Yes in for pics
no new pics of the manifold. just had him install it when he had time since he had somewhat went out of his way to fit me in. going back in later this week maybe to have fuel pumps replaced, but we’ll see.
Hi all.
Today i was in Audi dealership asking about manifold. they don’t know for any new or updated version, they have only version – 07L 133 185 M. and that version is available for couple years. also on JHM web shop they offering that version.
SIX6SIX , can you check bill from JHM or try to get serial number from intake, i would like to know what version you get
Thanks
Unfortunately I don’t have the bill, but I remember it having the exact same part number. Your best bet would be to talk to Dru or someone else at JHM for any intake manifold related questions as it seems they handled a large number of the initial redesigned part (they had the lowest price online so they got a bunch of international orders while it was on backorder). The serial number, not sure I can see that while it’s installed. I can open the engine bay and take a picture if you like.
I came across this guy http://www.gruvenparts.com/shop-by-car/lamborghini/gallardo-v10-coupe, he sells the flaps for Audi V8 engines and Lambo V10. He asked for pics of the Audi V10 flaps to see if they are the same as Gallardo’s. If not, he can make them. This should be much cheaper than replacing the manifold.
I just picked up a 100k D3 S8, was researching the broken flaps problem and found him on the audiworld http://www.audiworld.com/forums/a8-s8-d3-platform-discussion-60/sluggish-performance-solved-replaced-intake-manifold-links-2889638/
Does anybody have pics to send him? The phone listed in the Contact section is his cell phone, so he can receive pictures
Ahh, looks like wrong parts…
Completly different and the bad thing is these are internal parts so that adds another level of worry need for testing and concern.
Apparently JHM is working on a solution and might have found a fix. But the good side even tho it can come across as a bad thing JHM wont release the fix without testing it in all sorts of conditions for over a year or so. This way we have some idea on whats going on with the fixes long term. A bad solution can end up getting you into a bad spot with a broken motor really quick of parts come loose on the inside of an intake manifold.
…a fix you say?! WooHoo! Hopefully mine will last through the end of summer when I do that carbon clean so I can do both at the same time without buying a whole new intake 
(Crosspost) just to circle back, here is the definitive answer based on photos from audiS6
my S6
Poslano sa mog SM-G925F koristeći Tapatalk
Same part number, but the internal flaps have at least changed colors—to blue. Can anyone tell by the photos if the internal flaps are gonna last? Are they still made of plastic?
they are still from plastic, and it is the same design like old model, except blue rubber. but maybe plastic parts are different material
sadly it looks like the only thing they changed was the rubber parts. Maybe they think a softer rubber will be less likely to cause the mounts to come loose or the runner linkage to break.
So someone please tell me there is a upgraded JHM version in the wings. Do I hear whispers of a secret beta program?
Don’t really think there’s anything to worry about with the new redesigned version. Time/abuse will tell… I think everyone’s just worried because no one seems to know exactly what Audi corporate did in the test and redesign of the part. I’m guessing much more than can be seen on the surface.
From my point of view there are a few things that work together that cause both the flaps to break and the intake to coke shut.
Crank case ventilation (Positive) ; this brings gasses that behave as solvents that slowly dissipate into plastics and make them hard and brittle and even expand, into the intake manifold and intake tract, covering valves etc.
Internal EGR; this is deliberate overlap in valve timing that serves two purposes: emissions and reduction of pumping losses at part throttle conditions (fuel economy)
The downside of this is that it also forces slight amounts of exhaust gasses past the intake valves, thus heating everything up.
Combination of the heat and PCV deposits create the black crap we have to remove all the time, and also thick gunk on the flaps that makes some of them turn more difficult or makes it hard to fully shut, which causes them to break even sooner.
My plan; I’ve ordered a spare connector that sits in between the PCV valve assy and the intake manifold, and also a spare plate that sits on top of the block, where the oil from the PCV/separator drains into. This is also where the air enters the crankcase for -positive- venting, via a one way check valve.
I’ll write a tune that eliminates the valve overlap (internal EGR) and I’ll blank the air entry into the top of the block. I’ll also remove the connection between separator and intake manifold and bleed the crank vent to air underneath the car.
It has a few downsides to it, but a huge amount of benefits.
The downsides are more or less: engine needs to get to real operating temperatures in order to really gass-out the water and contaminants from the engine oil, that would have gotten vented way sooner before. Engines have run that way for a century or so, and with good oil change intervals this should be no problem whatsoever.
The environment; sh*t if I would care about that I would drive a prius.
No crankcase vacuum; crankcase vacuum is (believed to) beneficial to low load, high rpm conditions in order to aid ring sealing, and supposedly brings a slight power output gain over all by having all the gear rotating in less dense air.
The oil separator will work less efficiently; the cyclonic separators work best at high flow rates. Removing positive CV really lowers the air velocity and will allow more oil mist to find its way out the engine. With a healthy engine this is negligible, luckily we have auto oil level warning.
yeh. didnt really know which forum to write my ideas/plans but this one was kind of active so there you have it.
I dont get how to edit my previous post… cant find the button, just a quote option.
Anyways I forgot to write why I bought these two spare parts; it’s so i can measure them and make nice blanking plates and an oil separator venting tube, without having to take my intake off. Car is a daily.
I agree. Audi didnt really change anything. They changed the rubber tips on the flaps from what I can see. They went to a softer material. The material change seems to not require a part number change as nothing engeneering wise would have been changed I guess. Audi did this with the timing chain guides on the 4.2 S4. They changed the material used but kept the same part number.
Daandaman welcome to the forum. A few things. the more you post the more privlages you get. So I think editing is at like 150 posts.
As for your idea you posted above. Let me give you a few reasons why thats not a good idea.
1 the intake arms dont break due to getting coked with anything thats not the issue. The mounts are an interference fit over time the mounts brake causing the mount to elevate up putting extra tq on the arms and they snap. So the reason you listed are not why the intakes break.
2 There is no valve cam over lap. Audi removed that a long time ago when the carbon issues started to really show there faces. Audi had manditory updates and if you look at car fax reports any car that went to the dealer ship for anything they got the update.
3 The PCV system is what is keeping the car from getting back flow that you decribed as getting gasses back up stream. That cause issues. The oil separator is one of the best revisions from Audi and if you have a healthy PCV and oil separator you dont need to do anything as it will on its own solve all the issues your trying to solve.
4 remember the carbon issue is not something that comes after a few hundred miles this is the effect people are seeing after 70,000 miles. The intake is an issue not after a few thousand miles but after again 70 or 80,000. So the system on the car works great the real solution is to maintain it and update the parts as needed.
5 IMHO removal or reducing the PCV system is great if you have a 68 Corvette or a 1985 dodge ram. On these 2006 and up ULEV cars they are set up to run better with a vacuated crank case and they do. If you did your idea you would be increaseing the crank pressure as the crank pressure it would only escape under positive pressure when the pressure builds up enough to exceed the outside force acting on it. The current system pulls out the crank case pressure leaving in some cases a negitive pressure that helps seal the rings and helps the ring gap in the upper rpm. It also helps keep the valve cover gaskets and other gaskets happy.
6 kinda lastly the idea of removing the PCV system or too much modification to the system has already been tried and it results in more gasket leaks and almost like a vac leak that causes fuel trim issues.
You also noted that the down side to what you proposed would be more oil getting burnt and that is true. But keep in mind burning oil leaves a nasty oily exhaust charge. Doing so can wipe out the 02s and since 2 of the 4 02 banks require the motor to be pulled to change the o2s. I think its best just making sure the oil separator is separating the oil out of the intake charge.
I do not think anything has changed. The flaps have been blue for years (probably since the rev M version dropped years ago)
Here is a pic from 2 years ago out of another thread on this form
I would say that the delay in shipping new manifolds during the last few months is a result of running out of stock and more had to be manufactured to the rev M specs.
A company the size of Audi is not going to devote valuable engineering resources redesigning a component that was only ever used on a platform that is now 10 years old. The cars are all well out of manufacturer’s warranty now so there is no incentive to put any more R&D into it. They are just reaping the benefits of all the expensive parts sales now.
They got 2K out of me last fall when my rev C manifold started spitting plastic parts out
They have M code in black but the Blue material is also under the M code. I have seen both intakes with black and with blue flaps. The blue material seems softer the black flap tips are harder.
The issue for some is. There are still intakes floating around with the M code and black flap tips. Where apparently the most desirable flap tips are the blue ones.
but yeah Im with you I dont see Audi doing anything new to the intakes. It might have more then likely be a manufacture thing. but they did do a revision on the guide material for the S4 so this might be like that. who knows. So far the blue flaps tend to suggest the intakes are newer.
@eng92 The 2k for the manifold,was that CAN$ or US$? I read that you are east of T.O. and I am an hour west and the cheapest quote I have is $2950.00 plus tax in our canuckbucks.