Virtual Works vs. Veilside - FINALLY flow test results

[ChrisBergemann]

Virtual Works manifold vs. Veilside. We've heard this debate over and over again. After all the debates, nobody "really" knew which one was superior. The information I previously received about these manifolds was from reputable sources that have tuned Supras with both intakes. I based my original assumptions on these statements.

Statements from Tuners
The Veilside Intake posed tuning challenges that required them to make strange drops in the fuel curve that they could not account for in order to keep the A:F consistent (we found out why this may occur later in our testing). The Virtual Works manifold was very easy to tune as they simply had to add 13% more fuel to keep the same A:F ratio as before. This meant that the simple addition of a new manifold created roughly 13% more power and air-flow was consistent at varying rpms.

My original goal was to determine which intake is better so that the HorsepowerFreaks Supra would benefit from the best manifold. The information I previously heard from others gave me enough confidence to try it but I wasn't entirely sure.

To be entirely sure, I decided to send both manifolds out for flow-testing and also decided to publish the results for everyone to read regardless of the outcome. The results were quite dramatic and somewhat unexpected. I thought they would be fairly close together but they weren't. The flow bench operator also made some interesting observations about how the Veilside behaved on the flow bench that seemed to validate some of the quirky tuning required to keep a consisent A:F with that manifold.

To put things into perspective... a stock intake manifold flows 240cfm through each runner. You can compare this number to the numbers below to see the improvement each manifold gives over the stock manifold.

I had them test every single runner on both the Veilside Intake Manifold and the Virtual Works Intake Manifold. The results were quite amazing to say the least.

Veilside
--------------------------------------------------------
Cylinder 1 - 281.5
Cylinder 2 - 279.8
Cylinder 3 - 283.3
Cylinder 4 - 283.2
Cylinder 5 - 281.3
Cylinder 6 - 279.9

Average - 281.5
Variance cylinder to cylinder - 1.25%
Efficiency - 78%

Virtual Works
--------------------------------------------------------
Cylinder 1 - 334.2
Cylinder 2 - 333.9
Cylinder 3 - 334.7
Cylinder 4 - 334.1
Cylinder 5 - 334.6
Cylinder 6 - 334.5

Average - 334.33
Variance cylinder to cylinder - 0.2%
Efficiency - 92%

Here's a picture of the Veilside manifold on the flow bench...


Here's a picture of the Virtual Works manifold on the flow bench....


Here's a printout of one of the runners results for the Veilside manifold.....


Here's a printout of one of the runners results for the Virtual Works manifold.....


The last thing I want to mention is that the flow bench operator advised me that the air-flow through the Veilside manifold made a very rough sound (sometimes crackling) as opposed to a very smooth sound through the Virtual Works manifold. This sound may be due to the velocity stacks which are built inside the plenum and could explain why tuning is more difficult.

I would have published the results no matter which manifold came out on top. We sell both manifolds so it doesn't help me any to pursuade one manifold over the other. This type of Information can greatly benefit users of all types of products and can help us all make better informed decisions. We will continue to test various products that we sell and publish the results.

Take care,
Chris.

[Ranger498]

wonder how the sound performance intake does
thanks for this test chris im sure you helped many members out here with this test.

also any pics of the inside so we can see what your talking about exactly.

[bad94sup]

Awesome info, thanks for the investment and research time! Looks like the Veilside got

[G]

Thats a very detailed unbias comaparasion of the two manifolds. Good job Chris.

[kingerm]

Thank You!!!! I've been waiting to see when somebody was going to do something like this. Its not real world - on a car and dyno tested, but this is the next best thing. Great to see. Surprising to see the Veilside Unit not being up to snuff.

Ken H. how is your shoot out going?

Thanks again Chris,

Enrique M.
97TT6spd BPU

[silvino]

It's hard for me to read these flow sheets because they're a bit different than the ones we get from the shop I've used. Do you have a breakdown of CFM for the varying lifts? I'd like to see the differences especially at .350 and .400. Thanks for the post Chris!

EDIT:
I forgot that this testing doesn't have a head involved so there aren't values that I'm asking for. I plan to flow test the VW intake manifold with my head if possible when I buy in feb/march.

[ChrisBergemann]

These tests were done one runner at a time with the throttle blade wide-open. All other ports and holes were taped off that weren't being flowed. The valve lift #'s you're seeing on the charts are arbitrary numbers we had to put into the machine for it to correctly operate. Since we're not flowing a head that actually has valves, no matter what number we put for lift the flow number would have been the same.

Take care,
Chris.

[Swifty]

forgive me if i'm wrong. However in my theory, i believe that the VW intake does not have velocity stacks. Being that the bench flow test measures the volume of air. The VW should do better without any restrictions to the flow. I think the Veilside unit would do a lot better on the bench if the stacks were removed. So as a measurment purpose for volume of air it does show something. However as for real world results, i'd seriously like to see em run back to back on a engine dyno. Because i think the results would again be very different. That is just my theory though...i'm not an engineer so i could be just blabbering for nothing.

[silvino]

Why would you remove the velocity stacks in a flow test? The Veilside uses them so they should be tested.

The only thing I could see that would have made this test any better would to have tested with the HPF ported head. This would have shrunk the difference down between the two manifolds but it would give us a closer to real world situational testing. I think seeing numbers in the low to mid lift would be important as the motor sees more time in that area than at max lift.

Also note that real tuners had seen odd behaviour with the Veilside. That bothers be seeing that they need fuel then suddenly see a decrease in need as if it had problems with airflow all of a sudden.

Originally posted by Swifty
forgive me if i'm wrong. However in my theory, i believe that the VW intake does not have velocity stacks. Being that the bench flow test measures the volume of air. The VW should do better without any restrictions to the flow. I think the Veilside unit would do a lot better on the bench if the stacks were removed. So as a measurment purpose for volume of air it does show something. However as for real world results, i'd seriously like to see em run back to back on a engine dyno. Because i think the results would again be very different. That is just my theory though...i'm not an engineer so i could be just blabbering for nothing.

[FYRARMS]

a) Velocity stacks may be beneficial on an N/A motor (a la domestics), but I would think they would impeded flow to the runners under high boost. Maybe that is the problem.

b) Can't wait to see the ADFX flow results. Lateef did say his intake would outflow any other intake on the market.

[Adrocktt]

For once the cheaper one wins! Great work Dana

[FYRARMS]

And someone flow that TwinsTurbo monstrosity, too.

[neonafk]

good work dana and virtual works!!!
awesome that its cheaper and flows more than the overpriced veilside manifold, it doesn't look as cool though!
im proud that part came from jeresy.

-Brett

[silvino]

Dana, how about you offering an Uber VW Intake manifold that's kinda along these designs to take it to the next level?





http://www.jmengines.com/throttle.htm

Since the manifold and head work together to perform a common task - fill the combustion chamber with air, it only tells half the story to provide data on one w/o the other. To be conclusive, you really need to see the manifold numbers with the head connected.

The shape and design of the intake runners, inside the head, affect the performance of the intake manifold, thats why.

Don't get me wrong, the Virtual works manifold will probably flow more, but the percentage difference probably won't be as great.

That is, of course, if you plan to use the manifold with the head attached..

Sean

[95BPUplus]

So when do you think the price of the veilside will drop like a brick.. nice to finally see some numbers, but suprising there is such a big difference.

[Swifty]

Originally posted by 95BPUplus
So when do you think the price of the veilside will drop like a brick.. nice to finally see some numbers, but suprising there is such a big difference.

Considering some old man sitting in his work shop in japan hand makes em all, and the fact that it costs freakin $3.00 for a tiny can of coffee in japan, i'd doubt the price would tank.

[IGGYWOOWOO]

At what point should one upgrade to one of these manifolds??

Turbo size / horsepower?

Brandon

THAT VIRTUAL WORKS PIECE IS OFFICIALLY MY NEXT MOD. Congrats gentlemen on the good work, saving us once again from the clutches of the overpriced Japanese market.

[ChrisBergemann]

Dana did a great job on the Virtual Works manifold. Flow testing during the developmental process is key to rolling out high quality units and he did quite a bit of it.

I believe you will see benefits to running this manifold (over the stock one) for cars with 600rwhp on up. I think the benefits will grow as flow demands increase so a 900rwhp Supra would benefit much more than a 600rwhp Supra. We may do a before and after dyno pull with the various manifolds but right now our first concern is getting time to finish the HPF Supra and making sure we select all of the right components. This year will be unlike any year before from the HPF/TF camp. Our 2 Supras will be much more formidable competitors on the drag strip than in the past and should be more reliable and more fun to watch.

I'm glad you guys appreciate the info. It makes it all worthwhile.

Take care,
Chris.

[KReddy05]

Dana, you gone done it again. Them Veilside folk will be huntin' for your ass

Chris awesome job by taking up a project that is unbiased and can finally provide some numbers to back up the theories. Hopefully you will continue to do such comparisons with other products as well, and I look forward to reading them.

Here is another shot, this one is of the Virtual Works engine bay (more pics on lvracingscene.com):

[bigmike]

HOLY SHIT.

[Ubermensch]

Chris, fantastic job on spending your time and money to benefit the community as a whole. You're a real asset to the community. That said, I agree with swifty in that flow numbers don't always equal horsepower. Velocity is an important consideration when it comes to filling cylinders effectively. Back to back dyno testing is the only definitive way to know for sure, but in the meantime this is fantastic data. Thanks again.

Shawn

[Latteboost]

I just have one question, would there be any difference in the outcomes if the flow was tested under pressure, rather than at 1 atmosphere? I say this because I imagine that the flow of the air inside the plenum wont act in the same manner ( more turbulence) when air is being forced in under pressure, rather that being at atmospheric pressure.

[Mark Conte]

Another thing that is very interesting is the flow differences between the cylinders....between the manifolds. The virtual works not only is out flowing the veilside (although I would like to see if bolted to a head with varying lifts and boost pressures) but it also only has a .2 percent difference between the cylinders, whereas the veilside has a 1.25. Not that 1.25 is bad, but .2 is amazing, especially with the apparent increased flow of the VW manifold...

Any opinions Ken??