Intake Manifold Swap?

[Bridgie]

Whatever spec of GT - we all have the same base 5.0 motor.
Add-ons and changes and tunes will ultimately allow the engine to operate better and extract the best performance.

As far as the basic principles of Suck, Squeeze, Bang, Blow for a NA engine...

a. Increased or Better air flow to the Cylinder can be achieved with Air intakes, Throttle bodies and Manifolds
b. Tuning can realize a better balance timing of fuel, air, spark timing
c. Further tuning for different Fuels (E85) and Injectors can realize a bigger bang (only if necessary)
d. Headers, X/H Pipes, Cat backs and exhaust gas escapement can ultimately support efficiencies (what goes in must come out)
e. CAM's and further tuning will support all of these timings and efficiencies.

You pay your money and make your choice.

For reliability purposes, what is there to break..? (Cue the doom merchants)
Until you reach a power level which brings out the weaknesses of Block, Pistons, drivetrain, Oil flow etc.. Then having a power plant working to the best of its design shouldn't affect reliability.

Once you go down the tuning route - gone are the Ford EPA, MPG and Fuel efficiency targets anyway...

Sponsored

 

[WildHorse]

Have you seen how small the opening is on these when closed?

He wants torque.. he'll get a shit ton of torque haha.

 

[EFI]

it ain't rocket science, & not on there agenda.

It certainly is on Ford's agenda. Why wouldn't they have done that if they could bump up low-midrange torque by 20-30?

And why wouldn't it be on Lund's agenda? If he can get a fatter torque curve by simply updating a few tables without sacrificing any top end power, why wouldn't he? Dynos are all over the internet, so if he can make more torque regardless of where it is he would purely from a business standpoint.

 

[WildHorse]

It certainly is on Ford's agenda. Why wouldn't they have done that if they could bump up low-midrange torque by 20-30?

And why wouldn't it be on Lund's agenda? If he can get a fatter torque curve by simply updating a few tables without sacrificing any top end power, why wouldn't he?

Cause Ford is about compromise, and lund is about ET/MPH. Record, micro records, records for the micro records, etc., etc. More torque down low NA, almost always equals less top end charge, especially on a DOHC little 5.0l.

 

[EFI]

More torque down low NA, almost always equals less top end charge, especially on a DOHC little 5.0l.

That is 100% true with things like cams, head port size, valve size, exhaust size, intake manifold size etc.

But with IMRCs it has shown that it's not. If it's as easy to improve low end torque as you say by adjusting the valves, then that won't cause any issue up top because you can them open them up 100% and see 0 restriction.

 

[WildHorse]

But with IMRCs it has shown that it's not

But you're talking purely the most torque gains possibly. That would be in the IMCV for these engines, along with early intake closing & late exhaust opening events. Dunno to many tuners who'll wanna do that haha.

 

[K4fxd]

The only thing the CMCV's do on the coyote is swirl the air charge for emmissions and idle quality. The opening is about the size of a sharpie.

Try making power sucking air through a straw.

 

[TX5OH]

Thats a real nice gain and no real loss in torque.

The 18 truck manifold has slightly shorter runners than the 17, it also has more runner volume. I'm close to testing a 18 truck manifold on a 17. I think it will outperform the 17 GT manifold all the way through the RPM range.

My sim program likes it, now to see if the real world agrees.

Are you using Dynosim/Dynomation?

 

[Grintch]

If it only was so easy. Crazy how you figured this out, yet Ford or other tuners like AED, PBD or Lund still haven't.

Don't most of the tuners disable the IMCV? Seem like when I was looking at the 18+ manifold upgrade most disabled it, and said it made little difference at any RPM much above idle.

 

[K4fxd]

Are you using Dynosim/Dynomation?

Engine Analyzer Pro

 

[Shadow277]

Whatever spec of GT - we all have the same base 5.0 motor.
Add-ons and changes and tunes will ultimately allow the engine to operate better and extract the best performance.

As far as the basic principles of Suck, Squeeze, Bang, Blow for a NA engine...

a. Increased or Better air flow to the Cylinder can be achieved with Air intakes, Throttle bodies and Manifolds
b. Tuning can realize a better balance timing of fuel, air, spark timing
c. Further tuning for different Fuels (E85) and Injectors can realize a bigger bang (only if necessary)
d. Headers, X/H Pipes, Cat backs and exhaust gas escapement can ultimately support efficiencies (what goes in must come out)
e. CAM's and further tuning will support all of these timings and efficiencies.

You pay your money and make your choice.

For reliability purposes, what is there to break..? (Cue the doom merchants)
Until you reach a power level which brings out the weaknesses of Block, Pistons, drivetrain, Oil flow etc.. Then having a power plant working to the best of its design shouldn't affect reliability.

Once you go down the tuning route - gone are the Ford EPA, MPG and Fuel efficiency targets anyway...

So the only reason companies down tune their motors is to meet the EPA regulations? Is there more to it that I am not seeing? When I did full bolt ons for my 2012 Civic Si, my fuel efficiency went up so Idk why Honda went with a plastic intake manifold and heavier exhaust, other than it is cheaper. But why redesign the intake manifold when the previous intake manifold was better in every way except for cost? How did the plastic offset research and development?

 

[WildHorse]

and said it made little difference at any RPM much above idle.

Makes a big difference if your cruising around at 2000 rpm. Fuel economy/engine torque kinda think. I think they go full open @ 3120 rpm.

 

[K4fxd]

The 18 truck manifold is on the car and it makes the engine feel like a big block. I can light the tires in 3rd at 30 Mph.

After I do some real testing I'll post my results in a new thread.

 

[Kayd77]

So the only reason companies down tune their motors is to meet the EPA regulations? Is there more to it that I am not seeing? When I did full bolt ons for my 2012 Civic Si, my fuel efficiency went up so Idk why Honda went with a plastic intake manifold and heavier exhaust, other than it is cheaper. But why redesign the intake manifold when the previous intake manifold was better in every way except for cost? How did the plastic offset research and development?

I mainly came here to get a quick answer, I currently am in possession of a 2014 GT 5.0L upper intake Manifold and am curious as to if it is compatible with a 2016 GT 5.0

 

[EFI]

I mainly came here to get a quick answer, I currently am in possession of a 2014 GT 5.0L upper intake Manifold and am curious as to if it is compatible with a 2016 GT 5.0

It's a major downgrade for your car, why would you want to swap it in?

Sponsored