Team Integra Forums banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
i had recently purchased a Skunk2 intake maniforld for my wonderful b18b1. That thing sucks. A couple months ago i went to the dyno. making 150whp and 123tq with b18b1, chipped ecu, safc, 403's, I/H/E/C, 12.8 a/f ratio. I decided to add a gsr tranny (which i had on b4 the manny and i love it) and the manny welp, that was a terriable idea. After i installed it i could tell my car wasn't feeling like it should. So about a week ago i ventured back to the dyno hoping that a lil' tuning would help. First pull was 132whp 110tq, thats right a 18whp loss and 13ft/lb loss. after an hour or so of tunning with a 13.4 a/f ratio 139whp and 117ft/tq. Needless to say i sold it and put the stock one back on.

my dyno charts looked almost identical as far as curves go.

the shop i dynoed at also tested this manifold on a boosted ls, it had no gains to a slight loss.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
732 Posts
well i dont know But I have a 92 ls B18a1 and it has the S2 manifold, By butt dyno I feel my car alot stronger than than my other 90 ls. but you know that is a butt dyno LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,565 Posts
Let me just add that since you changed the transmission, as described in an article on here, you've changed the "sweet spot" in your powerband. In order to obtain a smooth line on a dyno graph, you'd have to re-tune you setup.

But some guesstimation, you should have to problem making 150-160 whp with your setup. Just gotta get everything in harmony with each other.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
25,245 Posts
It doesn't blow if you have the correct engine package...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I did retune tune my setup. and regained some lost hp/tq but i was still making less power and i had readjusted everthing i had.

I have seen the sk2 IM do great things on VTEC motors i just have no faith in it on the non-vtec motors. thats all i'm saying. so dn't be a dick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,565 Posts
slociv on Apr/16/04 said:
I did retune tune my setup. and regained some lost hp/tq but i was still making less power and i had readjusted everthing i had.

I have seen the sk2 IM do great things on VTEC motors i just have no faith in it on the non-vtec motors. thats all i'm saying. so dn't be a dick.
Not only in defense for Justin, but in my own thoughts, you've got no room to call anyone a dick. That's not necessary on here.

Are you doing the tuning on this car? What are you using to tune? Do you have a wide-band O2 sensor?

You're blaming this IM based on one bad experience. And not to mention you changed a major part by swapping transmissions!

Do you have dyno sheets? Can we see them?

All i'm saying, you are giving up to easily on this. You need to sit down and figure out what you've changed and figure out what happened to your power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,500 Posts
Lego building doesnt help. If everything you have makes power in one certain location. Then you go and throw a part on that isnt designed to make any power in your powerband. You have effectively choked the power output of the motor. What you need to do is see where your powerband is located on your dyno of your stock manifold. Then get a manifold designed for that powerband. Not just buy a product because you heard it was good. Yea some people may gain 5-10hp with the S2 intake manifold. But then there are others that lose 5-10 or more HP like yourself. It isnt because the manifold sucks. Yea it may suck for your setup. But thats because it wasnt designed to work with what you have. You need to reevaluate where you want to have your engine making power and then plan a engine package that will have you making power where you want it.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
25,245 Posts
slociv on Apr/16/04 said:
I did retune tune my setup. and regained some lost hp/tq but i was still making less power and i had readjusted everthing i had.

I have seen the sk2 IM do great things on VTEC motors i just have no faith in it on the non-vtec motors. thats all i'm saying. so dn't be a dick.
I'm being a dick? You throw an IM on an engine package that doesn't fit it and come whining about how it didn't work and you didn't gain MaD HOrsEPOwaH yO! And I'm the dick? Lol, you have so much to learn man.

It's not my fault you package doesn't fit the manifold, and it's not the engine's fault either. If you understood what the manifold does, then you would have KNOWN before hand that it wasn't going to do you any good. But just because it did you little good, doesn't mean that someone who KNOWS what they're doing with their engine package shouldn't pick this piece up.

The fact that you didn't get what you expected out of the manifold is nobody's fault but your own.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,217 Posts
this is what happens when you don't understand what you're doing.

this should be the poster child for why we despise the Lego mentality. Thanks for confirming to everyone with another great concrete example of why slapping "the next part" on and using the Lego mentality without understanding 1. engine packaging and 2. fuel tuning
leads to a loss in hp, with the butt dyno registering a gain, and of course a very predictable disappointment. This is exactly what have we been trying to warn against doing to you people here ever since this site opened...maybe now you may want to educate yourself BEFORE the purchase and understand WHY you get something.

it's not that the IM sucks. It's as Justin said. You put the wrong IM on the wrong package and it unbalanced the package and worked against your current parts. It was designed for a specific package to work with and to be tuned. Just because you chose to ignore that does not mean that it sucks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Ok. retitle the sk2 IM blows on my setup. How bout that.
Turbolsvtec.. i understand that, and that was well put.

Screamin.. Yes i had a wide band., SAFCII, FP regulator and Cam gears. And I was under the impression that swapping the tranny would relocate my power no loose it.

i would love to put up the dyno sheets but I don't have access to a scanner right now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Thanks! i always wanted to be the best at something.

I got a great deal on the manny, and get hooked up w/ dyno time. So it was no big set back, that i had to pull it off and put the stock back on. I made my money back. I wasn't after mad power yo! i wanted to slightly increase my top end, i realized that i would prolly rob my mid range. Thats why i dynod in, it was on the car less than a month before i dynod it, and saw the resaults. I decided to express my findings on this website because i'm sure some ppl have thought about getting this manifold, and it could answer some questions. Realizing i prolly could have stated somethings different, it was still my opionon and at 7a.m. b4 my coffee. people can take it how they want. I would like to know what setup on an ls this manny would be good for can you answer me that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,217 Posts
slo: you needed to fuel tune that IM.

the powerband shifts up. those IM need the proper cam and fueling to make them work. they're not a "slap on and dyno to see what you get" item.

in fact, after the intake and exhaust, there is no such thing as a "just bolt on and your done" upgrade. all will need careful planning by looking at their specs (how much power they were meant to flow for and where their powerband is) and seeing where they work with your current parts or with any other future planned parts. all will need fuel tuning adjustments after proper installation.


it's all about engine combination and packaging instead of thinking that a part works by itself and will automatically guaranteed add power in steps as you slap it on. a part if not matched with the right other set of parts can UNBALANCE an engine and cause it to lose power, as you saw.

this is more to do with lack of understanding than the brand name. Skunk2 knew what package this IM was made for and designed the specs for it to do that job. If you can't figure out what that package was then it's not their fault.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
413 Posts
shouldn't he have seen gains with this set-up though?

A 403 w/ bolt-ons should benefit from the skunk2 manifold, it should be better than the stock LS manifold that's made for mid-range torque. What's your powerband 4500-6500?

Shouldn't the skunk2 AT LEAST show some gains above 5000 over the stock manifold? The peak horsepower dropping 18 just seems way wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,686 Posts
scooby_dooby on Apr/16/04 said:
shouldn't he have seen gains with this set-up though?

A 403 w/ bolt-ons should benefit from the skunk2 manifold, it should be better than the stock LS manifold that's made for mid-range torque. What's your powerband 4500-6500?

Shouldn't the skunk2 AT LEAST show some gains above 5000 over the stock manifold? The peak horsepower dropping 18 just seems way wrong.
thats what i was thinking...

He is running 403s, i/h/c/e. I would think he would see a gain. Furthermore, he did retune his motor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,217 Posts
DefiantGSR on Apr/16/04 said:
Quote: scooby_dooby on Apr/16/04
shouldn't he have seen gains with this set-up though?

A 403 w/ bolt-ons should benefit from the skunk2 manifold, it should be better than the stock LS manifold that's made for mid-range torque. What's your powerband 4500-6500?

Shouldn't the skunk2 AT LEAST show some gains above 5000 over the stock manifold? The peak horsepower dropping 18 just seems way wrong.
thats what i was thinking...

He is running 403s, i/h/c/e. I would think he would see a gain. Furthermore, he did retune his motor.



Quote: slociv on Apr/16/04
...A couple months ago i went to the dyno. making 150whp and 123tq with b18b1, chipped ecu, safc, 403's, I/H/E/C, 12.8 a/f ratio. I decided to add a gsr tranny ...First pull was 132whp 110tq, thats right a 18whp loss and 13ft/lb loss. after an hour or so of tunning with a 13.4 a/f ratio 139whp and 117ft/tq.
these highlighted points he made should tell you spades about why he fell flat on his face...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,352 Posts
Example of operator error, rather than machine error....perhaps.


The larger Skunk IM can only increase power if the setup is retuned to match the engine's new found breathing characteristics. My old 1.8L setup w/ 403s died after 6k rpms. My old 2L setup w/ 403s died after 6k rpms. StyleTeg's 1.8L setup w/ 404s dies after 6k. Anyone notice a pattern? The cams are helping make power across the board, but something (obviously not your cam profile) is sandbagging the torque the after that 6,000 rpm mark.

The culprits? Head casting design and IM specs on the stock LS.
Tune your setup well and theres no reason the oem IM should hang w/ the S2 IM in the later part of the rpm band.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,217 Posts
the LS head needs headporting if you're going to make it into an upper rpm breather. Remember the original design is to have the peak torque happen at 1000-1800 rpm earlier than the GSR & ITR respectively (i.e. at 5200 rpm for the LS) . The headport volume/size must work with the LS' stock Giraffe long IM runners with this overall goal to make peak torque happen earlier. So the LS port size is smaller to move more volume at lower rpms at the sacrifice of freer breathing at higher rpms.

There's more to this package thing. It's the tranny and how it relates to the peak torque which people seem to have a hard time grasping. If you shift at the 7000 rpm redline, the LS stock tranny puts you at 4700, 5200, and 5300 rpm after the 2nd->3rd, 3rd -> 4th, 4th -> 5th upshifts.

So everything is oriented towards making it all begin at around 4700-5200 rpm.

You choose an IM and cams that now want to move that focal point up higher.

You choose a tranny that orients 1000 rpm higher.

Your first downfall is not recognizing that the head was sized for a lower torque peak and make it work with an IM that is aimed at a higher torque peak. That's why you're running out of breath up top. Not only that, the smaller exhaust ports can't move the extra air out fast enough and also add pumping losses, especially up the high rpms.

Other causes of running out of breath up top are a choking exhaust system diameter (which leaves too much residual burnt gases behind in the cylinder after each exhaust stroke to contaminate the next fresh air-fuel mix coming in on the next intake stroke), not enough fueling to maintain a good af ratio, poor flow quality (fuel rains out before it reaches the combustion chamber or uneven mixing in the chamber), and excessive pumping losses (energy that would otherwise go to turning the crank is used up on the intake stroke and exhaust stroke instead of on the power stroke).

But the main problem here is at the head on the induction side since he has a 2.5 in. exhaust system.


Your second downfall is that chip. If you chip too early, the program that's in that chip is made for a certain set of parts (package) and how they breathe (aimed at 1 peak torque location). As soon as you throw in a new part that unbalances the package, the whole package falls apart and so does the program. It is no longer reacting properly to the new part. The chipped ECU is not fueling enough for the amount of added flow. You need to rechip now. I'd also look into getting a B18C or B16a fuel pump.

Your first clue to this is the fact that your old set up liked a richer af ratio and your new setup with the added flow is only making power at a leaner af ratio. Remember, the SAFC cannot increase fuel delivery at WOT, it can only lean down. The only way for him to get back to the 12.8 af ratio his engine seemed to like was to go up on the FP and lean down with the SAFC in the other rpms that become too rich after the FP change.

The third point everyone should realize is that your first baseline run should never be the one you use. The cobwebs haven't been shook loose. Get the carbon build up out and bring it to temp. Then take your baseline. I never use the first pull ever. I use the second or third baselineas my reference pull.

The fourth point is tuning in just a little over an hour is usually not long enough to sort out your source of the problem. What's that? 6 pulls without heat soaking ?
2-3 of those will be your baseline. 4 will be tuning point changes.

These are all basic errors you can avoid if you perused the info here first. I've warned you guys about each of these. It's actually a good thing that you posted this. People will benefit from it. I think that's how you take a positive out of a negative situation. LEARN FROM THE MISTAKE. If something wrong happens unintentionally or you fail at doing something, it's not necessarily a bad thing AS LoNG AS YOU LEARN FROM IT SO YOU DoN'T REPEAT IT AND YOU CAN HELP OTHERS WITH IT (if they want to listen).

I wouldn't take all of this as a bad thing. Get some good out of it. Learn from it.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top