MyE28.com

https://www.millerperformancecars.com/s ... boy-detail

I was at Dan Miller's shop last night and he showed me this beast. He's putting it on his E34.





Curious what peeps think. He seemed to think it would work well on an NA motor like mine too.

Ummm. Why?

Seems like a lot of money for something with the throttle body still on the wrong side.

You can buy ITB's and adapter plates for less if you want performance. Or, you could just cut the back off your intake and weld a box on there...
They briefly mention the added volume requires use of their aluminum expansion tank but it's not listed on their website nor its cost. The E36 Stage 2 cooling kit (listed at $309.95 - $478.95) includes ~ $100 in OE parts so you're paying ~ $300 for the aluminum overflow tank. You can build one for half that if so inclined.

I've owned several Miller parts in the past (MAF, WAR, etc...) but I've always found them to be a bit 'half-ass'.

How does this compare with Metric Mechanic's pulse tuned intake? I would like to see back to back tests between stock, the MM design, and this design both NA and turbo.

I am not understanding how this makes more power. Can anyone explain how this works or is supposed to work to make more power?

Instead of building this, they should prototype a log type manifold.

Don't get me wrong, it's cool but rather have the tb on the driver side.

cek wrote: Curious what peeps think. He seemed to think it would work well on an NA motor like mine too.

Adding plenum volume can help when your goal is peak numbers. However, I'm scratching my head with how much actual engineering went into this other than bigger is better. My prior experience with intake manifold design is that it is incredibly complex and that achieving acceptable off boost drive-ability and peak numbers for a street driven car can be like dog chasing its tail.

With that said, props for them for trying something new on a old platform. Some actual data supporting their claims would be helpful.

About a decade ago I went with a ported and extrude honed manifold. About the same price IIRC.

Funny stuff I actually was picturing this when messing with throttle placement.
"what if I put a big ass box there hmmmm naaaaa.."

On the b35 there is sorta a wedge on the back to direct air to, or separate both banks.
Makes more sense to put the throttle on the actual box, right guys? I don't know why but it seems like a better idea.

UMMMM.... This is why. Over 30 Ft lbs and more than 30 HP to the wheels.







Thanks Matt for the dyno numbers! Charlie, maybe you should get one

LOL at the doubt from a lot of you.

Very professional marketing technique.

A dyno graph is always nice but the question of what actual design, analysis and validation went into this product is what I was asking.

Is there any correction factor on the 318 peak number? If not, that's quite high for a streetable m30.

George wrote:A dyno graph is always nice but the question of what actual design, analysis and validation went into this product is what I was asking.

Is there any correction factor on the 318 peak number? If not, that's quite high for a streetable m30.

I am not sure on your logic for 318 HP being streetable or not... This is a turbo car running 7 psi. 318 HP is hardly a problem.

In a SUPER short response to your other question... The stock manifold runs out of storage volume by 6K, more plenum volume would help reduce the restriction caused by the lack of volume available on tap. We had to make it fit in place with minimal to NO effort in terms of changing stuff around in the engine bay. We were able to get 3.7L of volume with this design which is more ideal than 1.8L for a 3.5L engine. The more vacuum created inside the plenum the more it reduces the potential power and RPM of the engine. By increasing the volume, the engine is not having to work as hard to get the air it is demanding and vacuum decreases. Knowing it would reduce vacuum we knew there would be power to be made. The validation of our theory was the results obtained on the dyno and also other products like our M20 PSIK.

The PSIK gains almost 30 HP and Tq for a stock M20 engine. Again, it dramatically reduces the vacuum in the intake tract which made a huge improvement for the engine. Same principle just a different part of the system.

If more manifold volume really works, it makes me wonder about just adding a "boost bottle". Dirt bikes and four wheelers offer aftermarket intake and exhaust with added volume cans attached. I could see just boring a big hole and threading for a barb and bottle.

Hey e28 croud. Wanted to join and chime in on this conversation. That's my e34 535i on the dyno in the above post. The power gains from the manifold speak for themselves. Not only did I gain a significant amount of power but it also kept in the power a lot longer vs stock manifold. We moved revlimiter from 6k to 6800 with no signs of hp fall off. Probably could go higher but 6800 is more then enough on a m30. The workmanship from miller is first class. They have helped me clean up my turbo project to something I'm super proud to show off under the hood. Factory level quality. Cleaned up engine compartment a ton. I couldn't be happier with the results. It costs money to go fast and make things right. Miller knows his stuff. If you are looking for power gains, reliability and factory drivability can't go wrong with there stuff. Just listen to what they have to say and follow directions

My mistake. Replying on my phone it is not apparent from the pictures that the vehicle is boosted. There is no manifold pressure data on the dyno readout (I remember you guys having a Mustang, not a dyno jet but that not really relevant). Hence the remark about streetablility.

I'm not try to troll your campaign on launching new M30 products. I spent almost a decade designing parts in the aftermarket industry and too often I saw products that had done little to validate their design as the usuability of the product often had no for sight (think tawainese crap like Mishimoto). I often lamented the fact that everyone on the internet thinks they're an engineer. In this case, I am one. Bravo to you guys for trying something new and continuing to support our dynosaur of a motor

There is still a monumental list of alternate variables that goil into intake design. I'd be interested to see how the increased volume as effects part throttle cylinder filling in addition to transient response from different part combinations to full throttle.

Regardless, thanks for continuing to support our old cars.

brody wrote:

George wrote:A dyno graph is always nice but the question of what actual design, analysis and validation went into this product is what I was asking.

Is there any correction factor on the 318 peak number? If not, that's quite high for a streetable m30.

I am not sure on your logic for 318 HP being streetable or not... This is a turbo car running 7 psi. 318 HP is hardly a problem.

In a SUPER short response to your other question... The stock manifold runs out of storage volume by 6K, more plenum volume would help reduce the restriction caused by the lack of volume available on tap. We had to make it fit in place with minimal to NO effort in terms of changing stuff around in the engine bay. We were able to get 3.7L of volume with this design which is more ideal than 1.8L for a 3.5L engine. The more vacuum created inside the plenum the more it reduces the potential power and RPM of the engine. By increasing the volume, the engine is not having to work as hard to get the air it is demanding and vacuum decreases. Knowing it would reduce vacuum we knew there would be power to be made. The validation of our theory was the results obtained on the dyno and also other products like our M20 PSIK.

The PSIK gains almost 30 HP and Tq for a stock M20 engine. Again, it dramatically reduces the vacuum in the intake tract which made a huge improvement for the engine. Same principle just a different part of the system.

It's not millers dyno. I purchased the manifold from miller and installed on my car. ( bronzit e34 posted above ) I took it to the dyno after to see what if anything had improved. Same dyno. About a month apart. 10 degrees warmer outside according to the print out. I'm very picky when it comes to low load part throttle drive ability and idle quality and the manifold has had no affect on any of those areas.

That's Carb Connection, where I've done all my dyno work. Alex, the owner, knows his shit. Sometime this spring I'm going to hire Dan Miller to "final" tune Vlad there.

It's too bad on E28s that the coolant expansion tank is in the way or I'd be willing to lend Dan my car to test. But I'm not interested in investing in fabricating something just to test.

Yep, Carb Connection. Alex is a great guy. CEK, I think I met you at 5ers west last summer with your 535is. Still can't believe the quality of workmanship you put into making that car new. I can't speak highly enough of Dan, he knows his way around an m30. Shares a passion for the motor as we all do. And that's getting harder to find these days as most people are quick to dismiss the m30 as a tractor motor

The dyno sheet is meaningless without a MAP signal. Was it recorded? Do you have the dwf file?

Yes, Todd, It had less boost almost everywhere and made more power! If you want I can email you the run files.

cek wrote:That's Carb Connection, where I've done all my dyno work. Alex, the owner, knows his shit. Sometime this spring I'm going to hire Dan Miller to "final" tune Vlad there.

It's too bad on E28s that the coolant expansion tank is in the way or I'd be willing to lend Dan my car to test. But I'm not interested in investing in fabricating something just to test.

Without looking, is there no way to temporarily and securely move the expansion tank out of the way?

brody wrote:Yes, Todd, It had less boost almost everywhere and made more power! If you want I can email you the run files.

Please email them to me. tcd@turbochargingdynamics.com

I am not doubting the relevancy of the intake manifold but rather the accuracy of the test. The first run file is pretty ragged and has a big dip in the tq curve which isn't typical. Thanks for sharing.

We once built an intercooler/intake manifold that had a huge plenum volume. Probably more than yours. It's the only engine we ever dynoed that made more HP than tq but it was a 3.2L with undetermined cam.

Oh, so this is the head I bought from you? Failed to mention about that intake manifold...

Has anyone documented the benefits of the Powerfold on a stock NA M30b35?
Snake oil or real benefit?
Thanks
Pete