It'll sell 2 the young lads with little idea I guess.

I'm sorry I offended people with a little information. The name 'fordfreak_ef' lead me to believe that it was intended to be purchased for a straight 6, one I would guess was NOT forced. I answered the question in a way that would outline the benefits (if any) and the pitfalls that would be likely in the event that it were applied to his application. It seems to me it is a resonably simple rectangle welded together.

some are correct, an XR6T has no butterfly on the BBM, but the thread creator didn't say he has an XR6T or even an EF turbo, relate what I said to a straight 6, and then think about it. Laugh if you want, it's no skin off my nose, I'd rather know you're having a laugh at my expense, than know you.

In all honesty, I see alot of people talking about things as if they were gospel, and see people with a bit of knowledge getting dissed by obvious nerds on this forum, more than I see respect when due.

Take what I've said, use it, or abuse it. Either way its your car that will suffer.

for the simple folk, In the end circular shapes offer better flow than hard edges, if you have a turbo the boost will hide the poor flow characteristics of a 'rectangle' manifold quite well. But for a standard 6, compare a log manifold to the BBM manifold, then take the butterflies out and recompare. You'll soon understand, if you don't want to get your hands dirty, just think about the potential reasons why a manufacturer (ford) would invest time and money into changing from a log manifold(yes, I know it's smaller than the ebay item) to the BBM manifold, and maybe why an XR6T has no butterflies.. Consistency?

Happy Motoring, and hopefully a cheap laugh to go with it.

you realy should think twice about calling some of the people who have been the biggest tech contributors to the website for past few years 'simple'


don't worry no one was offended, we'll forget more then you will ever learn, and still know more at the end

hmm, you seem a little upset by the comments so perhaps i will clarify why I found your post amusing. I could see where you are going, but just found the choice of words interesting.



I disagree with the "instantly available for combustion" part (I think I know what you are getting at, but still dont agree), and "air pressure to create low down torque"? Since we are talking NA engines its all vacuum, and I dont see the connection to torque. Maybe you meant there might be a lack of 'intake charge velocity' or 'no tuned intake resonance' to make good low end torque.



I agree with the first part, but there is a fair bit of overhead when it comes to fueling these engines. IHMO it is going to take a little more than a new intake plenum to make the kind of positive volumetric efficiency changes for fueling issue to come into play.

As said, I can sort of see where you are going with these points, just found the explanation a bit unusual.

As you are saying intakes are a compromise between lots of competing factors. BBM's use resonance and two runners to give you an extra sweet spot in the low rpm, and it seems by looking at the dyno and track times that log manifolds can give a bit more in the top end (Hard to say for sure, and I am not convinced either design is a clear winner there). As it has been posted several times early in this thread from the looks of it this one is for the turbos.

Had i realised the point would have needed revisiting so many times I'd have said nothing at all. (maybe you'd have preferred this to be the case)

What started out as a quick response to a question I had found that *at that point* had no constructive information, has turned out to be a discussion on bad terminology.

Stockstandard, you're right I could have worded things a little more technically, and tickford_6 I probably shouldn't call forum veterans simple folk.

However, as I've said before, I see more criticism, and not even constructive criticism in most threads than I see of knowledge.

Don't worry guys, I'll keep my knowledge to myself, and let the veterans inform the newbies.

The plenum may well benefit a turbo, but in my opinion it can still be designed to be much better. For a standard 6 I don't see any major advantages over a BBM, some advantages, but not any major advantages.

Judging that the manifold quotes sending an EB style throttle body with it, I also assumed it was designed with a non turbo application in mind..

It's alright though, it seems finally someone has added some constructive criticism to go with my original post(stockstandard)

Better to tear it apart with reasoning, than to take up space abusing, yet explaining nothing.

You've all done a great job of showing a 2minute explaination doesn't cut it on these forums.

Happy Motoring, and potentially another laugh.

Exactly what I was thinking too.

Some ahh great posts here.

The ebay link doesn't work anymore. Regardless, replacing the stock manifold for N/A use with another without it matched to your application (or then having to match your application to it) is as useless as tits on a bull. In fact, unless it was for a dedicated track car or car I didn't care about loosing low down torque (unlikely, as I couldn't stand driving it on the street) I don't think I would bother replacing the stock variable length manifold, just get it modified depending upon what I was trying to achieve.

Obviously for a forced application my view would be different.

link doesn't work coz this thread is 3 years old..

wtf.....i swear to god I did not post on a topic that old>>>????? FML

***edit.....f**k, realised i posted on something when I was searching...I am sorry