Rep Power: 419

Hmm... Kinda disappointing. It's weird though 'cause the shorter runners usually mean more power in the top end. Hmm... Maybe tuning is an issue. Can't wait for the tuned results!

 
Rep Power: 0

very disappointed with the results i was so close to buying this manifold too, but perhaps cwick187 will show us some more positive results. either way a lost of 8hp in the top end is pretty big. not worth the gains in the lower rpms unless its makes our cars super torque monsters which i highly doubt.

 
Rep Power: 375

this is not good news at all. has anyone talked to John at KMS and let him know whats going on?

 
Rep Power: 323

i am going to wait for the real dyno results on the 7th before I call. We will then have proof positive and have more pull on what he is going to do to make it right.

 
Rep Power: 0

ive been following the KMS manifold situation since it first appeared and must say im sorry to those of you who spent your money on it. hopefully proper tuning will yield better results.

 
Rep Power: 0

I don't think tuning our cars will make up for the 8hp loss..I may be wrong, but it just seems that on a average we should gain at least 10whp with a properly tuned VAFC with the STOCK manifold. All it's gonna do with this manifold is make up for the loss and put us at basic #'s again. I suggest EVERYONE call John as soon as they get the chance and tell him about our problem. $500.00 is too much money to spend without any positive results, much less a decrease in power.

 
Rep Power: 0

seems like honda knew what they were doing with the plastic manifold...

 
Rep Power: 0

I wouldn't go that far...I just think the design that KMS made is bunk...If skunk2's design is like the previous gen civics (straight through) that should yield better gains. The KMS manifold design let's the air come into a big chamber and then all that air has to go through the runners into the head...I should have known that the design wouldn't be the most effective, but I have never heard bad things about KMS until now. I'm pretty sure John will work with us on a better design or a refund (HE BETTER!!!)

 
Rep Power: 0

Dude, I ordered mine like few days ago. John better tells us or do something about it if its that bad, otherwise he's gonna have one pissed of 7th gen owner at his front doors. $550 is a lot of money for bulls*it like this.

 
Rep Power: 0

For those of you who installed it already.. are these the right gaskets?

 
Rep Power: 0

the other one

 
Rep Power: 375

ima wait for the DYNO results soon and then go from there.

 
Rep Power: 0

Hey Robb...Those are the correct gaskets. You didn't need the blue ones but it's ok...Don't install it until I or someone else can dyno tune.

 
Rep Power: 0

Boo! ok... thanks... i guess.

 
Rep Power: 0

Hey Everybody. I just got off the phone with John @ KMS... Basically his response to the loss in top end power was to get a cam gear and dyno tune (i.e. remember the integra in Import Tuner that lost power with a aftermarket IM, until the timimg was adjusted?). "The IM isn't suppose to make a great deal more power , just flow way more air than stock. It is a great (vital) piece in any serious N/A or FI application. To reap the full benefits of this product, a dyno tuning session, an adjustable cam gear, and bored throttle body would be a good idea." <- and I quote. He is very confident in the IM, but he wouldn't mind seeing the dyno once available (if there is no power to be gained from his product). Oh yeah, I'll be picking mine up by Wednesday(7/1) at the latest. I still plan to turbo my baby, so I'll need it for future boosting.

 
Rep Power: 323

hey, i'm glad to hear that John is confident. I guess that cwick187's dyno will tell the story. I don't mind investing a LITTLE more money and tuning to get results........as long as there is a pot of gold at the end of this rainbow. jeez that sounded gey
.....its early WTF...... coffee time. the saga continues.

 
Rep Power: 0

I'm waiting for my Cam Gear and I'm shopping around for somebody to bore out my T.B. Once all that in place, I was gonna dyno tune it anyways. I guess everything will be ok.

 
Rep Power: 419

All of those little tweaks that he mentioned cost more money! A product should in and of itself be better than stock. The tuning I can agree to, but buying more products to make this one product work is stupid. Sounds like they simply didn't test out their product with a 7th gen civic and a dyno. Plain and simple. The benefits that you'll get from this manifold (if any) will be brought on by sheer luck. Nothing else. I hope what I'm saying is not the case, but it sure looks like it to me.

 
Rep Power: 0

something to consider, is that this manifold is for built motors, to elimiate the bottleneck of the stock manifold...


Grey, i have alot of respect for all that you contribute, but i think you might have gotten this wrong...



longer runners i believe make more high end HP, while shorter runners make for better low torque.

On oldschool dragsters you used to see what they call "tunnel rams" (the loooong tubes going into mutiple carbs) and these days those have been replaced by "high rise manifolds"
(check out summit... in the HARDCORE race section they have them)

another place to look is the new 7-series.

personally, i'm glad to see the manifold producing low end torque, and i think that if it's showing a loss on the high end, it's because the manifold is flowing too much air... (if the velocity of the air is lower because the area in increased (or if it's not turbulent enough) it will lessen the ability of the fuel to atomize, at higher rpms the time for atomization is further decreased, increasing the impact on performance)



i think that with either:
-higher comp pistons
head flowing
better exhaust
and fuel tuning

OR

-a turbo kit

this manifold will show great gains...

 
Rep Power: 375

I think that John should have mentioned the fact that this product wouldnt produce any real gains without the addition of the cam gear and tuning. I mean i realize that a dyno tuning would produce better results but the fact that he didnt mention that upsets me. I for one am not gonna bother with the addtion of these parts since my swap will be coming soon.

 
Rep Power: 0

nothing could be more wrong~!

let's start with an great example thats often encountered... THE 4-inch CIVIC exhaust!
here's a great example of the mis-application of thermodynamic principles...

the 4inch tubes flow more air, more air should mean more power right?
YES! but only if there is more air to flow! a good exhaust will be small enough to cause back-pressure before the cat, and then after the cat, the gases cool, shrink, and this helps suck them through the cat.

the internal combustion engine is just an air-pump that uses chemically stored thermal energy to power itself. all the parts have to work together as one, thats why parts have claims that say "up to X-hp gains". the gains you get depend on how well that piece work as a system with the other pieces of your engine

grey, if you're a betting man, i'll wager you that if you stroked out the 1.7 and then tossed this manifold on, you'd see an instant dbl-digit gain in peak hp and tq!

 
Rep Power: 0

I gave it more thought and come to conclusion that, this IM itself wont really give you that much hp (as disscused before), but I think its great compliment with other parts, just like John mentioned. IM + Cam Gear + bored out throttle body + pulleys should give you nice results along with your basic bolt ons. I think we all expected this thing to produce 10 hp through out powerband. I was lil' pissed off when I heard the results, but i calmed down and thought about it. Makes perfect sense. Everytime u put bunch of mods other then I/H/E you need to tune it. Tune, tune, tune and tune. Yea, it costs money, but if costing money is problem for you, you are in the wrong buissnes.

 
Rep Power: 0

I agree with Rob (coming temporarily out from lurk-dom). I had the suspicion that it wouldn't do much for our cars, because even if you have more air, the stock engine can't do much with it. Doesn't mean to say that the IM sucks, just means that it might not be ideal for a stock engine.

However, I do agree that KMS sorta jipped you in the sense that they kinda made it sound like you'd get gains simply by bolting it on. But hey, I guess I'll reserve final judgement when the dyno comes in.

Honda doesn't make our cars slow cus' they have this evil desire to make us unhappy. They make it with an emphasis on fuel economy. Hence our cars are made to not suck much air, and not guzzle a lot of gasoline. So its going to take a lot more money to get HP out of our cars because it was made for economy, not performance.

That's part of the territory, especially with NA tuning.

-Aki

 
Rep Power: 0

Robthe54, are you a fellow Mechanical Engineer?

 
Rep Power: 419

Um, well... I remembered what I read in Corky Bell's book, Maximum Boost. I quote...

"The length of the runner has a strong effect on the amount of air that actually gets into the chamber during the intake valve cycle when the engine is not under boost. Due to its complexity, this phenomenon is best studied seperately from turbo design. Here, it is sufficient to say that higher-speed engines will tend towards shorter intake runners. Low-speed and mid-range torque generally show gains from longer runners. Turbo applications will generally find best results with long runners, which provide a broad, flat torque curve at low speeds, while the turbo keeps the top end strong."

 
Rep Power: 419

I agree. An internal combustion engine is a complex thing. All of it's parts have to work together to produce the most power. Making one thing "better" sometimes decreases power until other things are made "better" as well. Only then will the "bettet" part make the power it was designed to make. What I'm saying is that this part (the intake manifold) looks like it wasn't designed to make power. They just make a hunk of metal and prayed for the best. Lots and lots of testing is required to make power from a new intake manifold.

First off, Honda's design is probably optimal for the stock engine. Replace only the manifold and you won't see any gains, only losses. Next, the new intake manifold should have been made for other common modifications. Here's what should have happened. Take a stock EX. Slap on some good I/H/E and then produce the manifold to work with these parts. Then list on the site which parts were used while testing and how much more power the manifold made vs. stock.

 
Rep Power: 323

I agree Grey. To me using a square design for the IM just doesn't make sense to me. Now I'm no engineer but I Have a basic grasp on what air does. I think that making the air enter straight down and bouce off a flat suface reduces velocity and increaces turbulance. The runners being on the side...I would think... would have to suck what they need from the square chamber in the middle. Which is Ok Up to a point, when the engine needs more air and can't get it. Hence the loss above 5500-5700 rpm. The stock one on the other hand is not as bad as I once thought. It makes the air hit a curved bump in the bottom to split it and have it go up the side. The runners on the stock one start low in the chamber just off of the curve and then run up and to the side of the head. Sure Its plastic but That choice in material is based more on manufacturing costs than air temp or performance. Tooling on a cast piece that involved would have costed a fortune.
Now don't get me wrong I REALLY want this to work and I'm willing to do whats neccessary to get gains from this piece but not only will tuning with a cam gear have to make up for the loss, it will have to make gains that are worth while. Thats alot to ask for from a few degrees of cam timing advance or retard. To me this manifold is looking more and more something for a forced induction application. I hope it works out fro us in the end.

 
Rep Power: 0

Grey is absolutely correct. Normally, a large plenum, short runner intake would hurt torque and help top end power, as charge velocity would not be adequate for efficient cylinder filling at low rpm, and restriction would be minimized at high rpm. This is not what is being seen in the real world, so there is obviously some other issue at play here. Are the runners on the KMS unit the same size as stock at the point where they meet the head? This could be significant.

As far as the reason for the plastic IM, I think it has to do with a number of issues, and I doubt production cost is the highest on the list. True, it would be cheaper to make such a complicated IM out of plastic vs. aluminum, but it would be cheaper still to stick with a log style cast unit like that used on the D16. Plastic lends itself to much more complicated shapes and has a far higher coefficient of heat than aluminum. Both of these qualities make it the ideal material for an intake manifold. The stock IM is an excellent piece considering it's job, noise suppression and torque production. That's what Honda wanted, that's what Honda got. However, If you want power, a log manifold is the way to go. This was proved on D16s when the dxs first started showing up with vertical mounted throttle bodies. The switch to an EX style log consistently showed power increases.

I could not agree more that the R&D on the KMS piece appears to be lacking. If the R&D was so great, why is there no dyno infomation on it's performance. If it requires a ported head and a cam to show gains (which I doubt) , why did they not make that clear. I hate to say it, but it looks like they tried to make something tha *looks* like a high performance manifold without actually being one. Move the TB to where it should be, then see what happens. To those that disagree, PLEASE, prove me wrong. I would much prefer being wrong than to see all these people waste their money.

 
Rep Power: 0

I'm sorry, but I can't pay (155.00) to have the stock manifold installed and have a dyno run (60.00) and then have the KMS manifold reinstalled (155.00) another dyno run (60.00) just to prove that the KMS manifold shows a decrease in power. I also shouldn't have to pay for Cam Gears (160.00-200.00) just to get my car running right again. I'm just gonna stick my stock manifold back on and then see what he is going to do about this situation. i highly doubt that the cam gear and VAFC tuning is going resolve our problems. If someone who hasn't installed the KMS IM wants to dyno stock and then dyno with the KMS, then go right ahead, but I can't fork out the $ for that right now.

 
Rep Power: 0

i may do that... but i need some time and i need to find a place...