifold tmap is where the IATs are coming from right? I was thinking these were measured in the chargepipe, thats why this confused me.
     
  12. I have to say: This is a nice thread and i like your process for testing! Thumbs up!
    Do exactly this with your Turbos compared to the Turbos from your competition and you will get more sales...

    Edit: Just looked at the other logs uploaded in your Profile at datazap. There is so much interesting data, e.g. EGT, Backpressure, Anti Lag Logs etc- why don´t you share something of this with some words what you concluded?
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2017
  13. 101duck

    101duck Private

    enjoy installing the BKC forward facing.

    It's super simple (said no one ever)
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  14. jyamona

    jyamona Corporal Vendor

    Great data guys, looking forward to the FF manifolds as well.
     
  15. Terry@BMS

    [email protected] Corporal Vendor

    117
    Great data...
     
  16. cityazndan

    cityazndan Specialist

    57
    2009 335i
    Interesante...engine bling does not directly translate into great results...
     
  17. Very very badass guys
     
  18. 08_335i

    08_335i Sergeant

    254
    2008 ST 335i
    And all of a sudden that honeycomb intake is laughing in the shadows.
     
  19. V8bait

    V8bait Corporal

    One thing I noticed in the logs is the STFT's deviate more in the factory manifold at high RPM. Neither of the other 2 manifolds had as consistent of a trim deviation.

    One thing that may have hindered the EOS was limiter 512 popping up for their manifold. I don't think it affected peak power, but it could have hurt the torque down low some. I highly doubt the car would have made more than OEM down there, but just some log analysis. Must need tuning adjustments for that manifold since it has the most design changes here.

    Alternatively, anybody seen torque limit 512 before? I thought it was some sort of temp limiter, maybe the metal manifold is holding so much more heat that it's tripping this.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2017
  20. doublespaces

    doublespaces Administrator

    AZ
    2009 E93 335i
    It also appears under one of the BKC logs also. Test 3:

    fPcX2hY.png
     

Share This Page