You're right about not wanting to do it twice. One of the fiddliest jobs I've ever done.
Here are my logs post ATP fitting. Bit bloody useless without before, but I fitted the ATP to solve a cracked mani prob.
Butt dyno says it's better tho.
-
Hey Guest one of our sponsors Progressive Parts is running Black Friday and Cyber Monday offers - more details here
You're right about not wanting to do it twice. One of the fiddliest jobs I've ever done.
Here are my logs post ATP fitting. Bit bloody useless without before, but I fitted the ATP to solve a cracked mani prob.
Butt dyno says it's better tho.Dave, I was getting readings of 180+g/s peak (184 I think) after my LC was mapped by James at CC (phase 1) with only a forge 007 and Green cotton panel filter..... and obviously I haven't got the ATP manifold or Forge TIP.........
Maybe the standard manifold would be up to the job - and reduce the lag.....
Do KO4 manifolds have wider runners? The restriction in these being the turbo running out of puff at 270 brake - not the manifold.....
Raf
Maybe the standard manifold would be up to the job - and reduce the lag.....
Do KO4 manifolds have wider runners? The restriction in these being the turbo running out of puff at 270 brake - not the manifold.....
Raf
Raf, I wasn't posting or logging to willy-wave. I'm sure there are more powerful K03S powered cars than mine. I'm here to learn and question. Please note that those logs were done with a bog-standard paper filter with 8k miles under its belt. My car has shown 193+ g/s with a RamAir fitted. At this sort of level, the K03S is out of puff and maxed-out anyway. I'm more interested in what happens on the way there.
Sure, with a different plan I'd have had the K03S off a long time ago and the mani would be a banana bunch.
There's no difference between LC / K03S exhaust manis and the LCR / KO4 item. Have you seen the comparative pics between standard and ATP in my other thread?
Best wishes
Dave, I meant no offence in the slightest - it was merely an observation that I seem to be getting the same g/s readings without the manifold - therefore possibly the standard one would be up to the job for the ATP conversion and reduce lag - especially as it flows upwards of 270 on KO4's and is the same manifold as the KO3. If KO4's are hitting a barrier at 270ish due to the turbo being the restrictive part and not the manifold, then there's a possibility that the standard manifold could flow more with a bigger turbo..... Unless 270ish is also the approx. barrier of the standard manifold, but the KO4 restriction masks this....
Raf
Raf
I just happen to have a couple of the adapters sitting on my desk. They enable an IHI to fit a 150/180 BHP ported manifold. It did work well, but the mounting bolts stretched. Looking at getting some studs made from Incalloy.
Bernard
For the sake of the clarity, the K04 and K03 manifolds are different, I think Dave meant that the runner sizes aren't that different. Haven't seen both side by side, but from pictures he's probably right. It's a shame nobody's measured the volumes
No offence taken!
For the sake of the clarity, the K04 and K03 manifolds are different, I think Dave meant that the runner sizes aren't that different. Haven't seen both side by side, but from pictures he's probably right. It's a shame nobody's measured the volumes
I think Dave was very possibly talking ****!
Something else I came across while looking at the ATP site in relation to using the stock manifold on the GTRS conversion....
"...... in addition, we found that the slight taper designed into the runners of the stock manifold promotes exhaust gas velocity even further. Further testing resulted in a much quicker GT28RS turbo on a 1.8T engine, at least by 300 rpm faster than any other off the shelf GT28RS turbo driven by an aftermarket manifold on the original T25 flanged turbine housing."
Makes sense to me. I can understand that the stock manifold is restrictive - but that would be only in the upper part of the rev range when it's trying to pump massess of gas through it. The thinner runners would actually promote spool lower down, but restrict top end power..."
Only question that remains is....... would it stay in one piece..... ?
Raf
"...... in addition, we found that the slight taper designed into the runners of the stock manifold promotes exhaust gas velocity even further. Further testing resulted in a much quicker GT28RS turbo on a 1.8T engine, at least by 300 rpm faster than any other off the shelf GT28RS turbo driven by an aftermarket manifold on the original T25 flanged turbine housing."
Makes sense to me. I can understand that the stock manifold is restrictive - but that would be only in the upper part of the rev range when it's trying to pump massess of gas through it. The thinner runners would actually promote spool lower down, but restrict top end power..."
Only question that remains is....... would it stay in one piece..... ?
Raf
Lifetime guarantee against cracking! (I'd cry if I had to spend the time swapping mine again!)
Don't blame you - not looking forward ot mine if I decide to go down that route.......
If I went with my standard manifold to start with and had the car mapped.... then soemtime down the line it started becoming problematic..... if I decided to fit the ATP one, would the car rhave to be remapped...? I guess it would due to the different flow characteristics .... and boost coming in lower down the rev range.... ?
Raf
If I went with my standard manifold to start with and had the car mapped.... then soemtime down the line it started becoming problematic..... if I decided to fit the ATP one, would the car rhave to be remapped...? I guess it would due to the different flow characteristics .... and boost coming in lower down the rev range.... ?
Raf
I run the GT2X conversion as many of you know, for 7 months it has had some serious stick (not on a track though) and so far no cracks or problems.
As for the fitting issues with the ATP Manifold i have major problems, then when the gasket blew it had to come off again, but it wouldn't budge due to the bolts touching the casting they just rounded off.
I removed the cylinder head and had to grind the nuts off. By this time i was sick, so i called my dad so he could take a look. (clever bloke). The fix was quite simple.
The stud holes which are close to the casting were elongated so that we could get M8 (6mm) allen headed bolts in the complete top row.
So next time it has to come off, it will be a piece of cake.
I would not be using the standard manifold for high power applications. no way!
As for the fitting issues with the ATP Manifold i have major problems, then when the gasket blew it had to come off again, but it wouldn't budge due to the bolts touching the casting they just rounded off.
I removed the cylinder head and had to grind the nuts off. By this time i was sick, so i called my dad so he could take a look. (clever bloke). The fix was quite simple.
The stud holes which are close to the casting were elongated so that we could get M8 (6mm) allen headed bolts in the complete top row.
So next time it has to come off, it will be a piece of cake.
I would not be using the standard manifold for high power applications. no way!
removing those studs is well stiff tho... was on mine when i had to remove my JS one a few times..
Used cap heads myself on 16v applications and awkward fitment.. so long as they dont seize and strip the allen head
Used cap heads myself on 16v applications and awkward fitment.. so long as they dont seize and strip the allen head
I have never run a bigger turbo on std manifold.
JS kit originally on IHIVF34/18, then VF34/20, then Pe1820 on 1900cc, then my own equal length on mitsi hybrid turbo
320bhp then 340bhp then 360bhp then 390bhp then 517bhp respectively rough guide progression from specs
I think that's where he got the idea from
But I guess since you weren't "1st IHI owner" of the golf it might have had the 'pukka' one on in your ownership?
Thanks Bill, and yip - thanks Mark... that's where I got the idea from.... selective memory methinks...
Still stands though that if a chipped Ko4 can push 270-80 ponies through a standard manifold, a GT2X should be able to manage 280-90..... as long as the 270-80 barrier is the Ko4 running out of puff not the manifold.....
Anyone with a chipped Ko4 running the ATP manifold?
Raf
Still stands though that if a chipped Ko4 can push 270-80 ponies through a standard manifold, a GT2X should be able to manage 280-90..... as long as the 270-80 barrier is the Ko4 running out of puff not the manifold.....
Anyone with a chipped Ko4 running the ATP manifold?
Raf
Last edited:
Similar threads
