Thread: VE and Log Manifolds

Gio let them be bro. You are beating a dead horse. There are people on this forum who have set ups that are 100% more efficient than your set up yet they fail to make the power that you have at the boost level you have.

Now stop proving them all wrong. You are killing our Reversion Reducer sales.

So you understand that Coheeds numbers were at 4,226' above sea level and yours were only 1,117' above sea level. He would have made more hp if he was at your altitude.

I was just going to say that. Lol.^

Idk guys. I read on the forum you can't make over 400whp on a log manifold. Its not mathematically nor statistically possible!



.

god damn it!

I will go play with my log mani and ebay turbo see you guys later

Again I understand that. However point being a VE-T should not even be close to a DE-T. Hell I could say I would have made more power if my a/f's wernt 10.2-10.4:1 on the dyno as well and im sure a big difference. At least thats what the butt dyno said after i fixed the leak.

Again Ive never said a log cant make good power. All i said is its not efficient at these power levels. And that is a fact.

Now look where coheed is at with a proper tubular manifold and turbo. Right where he should be, making the same power I made at 24 lbs on almost wastegate pressure with a much broader powerband.

Log Mani Reversion Reducer Kit For Sale.

LMK.

This better not be a copy. Jamie, Gio and I came up with the original design.

A 57mm turbo in most cases is much larger than the 3076 I was using. Most 57mm turbos use a much larger turbine inducer. My 60mm turbine was a real killer, especially with the large compressor.

Gio was this engine using 91oct? You guys like to run E85? The trick with the VE is to get the power made with lower boost so the cams can flow well. Once the boost gets to high and the backpressure builds up past a 2:1 bp/boost then you see the problems i was having.

It wasn't just a log manifold. It was a generally restrictive turbine and a turbo that couldn't operate at the pressure ratios I was asking of it at my altitude.

The log manifold wasn't entirely to blame, but the VET cams did make a large increase in power over the stock cams. A larger turbine with less backpressure could have done wonders.

I tested the log manifold setup on a bad engine at around 440whp. I rebuilt the engine with the tubular manifold, a smaller .78 divided housing, and made more power on still less boost. Switching to the 1.06 housing showed huge increases in response and a much wider powerband. Ultimately, the engine didn't make much more power imo. Best pull with the TS setup was 478whp on 26psi. Still good, but not where I wanted it.

I'm really happy with where I'm at now. 404whp on 10psi. On a 91octane pump JWT tune and 20v cams. I would like to see what other cams will do on the dyno in back-to-back testing. I think I wanna try the N1 next.

The 6262 is completely different animal though. It is the same size as the old SC61 that many other guys have used with log manifolds with decent results.

Vadim did use a similar log to mine, with a larger 57 trim turbo and still didn't get the results he wanted, and still had an issue. It just doesn't feel right when the VVL hits. Cam timing, tuning, whatever... it can all change things slightly. Even the fuel being used. Vadim and I had similar experiences because our cars were so similar in setup. Same fuel, same style manifold, same engine etc. his turbo was just slightly larger than mine.

I have plans to get the car to the dyno again this spring. I don't know what kind of power it will make tbh. But high boost runs are over 100% dc so it makes me nervous pushing 20psi over 7000rpm.

Silly question....are the 20v cams same as VET cams or are.the different?

the words are different so you would be rational in assuming they are indeed different... lol

20v = primera p12
vet = xtrail gt