R53 MINI Cooper Intake Manifold
#1
R53 MINI Cooper Intake Manifold
Buy the best and affordable R53 MINI Cooper Intake Manifold at Sneed4Speed. Our manifold is designed to prevent the unequal cylinder air/fuel distribution that causes engine failure by adding plenum volume to the manifold. It can be used on non tuned cars and is a direct replacement for the stock intake manifold. For more information, visit us at https://www.sneed4speed.com/r53-mini...take-manifold/
It can be used on non tuned cars and is a direct replacement for the stock intake manifold.
It can be used on non tuned cars and is a direct replacement for the stock intake manifold.
#2
The following users liked this post:
scotty_r56s (06-19-2021)
#3
I like the design very much and would deffo buy one if the price point was a bit lower, just a little too rich for my blood at current asking price.
Also, some hopefully positive constructive criticism - the photos you've been using for quite some while now shows a product with rather sloppy looking welds and as a possible patron who was considering buying one, that aspect greatly turned me off.
I don't understand really because when I saw this one I was actually quite impressed with the looks of the part:
Posted by MiniManAdam here:
https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...-port-job.html
It's obvious that the factory unit made compromises and your design is a great improvement, so no argument there.
I can't speak to the final production design configuration's F/A distribution directly (I don't have that data). Rover group, who was in charge of the Supercharged adaptation (included Supercharger & intercooler packaging, intake and exhaust manifold), had a very poor initial prototype intake manifold design with terrible part load F/A distribution problems and turned to Chrysler for help since they couldn't meet emissions requirements with such poor F/A distribution. Their design had extremely short runners (40mm if I remember right) and was cross talking between cylinders as a result.
I personally worked directly with a Chrysler CAD designer to give Rover a design that would work. We rapid prototyped a part in a few weeks, tested it and it worked perfectly. F/A distribution was something like +/- 2% cylinder to cylinder (I think that I have actual data on this somewhere that I can look up later). The design that we gave them did not have the flat surface on the forward edge that ended up in the production part and had more "dead head" volume at the end of the plenum (at #1 cylinder) which is important to airflow on that cylinder (especially for a log type manifold). The manifold that we designed would not fit without Rover moving the radiator further forward (which they did by 20mm), but it appears that Rover took this initial design and modified it by putting in that flat spot, which reduces the plenum volume and reducing the dead head volume. It also looks like they pinched down the plenum at the end, washing out the nice bellmouth entry radii, which would hurt flow into the #1 cylinder. I left the program right after production launch of the base engine but before the final production release of the supercharged engine. So I don't doubt that the final production version, with reduced plenum volume, flat spot on front, and less than ideal dead head volume, causes a F/A distribution issue at WOT.
Holing a piston is almost always a result of pre-ignition (not to be confused with detonation, which is completely different). And pre-ignition is due to a hot spot in the combustion chamber (almost always the spark plug electrode). And that hot spot almost always is due to running too lean, raising combustion temperatures and EGT's. This is what always gives me pause about aftermarket tuners doing tunes based on AFR and not EGT's or basing AFR's on seat of the pants experience or general guidelines. EGT's when you're making 250 HP are going to be a lot higher at say 12:1 AFR than they will be at 12:1 when you're making 170 HP, although reducing backpressure and opening up the exhaust ports helps quite a bit.
I personally worked directly with a Chrysler CAD designer to give Rover a design that would work. We rapid prototyped a part in a few weeks, tested it and it worked perfectly. F/A distribution was something like +/- 2% cylinder to cylinder (I think that I have actual data on this somewhere that I can look up later). The design that we gave them did not have the flat surface on the forward edge that ended up in the production part and had more "dead head" volume at the end of the plenum (at #1 cylinder) which is important to airflow on that cylinder (especially for a log type manifold). The manifold that we designed would not fit without Rover moving the radiator further forward (which they did by 20mm), but it appears that Rover took this initial design and modified it by putting in that flat spot, which reduces the plenum volume and reducing the dead head volume. It also looks like they pinched down the plenum at the end, washing out the nice bellmouth entry radii, which would hurt flow into the #1 cylinder. I left the program right after production launch of the base engine but before the final production release of the supercharged engine. So I don't doubt that the final production version, with reduced plenum volume, flat spot on front, and less than ideal dead head volume, causes a F/A distribution issue at WOT.
Holing a piston is almost always a result of pre-ignition (not to be confused with detonation, which is completely different). And pre-ignition is due to a hot spot in the combustion chamber (almost always the spark plug electrode). And that hot spot almost always is due to running too lean, raising combustion temperatures and EGT's. This is what always gives me pause about aftermarket tuners doing tunes based on AFR and not EGT's or basing AFR's on seat of the pants experience or general guidelines. EGT's when you're making 250 HP are going to be a lot higher at say 12:1 AFR than they will be at 12:1 when you're making 170 HP, although reducing backpressure and opening up the exhaust ports helps quite a bit.
here:
https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...ml#post4188398
For anyone here who might have not read the stuff that UL has posted, I highly recommend having a good browse and reading through them all as it is an absolutely fascinating inside look involving the developmental process of R53.
The following users liked this post:
ECSTuning (06-23-2021)
#4
6th Gear
iTrader: (1)
I like the design very much and would deffo buy one if the price point was a bit lower, just a little too rich for my blood at current asking price.
Also, some hopefully positive constructive criticism - the photos you've been using for quite some while now shows a product with rather sloppy looking welds and as a possible patron who was considering buying one, that aspect greatly turned me off.
I don't understand really because when I saw this one I was actually quite impressed with the looks of the part:
#5
you must not have ever looked inside an oem untouched Manifold.. there's literally chunks of slag and casting internally as well as large casting humps and sharp turns where it causes dead spots in the airflow..the intake Manifold, ic horns and header flange ALL have ALOT of room to be ported and opened up for better flow , more hp ,tq and lower iats.
#6
Trending Topics
#8
6th Gear
iTrader: (1)
you must not have ever looked inside an oem untouched Manifold.. there's literally chunks of slag and casting internally as well as large casting humps and sharp turns where it causes dead spots in the airflow..the intake Manifold, ic horns and header flange ALL have ALOT of room to be ported and opened up for better flow , more hp ,tq and lower iats.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
R50/53 Aftermarket intake manifold
50shadesofr53
R50/R53 :: Hatch Talk (2002-2006)
12
07-16-2016 12:28 PM