All the exhaust manifold flow numbers inside:
#1
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the exhaust manifold flow numbers inside:
AAN:
<img src="http://www.034motorsport.com/gallery/d/16458-1/aan_em_flow.jpg">
RS2:
<img src="http://www.034motorsport.com/gallery/d/5329-4/RS2_ExhManFlow.jpg">
Sport Q:
<img src="http://www.034motorsport.com/gallery/d/16456-2/SQExhManifoldFlow.jpg">
034 High output RS2 fit:
<img src="http://www.034motorsport.com/gallery/d/16448-1/HORS2FlowComparison_800.jpg">
<img src="http://www.034motorsport.com/gallery/d/16458-1/aan_em_flow.jpg">
RS2:
<img src="http://www.034motorsport.com/gallery/d/5329-4/RS2_ExhManFlow.jpg">
Sport Q:
<img src="http://www.034motorsport.com/gallery/d/16456-2/SQExhManifoldFlow.jpg">
034 High output RS2 fit:
<img src="http://www.034motorsport.com/gallery/d/16448-1/HORS2FlowComparison_800.jpg">
#2
Great ! Thanks Nate. Good talkin' 2 U yesterday.....
<center><img src="http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y222/855r2catch/kling5.jpg"></center><p>thats some big a$$ #'s on the 034.
But the stock EM gets my vote for the coolest Klingon warship of the bunch : p
But the stock EM gets my vote for the coolest Klingon warship of the bunch : p
#5
I calculated the average flow for each manifold
AAN = 143.8 avg (47.5 diff between best/worst)
RS2 = 150.1 avg (28.9 diff between best/worst)
SQ = 174.4 avg (58.4 diff between best/worst)
034 = 196.5 avg (48.2 diff between best/worst)
I'm surprised at how close the AAN and RS2 are, but the consistency of the RS2 is by far the best.
The flow of the new 034 manifold is impressive, but how will it effect low RPM torque and lag?
RS2 = 150.1 avg (28.9 diff between best/worst)
SQ = 174.4 avg (58.4 diff between best/worst)
034 = 196.5 avg (48.2 diff between best/worst)
I'm surprised at how close the AAN and RS2 are, but the consistency of the RS2 is by far the best.
The flow of the new 034 manifold is impressive, but how will it effect low RPM torque and lag?
#6
Yeah the RS2 and stock are close but
The stock dumps number #1 and #5 directly into the waste gate and not the turbo..
As 4driver4 pointed out to me one day over email, not good for performance and the #1 and #5 tend to run hot due to this too..
As 4driver4 pointed out to me one day over email, not good for performance and the #1 and #5 tend to run hot due to this too..
Trending Topics
#8
Don't know if it was about flow as much as heat
As they wanted more power and probably found the stock design to be limiting from a sense of even performance from all cylinders.. Plus feeding directly into the turbo should yield faster spools, more power, blah, blah, blah...
I do know of a vehicle running a GT3071 with a stock EM. Power is in the range of low 400s and hasn't had any problem yet.. Mind you they want a better EM but the previous non cast one kept cracking so this was the alternative.
Heck I was going to port my stock one till 4driver4 pointed out the 1,5 runner design..
I do know of a vehicle running a GT3071 with a stock EM. Power is in the range of low 400s and hasn't had any problem yet.. Mind you they want a better EM but the previous non cast one kept cracking so this was the alternative.
Heck I was going to port my stock one till 4driver4 pointed out the 1,5 runner design..
#9
I can see why Carsten Wagner said that his SQ "EVO" EM was on permanent hold. No need.
Or at least very little need if the RS2 EVO beats the OE SQ EM, not too much incentive to carry on.
(I guess)
(I guess)
#10
Great to see them side by side.....funny, I always read that the stock EM could cause burt valves on
#1 with a larger turby but based on the flow that does not seem to be the most restricted.