The Top Mitsubishi Galant VR-4 Resource
Join the best E39A 1991-1992 Mitsubishi Galant VR-4 community and document your GVR4 journey. Login to browse without most ads.
Check out the AMG intake manifold. (PICS!)
- Thread starter bazeng
- Start date
CSMdiesel
Member
I have one of these now. Wanted to post some additional pictures for everyone.
The manifold is quite a bit taller than the "regular" cyclone.
The actuator is unique (AMG on right)
And finally, a pic of the manifold. The one I have has a provision for an EGR.
The manifold is quite a bit taller than the "regular" cyclone.
The actuator is unique (AMG on right)
And finally, a pic of the manifold. The one I have has a provision for an EGR.
prove_it
Well-known member
I will buy one in a heartbeat if someone will sell their manifold. I want one bad.
CSMdiesel
Member
desant78
Well-known member
^do you have two of them now????
EHmotorsports
Well-known member
Quoting CSMdiesel:
Those would fetch a premium right before race wars
Those would fetch a premium right before race wars
cheekychimp
Well-known member
It actually is a great manifold in my opinion. Driggsy and I got into quite a discussion about whether the AMG manifold was really suitable for a turbocharged car. I could see his point but at the same time I was told by my friends in the know that standard Cyclone's were used on NA Dynamic 4 Galants in Europe with good results so I figured why not treat the AMG Cyclone to some boost and see what comes out in the wash.
I've been extremely impressed with it on a mildly tuned 16G car. It is old technology that has been surpassed by stuff like variable cam timing and and it is true that for the cost, there are cheaper ways to make power. But even so, to someone like myself who has slowly been brought around to the concept of a more orthodox, fun and reliable 300-350 hp build as opposed to the 600 awhp jackstand Queen build, this particular part makes a huge amount of sense.
The car is noticeably quicker with the AMG Cyclone installed. Strangely, despite the huge plenum I felt that the biggest advantage was midrange torque/power but that could arguably be due to the fact that I'm still too chicken sh*t to install my 264/272 cams for fear of mucking up the perfect idle I've been enjoying for the past 18 months. I'm pretty sure that cams would allow me to take much more advantage of that plenum and significantly improve the top end.
If these things were not so rare and expensive they would without doubt be a staple of the factory upgrade engine rebuild blueprint.
I've been extremely impressed with it on a mildly tuned 16G car. It is old technology that has been surpassed by stuff like variable cam timing and and it is true that for the cost, there are cheaper ways to make power. But even so, to someone like myself who has slowly been brought around to the concept of a more orthodox, fun and reliable 300-350 hp build as opposed to the 600 awhp jackstand Queen build, this particular part makes a huge amount of sense.
The car is noticeably quicker with the AMG Cyclone installed. Strangely, despite the huge plenum I felt that the biggest advantage was midrange torque/power but that could arguably be due to the fact that I'm still too chicken sh*t to install my 264/272 cams for fear of mucking up the perfect idle I've been enjoying for the past 18 months. I'm pretty sure that cams would allow me to take much more advantage of that plenum and significantly improve the top end.
If these things were not so rare and expensive they would without doubt be a staple of the factory upgrade engine rebuild blueprint.
prove_it
Well-known member
Where is the best activation point on these then? I suppose no one has even tested it.
CSMdiesel
Member
I wonder if it is useful to send an AMG ecm over to Thomas Doris and Dave Mertz over at ECMTuning, Inc. so they can pull the bin files, and compare the timing, AFR, and activation point for the cyclone.
I can work on finding one, if people are interested.
I can work on finding one, if people are interested.
EHmotorsports
Well-known member
That would be very interesting
prove_it
Well-known member
I'd love to have that info.
Although the tune would be for an NA car with higher compression. I'd expect to see an aggressive timing curve and a rich fuel curve.
Although the tune would be for an NA car with higher compression. I'd expect to see an aggressive timing curve and a rich fuel curve.
Last edited:
cheekychimp
Well-known member
Quoting prove_it:
Where is the best activation point on these then? I suppose no one has even tested it.
I think in all honesty that ideal 'point' is going to vary from car to car dependent upon the rest of your setup. It's a case of determining when airflow/velocity has reached the point where it becomes beneficial to use the shorter runners. The factory switching point is determined by RPMs which is fine because if you have a stock car, you should theoretically be able to determine at what RPMs that optimum airflow is reached. Once you start modifying things that optimal point is going to change.
I just activate my manifold off the standard JDM ECU, so it activates at around 4000 rpm where the standard Cyclone did. It seems to work just fine (really smooth) and I can't feel any noticeable 'transition'. To be honest I think that by the time you get your setup to the point where it might genuinely benefit from an adjustment of the activation point (i.e. by more than a couple of hundred RPMS) you are probably going to be looking at other manifolds. Whilst I am sure you 'can' tune the switching point, realistically I doubt most of us would really notice any difference in doing so.
I'm actually more interested in confirming if:-
(a) the AMG Cyclone 'switches' runners at activation (rather than opening a bank of secondaries); and
(b) if the runner lengths are any different for the two manifolds.
I have a nagging feeling that the latter may hold the key to the better torque I noticed but may ultimately mean a similarly sized plenum with shorter runners might actually yield better power on the top end.
Either way, I still say that this is an awesome street/daily driver manifold.
Where is the best activation point on these then? I suppose no one has even tested it.
I think in all honesty that ideal 'point' is going to vary from car to car dependent upon the rest of your setup. It's a case of determining when airflow/velocity has reached the point where it becomes beneficial to use the shorter runners. The factory switching point is determined by RPMs which is fine because if you have a stock car, you should theoretically be able to determine at what RPMs that optimum airflow is reached. Once you start modifying things that optimal point is going to change.
I just activate my manifold off the standard JDM ECU, so it activates at around 4000 rpm where the standard Cyclone did. It seems to work just fine (really smooth) and I can't feel any noticeable 'transition'. To be honest I think that by the time you get your setup to the point where it might genuinely benefit from an adjustment of the activation point (i.e. by more than a couple of hundred RPMS) you are probably going to be looking at other manifolds. Whilst I am sure you 'can' tune the switching point, realistically I doubt most of us would really notice any difference in doing so.
I'm actually more interested in confirming if:-
(a) the AMG Cyclone 'switches' runners at activation (rather than opening a bank of secondaries); and
(b) if the runner lengths are any different for the two manifolds.
I have a nagging feeling that the latter may hold the key to the better torque I noticed but may ultimately mean a similarly sized plenum with shorter runners might actually yield better power on the top end.
Either way, I still say that this is an awesome street/daily driver manifold.
Last edited:
CSMdiesel
Member
The butterfly opens up a second bank of runners. Hard to tell from the second picture, but the second set of runners joins the first set an inch or so below the butterfly.
MX4
Well-known member
Quoting cheekychimp:
Quoting prove_it:
Where is the best activation point on these then? I suppose no one has even tested it.
I think in all honesty that ideal 'point' is going to vary from car to car dependent upon the rest of your setup. It's a case of determining when airflow/velocity has reached the point where it becomes beneficial to use the shorter runners. The factory switching point is determined by RPMs which is fine because if you have a stock car, you should theoretically be able to determine at what RPMs that optimum airflow is reached. Once you start modifying things that optimal point is going to change.
I just activate my manifold off the standard JDM ECU, so it activates at around 4000 rpm where the standard Cyclone did. It seems to work just fine (really smooth) and I can't feel any noticeable 'transition'. To be honest I think that by the time you get your setup to the point where it might genuinely benefit from an adjustment of the activation point (i.e. by more than a couple of hundred RPMS) you are probably going to be looking at other manifolds. Whilst I am sure you 'can' tune the switching point, realistically I doubt most of us would really notice any difference in doing so.
Wouldn't it be possible to put a car onto the dyno with the AMG manifold installed. Then do a dyno run with the butterflys closed, and then another with them open. By overlying the maps it would show where the perfect spot is to open the butterflys.
Quoting prove_it:
Where is the best activation point on these then? I suppose no one has even tested it.
I think in all honesty that ideal 'point' is going to vary from car to car dependent upon the rest of your setup. It's a case of determining when airflow/velocity has reached the point where it becomes beneficial to use the shorter runners. The factory switching point is determined by RPMs which is fine because if you have a stock car, you should theoretically be able to determine at what RPMs that optimum airflow is reached. Once you start modifying things that optimal point is going to change.
I just activate my manifold off the standard JDM ECU, so it activates at around 4000 rpm where the standard Cyclone did. It seems to work just fine (really smooth) and I can't feel any noticeable 'transition'. To be honest I think that by the time you get your setup to the point where it might genuinely benefit from an adjustment of the activation point (i.e. by more than a couple of hundred RPMS) you are probably going to be looking at other manifolds. Whilst I am sure you 'can' tune the switching point, realistically I doubt most of us would really notice any difference in doing so.
Wouldn't it be possible to put a car onto the dyno with the AMG manifold installed. Then do a dyno run with the butterflys closed, and then another with them open. By overlying the maps it would show where the perfect spot is to open the butterflys.
cheekychimp
Well-known member
Quoting MX4:
Wouldn't it be possible to put a car onto the dyno with the AMG manifold installed. Then do a dyno run with the butterflys closed, and then another with them open. By overlying the maps it would show where the perfect spot is to open the butterflys.
Absolutely! I'm just saying that the optimal activation point for one setup might not be optimal for another one. I stand by my previous prediction however that for 90% of us it will probably narrow down to no more than a couple of hundred RPMs either way.
CSMdiesel thanks for posting the pics, that puts that argument to rest. Is your manifold working yet? I tried measuring the length of that activator for you but I just can't get at it to measure it with any degree of accuracy whilst it is on the car. Are you still having issues? Is the actuator any different other than the arm length? i.e. could you swap the arm over?
Wouldn't it be possible to put a car onto the dyno with the AMG manifold installed. Then do a dyno run with the butterflys closed, and then another with them open. By overlying the maps it would show where the perfect spot is to open the butterflys.
Absolutely! I'm just saying that the optimal activation point for one setup might not be optimal for another one. I stand by my previous prediction however that for 90% of us it will probably narrow down to no more than a couple of hundred RPMs either way.
CSMdiesel thanks for posting the pics, that puts that argument to rest. Is your manifold working yet? I tried measuring the length of that activator for you but I just can't get at it to measure it with any degree of accuracy whilst it is on the car. Are you still having issues? Is the actuator any different other than the arm length? i.e. could you swap the arm over?
Last edited:
CSMdiesel
Member
I don't have the manifold on the car just yet. I determined the actuator stop to protrude 3/16" as both of the manifolds I have are set at that distance. Additionally, I was able to fix the actuator.
