My log created more heat in the engine bay than my current tubular. My last tubular did too though. Both had crappy coatings that were supposed to reduce radiated heat, but I don't think either was better than bare stainless steel (the log had a silver ceramic and the tubular had a black ceramic coating). There were a couple of times with my old manifolds that I would pull over at night after cruising at 75-80 mph for an hour or two and see the turbo manifold and turbine housing glow red. Note that I did like to cruise at 15.5-16:1 or so, so that probably had something to do with it.

Tim

 

Wow, sure are a lot of log haters on here. The reality is that someone looking to make ~350whp is just wasting money on an expensive tubular manifold. Wasting may be too harsh a word.. Log manifolds work just fine and tend to have less cracking problems over tubular. There is a thread on here, but logs spool FASTER than tubular, that's a fact. Not the other way around.

I'm all for getting the appropriate parts for a certain goal. Too many people focus on having a fancy tubular manifold and giant turbo, but then their goal is only 400whp. Talk about a waste. Regarding building a turbo car for the track, the big concern is heat.

Anyway, long story short a log manifold works just fine depending on your power goals.

 

Is it true that its not possible to tune a log manifold and make it work good with vtec engaged at low or mid revs?

Then again if its making more power on low cam why bother?

Just a different approach to make power.

Sure tubular have greater potential but for someone looking for 300-350 bhp what would be the best approach?

 

On these engines with a log manifold vtec needs to be set way high or it will literally fall on its face when vtec engages. With it set properly you can barely even feel vtec coming in.

 

wont a shorty tubular spool faster than a log?

 

I like shorty tubulars. I think they do allow for quicker spool