AWD 380 Motor Swap!

[maggie3.5]

With properly calibrated dynos that isn't a big issue, but then I'm sure you know that. Besides which, the real issue is the BS claims in post #21 about "All you need to do". It's a whole lot more complicated and expensive than that and, as the before & after dyno charts posted by KJ-6G75 show, the gains are minimal - even with a 98 octane tune. And if you read the posts concerned, you'll see they were actually done on the same DynoJet dyno...

And, FWIW, part of the reason I posted my before/after dyno charts for the HM header conversion was to kill off precisely the kind of BS posted on this very forum about their performance. KJ-6G75's before/after dyno charts likewise suggest the 380 manifold makes little real-world difference on its own. If you have a set of dyno charts proving the gains are otherwise, I'm sure we'd all be glad to see them!!!

sigh....no where did i suggest that you simply wack a 380 inlet on and go for it and that was so easy and other steps and cost involved


If you are on this forum you would probably have a general idea of what is involved in fitting a 380 manifold to the 3.5

Sorry then i wasnt more specific

Sorry i didnt produce real world figures

Sorry i didnt have a dyno handy to give back to back figutre

Sorry i wasnt more specific on going into every single step including getting new water hoses ,a Holden sump plug etc etc. Oh wait..i did actually mention this but ..you know all this because you are the expert

Question...have you actually fitted one yourself ?

Have you driven a car without out one and then with one ?

If you have great..but ..if you havent ..dont proclaim that you know everything about the conversion


Its actually a bit of a pity that this had desended into a bit of a slanging match with al the "experts " coming out and putting their two bits in.

Why so serious everyone ?

[KJ-6G75]

Just want to quickly say that my dyno readings are from Virtual Dyno, and I cannot guarantee the accuracy.

I think that the benefit you see from the 6G75 manifold will depend on the other supporting mods you have.

[macropod]

I think that the benefit you see from the 6G75 manifold will depend on the other supporting mods you have.

While that is true, making those other mods at the same time serves only to mask whatever difference the 6G75 manifold makes in its own right, so you're no longer measuring the effect of the 6G75 manifold itself.

As for Virtual Dyno's accuracy, what matters most is that you used the same dyno, so the measure of the relative change in performance should be a pretty reliable indicator of what one might get with both the 6G75 manifold and a 98 octane tune; it would've been nice to see it without the latter, though - then we could have seen some real-world evidence of how much difference the 6G75 manifold makes. For some (most?) of us, shelling out $$$ for a modified 6G75 manifold or a std one with all the extra work that entails wouldn't be justified unless there was a material improvement in power or economy using 91 octane. I, for one, am glad you posted your before/after dyno charts; what they reveal is a sobering rejoinder to the bluster that typifies so many performance claims.

[Neo]

With properly calibrated dynos that isn't a big issue, but then I'm sure you know that. Besides which, the real issue is the BS claims in post #21 about "All you need to do". It's a whole lot more complicated and expensive than that and, as the before & after dyno charts posted by KJ-6G75 show, the gains are minimal - even with a 98 octane tune. And if you read the posts concerned, you'll see they were actually done on the same DynoJet dyno...

And, FWIW, part of the reason I posted my before/after dyno charts for the HM header conversion was to kill off precisely the kind of BS posted on this very forum about their performance. KJ-6G75's before/after dyno charts likewise suggest the 380 manifold makes little real-world difference on its own. If you have a set of dyno charts proving the gains are otherwise, I'm sure we'd all be glad to see them!!!

Just want to quickly say that my dyno readings are from Virtual Dyno, and I cannot guarantee the accuracy.

I think that the benefit you see from the 6G75 manifold will depend on the other supporting mods you have.

Ok Macropod, so what were you saying again? How can you calibrate one dyno to read the same as another especially considering one of them is virtual dyno?

There are many different types and brands of dyno's. Some of the same brand can read the same if they are calibrated the same yes, but they largely measure different figures.

Don't get me started on "98" tunes as a few degrees timing advance does nothing in the scheme of things. Proper timing advance can give power yes, coupled with fuel map changes to give maximum benefit. Most "98" tunes are safe enough that 91ron can still be used. So they are not really "98" tunes are they?

[Neo]

While that is true, making those other mods at the same time serves only to mask whatever difference the 6G75 manifold makes in its own right, so you're no longer measuring the effect of the 6G75 manifold itself.

As for Virtual Dyno's accuracy, what matters most is that you used the same dyno, so the measure of the relative change in performance should be a pretty reliable indicator of what one might get with both the 6G75 manifold and a 98 octane tune; it would've been nice to see it without the latter, though - then we could have seen some real-world evidence of how much difference the 6G75 manifold makes. For some (most?) of us, shelling out $$$ for a modified 6G75 manifold or a std one with all the extra work that entails wouldn't be justified unless there was a material improvement in power or economy using 91 octane. I, for one, am glad you posted your before/after dyno charts; what they reveal is a sobering rejoinder to the bluster that typifies so many performance claims.

We have a new easily accessible dyno in town down here in Adelaide in the hands of some very capable magna modders now. Tell you what. I'll grab one of my 380 manifolds and a stock VRX or something and do some dyno runs for you. Then I'll do a proper 98 tune and post up the results yea? Sound good?

[zero]

Back in 2010, several ex Mitsu R&D guys & myself did back to back (within about 20 minutes) dyno tests on these among other stuff.
My AWD has a modified 3.8 with cams etc., so results would vary a little on other motors you would imagine..... I've retained the stock neck on mine BTW, so I've no idea if modding-chopping it makes a difference.
The gains over the 3.5 plenum averaged 6KW & 4.5NM ................ personally I consider this a great little gain, especially if youre not over paying for it.

My elephant man intake.
https://www.aussiemagna.com/forums/al...chmentid=48601

[Neo]

Back in 2010, several ex Mitsu R&D guys & myself did back to back (within about 20 minutes) dyno tests on these among other stuff.
My AWD has a modified 3.8 with cams etc., so results would vary a little on other motors you would imagine..... I've retained the stock neck on mine BTW, so I've no idea if modding-chopping it makes a difference.
The gains over the 3.5 plenum averaged 6KW & 4.5NM ................ personally I consider this a great little gain, especially if youre not over paying for it.

My elephant man intake.
https://www.aussiemagna.com/forums/al...chmentid=48601

Nah that's impossible, it doesn't match up with what macropod's saying.

[BergDonk]

Here's mine;