quote Originally posted by Raydar: Patience. This is a sideline with Troy and Francis. They have *real* jobs, too. We've been anticipating this since May. A few more days isn't going to kill us. (Gives me more time to scrape funds together. )

Raydar's right, I can't wait to see what it's gonna do and there is no need to rush. . The wow factor should be more than enough when you pop the hood!

Check out my thread in the mall, so I can scrape up some more cash to buy this intake.

I have been thinking of a 3.4 pushrod swap for a long time based on the ease of installation. This is just the icing on the cake for me. I really hope the Dyno numbers look as nice as the intake.

------------------
-Matthew
01 325i My Transportation
87 GT My Toy
86 GT SOLD to ChuckLS1

something just crossed my mind while looking at those pics, how cool would it be to have a supercharger mount in the middle of the "heart" shape? damn, if only i had an extra 4-5 grand sitting around

Travis

so.......how about some flow numbers.

i will be able to give u guys the seat of the pants peformance gain as i intend to put this in as soon as i can once i get it (i beleive i am the first one who paid and will receive it.)

If you want flow numbers, go to trueleo.com they're posted along with some pictures of the manifold installed on my 86 GT 2.8 turbo.

quote Originally posted by MarkJPana: so.......how about some flow numbers. i will be able to give u guys the seat of the pants peformance gain as i intend to put this in as soon as i can once i get it (i beleive i am the first one who paid and will receive it.)

I am all for this more efficient intake, and hope it performs well, but why would you buy something not knowing its performance potential?
That's a lot of money to drop on something that may not perform much better then a stock ported intake. In all likelihood the intake will be an improvement due to the experience from previous MR2 intake projects and such, but how much of an improvement is yet to be seen.
I would like to stay with fuel injection, like many others, I just hope the bang is worth the buck.
Still interested and waiting....

------------------
1986 Pontiac Fiero GT
Auto, soon to be 5 spd Getrag from 88 z24, Best 1/4 = 16.1 at 83mph, mods, wires, CRX intake, and power pulley. Planning Turbo 2.8 swap for a little more umph!!!!

Bought for 2500$ Canadian.

why? because if im going to have a hi performance engine (currently being built), then im going to have to flow more air, the stock intake just doesnt cut it. i have faith that their research will pay off to my (and others) benefit.

edit: forgot to add, can u post some larger pictures either here or on your website? detail is crumby due to size IMHO

[This message has been edited by MarkJPana (edited 01-05-2005).]

I went to the shop and had the intake flowbench tested again. I will first tell you about a good story. Last week I went and tested what is now the long runner intake. We did the test of the stock intake and the Trueleo intake. The results were about the same with Trueleo long runner intake flowing a little more. The results were not right. I could not understand why the intake did not flow as much as it should have. I took it home and looked at all the little things. I lost a lot of sleep and my stress level went up a lot. I added velocity stacks to each runner in the plenum. I added a velocity stack to the inlet to the plenum. I did not want to compromise with one intake on the runner length so I designed up a new shorter version and the long runner version. There is a short runner and long runner with lengths of 14 and 17 inches. I made both intakes and took them back to the flowbench today and at first it did the same thing. This did not make sense at all. After looking at for a long while 3 of us finally realized that we did not plug the injector hole. It was a very funny moment to say the least. I cannot believe I missed this. It is underneath and hard to see on the flowbench. I was happy to see that it was just that and not a wrong design. The results for the flowbench are on the website now with some more pictures. The good thing that came out of this experience is that the intake is better now than it was and will flow more now that it would have. So it all worked out well and will be a good story to tell for a long time.

As far as dynotesting. I totally understand where people are coming from. Everyone wants to see flowbench numbers. Then when I do that they want to see dyno numbers. Then they want to see back to back 1/4 mile times. I will never be able to make everyone happy all the time. Do not get me wrong, I want to dyno the intake, but had to have the designs all done and the flowbench done first. I will do my best to get the dyno done as soon as I can. I do work full time with overtime and I am working on getting it tested, but it not the easiest thing to do. I can not just say, OK, lets go over and get it done just like that. I have to arrange a day off, have to have that person a day off and schedule a day on the dyno. This is going to cost some money to get the dyno for that long also. We will have to do some runs, then change the intake and do some more. This will take time. Once these results are up I will post them. I am working on a schedule with someone. As far as the increase in hp it should be obvious now from the design and flowbench results. With the increased flow, increased size, the neck larger that will better support larger throttle bodies you should be able to see that it will be better than stock for hp. Also, it looks really good in there as you can see now.
Troy

Thanks for taking all the time to get things just right. Developing new things does take a lot of time and represents substantial expense. I'm sure that once you are able, with your busy schedule, to post dyno results the majority of us will be satisfied. There will always be a few nay sayers but don't let that get you down.

Sour

Just out of curiosity, how did you make the runners shorter? Where was the length removed from?
Does it change the install complexity at all? (I'm picturing a tighter space in which to maneuver the fuel rail, etc.)
I'm kind of leaning toward that short runner version, depending on how the dyno curves look. The 3.4 has tons of bottom end. It's on the top where it runs out of steam. Not like mine is going to be any "high RPM screamer", but it would be nice if it would make power all the way up to 5500 - 6K.

Once again, thanks for all your effort. And thanks for taking the time to answer our repeated questions.

Have you made the folks on the other forums (60 degree V6, F body and S10) aware of this?

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 01-06-2005).]

What is the anticipated rpm range of the long runner intake???
The short runner intake???
(a little education please)
Thanks

i as well would prefer a short runner one, my car runs outta steam at 4500-4800 RPM, i want it to still be able to pull at 5500-6000 RPM also, i figure with a 2.8L-2.9L a long runner would work out great, but on a 3.1L-3.4L a short runner would be best.

matthew

All the test were done with a stock lower maniflod and a stock head. No mods at all.

The flowbench was done with a very bad head. It was old and the valve job was not even done at all. The lower intake was stock and not even really cleaned well. I just left it as you all would to see the results.

The runners are shorter but they do not effect the way the install is done. The first thing I did was install the fuel rail with injectors in it and it went right in. The jigs are the same for the outer parameters. The thing that changed is where the runners enter the plenum. They are even with the sides now. The length of the runners are also changed but it is more of a curve issues than a change issue. It is hard to explain but the pictures will show it. I have to powdercoat them this weekend and will put up pictures on Sunday.

The flowbench does not show the increase in neck as much as in the real world. The neck is a limiting factor and this one will flow more than stock.

Both intakes will help within the rpm range higher than stock. The short runner will work even better.

Troy

Okay. Thanks, guys!

I can’t wait to feel my engine screaming to 6500 rpms with the short runner version.

Valve lift-------------------.100" --------.200"------- .300" --------.400"-------- .500"
stock intake CFM---------- 55.945------- 106.88---- 124.415----- 131.93----- 139.445
Trueleo Long runner CFM--- 59.786------ 111.055 ---130.26 -------144.455 ---146.125
Trueleo Short runner CFM-- 62.625------ 114.395---- 133.6 --------146.96------146.96
no intake-head CFM-------- 64.295------ 116.9 ------133.6 --------146.96 -----146.96

the last stock fireo head I flowed bone stock flowed 140cfm @ .600 and 123cfm @ .500 so the intake may still have more in it on a different set of heads.

[This message has been edited by sheppard00 (edited 01-07-2005).]

how do these numbers compare to a ported upper intake? Anyone have numbers for the stock one ported; I'm sure someone does.

------------------
1986 Pontiac Fiero GT
Auto, soon to be 5 spd Getrag from 88 z24, Best 1/4 = 16.1 at 83mph, mods, wires, CRX intake, and power pulley. Planning Turbo 2.8 swap for a little more umph!!!!

Bought for 2500$ Canadian.

quote Originally posted by m0sh_man: Man-O-Man, that thing looks great, i cant wait till i get one on my 3.4L, maybe ill have more than 131HP once its installed. guess ill have to wait and see. matthew

lol, I've owned 2 3.4's and made 146.3 and 149.8 hp respectively. Can't wait to see how much hp I make with this intake!
For dyno sheets visit: www.geocities.com/lou_dias scroll to the bottom and click on my Fiero page link

TTT

I just posted this and hour and it didn't come up? I must have done something wrong, well anyway, we are now taking orders for the manifolds !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go to trueleo.com for more info.

quote Originally posted by hoola47: how do these numbers compare to a ported upper intake? Anyone have numbers for the stock one ported; I'm sure someone does.

Well the problem is no one has actually flowed a bored/ported plenum. The only thing I have is calculated flow numbers. Although the calculated numbers for just the stock intake are very close to what they got on the flow bench. Just to reference things:
At .500 lift the stock intake flow calculates to 137.8 actual flow was 139.44. The ported/bored intake calculates to 141.275 which is basically a 2.5% gain. So in theory the actual flow of the bored/ported intake at .500 lift would be 142.936
The data listed above for the new intakes looks OK except the fact they used a stock worn head. So the numbers calculate out that the short runner manifold will max out at 181.26hp. Obviously this is incorrect as the flow is the same with just the head. So technically the head is now the restriction.
I would say that the only way to know what the max power of the intake would be is to use a newly ported head. At .500 lift I had 169.44cfm for flow data for my heads which were ported/polished and using SS valves. If my guess is correct, The short runner intake should flow more than this and the long runner should flow about the same. If anyone is looking for a horsepower guess, If built right, You should be able to get into the 220-230hp range normally aspirated and close to 300hp with normal boost.

Now we just need some people to buy the different intakes and have their cars dyno'd.
I'd really like to know what one of these intakes would do on Dennis LaGrua's turbo'd 3.4L.

[This message has been edited by Oreif (edited 01-10-2005).]

Oreif you have a P.M.

quote Originally posted by hoola47: how do these numbers compare to a ported upper intake? Anyone have numbers for the stock one ported; I'm sure someone does.

depends on who did the porting.

He went with the stock head because he wanted to show what most will get since not everyone has nice freshly ported heads on their engines. Some companies might have used a stock head with the stock manifold, and a very modifiled head with like 5 angle valves etc, polishing, etc, etc, with the new manifold and flowed more CFM. We don't do things that way.

quote Originally posted by Francis T: He went with the stock head because he wanted to show what most will get since not everyone has nice freshly ported heads on their engines. Some companies might have used a stock head with the stock manifold, and a very modifiled head with like 5 angle valves etc, polishing, etc, etc, with the new manifold and flowed more CFM. We don't do things that way.

All the more reason for a apples to apples dyno comparison test. Even if this hi-flo manifold doesn't produce more peak HP or TQ, if it can produce more power earlier in the RPM band, or prevent the power from dropping off so quickly at high revs, then it would be an advantage to run this hi-flo intake.

Please understand that my first posts to this thread were not meant to discourage this fresh idea for a Fiero intake. Rather, I am just trying to share my training, knowledge, and experience with flow bench testing in that gains on the bench don't always translate into gains in performance on the dyno or on the track. Given two engines that have the same overall peak TQ and HP numbers, the engine with the flatter power band will ALWAYS out-perform the lesser engine in an accelleration test (ie: 1/4 mile).

quote Originally posted by Francis T: He went with the stock head because he wanted to show what most will get since not everyone has nice freshly ported heads on their engines. Some companies might have used a stock head with the stock manifold, and a very modifiled head with like 5 angle valves etc, polishing, etc, etc, with the new manifold and flowed more CFM. We don't do things that way.

Using a stock head is fine, But he should have at least tried a ported head as well. Most people are looking for the most power and if they are going to spend the money for the better flowing intake, It would make sense to have the heads re-done as well to use the full potential of the intake. In reality, on a stock 2.8L there will not be much gain. On the higher displacement engines or a modified 2.8L this is where the new intake will shine.

Has anyone got one of these yet and installed it yet?

I'll be ordering one shortly... [next paycheck]

-Jeremy

Has there been a dyno date set yet?

When I tested it on the bench I used a stock head. That is what most will have and what I had. I more wanted to see how it flowed compared to stock. Now with a ported head the Trueleo intake will flow better than it did, but that does not change the fact that it flowed more already, which was the point. The stock intake has a limiting factor of flow and size when the Trueleo intake can and will flow more. The flowbench really just shows one intake runner flows compared to stock runner. There are more limiting factors to flow and power in the intake than just one runner. First, all the runners are not equal into the plenum and the way the air will flow into them so there is not equal flow, especially at different rpm ranges. The plenum in the Trueleo is equal and has equal velocity stacks on them. The plenum size and neck of the plenum for flow is also something to consider. I disagree that there is not much to gain on stock. We will be dynotesting it soon on stock. I do agree that the more power and flow the engine needs the better the Trueleo intake will be because the flow can be the limiting factor with the stock manifold. I am going to dyno test it on a 2.8L and 3.4L.

Just a bump for troy so he can find his test mule

Troy. Sent you PM.

dyno testing will be done on feb. 9th i believe, as far as i know, testing for the 2.8l Will be done on francist's 2.8L fiero GT,
ill be taking my 3.4L down to have it tested with the new intake, kinda excited, everything looks so great.

matthew

Matthew,

Are you going to compare the short runner vs. the long runner on the 3.4?
That decision is the only thing that's holding me up.

Wideband O2 readings would also be valuable if you've got the time/funds/inclination.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 01-14-2005).]

WE STILL NEED A 2.8 TEST MULE !

My 2.8 won't be of much use as a test mule since it is very modified and has an intercooled turbo. If we have the time that day, I'm going to put it on the dyno just to what she'll do and maybe see if we need to richen her up (burn a new chip) now that it has one of our manifolds.

I don't know if we're going try the long runner one on Matt's 3.4 Since we're going to do a bunch of combinations on that engine, it will probably depend on how much time we have etc.

How about somebody coming fourth with a 2.8 mule? This really a good deal, not only free dyno time, but you'll also get feedback from some top tuners.

give me a day or two frank, ill try to see if another member here wants to use his 88 GT as the 2.8L test mule, I have something i want to ask you if so, ill send ya an email.

matthew

Dynotime is very very costly. I have booked a day on the dyno to do all the testing I want to get done. If I have time I will try to test short vs long, but the engine would really be the factor. If you have a more stock engine then then short runner will work well, but so with the short runner. For higher hp and higher rpm cars the short runner should work better.

I plan to test before and after dyno runs on the 3.4L and 2.8L. This will be done and then the chips will be made with the wideband data. This will all take time. If there is time I will try to test short runner vs long runner, but I am not sure.

When making the chips I will need to figure out just how I want to do the fuel and ignition tables, then I can change the rest per customers requests. The rev limit, egr, ect. I will have a list of specifics for people once that point comes. Then each person can have a custom chip made to match their needs. I think this really adds to the value of the itnake purchase and will add a lot to the overall performance gains.

Troy