LMFAO

I can't speak for Marco, but I did speak to him just this morning. There will be a response, without question. Marco's not hiding from Buschur's accusations.

Heh. Don't turn things political. It either works, or it doesn't. Although with the wacky aspects of thermodynamics, maybe there's something with the air in Ohio...

I'm with you, Mike. You get a lot of people weighing in with their ideas on what's wrong with a particular design, but no idea what they're talking about. In the case of an engine, you're dealing with variable airflow at different temperatures, the positive pressure of the air from the turbo, yet also with the pumping/depressurization from the cylinders... It would make you want to just design a big tank with 4 runners and be done with it. *Laugh*

If nothing else comes of this I'm sure we'll at least see a healthy rivalry with cars making even MORE power and even better times.

Gotta be optimistic.

What I find funny is that Buschur tries to come off like a good guy, when he went and sold the stuff after knowing they were no good...
How is that any better?

Even shepherd is getting bashed by dave over there.It is really getting quite out of hand.Crazy stuff

I wouldn't say he is bashing John just stating that he isn't the type of guy to talk about sh!t on the forums.

I was thinking more about the lack of balls comment,

Oh by the way awesome numbers you have there

I cant even stand to read that thread on Buschurs forum. Its now cluttered with whining and name calling that is completely un-related with what is going on.

Talk about professionals. Id say something on there about it. But my member ship has been deleted. Probably because im affiliated with Marco lol. Nice....

I'm sure if Dave hasn't deleted "Josh Whiners" account he wouldn't have deleted yours.

Heh. It reminds me of the beginning of the Buschur vs. Extreme rivalry of a decade or more ago...

Marco posted this on another forum (RMDSM)

Marco runs a "one of" mani just like the one brent built for himself. Not a magnus "race" mani....just to clarify

They are completely different in so many ways...... Marco built the one thats one his car. And many like it.

You know I was just thinking today it reminds of Sean and Dave.I guess we are oldtimers haha.

*Shakes cane*

Marco's post makes sense. Just introduce something like that to shut Dave up. I wouldn't have said he was an idiot that couldn't tune. Dynos are notorious for giving different results for silly reasons between units.

I'd also think that you would buy something like that for relatively high-rpm operation.

It seems David is saying now the dyno sheets posted aren't good enough. It proves nothing. While he could be right, are we then supposed to believe him when he post's his findings?

Guys, bottom line, Marco has sold hundreds of EVO intakes. If it made no power, it would be his customers on a witchhunt, not one of his competitors. Search around the net, the only odd complaint is that his older manifolds may have cracked. He offers a lifetime warranty on all his manifolds, so they're covered too.

Dave got his cereal pissed in, and now he's trying to piss in Marco's pasta. I'd be willing to bet my house that Dave is not going to make power on that manifold. He would look retarded to the rest of the world. He's already soiled Marco's name, do you think he's going to take it back now? There are plenty of ways to lose power without touching the tuning, we all know that.

You can't say that about the customers, Mike. How many guys have you known that have bolted something new and shiny onto their car and suddenly have xx more horsepower, man! At LEAST!

You have to do back to back runs on the same dyno to get any meaningful results. Especially if you're down to a relatively small difference in power.

That being said, I'm sure this opera is doing wonders for their exposure...

Mike,
I would not say Marco has a spotless reputation to begin with.

Troy, we're not talking about people putting on a new K&N filter here. If you're in need of a SMIM, you're pretty serious about making power. You (should) know how to tune, you know what your trap speeds were, your 1/4mi time, your A/F ratios, etc. All of these will be affected by the manifold. Back to back dyno tests aren't the only way to measure a parts performance.

Peter, your comment is true. Not everyone likes Marco, for different reasons. When you deal with a lot of people, you're bound to have some negative experiences. Major companies (Microsoft, Best Buy, McDonalds) have customers that will vow never to deal with them again too. But, there's a reason he builds Brent's engines, he can run 8's, and that he has moved from a DSM garage to a world known race parts fabricator -- he knows how to make a DSM fast. He doesn't sell parts to make your car slow and lie about it's performance. That's what Dave B. is claiming.

Marco is a personal friend of mine for 10 years now, so yes, you guys can call me biased. But, facts are facts. Marco has numerous INDEPENDENT customers sending in dyno sheets and plots that support his product (on his site). Dave hasn't shown any evidence of his claims at all.

I agree with you, Mike. But that's not the way it works for the majority. What you get are the 'richer folk' that are building a 'racecar in a box'. You can tell this just from the comments made HERE...

"Rau's got this on his car. He didn't have THAT."
"The Sheppard tranny is the one to get."
"This guy builds motors that run 8's..."

So all they consider is, "I want a faster car. This Marco guy seems to sell fast parts. Someone like Buschur sells them. Sooo, it must work!" Engineering and such is completely lost on them, as that's what they're paying someone else for. Since they also pay the shop to install/tune/test, most of the intricacies are lost. Heck, I've seen people turn their backs on a qualified expert, because he said a particular model of a brand THEY liked didn't perform well. I get that sort of thing on the computer side all the time.

In essence, it's like the K&N filter thing, only with a higher pricetag. These are the people that 'pay the bills' for the shops. The same people that used to shop totally from magazine pictures.

As for testing, what if the temperature was a few degrees colder on your next testing day? What if they resurfaced the track? What if you happened to be driving better that day? There's too many variables and, like you mentioned, you're way beyond the K&N, so you can't just 'slap it on and get 20hp'. It takes a lot of testing and measurement.

But I do think this is a bit over-rated. Marco and I aren't best buddies, but would I blame him for not expecting the EVO intake to make power? No. Would I expect different results from someone running one in Florida? Yes. Would I blame Marco? No.

Would I be surprised if I asked Marco why it wasn't performing as well as it should, and he told me I was an idiot that didn't know what I was doing? No.

I have dealt with both Marco and Dave over the years,and got along with both.I think anyone that has knows they have strong personailitys.This whole situation therefore is not that surprising.

Looks like they crack and don't actually loose power!

The testing is finished. We had 4 guys show up to witness the testing this morning.

Eric Nixon was here just for the testing. Bobby Koenig showed up for some work and stuck around. Ron Shearer came by to drop off some headers with his employee Dan.

The first pull was done around 10 am with the stock intake, stock throttle body again. Baseline pull was 615 whp/485 ft lbs of torque. Todays intake air temps were down about 30 degrees and the boost was up almost 3 psi compared to yesterday. Good thing we re-did the base pulls today.

This entire test was done in front of these four witnesses. To be dead honest I was extremely nervous about the entire thing, wishing that I had never gotten myself into this. I was up most of the night last night worrying about it. We also of course had most of the guys here at the shop in the back for witnesses but since they work here I can't use them for further witnesses to the testing.

After the baseline was done I had everyone watch me close the laptop lid and turn the car off. I wanted it clear nothing was touched.

The car NEVER LEFT THE DYNO for the intake swap. We loosened the front straps only and did the swap right on the dyno.

After the swap was completed I asked Ron Shearer to sit in the passenger seat and hold the laptop, also to witness nothing was being messed with. The dyno was never shut off or re-set.

From the time of the base pull to the time of the pull with the Magnus was 1 hour and 3 minutes apart.

Both pulls were started at 176 degree coolant temps. All dyno runs went to WOT at 2500, the dyno recorded the runs from 3,000 rpm to 8,000 rpm.

The boost was not adjusted and neither were the AFR's. I was going to re-tune the car but I think anyone with a half a brain will see it is quite obvious a re-tune would have done nothing to help the situation.

Now for the numbers. 615 whp and 485 ft lbs on the stock intake/stock throttle body. 598 whp and 446 ft lbs on the old style Magnus intake/stock throttle body.

This means it is down 17 whp at peak power and 39 ft lbs of torque.

The WHP is even worse than it was the last time I tested it and the loss in the midrange is right where I remember it being, 35 whp/35 ft lbs.

When the test was over Ron Shearer asked me to do a boost leak check just to make sure that nothing was missed. We pulled the i/c pipe off at the FMIC and performed the test, NO leaks, this was after the Magnus. I also showed everyone when we bolted the Magnus intake on the car that we installed the throttle cable tight so it was adusted correctly and the car would absolutely reach full throttle.

The bottom line here is this is the proof. This is exactly what happened the last two times we tested it. I may be a lot of things but I am no liar.

We have it all on video, I will post that in a few minutes.

Here's the dyno sheet:



Run #1 is the stock intake/stk tb, baseline, those are the solid lines.
Run #2 is the Magnus intake/stk tb, those are the dotted lines.

Right, we're going to trust a guy with an agenda and something to prove. Look at the AFR, that looks to me like a car that needs to be tuned because of a new part. He's running the stock manifold leaner than the Magnus. He probably didn't touch the AFR, but since when do you bolt on a major component to an engine and you don't retune? This proves nothing.

I've said this on other boards, and I'll say it here. I'm Marco's friend, so yes, I'm biased. But don't you think that out of the hundreds (yes, HUNDREDS) of EVO manifolds that Marco sold over the years, and they didn't make power, that Marco would have swarms of people all over his ass? It would be Marco's customers who called him out, not a competitor that got sand in his clit.

You obviously have to tune a new part when you put it on. What else did Buschur expect by just slapping the thing on and running it like that.

With almost every go fast mod I put on my car, I had to retune it to see some serious gains. Doesn't take a dummy to figure that one out, especially for someone like Buschur.

I bet if Marco did the test it would have been more like a 50HP gain atleast, with some proper tuning.

Arguably, the AFR's aren't that different. Even at 5k, I don't see an 11.6 vs 11.0 making up the almost 50hp gap. Further thought, on this particular motor, would lead one to suspect that Magnus' intake chokes at lower throttle and never quite recovers.

However, it's odd that both Magnus and Buschur have opposite data. It's not like Marco hasn't provided more than one set of counter data.

A back to back test without any changes is a great idea but without variables such as air/fuel ratio & boost being the same, IMO the results don't mean much.

Right away you can see the Magnus pull had a richer air/fuel & less boost, doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why they power is less in these areas (mid range rpms). Now the part I'me curious about is in the upper 7000+ rpm area. This is the area where the SMIM should accel in & you can see that boost & air/fuel are basically the same in these areas & yet the SMIM still produces less torque & Hp?

Personally if David wanted to make this a true test then after the first pull with the SMIM, he should have tuned the car to get the most out of it he possibly could. If in all his efforts he was unable to make the same power as the stock mani, then I would be totally convinced.

Who said just changing the AFR's is going to make up 50hp gain. If you knew how to tune DSM's, you would know that timing has much more to do with power, than just a drop/gain of 1/2 a point in the AFR.

I've no idea how you tune DSMs.
I assume with no V-TEC to kick in, we're basically screwed.
I just tie my car to the back of a Camaro, have him make his runs, and then quickly submit my time slips and hopes no one notices.

The Magnus intake loses about 5% volumetric efficiency, which is exactly what the plot shows. A better test would have at least tuned the engines back to the same AFR. Changing the timing to account for an engine now further drowning isn't going to make back the power.

But then again, the entire intake side needs to be retuned for the proper AFR/Timing. Even a larger IM can produce worse results on a simple swap.

If that is the case, sounds like he needed to up the boost more to get it back to where it was with the stock manifold.
Wouldn't a 5% change in volumetric efficiency affect the boost ?

So it sounds like the engine isn't quite drowning with no power, more like he was running lesser boost.

Throw some cams in your car and tell me if it makes power right off the bat. The engine drowning doesn't mean the power is lost. More like if you know how to tune, you should get more power for the right application.
When you affect the way air flows through the engine, yes you do need to retune, not just the AFR...

On the other hand Marco has already posted dyno graphs that show that it makes power. I think that makes Buschur's claim null and void.

You don't take a hater to perform a test on your product, simple

Excuse the ignorance here but,

Ignoring power, states of tune, phases of the moon and all the related inherent un-answerable questions, does that AFR graph give us an idea of actual real life flow rates at the same pressure and temperature?

Looking at the AFR graph seems to suggest the manifolds in effect not moving as much air between the throttle body and the cylinder as the stock manifold was, as the AFR's dropping while holding the rest of the variables the same. Any argument to that?

Re-tuning by pulling fuel for the missing air couldn't possibly produce more power, as less mass is reaching the cylinders, correct? Increasing the boost until the AFR 'balances out' might achieve the same power as stock through jamming more air past the restriction (providing of course we've used a turbo that's got a flat line for efficiency...) as the stock intake, with lower boost. Seems like a lose-lose.

Hopefully the 'found power' from the magnus intakes isn't from pulling fuel for the missing air, putting an ECU at a lower load site and increasing timing as a result.

Paul

Also if the intake isn't moving as much air but the tune isn't change the car is going to run richer. Period.

Is that why every other independent test showed different? Check these results out, from a paying customer:

Here is a note from one of our customers that completed back to back logs of our EVO manifold versus the stock intake:

With no changes in the tune in the ECU with O2 feedback turned off I had the following results...

Below 2900 RPM there is no significant changes in A/F ratio. From 2900 RPM to 4000 RPM the A/F ratio is richer signifying a lower amount of air flow. From 4000 RPM to 5700 RPM the A/F ratio is slightly leaner signifying slightly better air flow. From 5800 RPM to 7800 RPM the A/F ratio is significantly leaner showing much better air flow.

Another interesting result; spool up is slightly better. Above 7300 RPM the boost pressure was falling off on the ported stock intake manifold, but with the SMIM the boost pressure did not fall off.

If you look at the dyno chart on the top end both intakes AFR and Boost are almost identical, and timing hasn't changed. It is amasing he tested this other intake under the same conditions and it made power 24Whp Peak, compared to the stock but compared to Magnus thats 41Whp Peak.

So, the company that wanted to remain silent was Driven Innovations. I honestly had never heard of the company before he contacted me. I guess in reality he has been around for quite some time. His product does perform very good.

We did the test this morning and on the first pull the AFR's went substantially leaner from 5000-8000 rpm. At that point I knew it was going to make more power. The AFR's went into the mid 12's from the mid 11's they were at. The boost was also higher hitting 35 psi. I re-adjusted the boost to bring it back down to the baseline test numbers and then added quite a bit of fuel to also get those back into line. This is NOT a tuning competition and I am not trying to make maximum power. In the case of this intake though the boost did get too high and the AFR's did go lean enough that it would make a power difference. I then made some quick adjustments to get an idea of what JUST the new intake manifold was doing. In the end my base line boost with the stock intake manifold was 32.9 psi and with Driven Innovations the peak boost was 32.2 psi. So .7 less boost pressure. It is still up on power. With some additional boost the midrange and top end would be improved too (for sure as I know what it made at 35 psi).

So here is the dyno sheet. This is the same baseline pull I am using to compare all the intake manifolds.



Bottom line is the Driven Innovations picked up 24 whp with .7 less boost and lost 10 ft lbs of torque. Had I worked really hard to get the boost exact that 10 ft lbs would have been gained back easily.

Finally numbers 630 whp-470 ft lbs of torque.

Heh. I wouldn't classify Dave as your stereotypical 'hater'. He does tend to just 'do' rather than think, but that's what makes him who he is. He's more than willing to admit to making a mistake, though.

In this case, I think the test was good, but doesn't show what you need to see. If he was comparing the SMIM to another comparably-sized one than it'd be more valid. But going from a stock to something like that? You'd be expected to have to retune to maximize it's potential gains, especially since you're already at the 500+ hp mark.

I'd doubt that Dave has the time or patience to go through all of the different tests necessary to come up with a bullet-proof comparison.

The only thing he did is kept timing the same, tried to keep AFR close, and kept boost close.