2GN.ORG

Im looking to make an intake manifold that uses the same principles as the magnum intake that will fit right onto an 02 2.0 sohc Neon. I would take my intake of and do what I need to do with it but its is my daily and I don't have any days that I can just sit down and do what I need. Soo I'm coming to all of you to see if anyone has their intake manifold for a 2.0 sohc off and is willing to make a sketch/ diagram of the mounting hole positions, outlets holes, and size/shape of the flange. And also maybe some clear dimensions of the size of the whole intake. I would just use a gasket like I normally would but of course each outlet has a gasket so its not much help. Thanks for your help in this.

Why not just switch to a Magnum intake instead of making a duplicate version of it? They can be ported and smoothed out for better flow.

I've thought about it but they are hard to find for a good price and I want to play around with my CAD software and 3d printer and see if I can't make something capable of the duties of an intake. I'm an engineering student too so I like making things difficult. If no one is able to get me a diagram I'll go to the junk yard and pull one that I can hack up and all.

Your best bet is to get a cheap junkyard manifold to work with. This way you have the exact numbers you need and is something is incorrect you can always go back to the manifold you currently have to double check things.....
Here's a link to an older post I found doing a manifold shoot out, maybe this will help you with your designs.....
https://forums.neons.org/viewtopic.php?f=87&t=349006

Awesome thank you I will refer to this often now. I'd love to do ITBs but I am a sucker for a CAI and I have an out of the box idea for that as well.

I doubt anyone has the specs you would be looking for, your best bet is going to a JY and getting an IM.

The Magnum IM is also pretty heavy relative to the plastic and 1gn aluminum DOHC IM's, due to the butterflies and larger size. I have often wondered how much the weight of it takes away from the added performance. I honestly don't know why they didn't mold it out of plastic. It is lighter, and has less thermal conductivity.

I have one that I haven't installed, because I am pretty happy with the Ghetto Blaster IM I made from a 1gn IM. It has a large inlet, so there is no bottleneck after the throttle body. I have a 60mm Mustang TB, bolted directly to the IM.

I also have an '02 R/T PCM. I can tell you, when it hits 4900 rpm, it still kicks you in the butt, as if the MTV in a Magnum IM was opening. So I would say at least part of that is in the PCM program.

The 18 extra hp that the Magnum has is a package deal. I wouldn't look for near that gain with just an IM. You'll need the head, a comparable or better header, cam, and PCM programming. This was also designed around the 3.94 gear ratio.

My car (2001 ES) has the 3.55 ratio, so the power comes on at higher speeds than in a true R/T or ACR.

But if you could design a butterfly valve set up out of lighter weight plastic, and some runners that are larger throughout on the short runner side, and the long runner side decent enough to retain low/midrange torque, you will probably make a few hp, and not have a boat anchor like the factory Magnum IM.

As far as the cold air part, remember there is a huge heat source directly in front of the IM. Unless you thoroughly insulate the IM, or relocate the radiator, most of that CAI is going to waste.

The original intent of CAI's wasn't cold air, it is resonance tuning. Sound waves coming out of the IM from valve noises, hamper air flow coming in. The ducting is designed to reduce those resonance waves. It isn't so much the cooler air coming in, it's the reduced sound pressure coming out, that makes power in those $200 intakes.

The GBI I have is just a manifold with the TB bolted on, and an air filter clamped to that. It sucks air from under the hood. It has no problem pulling from 65 to 90 mph. It will honestly leave my 2.4 swapped '99 behind in that window.

So if anyone cares for an update, I got a manifold of ebay for $40 and have used that to dimension the flange for the intake. I would start printing it now but I thought that I should make sure it fits the cylinder head nicely (port match and all) so I bought a used cylinder head too (no I didn't just buy it for this purpose I plan to reman the head and build it with bigger cams and such off the car) Once the head gets here I'll check everything and make what ever adjustments necessary and then I'll print. I've designed that flange so that whatever style runner I choose to do can slip in and be epoxied in place. So if I wanted I could build a magnum style intake or an itb intake or what ever other kind of intake works well on the car.

You could have bought a Magnum IM gasket, or a '95 aluminum SOHC IM gasket for the flange set up. But too late for that now.

BUT:

If the manifold is going to be plastic, you might want to replicate the o ring style seal that the oem plastic IM's use. Going with a flange like the aluminum manifolds use, in plastic, might not seal too well using the flat gasket.

Jacob,
It's great to hear someone venturing into a different setup than most others. I went through the same ordeal when I was trying to figure out
how to attach a supercharger to my Magnum cylinder head....lol
It takes time and I congratulate you on your efforts

So I managed to get the flange matched up nicely to the dimensions of the cylinder head. Essentially I modeled a flange that is port matched. I want to do a quick print of my final design to see if there is anything I want to change and to check the gasket seals and o ring seal for the fuel injectors. I will also need to incorporate fuel rail mounts at some point but those will be simple to do. I have decided that the runner style I’m going to go with will be the same runner length the magnum intakes use for the low rpm with a plenum and one throttle body fed by a CAI. For the high rpm runners I am going to do itbs that are placed higher up on the low rpm runners. This will require some sensor manipulation but my primary concern right now is how do I open the itbs separately from the throttle body at the proper rpm? Any ideas

So you plan on running a total of 5 throttle bodies?
This is just too much overkill....
If your going this route, why don't you just setup something to use a throttle body setup like an old school Holley carb that has progressive openings. Im sure there are dual stage throttle bodies out there that work like having a primary and secondary throttle opening. This way it would act like a 50mm during normal driving and at WOT it would open up the secondary with a flow size like a 100mm throttle body. (for example)
I think the GM vehicles use something like this....

Ideally a staged throttle body would have a combined opening of less than a 70mm equivalent, unless you have some serious mods done to actually make use of that much air volume, and at that point you better have forged internals.

If I were to use a staged TB, I would have both bores at about 40mm, even though the total would still be overkill.

But the first 70% of pedal travel would be very user friendly. The response to input would be much more linear.

The 52mm TB is basically a compromise between low end throttle response, and WOT performance. If you go larger, pushing the pedal to the floor results in a mostly stock 2.0 to fall on it's face. Going smaller results in lack luster throttle response all around.

Having used a 65mm TB for a while, until I could source a cheap 60mm TB, I can tell you, only 1/4 of the pedal travel was about all that was useful for 95% of street driving. The only time anything near WOT was of any use was right at the rev limit cut off. I was constantly having to back off the throttle to get it to accelerate if I pushed down to far. Even the 60mm is this way to some degree, you really have to learn how to use the added air flow. Once you adapt, it does make a nice mod. .

A lot of people knock anything over 55mm, because they just expect it to act like the 52mm does when you mash the throttle. You just have to learn that less pedal travel is more. Then you'll be fine.

So the concept of using a staged/progressive TB would help make pedal to engine response more user friendly. It would make the learning curve a lot shorter, but also add complexity/pieces to the design.

If you are having fun with a 3D printer, I would make it so the secondary throttle bore feeds a duct that feeds the short runners, and the primary feeds the long runners. The throttle plates will act like the butterflies in the Magnum IM. But the opening will be controlled via your foot, instead of an RPM/WOT switch.

So my idea from 10 years ago about the staged TB doesn't sound bad....lol

I had also posted about a staged TB back when the NGC people were having TPS/MAP correlation issues with larger TB's

It might have helped keep MAP values closer during part throttle opening.

But it isn't like a staged TB is a common item, as cost is much higher than a single bore unit.

And we all know how cheap the general neon populous is. Myself included. Otherwise, I probably would have not went the extra mile to use a $25 Ford TB, over a $200 MPX unit.

occasional demons wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 27, 2019 3:28 pm

I had also posted about a staged TB back when the NGC people were having TPS/MAP correlation issues with larger TB's

It might have helped keep MAP values closer during part throttle opening.

I've been hearing this for many years, so maybe I got lucky. I ran a Lorenzo 60mm throttle body on my 2003 for over 200,000 miles with zero issues. For responsiveness, that car always felt great.

jonnymopar wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:25 pm

occasional demons wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 27, 2019 3:28 pm

I had also posted about a staged TB back when the NGC people were having TPS/MAP correlation issues with larger TB's

It might have helped keep MAP values closer during part throttle opening.

I've been hearing this for many years, so maybe I got lucky. I ran a Lorenzo 60mm throttle body on my 2003 for over 200,000 miles with zero issues. For responsiveness, that car always felt great.

I think the issue was mostly hit or miss for 2003/2004, but a definite problem for 2005.
I recall one member that had an '04 didn't have the issue, until they dropped in a Comp Cams 400 cam, then they ended up going back to the 52mm TB to get rid of it. Kind of made no sense, because the cam should have leaned towards equaling out the MAP TPS difference.