Re: cracked 2-piece manifold for MC...

[C1J1Miller@aol.com]

Phil Payne wrote:
> Yes, but should you?  Is the smaller 'common' gallery handling two
>  cylinders that are 'far apart' in the firing sequence?  I think there's
>  something clever tucked away in Audi's otherwise overly complex design.

JG replied:
<  I'm not so sure ... based upon the papers I've read about "pulse-converter 
<  theory," it appears Audi put packaging above performance.  It's 
interesting 
<  to observe how they interconnect the cylinders on their non-turbo motors 
<  compared to the turbo motors ... in theory, they should be treated the 
same, 
<  but Audi does anything but.

<  I think if I were ever to build a custom manifold, I'd use the 4kq 
approach 
<  but mount the turbo on the opposite side, like Porsche did with the 944 
... 
<  but that's a rainy day project and I live in the desert so don't hold your 
<  breath.

I add:
Have you looked at the stock manifold on other 5-cyl?  How about the normally 
aspirated 20v?  The '91 200q20v, or the urS4/S6 (same manifold), or the 
reworked RS2 manifold?  They might give you some guidance, as it's likely 
they've been run through a few flow benches.  Plenty of room on those cars 
for different setups on the exhaust manifold...
I could shoot some pictures off a loose urS4 exhaust manifold if that would 
help...uses the same turbo as your 200, so you'd think the principals used in 
design would be usefull...
chris miller, windham nh, c1j1miller@aol.com
'91 200q20v ==> http://members.aol.com/c1j1miller/index.html