Does proof exists that the HO intake manifold and TB make any more HP over a stock 2.4 intake and 56mm TB. I know that the LO with a 56mm is by far worse than my stock intake manifold with a 56mm TB. I ran .6-.8 sec slower in the 1/4 mile, and when I went back to previous setup. I ran my normal track times. 15.5, 87.8 mph

Does anyone or has anyone dyno'ed the HO. I looked and looked and looked through out the archives and found plenty of.
"Yeah the butt dyno feels great."
"It made a improvement....but I have not went to the track or the dyno."
"It feels better on the street."
All this doesn't cut it for me. Can someone without any opinion prove or disprove that the HO makes more power. 1/4 miles before and after dyno's anything. There was a GUY who said he was going to do it, did he?

Can anyone stand behind their statement of YES it made more, and here is WHY it made more power.

I'm tired of people posting it is a greatest mod, when to my knowledge no one can prove it. Or can you guys prove it. Also I have seen tons of post related to the LO about one guy dyno'ing it and getting a 11 HP gain....but he never posted a dyno graph.
Hell my old type-r floor mats gave me 28.6 whp. I'll post the graphs later.






PRND321 Till I DIE
Old Motor: 160whp & 152ft/lbs, 1/4 Mile 15.4 @88.2
M45 + LD9 + 4T40-E, GO GO GO

well you dont you find out yourself if it does or not? i mean you are the one asking this question



Im a Xbox 360 fanboy...and damn proud of it!!

Quote:

can you guys prove it

thats a rediculus question....one f the main reasons the HOquad makes more power than the LO quad is because of the bigger manifolds..that should make the answer simple for you
....by your above statement i should take my mani off my quad and put a 2.4 intake on it and ill increase my track times?....i dont think ill even waste my time doing that lol

For boost, its usually the prefered manifold to use.

But the consensus now is basically for looks and sound.

Esp, if there are no other mods done to the car.

Also,
To really get the effect, you have to get a custom port match on the mani itself.
Or
Do the porting like on the instructional sites around the web....AND port your cylinderhead too.
They leave out the cylinderhead part of it. But that's whatyou gotta do to get everything lines up correctly.

Of course if you do it that way, now you have a larger opening on the head, and that changes things slightly.
But still not enough to have poof of one over the other.

So maybe you can get some official, official numbers going for all our sakes.

-M


Remember....syringes go in the RED waste basket.

I don't have dyno proof but I shot a 50 shot of nitrous through both the stock plastic manifold with the stock tb and then through the 56mm tb and the HO mani and the HO mani definately had a lot more kick! A very noticable difference. A friend of mine thought I upped the shot.



Scott

When I boost, you boost, we boost
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You have been banned from NEJBODY.
You've displayed wayyy too many acts of pushing people to their limits.
It's never cool to tear people down for what they want to do.
NEJBODY is a team. We're not the same as JBO where everyone bashes on eachother.
I'm surprised you show up to our meets after half of the things you say on here.

Well, this may not be an answer to does it make more power, but a brief explanation why it should.

The HO intake should make more power, because of the additional plenum volume and shorter runners. This provides a greater volume of air to help out the HP at the upper rpms. The downside here is, that greater volume also generates lower velocity at the lower rpms. The loss of velocity at the lower rpms causes a loss of torque, which is what gets you off the line. This is why those with the manual trannies launch at such high rpms, to get up to the torque band. When you install that Yank TC, it will help get you up into that torque band for a quicker launch.

Using the HO intake and TB with the stock head and cams, you will probably get slower due to the loss of torque at the lower rpms, with only minor gains up top (the cam and head won't flow the volume of air supplied). With the P&P'ed head, cams, raising the rev limiter and possibly more gearing, you should see some significant gains.

As you may or may not have read in some of my prior posts, I've been working on a plenum spacer to increase the volume of my intake plenum (it should be ready some time in the next week, just working on some final details. I've been sidetracked lately and haven't had allot of time to work on it.).The spacers have been used on boosted applications, to give room for the top feed injector conversions, but I've yet to see any empirical data on the spacers used on N/A applications(which the track testing I plan on doing). The 2.2L doesn't have the luxury of having a choice of intake manifolds at a reasonable price and availability, so the only choice is to make my own intake manifold or increase the volume of the plenum with a spacer. With my current set-up, it will probably only give me a minor gain, but a gain none-the-less. I know my current restrictions are the stock diameter valves in the mild P&P'ed head and the cam profile(208*/208* @ .050", .467" valve lift, which is good for low to mid rpm increases, but drops off quickly up top). When (or if) I get the new head and cam profile, I should see some definite gains up top with some mild to moderate gains in the lower rpms. The new head will have a more aggressive P&P, with intake valves with +1.5mm or more increase in size and exhaust valves of +1mm. The valve will be custom made to fit my valve train to be able to run the lift and rpms I'm planning on running. I'm looking at four different cam profiles(from Crane, Isky and Comp), that will provide the additional lift and duration on the exhaust to help me reach my goals, while staying within the rev limits of the PCM and shift points of the tranny (the added upper rpm torque will help it to stay in each gear longer, shifting later).

All my research was done with the help of ProRacingSim.com's DeskTop Dyno software. It has been a great aid in finding where my power band lies and selecting the appropriate parts combination and sizing.

DISCLAIMER: all the information is provided from past experiences, research and OPINION. Your results may vary!

someone dynoed a LO intake if i remember correctly there was about a 5HP gain. There was some loss on the lower end but gains in the mid to updper end The HO intake is better flowing so the numbers should be better.


2004 Grand Prix GTP (Competition Group)
SOLD-->1999 Z24 5M-#30 to register on JBO
"You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all the people'
all the time

99redz24 wrote:well you dont you find out yourself if it does or not? i mean you are the one asking this question

Thank you for the added value of your comment.

scott (section8cav) wrote:

Quote:

can you guys prove it

thats a ridiculous question....one f the main reasons the Ho-quad makes more power than the LO quad is because of the bigger manifolds..that should make the answer simple for you
....by your above statement i should take my mani off my quad and put a 2.4 intake on it and ill increase my track times?....i dont think ill even waste my time doing that lol

No you didn't read it correctly. I didn't say remove your HO for a 2.4 mani. I was asking to see if anyone had proof, which you supplied none. I'm also not directly comparing the LO to the HO. I know the HO should make more power-than the LO. More importantly does it make more HP than the 2.4 manifold. Yes it "SHOULD."

Madjack thank you for your response, and I fully agree with all your statements.
Mylife75 (ajose), yes i also agree, but still no hard proof. Its all in theory, and theories get people to have a false sense of reality.

Nevertheless thank you all for your opinions.







PRND321 Till I DIE
Old Motor: 160whp & 152ft/lbs, 1/4 Mile 15.4 @88.2
M45 + LD9 + 4T40-E, GO GO GO

There has never been any proof, yea or nay, ever presented on this forum.


sig not found

protomec wrote:There has never been any proof, yea or nay, ever presented on this forum.

That is exactly what I am looking for. I do not think anyone ever proved or disproved it.




PRND321 Till I DIE
Old Motor: 160whp & 152ft/lbs, 1/4 Mile 15.4 @88.2
M45 + LD9 + 4T40-E, GO GO GO

Sorry, but you cannot come to the JBO and ask for proof of anything performance wise. You would be assumming that someone did a dyno between bolt ones.




Jason
99 Z24

Racers Edge
Johnny Mack Turbo Systems
Engineered Performance

Jason ( got boost?? ) wrote:Sorry, but you cannot come to the JBO and ask for proof of anything performance wise. You would be assumming that someone did a dyno between bolt ones.

Doesn't have to be a dyno, even time slips or anything would be nice.



PRND321 Till I DIE
Old Motor: 160whp & 152ft/lbs, 1/4 Mile 15.4 @88.2
M45 + LD9 + 4T40-E, GO GO GO

Ok i found the post.
This was for a LO intake manifold on a 2.4. These are the numbers have not seen a Dyno on the HO but i would expect a little better .http://www.j-body.org/forums/read.php?f=2&i=291369&t=255772&p=1


2004 Grand Prix GTP (Competition Group)
SOLD-->1999 Z24 5M-#30 to register on JBO
"You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all the people'
all the time

No it dosent. GM is way smarter in engineering of their engines than we are, they changed the design of the manifold for a reason.

Thanks mylife, but 11 seems kinda really high IMO. I KNOW my car ran alot slower with the LO on it, then ran normal after I took it off.
~~shrugs~~




PRND321 Till I DIE
Old Motor: 160whp & 152ft/lbs, 1/4 Mile 15.4 @88.2
M45 + LD9 + 4T40-E, GO GO GO

-MD- LD9,

Just so that we are clear: You are talking about the log style L.O. manifold and not the tubular header style correct? I assume you mean the log style since you have been around here a while and it is pretty common knowledge that the tubular one from early quads sucks ass.

Were you using the phenolic flange? Or did you port match?

Brian Whalen wrote:-MD- LD9,

Just so that we are clear: You are talking about the log style L.O. manifold and not the tubular header style correct? I assume you mean the log style since you have been around here a while and it is pretty common knowledge that the tubular one from early quads sucks ass.

Were you using the phenolic flange? Or did you port match?

Phenolic flange and log style, and yes the tubular is well known to suck major ass.



PRND321 Till I DIE
Old Motor: 160whp & 152ft/lbs, 1/4 Mile 15.4 @88.2
M45 + LD9 + 4T40-E, GO GO GO

As already stated you will not find proof on here. I also think you will never find proof either. I do not think it is better. It might be better for nitrous to keep from puddling, I do not think there is much if any difference in the runner lengths between the 2 manifolds in question. I have been researching this manifold for some time. I'm debating on trying so I can dyno to prove it one way or another. I think this mod as well as the secret cams neither add power by bolting them on to a 2.4.



FU Tuning

Ask me this spring after my first dyno of the year.

It's the only mod I plan on doing this winter performance-wise. Though it's on a Quad4, even if I did it with an ld9 the results probably wouldn't be "typical"

We'd have to have a LOT of people do JUST that swap and dyno it to see what the average gain is.

Yeah, I asked this question myself around 2 years ago and about got ran off of the board. I've had an ho mani and tb that I got for free a couple of years now collecting dust in my garage. I pretty much decided about the same thing as what I've been reading, the 2.4 just doesn't have the head or cams to need that big of a manifold. I have wondered about putting the 2.3 56mm tb onto a ported plactic manifold though. I know nobody is gonna dyno that, even me. But it might make a decent gain, I'm just rambling now so ill shut up.

John, I tend to agree with your logic on the subject.



PRND321 Till I DIE
Old Motor: 160whp & 152ft/lbs, 1/4 Mile 15.4 @88.2
M45 + LD9 + 4T40-E, GO GO GO

funny....... I gained 50hp from cams, HO intake, 65mm T/B, Pacesetter Header, and swapping over to the 2.3 oil pump...... the HP came from some where....

I even dropped my compression almost half a point...... I made MORE HP then the HO, with LESS..... less cams, less compression, less head work........

I say the Secret Cams and HO Intake work....... but then again, I dont have the dyno to prove it......






SPD RCR Z - '02 Z24 420whp
SLO GOAT - '04 GTO 305whp
W41 BOI - '78 Buick Opel Isuzu W41 Swap

-MD- LD9 wrote:

99redz24 wrote:well you dont you find out yourself if it does or not? i mean you are the one asking this question

Thank you for the added value of your comment.

welcome

i will have some 1/4 numbers soon when my new engine is put in.



Im a Xbox 360 fanboy...and damn proud of it!!

All I'm seeing for the most part is a lot of opinions, which is always good and a lot of things we decide in life are based on positive or negative opinions. Great! But, aren't we missing half the point to all this modding and testing etc... Isn't a big part of modding the "fun" of trying different things and seeing if they work for us? Even if we don't take the time to "dyno" everything... I mean really, what % of us really care to do this.

Yeah I did the HO mani swap this year. I don't honestly know if it added horsepower. If you ask my "opinion", I don't think it added a thing. It changed the powerband and it sounds great. I video taped the car accelerating, just for fun, down the same stretch of highway, once a couple of years ago and a month or so ago with the HO mani in. In the first video, it chirps going into 2nd gear and in the second video it absolutely refuses to. However, the tires spin endlessly out of first gear with the HO mani? What's that mean? I don't know, but I can tell you I had a huge grin on my fac while I was doing it

Anyway, I don't want to go on about this. I'm a bit older then most of you so I have a different perspective maybe. I care less about how fast a freaking Cavalier goes (My brother's 5.0 smokes it every time and all it has is a K&N filter!) versus how much fun I have trying things and adding stuff. If it doesn't work for me, I take it apart and try something else. No experience like first hand I always thought. By the way, my brother was the one who taped those runs with my Cavy and he grins just as big as I do when he hears my car move and when we go for a ride in it.

That's what it's all about guys. Keep the racing on the tracks and enjoy your cars!

Just my 2 cents.

Ive yet to see proof its any better, another point that most on here fail to realize, your adding additional weight its no great surprise that metal weighs alot more than plastic and heatsoaks much worse, so even if there is any gain alot of it is being negated by those factors, the HO is more pretty, and if your running direct port nitrous there is no better manifold than the HO one

Honestly I think you would see better numbers on a dremel job port matched plastic manifold than what you would off the HO manifold



1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85