Installed IPD Intake Plenum on 986 Boxster...Pics & Review

[AndyA6]

I followed your post on 6speed, thanks for posting here!

I just wonder how this setup would compare to a Technotorque and the "homemade" intake hose, of course with the same throttle body..........

[davemon]

Where do I buy this? I want one.

[chaudanova]

Originally Posted by davemon

Where do I buy this? I want one.

I'm sure you'll like it as much as I enjoy mine... Especially to complement your exhaust setup you have listed..

You can get in touch with IPD via their contact on their webpage... Here's the link to the 986 plenum:

http://www.ipdplenums.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12&Itemid=15

[chaudanova]

Originally Posted by AndyA6

I followed your post on 6speed, thanks for posting here!

I just wonder how this setup would compare to a Technotorque and the "homemade" intake hose, of course with the same throttle body..........

In my opinion, I don't think there is a comparison at all. One makes power and one loses power.

The TT (in theory) seems like it would work, with the splitter design in mind. Problem is, that it is still too small, using the stock sized T-pipe, and then is made even smaller by putting the splitter in there, decreasing the inner volume.

The IPD plenum is an entirely crafted out piece, and not only is larger, but has much more into the R&D for improved airflow.

There was a (controversial) thread in the forums where the Technotorque lost power, dyno backed.

On the flipside, almost every single dyno chart I've seen with the IPD proved real power gains...

I'm no racecar engineer... these are my thoughts on this though...

[JAAY]

Ipd Ftw! (For The Win)

[Johnny Danger]

In defense of Pedro's Techno Torque, the dyno results on my vehicle from about a year ago presumably showed a very slight increase in HP. I hasten to say, that the TT was installed at the same time as a couple of other modifications were. However, the point is that at no time did my vehicle show a loss in power due to the TT as others have indicated. With all due respect to JAAY and those who may have experienced a loss in power, keep in mind that the TT was designed to be used in conjunction with 2.5, 2.7 and 3.2 engines. I have no doubt that Chaudanova's experience with the IPD is accurate, however, I also believe that the TT has merit of its own. Especially if you compare the price between the two.

[Boxtaboy]

Also, I don't think Pedro claims ANY hp gain on the TT... just more Torque.

[Johnny Danger]

Originally Posted by Boxtaboy

Also, I don't think Pedro claims ANY hp gain on the TT... just more Torque.

Horsepower is a FUNCTION of torque at a certain RPM. You can't have one without the other. In its basic equation, horsepower is simply torque x RPM. (with the appropriate conversion factors.) In fact, torque and power are (almost) flip sides of the same coin. Increasing the torque of an engine at a particular RPM is the same as increasing the power output at the same RPM.

Power (hp) = Torque (ft-lb) * RPM

So, yes, Pedro refers mainly to an increase in torque (8 ft-lbs. in some cases), however, there is also a resulting increase in power.

[Boxtaboy]

Originally Posted by Johnny Danger

Horsepower is a FUNCTION of torque at a certain RPM. You can't have one without the other. In its basic equation, horsepower is simply torque x RPM. (with the appropriate conversion factors.) In fact, torque and power are (almost) flip sides of the same coin. Increasing the torque of an engine at a particular RPM is the same as increasing the power output at the same RPM.

Power (hp) = Torque (ft-lb) * RPM

So, yes, Pedro refers mainly to an increase in torque (8 ft-lbs. in some cases), however, there is also a resulting increase in power.

Lol, you really like to disagree with me huh? I'm just quoting what Pedro stated himself when he first developed his TechnoTorque...

"No increase in HP...":
http://www.ppbb.com/phorum/read.php?6,1510167,1510211#msg-1510211

[djw8282]

Hello All...

What kind of HP gains are you seeing chaudanova? Thanks!

[davemon]

Originally Posted by chaudanova

On the flipside, almost every single dyno chart I've seen with the IPD proved real power gains...

Any approximations on recorded gains? I'm seriously considering this being my next upgrade.

Thanks.

[Lobo1186]

so would doing this modification help in re-increasing back pressure with an aftermarket exhaust.


Im not sure how all of that works exactly but I figure you will have more air going in and out...

[Cloudsurfer]

Originally Posted by Lobo1186

so would doing this modification help in re-increasing back pressure with an aftermarket exhaust.


Im not sure how all of that works exactly but I figure you will have more air going in and out...

Huh?????? What are you asking and/or trying to accomplish?

[Lobo1186]

from what I understand one of the many disadvantages to some aftermarket exhaust setups is that the free flowing exhaust causes a drop in back pressure. Which in turn can rob low end torque.

My question is if allowing more intake will counter act the free flowing exhaust from an aftermarket system. I suppose like balancing an equation.

Of course it may not work like that at all. That's is why its more of a question.

[The Radium King]

here's a good link regarding the 'myth' behind back pressure:

linky

in a carbeuretted engine, back pressure results in less air moving through but the same amount of fuel delivered, so you get a higher fuel/air ratio and more 'bang'. if you reduce back pressure and you get more air moving through but a lower fuel/air ratio because a carbeuretted engine can't modify the amount of fuel to react to this; less power is developed.

a computer-controlled engine should be able to react to reduced back pressure by increasing fuel flow *provided* it is smart enough and the fuel delivery system is up to the task.

one would *presume* that the boxster is up to the task, which begs the question of why some folks find reduced low-rpm torque with freer-flowing exhaust. even the dynos published by NHP show a slight low-rpm torque reduction:

linky

all i can surmise is that it is a flaw in the dme mapping which could be corrected with a proper tune. it can't be an issue with the fuel delivery system, as the system has the capacity to deliver lots of fuel at higher rpm. of course, cams and valve timing should also be included in this conversation.

with respect to the air intake, the math is 3.2 litres x 7200 rpm = 382 litres/second. this will give you the size of the intake required to deliver the air at atmospheric pressure. any smaller than that and the engine has to do work to draw the air in (accelerate it to the speed at which proper flow can be provided). i did the math before and i *think* the number was 92 mm diameter.

there are a number of bottlenecks in the intake system that will cause this work to be done - the snorkle, the airbox, prehaps the intake manifold itself, etc. the actual acceleration of the air around these bottlenecks, followed by the deceleration afterwards, is a mechanism used to sound baffle the system. so, any work done to reduce these restrictions should be of benefit.

regarding the throttle body itself, while the increased diameter is a good thing, note how cross-sectional area changes with actuation of the throttle (ie, how much air gets through); it is not linear, so what a larger throttle body does, in essence, is create a twitchier throttle - more air (fuel) sooner, better 'throttle response' - an expensive sprint booster.

[Johnny Danger]

Originally Posted by Lobo1186

from what I understand one of the many disadvantages to some aftermarket exhaust setups is that the free flowing exhaust causes a drop in back pressure. Which in turn can rob low end torque.

My question is if allowing more intake will counter act the free flowing exhaust from an aftermarket system. I suppose like balancing an equation.

Of course it may not work like that at all. That's is why its more of a question.

The major problem with the oem exhaust system, is that it is very restrictive. Therefore, by eliminating some of these restrictive components in favor of some of the better designed aftermarket products, one can effectively increase flow. I hasten to say, however, that at some point it becomes a delicate balance between creating a less restrictive exhaust system that increases power commensurately versus one that is too free flowing and consequently loses power by eliminately the necessary degree of back pressure. In my experience, the latter of the two has almost always resulted in a loss of low end to mid range torque.