Intake Manifold Spacer 4.0l Coming!

Hi Jeff,

I can only show you numbers for the 2.7 spacer. The comparison starts at 1,400rpm, and the red line is with the spacer and blue line is without.




The results weren't earth shattering, but still pretty decent for just a simple passive bolt on part. The difference between the 2.7 spacer and the 4.0 spacer is that that it's two inches thick which is like having four of the 4.0 spacers stacked on top of each other.

This graph demonstrates that principle of lengthening the intake manifold runners to lower the torque curve is a sound one. Making the runners 12% longer and slightly enlarging the total manifold volume lowered the peak torque by 250 rpm while fattening up the curve a little. So intake manifold spacers do work. It's just a question of how much.

Greg

 

No offense, but your graph is absolutely useless for anything besides the 2.7L 4 banger. Once you change engines, any dyno results get thrown out the window. What works on one engine might not work on another. Your dyno shows that the principle is plausable on the engine it was tested on, any other inferences are guesses at best. You don't have enough data to make the blanket statement that manifold spacers work.

 

Punctuation was confusing on my post there Tooter.

My intent was for those claiming the 4.0L spacer was so great, to show me and you and everyone else some numbers. Then we can have a discussion based on data, not conjecture.

Jeff in Flagstaff

 

Jeff asked to be shown some actual spacer dyno results, and those are the only ones I have. The graph demonstrates the physical principle that long runners do actually lower the peak torque as well as improve the profile of the curve.

 

Yes, but this is a thread for intake manifold spacers for the 4.0L, not the 4 banger. All your graph shows is that the length of the runner can have some impact on the torque curve. A vehicle that was properly set up to begin with will not be as influenced by manifold spacers and results can vary greatly.

 

I have to agree 100% with Pugga, and Tooter, really, go play in your thread.

 

I understand...
The only chart I have is for the 2.7 because that's the spacer I made. A prototype was dyno tested to find out whether or not it would actually work well enough to sell. It does, so the first production run begins this weekend. The chart demonstrates that the principle of lengthening intake runners lowering peak torque is a mechanically sound one. I just needed to know exactly how much improvement it would make.

 

trolling-pro

 

Good.
If that's the only response you can come up with,
then I know I've made my point.

And I certainly don't mind you guys getting mad at me as if I'm your "enemy" and as if I'm the one who is preventing you from testing your product. Too bad you guys can't simply man up and post your own dyno chart. From reading 15 months of lame excuses it looks like that's never going to happen. But I'd be totally happy if any of the three main promoters of your spacer in this thread, specifically... luka emilianankov, and highaltitude... actually had the balls to prove me wrong.

 

Dude... read through the 15 pages, I've been bugging the OP for dynos and have not purchased a spacer. How exactly did you construe that I'm one of his main promotors??

I'm not defending the OP, just simply pointing out that whatever you found to be true in the 4 banger can not be even remotely applied to any other engine besides the one tested.

 

Sorry, Pugga.
My bad. I'll correct that immediately.

Greg

 

Damn straight! Don't lump me in with THOSE guys... Especially that emilianankov punk



Hi, Alex

 

Agreed but the OP doesn't have to prove anything. There are people willing to lay out money to try things and people who want proof that it works before purchasing. The first group bought their spacer, the second group hasn't and likely won't until dyno testing is completed. It's up to the OP whether or not he wants to pursue potential future sales.

That being said, tooter constantly going on about dynos is sort of pointless since he doesn't fall into either category since the OP's product doesn't even fit his truck.

 

It's ok, Pugga...
I don't mind taking the blame.

 

Haha, ok then

 

sorry, I have an auto so dyno'ing my truck won't work, and did a lot of my own research on the side.

I'm a fighter&heavy turbine engine mechanic turned machinist, have a BS in Aeronautics and working ridiculous hours. All of my research is floating around in my head or on various notes in my room.

I'm no way an engineer, but i've spent my fair share of time dealing with engines & trending their performance either in a test cell or reviewing the flight data.

The data that i've been trending is off the ultrgauge, my phone/gps, my notes, and gets reset when I need to establish a new "base avg"

as it is, my truck is lifted, with ~500lbs of just armor(not counting me,tools,etc) with bigger tires, and i'm still getting ~17mpg(speedometer corrected via hypertech) driving over a hill from sea level to 1300ft @ max 6% grade.

prior to the spacer, without any armor and stock tires I was getting anywhere from ~16-18.5mpg


I can say that it's helping, and I don't know exactly how much, but to get the mpg that i'm getting with all the shit in my truck, it was worth it for me.

 

I'm assuming because these were done by someone else you guys completely discount their authentication?

http://www.xr-underground.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39808

 

If you want to pm me or call, we could probably figure something out. I work all week, but we can see what we can setup.

There are 2 shops somewhat close, but sure about on a weekend.