Focus Fanatics Forum banner

Cosworth intake clone install review

19K views 27 replies 8 participants last post by  Royce02  
#1 ·
Recently installed a cossie clone intake manifold
I got it online from eBay I believe. pretty cheap at $260 after shipping.

I Spent some time smoothing out the independent cones leading to cyldiner ports. The casting lines and cone inlets were very rough and did not look conducive to quality inlet airflow. I Used a Dremel and eventually emery cloth/sand paper to smooth it out nicely. Setting up the IAC porting was annoying, but not terribly difficult. It came with a few holes drilled, but you have to plug some and drill others out a little depending on how you want to orient your IAC.

lining up the ports took the most time. the 2.5L ports are a good bit larger than the 2.3L/2.0L that the intake manifold was made for. the bottom of both sides of the ports line up, but the cylinder head port is much taller on the bolt pattern. opening up the manifold side of the ports to get as much cross sectional area as possible really seemed to pay off. The car feels wild in the top end. tach runs right up to 7000, which it struggled to do prior.
Very noticeable 'seat of the pants' power improvement above 4,500 rpm. The tach just keeps climbing.

Low end definitely lost some torque, but its almost seemed to enhance the drivability of the car if anything. and the torque/power you get at the top end is well worth it. I do mostly city driving and this mod is still great. having cams, stiffened mounts, and a torquey 2.5 engine in a light car makes low rpm driving annoying at times. the torque lost at cruising rpms smoothed out the experience.

I'd recommend swapping in a cossie clone in if you don't mind spending a lot of time modifying the sloppy casting you get in the mail. Its cheaper because YOU have to do the machine work instead of an expert from cossworth. But if you're putting it on a 2.5L, you're going to be doing port matching any ways. I did it with a nice variety of Dremel bits, calipers, emery cloth, and a steady hand. I also used a conversion plate to buy myself some more space/leeway for my amateur porting craftsman ship and to ensure that manifold seals have a good surface to mate to, but the end had very smooth transitions and runs great. Worth if you have the time.

I didn't take good pictures of the process. only found two mid way snap chat posts. but you can see some of the marks from me grinding down on it.
The pictures don't really provide much info...
 

Attachments

#3 ·
Only way to tell if this is better then the 2.5 is to Dyno both

Port matching the cosi to match the opening of the head doesnt open the runners to to the size of the 2.5 head ports so the runners are a restriction more then likely , there is no need to port match if the head is bigger then the intake port

Did you dyno the 2.5 Intake ?

I know what the cosi and the cosi knockoff do on the 2.0 and 2.3 , I dont think this would be a gain in performance but it does look good

Tom
 
#4 ·
Only way to tell if this is better then the 2.5 is to Dyno both

Port matching the cosi to match the opening of the head doesnt open the runners to to the size of the 2.5 head ports so the runners are a restriction more then likely , there is no need to port match if the head is bigger then the intake port

Did you dyno the 2.5 Intake ?

I know what the cosi and the cosi knockoff do on the 2.0 and 2.3 , I dont think this would be a gain in performance but it does look good

Tom
I have never dyno’d anything. I’d love to though.

I know there is an argument that this isn’t an improvement over the stock 2.5L manifold. I don’t have dyno numbers but I do have tach numbers. On the stock manifold it wouldn’t go above 6,750. With this manifold it breathes all the way up to 7,000 where the tach runs out.

I know there are a lot of factors as to why it would stop below 6,750 before. But as soon as I swapped it, it would go beyond what it used to. It really does feel more powerful on the top end. I wish I had dyno plots to back this up.
 
#5 ·
I’d submit that the long length of the stock 2.5L runners may cause more restriction than the smalller cross section in the short runners of the cossie. More length spent Dragging viscous forces through a longer tube could end up being more restrictive than a short quick squeeze through the cossie independent runners. Air’s compressibility makes it hard to know. The larger plenum and short runners could be very advantageous once the flow is turbulent which could explain why it hits 7,000 rpm now.

At some point in the rpm range the flow changes from laminar to turbulent.
Short bottle necks would prove to be very restrictive for laminar flows, but a turbulent flow wouldn't be as effected by one.

I really wish I had dyno’d the car before and after. I’d love to have answers to these questions.
 
#7 ·
Essilinger Engineering has flow tested a ebay cossie vs a fusion 2.5 intake manifold the Ford piece flows more air. I just mailed them our heavily modified Ebay clone. We cut the front half off and cleaned up all the casting around the air horns and polished the ever loving out of it, its been modded to bolt to a 2.5 head. Brian should be testing it shortly, I'm not here to argue with anyone just sharing my info, we run a mildly built 2.5 in my stage rally focus, so I have a vested interest in sourcing the best intake. I literally have 5 intakes on the shelf waiting for the final verdict. thanks for sharing, chris
 
#8 ·
Essilinger Engineering has flow tested a ebay cossie vs a fusion 2.5 intake manifold the Ford piece flows more air.
the piece they tested was just a raw eBay clone right? You’re having them test a modified clone soon correct?
 
#10 ·
Interesting thread-hope we get some answers.

Haven't 2.5 swapped my Focus yet but have a Mazda3 with the 2.5 swapped in with the 2.3 intake still on it and it doesn't want to rev and is kinda slow.
 
#12 ·
You Tuning the MS3 ? The 2.3 intake cant flow what the 2.5 head wants

Tom
Yes, I think the plan will be swap to 2.5 manifold/cai/cat back/tune at the same time.

Then, save up for cams,install those and retune.
I have to test every 2 years for emissions though(visual and obd plug in only-no sniffer),so I need to keep that in mind.

I wish you could tune it Tom. Wish it was sct tunable.

I haven't found a tune that I trust yet.

Been researching. If you have a Mazdaspeed 3 all kinds of good options, but there is little support for the NA Mazda 3's. It's a 2005 Mazda3S model(2.3) with a 2011 Fusion engine running BSD,stock fusion 2.5 exhaust cam,stock 2005 Mazda 2.3 intake cam(because of the needed timing cog wheel on the cam) ,2.3 injectors(I see people in the Mazda 2.5 threads using either 2.3 and 2.5 injectors-seems some have problems and some don't regardless of which one they are using),adaptor plate(not port matched), and stock 2005 Mazda 3 2.3 intake manifold and stock 2.3 ECU running everything. Never a cel. Passes smog easily right now..

Regular non speed 3 Mazda ecu's apparently took forever to crack(Mazda doesn't make tuning easy), and when I think I've found one tuning company/product with enough good reviews then I find something horrible about them.

I will continue to research.

When the time comes for an SCT tune on one or both of my 2004 Duratec ZX3's,I will be contacting you.

And getting back on topic with this thread,if there was a really awesome aftermarket intake manifold for the 2.5 that worked for me,I would buy it, and worry about smogging later.

.

.
 
#14 ·
So here's a different approach to this question.

Would it be worth while to swap the heavily modified cossie clone on to a 2013 focus ST? you'd have to reroute the charge pipe and a few other things im sure. would it fit the 2.0L ti-vct block?

I'm looking at purchasing a 3rd gen ST with a perf6manc3 sp63 stage 2 short block.
 
#17 ·
This probably isn't a big deal,power wise, but if anyone has easy access to the Cossie knockoff, can you please measure the hole across in mm where the throttle body goes?

And if you had a stock manifold 2.3 and/or 2.5,please measure that too.

I'm seeing evidence online that the original Cosworth manifolds throttle body hole indeed measured 67mm - to match their 67mm throttle bodies(I have one of those throttle bodies sitting right next to me right now-It's probably far from necessary, but it's purdy).

Here's an old quote from FJ:

"I just measured the inlet on the cosworth manifold, and confirmed it to be exactly 67mm like both of the throttle bodies you mentioned(CFM 67mm & Cosworth 67mm)."



I can't find the exact sources right now,but I've see online evidence of the knockoff having closer to stock manifold size hole here,which from research I've been doing, seems to be about 63mm on the 2.5's and about 65mm on the 2.3's.

Yes, I know the factory manifolds t/b hole being smaller on the 2.5 than the 2.3 makes no sense.

Anyway,I know the fake ones need some work, but perhaps the T/B hole might need to be a bit larger too?
I mean if one were going for max airflow.

I remember Walter Marcy's old posts on FJ when he hit a wall with the cossie and was designing his own manifold. Which was ultimately never to make it to production.
It was going to have a 75mm T/B on it.

Found it-this thread:


..
 
#18 ·
This probably isn't a big deal,power wise, but if anyone has easy access to the Cossie knockoff, can you please measure the hole across in mm where the throttle body goes?

And if you had a stock manifold 2.3 and/or 2.5,please measure that too.
My Cossie Knockoff has the same size hole for the Cossie TB - 67mm
The fusion 2.5L manifold has a 63mm throttle body hole to match the stock 63mm fusion throttle body. As for the stock 2.3L manifold I am not sure.
 
#27 ·
I bought the EBay knockoff but I didn’t have to do much prep to it if any. Problem I had was finding a bolt that would fit flush with the IAC so I could hook up the kick down cable on the throttle body. So I drilled a little bit into the right hole where the bolt goes in the IAC and boom fits flush now and my car will shift.