v8klla
10-16-2009, 01:32 PM
At Modern Automotive Performance we pride ourselves on the quality of our work and the performance of our products. With that said it is easy to see why we would find comments in reference to our products like the ones below very troubling.
Not trying to jump on any bandwagons_ in fact I'm running a stock ex. mani unported myself, but the Buschur piece has more than likely been tested back to back on the dyno when they were deciding how much to port...
The other pictures/links all look pretty, great for selling parts but after the initial 2-3" of runner is done and matched to the head there is NO gain from doing the rest.
Obviously some dyno testing was in order ;) Luckily, I was able to track down a local Evo owner and long time Buschur Racing customer that was running one of their manifolds and willing to be a guinea pig for this testing. Please see below for just a few of the variables that we kept constant throughout this testing in order to provide an accurate and truthful comparison:
1) Testing was performed on a Dynojet dynamometer with SAE correction and a smoothing value of 5.
2) Testing was performed in one dyno session over a matter of just a few hours yielding consistent intake air temperatures and negating any environmental factors. The car remained strapped to they dyno while the manifolds were swapped.
3) No changes to the tune were made during testing yielding consistent boost, timing, and AFR's.
4) Standard Buschur and MAP exhaust manifolds were used for this testing, no changes were made and no additional work was performed.
It is also important to note that two unbiased parties (customers of both MAP and Buschur) witnessed this entire test and will confirm that every precaution was taken to ensure that these results were not skewed in any way. Now on to the results, please click the graph for a larger view.
http://www.maperformance.com/gallery/pictures/exmanresults.jpg
http://www.maperformance.com/gallery/pictures/MAPvsBuschur2small.jpg (http://www.maperformance.com/gallery/pictures/MAPvsBuschur2.jpg)
http://www.maperformance.com/gallery/pictures/MAPvsBuschur1small.jpg (http://www.maperformance.com/gallery/pictures/MAPvsBuschur1.jpg)
http://www.maperformance.com/gallery/pictures/MAPvsBuschursmall.jpg (http://www.maperformance.com/gallery/pictures/MAPvsBuschur.jpg)
http://www.maperformance.com/gallery/pictures/MAPvsBuschurBoostAfrsmall.jpg (http://www.maperformance.com/gallery/pictures/MAPvsBuschurBoostAfr.jpg)
In conclusion, it is evident that the additional time and effort we put into our Rev2 ported exhaust manifold yields a substantial increase in performance over the Buschur racing manifold. While I have the utmost respect for David Buschur and what he has done for this community, it is clear that even with 20+ years of experience he is not infallible.
Disclaimer: If you intend to reply to this thread please do so appropriately and with civility. I understand that this is a passionate subject and there will be arguments posed from both parties. However, I DO NOT want this thread closed based on inappropriate or off topic comments.
Not trying to jump on any bandwagons_ in fact I'm running a stock ex. mani unported myself, but the Buschur piece has more than likely been tested back to back on the dyno when they were deciding how much to port...
The other pictures/links all look pretty, great for selling parts but after the initial 2-3" of runner is done and matched to the head there is NO gain from doing the rest.
Obviously some dyno testing was in order ;) Luckily, I was able to track down a local Evo owner and long time Buschur Racing customer that was running one of their manifolds and willing to be a guinea pig for this testing. Please see below for just a few of the variables that we kept constant throughout this testing in order to provide an accurate and truthful comparison:
1) Testing was performed on a Dynojet dynamometer with SAE correction and a smoothing value of 5.
2) Testing was performed in one dyno session over a matter of just a few hours yielding consistent intake air temperatures and negating any environmental factors. The car remained strapped to they dyno while the manifolds were swapped.
3) No changes to the tune were made during testing yielding consistent boost, timing, and AFR's.
4) Standard Buschur and MAP exhaust manifolds were used for this testing, no changes were made and no additional work was performed.
It is also important to note that two unbiased parties (customers of both MAP and Buschur) witnessed this entire test and will confirm that every precaution was taken to ensure that these results were not skewed in any way. Now on to the results, please click the graph for a larger view.
http://www.maperformance.com/gallery/pictures/exmanresults.jpg
http://www.maperformance.com/gallery/pictures/MAPvsBuschur2small.jpg (http://www.maperformance.com/gallery/pictures/MAPvsBuschur2.jpg)
http://www.maperformance.com/gallery/pictures/MAPvsBuschur1small.jpg (http://www.maperformance.com/gallery/pictures/MAPvsBuschur1.jpg)
http://www.maperformance.com/gallery/pictures/MAPvsBuschursmall.jpg (http://www.maperformance.com/gallery/pictures/MAPvsBuschur.jpg)
http://www.maperformance.com/gallery/pictures/MAPvsBuschurBoostAfrsmall.jpg (http://www.maperformance.com/gallery/pictures/MAPvsBuschurBoostAfr.jpg)
In conclusion, it is evident that the additional time and effort we put into our Rev2 ported exhaust manifold yields a substantial increase in performance over the Buschur racing manifold. While I have the utmost respect for David Buschur and what he has done for this community, it is clear that even with 20+ years of experience he is not infallible.
Disclaimer: If you intend to reply to this thread please do so appropriately and with civility. I understand that this is a passionate subject and there will be arguments posed from both parties. However, I DO NOT want this thread closed based on inappropriate or off topic comments.