Your Intake Manifold and You
 

Okay, so as some know I've been doing some flow testing of parts on a flow bench. Some of these parts are intake manifolds. The main reason why I'm doing this is because it's never really been done before. Flow testing parts is just like dynoing a vehicle. It gives you a good idea on how something is performing but it's fairly hard to accurately compare to results of others. Just like dynos, bench results can differ based on ambient conditions, bench calibrations, accuracy of the device, test pressure, etc. So when a company claims that their part flows xxx CFM it honestly doesn't really say much unless they can give more details, and most of the time they don't.

Before I get to my results I would just like to say, PLEASE do not compare my results to that of what others have posted. I have found little in the ways proper documentation for flow tested pieces and I really don't want this to turn into a, "well ______ said that their part flows xxx though". I don't care what a company has to say about their part, the point of this thread is to give an unbiased opinion, with properly documented results.


I'm going to start by covering some of the basics of the tests that pertain to all of the manifolds tested. The flow bench being used is a SuperFlow SF-600. This bench has a FlowCom computer attached to it which allows for great accuracy and ease of testing. All tests were done at a test pressure of 25" of H2O with a max variation of .3" H2O. The industry standard pressure for flow testing in the performance industry is 28" H2O. I chose to use 25" H2O because that is the pressure that the bench is calibrated for. I could have tested at 28" H2O but I decided I would rather have the most precise numbers I could get. The only real difference between 25" H2O and 28" H2O is that the test results would be a bit higher if the tests were done at 28" H2O. All results are in Cubic Feet per Minute (CFM).

To set a baseline I started with a totally stock intake manifold. The manifold was sealed with modeling clay to an adapter plate and sealed to the bench with clamps and a rubber gasket. I can't say for sure there weren't any leaks but if there were, it was less than a couple of CFM (aka mostly negligible). The VTCS was left intact and tests were done with the flappers open as well as closed. All ports not being tested were covered in tape so all air would be pulled through the throttle body opening. Lastly, every port was given a small exiting radius made of clay. This was done to help seal as well to keep variation of adapter plate placement a non factor.

Other ports sealed off:
http://i1301.photobucket.com/albums/...pshwucqvwl.jpg

The adapter plate sealed to the manifold:
http://i1301.photobucket.com/albums/...psj8s5j8r8.jpg

Here are the results:
Attachment 222553

Next up was a gasket matched port and polished manifold. VTCS was removed but the holes were not sealed between runners. The same sealing methods were employed as before.

Manifold ports:
http://i1301.photobucket.com/albums/...svyxvznet.jpeg

Sealed:
http://i1301.photobucket.com/albums/...ps0j7irqs8.jpg

Here are the results:
Attachment 222554

The last stock variation of a stock manifold was a single runner manifold. Essentially a gasket matched manifold with a bit of throat porting and the runner divider removed. The same sealing methods were employed as previously.

Manifold ports:
http://i1301.photobucket.com/albums/...psee2vbq6b.jpg

Here are the results:
Attachment 222555

@maisonvi; was generous enough to lend me two JMF manifolds. One is a single runner set up for Pi and the other is a split runner set up for meth. I was able to get the single runner manifold tested but not the split runner because I ran out of time but I will test the split runner when I return from my break next week. All of the PI bungs were taped off as well as the holes for the vacuum lines so all air would be drawn through the throttle body opening. The same sealing methods were used as the other tests.

Manifolds:
http://i1301.photobucket.com/albums/...psmp1wk5ns.jpg

Here are the results:
Attachment 222556


So what are my thoughts on this? I discussed it with some of the IL Nator guys and I think that the reason for the flow imbalance between the runners on the stock manifold is because of the throttle body location. In order for air to go up the cyl 4 runner, it must make an almost 180* turn; that is something air does not like to do. On the other hand, to get to cyl 1 runner air has a mostly straight shot, not having to bend much. As to why 2 and 3 flow more than 1 and 4 I think is because of how the runners are connected to the plenum and the path they take is shorter than 1 and 4. Here's an illustration of what I mean:

Attachment 222558

As for why the JMF flows more on 1 and 4 I'm thinking it has something to do with this:
Attachment 222559

Attachment 222560

This flow imbalance was noted by SP63 on JMF's mani for the Focus ST. I believe that we are seeing the same thing on our manifold.

UPDATE: I've finished the testing for the JMF split runner mani by itself. Now that all the mani's I have have been tested by themselves I can finish testing with them connected to the head. The results for it are in the picture below. To my surprise the manifold flows ~15-20% less than the open runner manifold. I'm not really sure why the flow is so much less from this other than maybe it is causing turbulence in the port. Though I'm not really sure about that because the divider is CNC knife edged so it doesn't seem like it would really cause a lot of turbulence. Maybe the results with it connected to the head will tell a bit more.

Edit for the update: Actually after looking at the difference between the pnp vs the single runner stock manifold the flow differences are fairly similar to the differences between the JMF manifolds so it looks like the divider is causing some turbulence of a sort.

Here is a more comparative view of the results. Please let me know what you guys think on this! If anyone has any non stock manifolds that I haven't tested yet and would like it tested please let me know!

Attachment 222971

Looks like you need to get your hands on a CS manifold and a CP-E manifold to complete your testing. Great data so far, thanks for your efforts!

Awesome work, I was always curious to see actual numbers. Thanks a bunch for taking the time to do this. I'm sure many will appreciate it.

What do you think of one of these single runner designs and what effect on flow the head will have when it hits the divider in the head? I know the flow bench shows peak flow when there is no obstruction at the end of the port. These are some pretty interesting results. Thanks for the work

I've already put considerable thought into that. I've already begun testing the combos of manis mounted on heads. I can assure you I will report my findings after I've compiled the data.

You the man!

Don't expect to see it too soon though. Testing these manis by themselves took me a couple of days. Testing them mounted on heads will take me a couple of weeks.

Hey free is free I can not complain. I already have a ported stocker installed so it isn't like I will be changing within the week anyway. Just curious!

Some strong results. I agree that that the results from CPe and Corsport would be great. I think even after Justin from Freektune completes the test, we will somewhat know the direction the market on our platform will turn. He loves his JMF mani so numbers from Cp-e would be very enlightening... then again, I don't think Corksport will compare in the league with JMF or Cp-e (if Cp-e numbers are effective)..

Well the inbalance can be overcome on the JMF. They fixed it on the Focus ST manifold but chose not to alter it for ours. I think CS needs to be competitive with Cp-e and JMF in order for them to really sell. Realistically, I don't see them being able to sell a cast manifold for much less than $600. At that point, if it doesn't flow so great, you're better off spending an extra $100 and buying a JMF.

Great point. Truly CS I think it on the level of producing parts for enthusiast that are looking for just a little more power so yes, the mani that they will produce will not be on the scale like JMF and the potential in Cp-e. Great notes. Looking for an update with the Cp-e mani if you get your hands on it or someone else.

Great results keep them coming for sure

Has there been any word from JMF about matching ours to the new focus design or radio silence?

Awesome test results. Really curious to see the divided runner results for the JMF as well.

Have to give it a little more thought. But even the least flowing runners on the JMF will outflow the cylinder head. In that case the head would become the equalizer of balanced airflow to the cylinders.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

therefore, JMF or gtfo?

Noob question haha. Based on the stock mani flow rates. Couldn't that be balanced out by just porting 1 a little and a full ported double runner on 4? Im just looking at the numbers and seeing that could balance the flow right around 200

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

I've seen nothing from JMF. Maybe consider contacting them to see if they've done it one their newest version.

I talked with @xfeejayx; about that very same thing. The stock head flows very evenly, but the imbalance in the runners will cause different pressures on a running engine, thus causing imbalanced flow again. Er that was the conclusion that we came to.


It's hard to say for sure because a flow bench doesn't really fully replicate an operating engine. The goal is to keep cross sectional area similar between ports at the same places, doing that still promotes imbalance with our manifold.

It's not just air flow rate that's important, but also air speed. The air needs to be moving fast enough to be turbulent, to promote even fuel dispersion and atomization in the combustion chamber. That's why one of the intake ports has a flapper and is closed at low engine load; to increase air speed into the combustion chamber.

Differences in port cross-sectional area will affect each cylinder's efficiency and still be less than ideal.

Very much agree. But turbulence before CC is not desirable (to a point). I believe a Reynold's number right around 3000-3500 would be good for airflow and atomization (if you have PI or meth).

I have Pitot tubes to measure air velocity. I've thought about it but I'd need to make an adapter to mount in on the bench when it's set to blow.

Hmm this is going to be a really good thread. With the imbalanced runners right now it seems we may have some hidden power just by getting them balanced out. Think about it right now we are tuning, knocking, etc to the cylinders getting "full air". If we could ensure all are delivering equally that's a few extra ponies locked up I the non-full runner/cylinder. I would love to see the a/f ratios for each cylinder on these cars, be neat to see how much they vary with the airflow differences in the runners.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I saw a comment on outflowing the heads. Doesn't anyone know off the top of their head what that number is?

Surprising to see that the single runner doesn't get a bigger flow increase over the gasket matched. I'm feeling better about just doing the gasket match.

Do any of the brainiacs on here know if we would have to measure these connected to the head to really be representative? Seems part of the equation in impedance matching, not just flow. I always wondered if the single runner would have problems with that?

That is stage dos. I've already started collecting data. Will be a couple weeks til testing is complete.

Excellent, and thanks

OP updated with JMF split runner results. Results were a bit more drastic than I thought they'd be. Let me know what you guys think. Both of the JMF connected to the stock head results should be done in a week or so. Been a bit slow recently, trying to catch up on school work since I'm back from break. Happy St. Pattys Day guys.

You my friend rock! This info is amazing.

*Paddy's*

Good to see that engineering license paying off again around here.

This is a great topic I can understand a quick portmatching and polishing the runners on a stock mani and a vcts delete, the results with a single runner On the stock mani showed a postive gain, but say your the averag joe with out getting you mani bench tested after you ported/machined, your doing more harm then good, correct ,possible you would make the flow rates more inequal than what they already are and is this worth the hassle from say buying jmf you proved its just about 80-100% more flow?

Sorry dude, not to be an ass but I can't really make out what you're saying or asking due to your punctuation er lack thereof.

I think I get what he's asking i'll take a stab at answering you. From what I gather from this thread, in short NO. The P&P on the stock intake is not doing more harm than good. It flows more even though the flow might be a little more uneven the JMF flows very uneven on the 1st and 4th runners. I can't see why it would be an issue on the stock one. (someone please correct me if I'm wrong here)

Just my 2 cents.


One question I would have is what's the main difference between a single runner mani and the dual runner one? Obviously the single runner flows better so what's the disadvantage, if there is any in running a dual runner vs a single?

Just trying to figure out why anyone would run a dual runner mani in the first place if the single one flows so much more.

if your selfporting you stock intake manifold ,is it even worth it, if you have to get it flow tested to check equal flow in every runner and the gains are minimal the question isnt it worth it to just buy jmf intake

The numbers are all there in this thread. Numbers don't lie. Look at the difference % for each mani. The ported one isn't that far off from even the stock difference %.

Yes it is still worth it to port the stock manifold. The manifold is more restrictive than the head so porting the manifold will still pick up airflow gains even if it doesn't necessarily even out the flow a bunch.


Thanks. To answer your question the advantage of the dual runner manifold is to keep the port runner divider a longer length. Theory says that this would help with low RPM performance. Keep in mind these flow numbers tell max flow but now how the piece will perform overall.

More of this will be made clear after I am done testing with these connected to the head because the valves are kept in it so I am able to measure flow at low lift points.

Also, the JMF by itself outflows a stock head by a pretty sizable amount so the difference between a split and single runner mounted to a stock head *should* in theory flow fairly similar. Tests will tell tho.

I believe the only way to make our flow even out is to run an intake manifold that is designed like a tri Y header. But to be fair, we have seen 800whp out of a jmf...flow imbalance or not shit is working

This thread actually gives me more reason to pnp my stock mani. Can't wait to see the rest of your results. I love this kind of information.

Not necessarily. Take a peak at this thread about the JMF mani for the FoST. They had a similar imbalance on it and fixed it without altering exterior dimensions. The goal is to have the plenum flowing the same to each runner.

SPEED PERF6RMANC3 & JM Fabrications Intake Manifold

But yes I agree the JMF is by no means a bad manifold.

I understand you obviously get more flow p&p and with a singal runner,how do you know your getting the consistent flow +- with out flow testing I see all these guys porting ther manifolds and eyeballing what material there grimding away and not knowing what the flow is I'm just saying Is there a max tolerance a runner can flow from another before it causes a problem

Hey I'm curious I just found this on a website. Would this math apply here?

The horsepower potential of an engine can be calculated by the airflow capability of the cylinder head and intake manifold. Airflow testing of cylinder heads and intake manifolds can be conducted on a flow bench. Horsepower calculations can be estimated from the flow bench test data as follows:
The standard measure for flow testing is 28" of test pressure on a Superflow 600 flow bench.
The formula for calculating horsepower from flow test data measured at 28" of test pressure is as follows:

HP = 0.255 x flow test data at 28 inches of test pressure

Example:
Intake airflow of 250 cfm at 28" of test pressure can produce 510 hp.
250 cfm x .255 = 63.75 hp per cylinder
63.75 hp per cylinder x 8 cylinders = 510 hp.

I guess the fact that we run forced induction would make the point moot but I'm still kind of curious.


O.K. just re-read your original post. You tested at 25'' Which basically answers my question.

Sweet!

I did read about that jmf design but I feel it is more of a bandaid than a resolution to the issue. They did not really balance it all the great in my opinion. Best bang for the buck here is the pnp stocker from what I see and have gathered from past expirements as well. Your testing is definitely top notch though and greatly appreciated. It is a worthwhile read for sure. Now someone design me a tubular tri y intake manifold and let me test it out :)

Am I right in assuming just porting the stock mani would basically net a gain of around 30hp? Without even touching the tune?

Negative. Gained about 5-10whp peak tuned

That tends to be the case with a lot of people, just grinding to make them even. The fact of the matter is you can't make them consistent without a flow bench and even if you did, it wouldn't matter. For them to flow even they have to have a different port size, but size will affect pressure which dictates flow and that's a changing variable. I'll expand on it a bit below.


Be very careful with calculators like that. They assume perfect conditions (STP) as well as 100% volumetric efficiency. So in reality, to be able to apply something like this to a force inducted application you would have to know your cylinder air mass to determine your peak VE (which will be well over 150%) as well as how the air is acting at that certain pressure (because air is tricky and will do different things at different pressures). So in reality it's just about impossible to perfectly apply such a calculator, but for all intensive purposes, if you know your total airflow, they you can predict how much power your engine would make (in a perfect world).

28" is the standard for most performance stuff nowadays. My reasoning for testing at 25" is because that is what the bench was calibrated at and it's most accurate there. I could do testing at 28" but it's too late now. You can convert the numbers to a different pressure but it's not really a perfect conversion so it's best to just stick with one pressure and keep it consistent :)


I don't see it as a bandaid. Like I said, what matters is that what goes into the port is equal across cylinders. It doesn't matter how that is achieved so long as that is the end result. The problem with a tri y design like you're saying is that it still needs a plenum, it creates a fairly long path, and would not be feasible in the space we have without make some very uncomfortable bends which will hurt flow. IMO the biggest difference between the stock manifold and the JMF is the plenum volume to runner length ratio. The stock mani has a small plenum and long runners. This helps with velocity at lower RPMs and allows for a more usable powerband. On the other hand, the JMF has a huge plenum and very short runners. This means that overall power will be higher because more air can be flowed, and it has a shorter path to get to the cylinder which aids in high RPM power. There is no such thing as a perfect manifold for all cases. It's something that each person must tailor to their own needs in order to achieve best results for what they are trying to do.

Also, our stock manifold has a fundamental flaw, which I covered in the OP and touch on a bit above. And that is our throttle placement is on the side of the manifold and that means in order for air to get the cylinder 4 it must take a VERY tight 180* turn to get into the port. Air does not like to do this. And for that reason 4 will always flow the least. So you would think the solution would be to open up 4 the most to get it to flow equal to the rest. That is not the case however. By doing so, it is possible to equalize them on a flow bench but there's two problems with this. First, a flow bench does not perfectly replicate a running engine (actually it's not very great at all) but it is the closest we can really get short of using an actual engine. Airflow is something that can only be learned through trial and error, you can make predictions but the only way to really know what it's going to do is through testing (which is why flow benches were made in the first place). Second, runner volume dictates pressure (they have an inverse relationship) and pressure drives flow but flow is more than just pressure. So even though on a flow bench the runners are flowing the same (if sized differently, like I mentioned) the air will enter the cylinder head at different pressures and thus at different flow rates on a running engine. Sorry if that doesn't quite make sense, it's kind of tricky to fully grasp (at least for me) without a good image.


No. Just because you pick up more airflow does not mean you pick up more power. Power is made by burning fuel. If you have more air you must add more fuel. Without adding more fuel you will gain no more power. So, if you still have fueling headroom, then by adding more fuel you can indeed make more power :headbang:

@Mazdazilla6; I appreciate all the hard work and effort you have put into this for us all. I have a gasket matched PnP intake manifold i got from Kozmic Motorsports a few years ago. in your opinion, do you think it would be a waste of time and effort to go single runner on it? I see that there is obviously an increase in flow, but would there really be any benefit worth gaining?

If you're chasing gains to get every last ounce out of it, it wouldn't be a bad idea. But honestly, if a ported mani is REALLY holding you back on power then getting an aftermarket one would be a better solution. If I were in your shoes I would leave it as is.

I don't think it's holding me back as my car flows pretty well with my current setup. I was just curious if i should attempt to touch it up a little by going single runner. I'm not too thrilled with the price tag that comes with the JMF manifold, but it makes sense to get one if i want to add meth....since it comes with the ports + outflows single runner stocker.

Thanks man.

I wouldn't cut out the divider unless you planned on porting the head, too. You want a smooth transition between one runner and two, so if you cut that transition out of the IM you'll need to port the head divider into a smooth transition.

I hope that makes some sense.

I do have a spare head i was planning on doing the works to...porting,+1 valves, upgraded cams and springs, etc.

Stay tuned. In the next month or so I'll be making another thread that covers our head. From what I've seen so far there really is not a lot to be gained from larger valves unless you're chasing records and have lots of money to spend. Cams and springs go hand in hand, don't do one without the other. Also, if you end up getting very aggressive cams and some stiff springs, you should definitely consider pinning the cams and keying the crank.

That is something I will be observing for part of my term project this semester. I'm very curious about this because from what I've seen so far it's not quite what I originally thought. I'll be sure to shed some more light on it when I get more conclusive results.

Very nice thread. Very informative too

I'm happy to read it because your results return the same level of imbalance i got with a leaf blower while reading a maf voltage....My flow units wasn't accurate at all but the figure returned the same conclusion...OEM manifold is a piece of crap.

I don't think we can balance it by porting like a box with 4 holes. It look more to me to be because of the flow path. That runner ask for the air to change direction when the others are facing to the natural flow direction...(not sure if my words makes sence but...)

I figured out the same imbalance with the manifold installed on the head with the valves removed. I didn't tested the head alone but i assume it is better balanced than the manifold... I will be for sure looking at your numbers and thanks you for doing it!

BTW rebuilding my engine with stock IM, the #4 piston and cylinder was like new...these tests bring me to think it may be related to the manifold...

I've been looking to get my stock mani pnp with a flow test. Didn't wanna spend the 700 bucks on a JMF if I can get some good solid, fairly equal air flow from a stocker for a fraction of the cost.

I really doubt you will get equal air flow when porting it but just a better flow with the same unbalance. I tried and didn't succeeded...the start of #4 runner is not well shaped.

A pnp machine shop with a flow tester can at least get it somewhat closer than stock? I was looking at relentless's stock pnp manifolds and I think they had said that they got the runners pretty close to equal compared to stock

If you read the post of Mazdazilla6 from the begining you will get it.
What SP3p did was balancing an aftermarket not the oem.

It is not just a matter of port size. The flow have a tendency to flow into 1-2-3 more than 4.

I wish you had did a stock manifold with VTCS delete and no porting. Just curious...

Getting rid of the VTCS and doing nothing else would have like 3-5% gains. Nothing really worth doing.

I do not doubt it would be minimal, but I have never seen any results. I was curious.

Thanks for your efforts.

I personally also wanted to see a non ported one to compare to a ported one. Lump and VTCS removed. I disagree about 3-5% gains. I think it would be closer to ported than stock but of course I am also guessing. I dont really care that much even thou that is what I have, it is more out of curiosity.

I have a stocker laying around. If I find the time I'll try to do both. No guarantees though, my schedule is pretty slammed at the moment.

Im no expert in the subject, but wont flow imbalance be insignificant when the manifold is under pressure (versus the 25inwc of the flow test)

When the manifold is pressurized (lets say with 25psi), should the manifold not be considered like a compressed air tank...if so, pressure is equally distributed everywhere and flow should be equal (or pretty damn near equal)

Just thinking :)

If that pressure remained constant perhaps it would, but we know that isn't the case.

Engines do not operate under constant pressure, this is not like at all like an air tank. The biggest difference between an engine and an air compressor is that the engine has flow. Because of that, there is never *distributed* pressure per say. Each minute area of the intake tract has its own localized pressure, general case in point, pressure is always lower after the intercooler than before it. The same is true for the intake runners as well as the plenum. Many airflow principles still apply between boosted and naturally aspirated engines.

Could the imbalance be measured with pressure transducer on each ports when doing a WOT run?

I need to rebuild my block and will go direct port injection real soon...If I could get my hand on some cheap transducers and logging hardware I could do some test by using the meth injection ports...

I don't see why it wouldn't work. It could be helpful but it doesn't paint the entire picture for us though. Flow is a function of pressure differentials and velocity, so examining pressure alone won't tell us everything about the flow.

I appreciate it. I'm curious as I am sure others are. I am getting ready to PNP and I would like to see where I stand with just a VTCS delete and how far I need to go to see significant gains, or if the gains from just a mild PNP are really worth it with the K04.

Thanks.

My vdyno is pretty spot on. I do multiple pulls both directions on same stretch of road and as close to same conditions as possible. My ported, polished, vtcs delete stocker gained about 5-10whp and wtq but it was all in midrange where I feel the k04 does not need extra power. A 3" intake and a full exhaust will max out the k04 already. The k04 is the weak point. If you are going BT do it but otherwise skip it.

I will be going BT next year or by fall. I may just go ahead and port it, but I'd like to know how much is gained just by a VTCS delete. Just do not want to kill too much bottom end either.

So i tore down my spare head and had it cleaned and ready for work (looks brand new). i'm getting overwhelmed trying to figure out exactly what parts i want to get and what needs to be done as far as porting goes. I know i want to do a gasket matched single runner down into a knife edge on the intake side since i will be getting a jmf v2 manifold. i want to gasket matched pnp exhaust side but im worried maybe that is too big for all the after market exhaust mani's available. I was wanting to go +1 intake and +2 exhaust supertech valves but others have pushed 700 awhp on stock valves and cams....so i could save the money on bigger valves and upgraded cams. but then there are the springs, dont better springs require better cams? shit just starts getting confusing. any insight or opinions you could give would be great.

Well as far as valvetrain goes, run stock springs with stock cams. The only time to consider stiffer springs with stock cams is if you plan to rev to 8k or above. IMO larger vavles are not needed at all unless you plan to squeeze everything out of the setup. Most exhaust manifolds are already gasket matched so don't worry about that. Another thing to consider is if you get stiffer springs, you're stressing the friction washers more that hold the engine in time and should consider getting the crankshaft keyed.

Ya i was already planning on having crankshaft and cams keyed as well as trying to find a way to use a heavier duty chain. As far as bigger valves and stiffer springs, i really want to do everything possible to the head and see where it gets me power wise. For PnP, i want to get rid of any sharp ledges,humps, dips, etc as well as add a mirror like finish to the exhaust side to reduce carbon buildup....not sure if doing it to the intake side would cause any harm. a local machine shop is set up to do all this as well as flow bench tests. i just need to figure out the depth of the knife edge down the runner.

There's no real reason to put a beefier chain on. SP63 made at least one engine with a sleeper chain but the amount of power it would take to actually cause the chain to fail is insane.

What are your goals for the engine? Hotter cams and stiffer springs are good and all but they also accelerate valvetrain wear so if you plan to daily the car, that might not be the greatest route. Don't bother going any smoother than a 120 grit on the intake ports.

I want to be able to DD this build. this will be a very slow build process. so if the upgraded cams and springs are not good for DD, would bigger valves be worth any significant gains staying with stock cams/springs?

In short, no. Plus you'll have less wear on the valve seats. There are definitely good gains to be had with better cams and you can run a slightly hotter cam on stock springs but there really aren't any affordable options that make it worth it.

Well there goes that dream. Guess i'll just stick with the full porting and stock valvetrain. Thanks for all your insight and help man.

Have any time to flow another intake? I can send you my new Corksport intake.