Joined

·
942 Posts

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.