4A-GE Smallport intake manifold measurements

[Blof-fan]

Hi guys,

I don't know if anyone ever did some measurements on the 4A-GE Smallport intake manifold before. But I just did to have some data to see if I can use them in designing my own intake manifold for my 4A-GZE.
Figured that some people here might find this usefull information, so here is what I did:

A friend loaned me his Smallport intake manifold to take measurements from. But it was already used and a bit dirty. So I took it apart and thouroughly cleaned it.
I made a gasket and a block-off plate for the runners so I could fill them with water and thus determine what the volume of the runners and the plenum is.











So here are my findings for those of you who find it interessting:

Volume runner cylinder 1: 400cc
Volume runner cylinder 2: 375cc
Volume runner cylinder 3: 375cc
Volume runner cylinder 4: 400cc

Volume plenum: 1300cc

Total volume intake manifold: 2850cc

Lenght of the runners over the biggest radius: 290mm's
Height of the intake port: 27mm's
Width of the intake port: 47mm's

[yoshimitsuspeed]

I sell a flange for the SP if you want one for your project.
I would also be happy to fab the mani if you didn't want to mess with it.
I actually already have an idea for a GZE mani that would retain the SC mounts and everything.
http://matrixgarage.com/store/4age-fabrication-supplies

For the runners volume means very little. You need to break it down into runner length and runner diameter.
Even that is only important if you are going for resonant induction, in which case you need to figure out where you want your power peaks and dips and calculate runner length to suit.
For forced induction most choose to go with short fat runners. This eliminates the peaks and dips of resonant induction and just allows the max overall airflow across the range.

[Rogue-AE95]

Would the stock smallport intake manifold be really restrictive for a turbo setup? Like if you were shooting for the 250-300 HP range, probably using a T28 or T3 turbo?

[yoshimitsuspeed]

Would the stock smallport intake manifold be really restrictive for a turbo setup? Like if you were shooting for the 250-300 HP range, probably using a T28 or T3 turbo?

There is a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to intake airflow on a boosted setup.
Boosting a motor makes the air denser but the air speed inside the intake stays approximately the same. This means an intake that is optimized for an NA build will be pretty well optimized for a boosted build on the same motor.
VE mods and increased RPM however increase air velocity and this is where you need bigger piping.

A stock intake setup would be a restriction on a formula Atlantic engine but not on a 250HP SP with stock cams and stock redline.
Now if you were doing a boosted build that had big cams and increased redline then it could start to become more of a restriction.

I did start using the term optimized because the stock system is not optimized for performance. It is a compromise of cost, packaging, efficiency and performance. It is my belief that gains will work very closely to percentage so for example if a custom intake gains you 5% power on an NA motor the same intake would gain you roughly the same on a boosted motor. This starts to mean a lot more as you gain power.

So to directly answer your question. If you were trying to get 250 hp with stock cams, stock RPM and high boost the SP intake wouldn't be much of a restriction.
If you were trying to get 250 HP at 6 PSI with some 280 cams and 9k RPM redline it would likely be a considerable restriction.

[Blof-fan]

Thanks for the offer, but I'm a metalworker myself so I have the means to fab one up myself
Besides, I'm going with a different supercharger setup, so I don't have any need for mountingpoints for the SC12 etc. I'm looking into twin screw chargers

Measurements for the diameter and lenght are also in the first post

But I might want to retain the clutch engagement on the pulley, and the engine then being a NA engine, resonant induction might be usefull for the engine.
And like you already said, an optimized manifold for NA will work just as well for forced induction

[yoshimitsuspeed]

Thanks for the offer, but I'm a metalworker myself so I have the means to fab one up myself
Besides, I'm going with a different supercharger setup, so I don't have any need for mountingpoints for the SC12 etc. I'm looking into twin screw chargers

Measurements for the diameter and lenght are also in the first post

But I might want to retain the clutch engagement on the pulley, and the engine then being a NA engine, resonant induction might be usefull for the engine.
And like you already said, an optimized manifold for NA will work just as well for forced induction

Have you decided on a twinscrew yet?
I have have been researching them contemplating building a 4AGE kit but have yet to find one that impresses me. Not only are the specs questionable but they all seem to make up numbers, use units or methods of measurement that aren't comparable to others and do other shady things that make you question their legitimacy.

Whipple claims 80% adiabatic efficiency on their website yet won't release compressor maps. A buddy of mine found a map online that claimed to be for the 100AX but it peaks at about 61% AI when they claim 81%. They claim their compressors are good up to 30 PSI yet the map only goes to 2.4:1 which would be 20 PSI at sea level. Even just at that 20 PSIG efficiency is quickly starting to drop.

Sprintex does something similar showing two different graphs on their website, one at 1.4 bar and one at 2 bar. For someone like me who spends a lot of time dealing with compressors I notice the abs and know that means absolute IE 1 bar gauge or 14.7 PSIG but I think most people would assume they mean gauge pressure or 30 PSIG. I can only imagine this is done intentionally to make their specs look better than they are.
After a lot of searching I finally found maps but instead of the traditional adiabatic efficiency they decide to use Isentropic Efficiency. I believe for our intents and purposes it's essentially the same thing but once again it makes direct comparisons difficult because I may be missing something about how the differences of adiabatic and isentropic efficiency relate to the input energy and output temp.
Any way you cut it I have yet to find one that maps over 2.4:1 or has much better than 60% efficiency at the top of the map.
They all seem hesitant to answer questions or be straightforward or forthcoming about their products.
This leaves me not wanting to deal with anyone and questioning the legitimacy of their claims.

[Blof-fan]

Well, I was kind of leaning towards the Lysholm 1200AX.
A 1200cc Twin Screw with good proportions to bolt it to the 4A-GZE. They give a compressor map on their website, so no mysteries there: http://www.lysholm.us/pdf/diagram_lys1200ax.pdf
But I believe it's the same unit as Whipple uses
Adiabatic effeciency is still 64% but although I haven't seen a performance map of a SC12 yet. I can't imagine it coming even close to that with its straight 2 lobes.

The way I see it: A screw compressor should be a vast improvement over the ineffecient design of the SC12 roots. And even besides the performance factor. It has much better situated in and outlet ports and appears to be even smaller than the SC12 wich would all make installing and piping better and easier, and still leave space on the engine for things like a better intake manifold.
So all in all, I only see improvements over the current SC12 Supercharger. But I'm pretty new a supercharging and don't yet know all there is to know about it. But based on what I have read and seen, this seemed like a pretty logical choise for me

And about those claims...Well, they can claim anything, but Lysholm for instance gives a decent performance map of the unit so I have no reason to question that.
I just looked at supercharger types ans their effeciency and from a design standpoint, a screw type supercharger will always be more effecient than a Roots type charger.

That said, I've also looked at those new Eaton TVS chargers and they seem to be pretty effecient as well. I think the R900 would be the best choise for the 4A-GZE. But those units are also larger, which makes installing them a lot harder again.
http://www.eaton.com/Eaton/ProductsServices/Automotive/AutomotiveAftermarket/Superchargers/PCT_221787
http://www.eaton.com/ecm/groups/public/@pub/@eaton/@per/documents/content/ct_127897.gif

[yoshimitsuspeed]

I don't have permission to share Ogura maps but I can tell you a little bit about them.
Their chargers are all rated and mapped to PR of 1.8:1. They are not supposed to be run over that so already you do gain a little bit with a twinscrew or TVS.
The TX12 peaks at 63% efficiency however the top edge of that 63% efficiency line peaks at abotu 1.4:1 and 325 M3/H.
At 1.8:1 and 480 M3/h you are at 55% efficiency vs the TS which is pretty much at the heart of it's 64% at that same pressure and volume.
This means that at 1.8:1 or 12 PSI that your outlet temps drop from 290f to 263f.

After a decent intercooler that's a difference of 117f vs 122f.
Seems like a lot of money to save 5 degrees.
Unfortunately we can't compare the two above that but they both drop off quickly.
If you are going for a PR of say 2.8:1 I think it's safe to say you will be well into the 50s AE. The higher the PR the more it matters.
A SC at 50% at 2.8:1 will have outlet temps of 450f while a turbo at 80% efficiency will be at 339f which I do see being worth noting.

My biggest issue is how everyone raves about the TS efficiency but I have yet to see an impressive map.
You say a TS will always be more efficient than roots but unless I'm missing something that makes the test results mean something different the TVS have a much higher AE peaking in the low to mid 70s.
The R1320 is still holding 70% at 2.2PR which is pretty dang good for a SC.
I do agree about packaging though. It is much bigger than most of the TSs.
Sorry for the rant lol but this is something I have been trying to work through for some time now and just haven't found an exciting solution. I'm still dead sold on turbos but I keep getting customers who want a supercharged car but of course one that will be better and faster than the turbo equivalent which would cost half as much to build lol.

[Blof-fan]

Ghehehe I don't mind a good rant
Thanks for sharing the Ogura info. I really dind't think those units would reach 63%
And I was impressed with those TVS's, that's why I looked into them. But the shear size of those things kind of put me off...

Comparing Turbo's and Superchargers is like comparing apples and eggs in this discussion
If you're talking about effeciency, aturbo will always mop the vloor with a supercharger. A turbo is using a waste product of the engine and is not stealing any power. So effeciency will always be high since you will always get more out if it than you put in
But I (and apparently others with me from reading your last line ) just don't like the charataristic of the turbo. A supercharger just appeals to me. And I'm not shooting for high hp's. I would be very happy if I get 200hp from my GZE. And I would probably be able to do that with my SC12 too. But I have never read anywhere about anybody bolting a TS on a GZE and the charastristic of the TS just appeals to me, so why not try it

I'm just in for the fun of it and want to try things I find cool and others won't even look twice at, regardless of the costs. If I was looking at best bang for buck and best value, I wouldn't be pouring **** loads of money into a old Toyota Corolla AE92 coupé, of which half of the car loving world doesn't even know what it is!
Have I already mentioned that I want to incorporate a Water to Air intercooler into the new intake manifold?

[yoshimitsuspeed]

Ghehehe I don't mind a good rant
Thanks for sharing the Ogura info. I really dind't think those units would reach 63%
And I was impressed with those TVS's, that's why I looked into them. But the shear size of those things kind of put me off...

Comparing Turbo's and Superchargers is like comparing apples and eggs in this discussion

It's really not though. You are talking about ways of making pressure over atmospheric.
If option A will make 20 PSI boost at 300f and one will make the same pressure at 400f it's worth mention. The latter won't make nearly as much power and will be much more detonation prone. Fortunately we have intercoolers that brings that overall temp down a lot but how low still depends on the air going in.

So effeciency will always be high since you will always get more out if it than you put in

We are not even getting into the amount of energy required to drive the compressor. And yes a turbo does take power from the engine to run it. It's not nearly as easy to calculate how much though.
We are just talking about outlet temps and their effect on performance. Now yes if we look at the big picture Adiabatic efficiency will tell us a lot about how much energy is going into compressing air and how much energy is going into creating heat but to break it down we are largely concerned with what the outlet temp is coming from the compressor.

I would be very happy if I get 200hp from my GZE. And I would probably be able to do that with my SC12 too. But I have never read anywhere about anybody bolting a TS on a GZE and the charastristic of the TS just appeals to me, so why not try it

Have you ever driven a turbo 4AGE with a turbo sized for 200 HP? It would spool about as quick and in a very similar fashion to a SC anywhere over 3k RPM. You step on the gas and go. Even my DSM T25 which can easily make 250 WHP spools almost instantly over 3500 RPM.
[img]And%20I%20would%20probably%20be%20able%20to%20do%20that%20with%20my%20SC12%20too.%20But%20I%20have%20never%20read%20anywhere%20about%20anybody%20bolting%20a%20TS%20on%20a%20GZE%20and%20the%20charastristic%20of%20the%20TS%20just%20appeals%20to%20me,%20so%20why%20not%20try%20it[/img]
Then all the power to you. Just don't get upset when someone puts half as much money into a turbo setup that will walk all over your car in the straights and in the corners.
That's my main issue with the twinscrew or other new off the shelf SC systems. It sounds like you can do all the work yourself and I still bet you spend over $3k US.
Now I don't mean to sound like I am bashing your idea. I am very interested to hear how it turns out.
Half my point is that I really feel like 80% of the people who "don't like turbo characteristics" haven't driven a properly setup small turbo car. You get all these kids throwing a 500 HP capable CX racing turbo on their car and running 5 PSI boost and they get walked on by just about anything and need to wait till noon just to spool the thing.
That said however I am very interested to see the results and hope you at least push this thing a little bit because I want to see what a TS can really do on a 4AGE.
You can find some threads by mr2swift on the mr2OC about the TS kit he has had in development for like 10 years now. You might find some interesting info in there but take it with a grain of salt as he doesn't understand much about tuning, fabricating design or compressor theory. I think he has gotten about 250 WHP out of a TS though.

Have I already mentioned that I want to incorporate a Water to Air intercooler into the new intake manifold?

Nope but have you met my car?


If I ever do get around to doing a TS kit I would love to offer an intake mani with an integrated IC.

[Rogue-AE95]

Thanks for the answers to my questions... still learning about this stuff. It can be intimidating. I suppose I'll just have to make sure my friend is with me whenever I dyno my 4A-GTE smallport build. "So the Toyota intake is a POS, hmmm?"

[yoshimitsuspeed]

Thanks for the answers to my questions... still learning about this stuff. It can be intimidating. I suppose I'll just have to make sure my friend is with me whenever I dyno my 4A-GTE smallport build. "So the Toyota intake is a POS, hmmm?"

Where did you get that?
I would say the SP intake is decent enough and fine for most boosted builds. There may be a little left on the table with a custom intake mani but mani design is a very complex science combined with some black magic and luck so your average joe has about as good a chance of loosing power on a custom mani as they do of gaining anything anywhere.

[Blof-fan]

Ghehehe, trust me. I won't get upset by people driving circles around my way to expensive car with exotic tech (Well, it would be for these parts) under the hood
There will always be someone with a bigger cock. I don't find any fun in seeing how much hp I can squeeze out of my engine. There will always be someone who will do better.

What I do enjoy though, is to challenge myself with things others say will not work or isn't worth the hassle And just see if they are right and if I cán make it work.
Money doens't grow on trees, at least, not in my garden. But I don't really look at what things cost. If I want it, I'll use it...if it isn't this year, it will be the next
They might be right and I will have spend a fortune for nothing. But I'll have a blast, research and learn things I otherwise wouldn't have looked into, had a nice challenge and I learned something (might have been the hard way, but still..)
Some might find that foolish, but then again...If you read about my project and how much time, effort and money already has gone into it, most will say I'm pretty weird
http://www.corollaae92gts.nl

I've never had the pleasure of driving a 4A-GTE car yet. I've driven a 300bhp 3S-GTE Corolla and several 4E-FTE corolla's and Starlets ranging from the standard 135 to 250bhp. But turbo's just aren't my thing.
Trust me, from a engineering standpoint, they'll beat everything you can bolt to an engine for power. I do know that...but maybe it's the fact that it's relativley easy that put's me off, I don't know what it is

And that's a pretty impressive intake manifold, how is the cooling with that thing?

[Rogue-AE95]

Thanks for the answers to my questions... still learning about this stuff. It can be intimidating. I suppose I'll just have to make sure my friend is with me whenever I dyno my 4A-GTE smallport build. "So the Toyota intake is a POS, hmmm?"

Where did you get that?
I would say the SP intake is decent enough and fine for most boosted builds. There may be a little left on the table with a custom intake mani but mani design is a very complex science combined with some black magic and luck so your average joe has about as good a chance of loosing power on a custom mani as they do of gaining anything anywhere.

Blof-fan posted this topic twice, lol, it's making it confusing to remember which topic I posted in before In the other one I was saying that a friend of mine (who is more into Hondas) commented that the smallport manifold I showed him looked like an awful design with too small of a throttle body (among other things). He doesn't hate Toyota, none of that Honda vs Toyota rivalry, he just thought the SP intake was a crappy design for some reason. Probably doesn't help when I tell him about the power figures of the various 4A-GEs, and that the smallport was a 130 HP motor.

Main reason I want to turbo is that I've spent too much money on parts (so far, with more to go) that I don't want to see only like 120HP to the wheels with an NA build. I posted a topic about this before the site crash, asking if it was worth the money I was throwing into my build and hoping for 160 WHP to get my wagon moving. I'm going for a sleeper, I want it to really move when I want it to I'm not necessarily looking for 300 WHP, just something faster than the 180 WHP I've experienced in one of my friend's built up FWD cars. Besides that my wagon is AWD and heavy, that AWD drivetrain will hog up the power.

Blof-fan, now I remember, you have the site showing your remanufactured manual steering rack. I've just recently put in an '89 Geo Prizm sedan manual rack into my AE95... maybe it's the heavier front end due to the AWD E-series gearbox, but damn, that steering wheel is hard to turn at a stop

[yoshimitsuspeed]

So how much does your friend know about intake design and theory?
As mentioned in one of these threads the TB is more than big enough for the volumetric flowrate (VFR) requirements of the 4AGE and has a lot of headroom before it would be a significant restriction. This also only applies to mods that increase volumetric flow and therefore air velocity.
This does bring up an interesting point though.
With a turbo you want the TB after the compressor. This means that density increases but VFR and air velocity through the TB will remain roughly the same.
On a supercharged system though you generally want to put the TB before the supercharger. In this case the VFR and air velocity will increase proportional to the increase in air you are moving through the SC. This means that on this setup the TB will become a restriction much sooner.
Restriction is also much more important when it's before the SC.
On a turbo car as long as the pressure reference it at the plenum it will compensate for any pressure loss in the system by pushing that much more boost. This means your desired amount of boost hits the plenum.
With a supercharger the mass and therefore amount of boost is directly proportional to the air pressure going into the turbo. This means that if your supercharger is compressing air at a 3:1 pressure ratio that 1 PSI pressure drop from restriction before the SC equates to a 3 PSI pressure drop after the SC.
Not only that but since the SC's efficiency is completely based on pressure ratios your outlet temps, parasitic loss etc will all be the same. This means that you could run 5 PSIA into the SC and 10 PSIG (15 PSIA) out or you could run 15 PSIA in and 30 PSIG (45 PSIA) out and your outlet temps would be the same.
It is these reasons why minimizing restriction before the SC is so important and much more so than a turbo.

[oldeskewltoy]

I'm planting in excess of 165hp.... on a single original 4AGE throttle body.... so you don't even need ITBs to make power....



concerning superchargers... and a 4AGE... I've always been a fan of the Rotrex... I know it isn't a twin screw... but it is a planetary driven centrifugal type and so spools up faster then a typical centrifugal type...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?hl=en-GB&v ... ExaE&gl=GB

[yoshimitsuspeed]

so spools up faster then a typical centrifugal type...

This is very oversimplified.
It spins powered off the motor so it does spin at whatever RPM the motor does.
The problem is that centrifugal compressors don't move air in a linear fashion. The problem is that your boost curve will be almost a perfectly straight line from 0 PSI at 0 RPM to your max boost at max RPM.
This means that if you are geared to make 10 PSI at 8000 RPM you will make about 5 PSI at 4k RPM and 2.5 PSI at 2K RPM.
Now granted my turbo won't make boost at 2K RPM so you have me there but if my wastegate is set at 10 PSI I will hit that by 3200 where your Rotrex is probably making 4 PSI. I will continue to make more boost until just before redline where the rotrex catches up.

[oldeskewltoy]

so spools up faster then a typical centrifugal type...

This is very oversimplified.
It spins powered off the motor so it does spin at whatever RPM the motor does.
The problem is that centrifugal compressors don't move air in a linear fashion. The problem is that your boost curve will be almost a perfectly straight line from 0 PSI at 0 RPM to your max boost at max RPM.
This means that if you are geared to make 10 PSI at 8000 RPM you will make about 5 PSI at 4k RPM and 2.5 PSI at 2K RPM.
Now granted my turbo won't make boost at 2K RPM so you have me there but if my wastegate is set at 10 PSI I will hit that by 3200 where your Rotrex is probably making 4 PSI. I will continue to make more boost until just before redline where the rotrex catches up.

Have you done any research into the Rotrex? http://www.rotrex.com/Home

[yoshimitsuspeed]

Have you done any research into the Rotrex? http://www.rotrex.com/Home

http://mr2oc.com/showthread.php?t=469486&page=1&pp=20

[totta crolla]

Regardless of the manifold flow or capacity I would like to know how you got it so damn clean

Acid dipped ?

[oldeskewltoy]

yoshi.... I wouldn't run a C30........ I'd run the largest C15

I'd mount it where the rwd alt is... mount a SAAB 900(or similar) intercooler directly behind the C15(using directed low pressure air from under the car to cool it) , and then using a fwd manifold, plumb the air charge directly into the T/B... all from under the intake side of the engine.

It might not be how you would do it.... but I'm not you

[Blof-fan]

Glass beading. It's kinda like sandblasting, but instead of using a very abrasive material, I use glass beads. That can be used on practically every material without really harming it

[yoshimitsuspeed]

yoshi.... I wouldn't run a C30........ I'd run the largest C15

I'd mount it where the rwd alt is... mount a SAAB 900(or similar) intercooler directly behind the C15(using directed low pressure air from under the car to cool it) , and then using a fwd manifold, plumb the air charge directly into the T/B... all from under the intake side of the engine.

It might not be how you would do it.... but I'm not you

And I won't say no one should run a rotrex, just that I don't believe the way they make boost is the best.

Just to make 200 hp you would want to step up to at least the C15-60.
Let's say you need 10 PSI at peak HP around 6800 to make 200 CHP. The compressor will need to be spinning at about 120k RPM to make this boost at redline.
That means that when the motor is at 3900 and the SC is at 60k rpm you would be making in the realm of 3-4 PSI boost.

If that works for you then that's great. The one nice thing about the Rotrex is a lot cheaper than a new twinscrew.
Personally I'd rather throw an old M62 or turbo on my car and be able to have full boost when I am cruising up a pass in fifth gear.

Once things move forward with getting the full engine thrown into CAD I may start designing brackets for a Rotrex since despite my objection to them there do seem to be some interest in them.

[oldeskewltoy]

Personally I'd rather throw an old M62 or turbo on my car and be able to have full boost when I am cruising up a pass in fifth gear.

I don't need full boost to climb a pass... in fact in my current car/engine, I don't need any boost... I can climb just about any pass in 6th and use less than 1/2 throttle doing it.

[yoshimitsuspeed]

Personally I'd rather throw an old M62 or turbo on my car and be able to have full boost when I am cruising up a pass in fifth gear.

I don't need full boost to climb a pass... in fact in my current car/engine, I don't need any boost... I can climb just about any pass in 6th and use less than 1/2 throttle doing it.

Maybe our idea of passes are different. I think 7% grade at 14k feet. How about you?
Before hooking up the wastegate on my turbo there were several sections between here and Denver where my BT wouldn't pull in 5th. Even now at 6 PSI there are a few sections where I am at most throttle and full boost just to maintain speed in fifth.
I still have to drop a gear or two if I want to pass quickly which is unacceptable in my book.

[oldeskewltoy]

Maybe our idea of passes are different. I think 7% grade at 14k feet. How about you?
Before hooking up the wastegate on my turbo there were several sections between here and Denver where my BT wouldn't pull in 5th. Even now at 6 PSI there are a few sections where I am at most throttle and full boost just to maintain speed in fifth.
I still have to drop a gear or two if I want to pass quickly which is unacceptable in my book.

hahahahahaha.... 14,000 foot passes?? the tallest mountain in Colorado(Mt Elbert - really Elbert???) is only 14,440 feet... most mountain passes are not at the peak....

Here in Oregon most passes are at or under 6400 feet...

[oldeskewltoy]

Maybe our idea of passes are different. I think 7% grade at 14k feet. How about you?
Before hooking up the wastegate on my turbo there were several sections between here and Denver where my BT wouldn't pull in 5th. Even now at 6 PSI there are a few sections where I am at most throttle and full boost just to maintain speed in fifth.
I still have to drop a gear or two if I want to pass quickly which is unacceptable in my book.

hahahahahaha.... 14,000 foot passes?? the tallest mountain in Colorado(Mt Elbert - really Elbert???) is only 14,440 feet... most mountain passes are not at the peak....

Here in Oregon most passes are at or under 6400 feet...

[yoshimitsuspeed]

Maybe our idea of passes are different. I think 7% grade at 14k feet. How about you?
Before hooking up the wastegate on my turbo there were several sections between here and Denver where my BT wouldn't pull in 5th. Even now at 6 PSI there are a few sections where I am at most throttle and full boost just to maintain speed in fifth.
I still have to drop a gear or two if I want to pass quickly which is unacceptable in my book.

hahahahahaha.... 14,000 foot passes?? the tallest mountain in Colorado(Mt Elbert - really Elbert???) is only 14,440 feet... most mountain passes are not at the peak....

Here in Oregon most passes are at or under 6400 feet...

Lol you are right. I meant 12000. I think pikes peak is one of very few roads that makes it to 14k.

I thought Eisenhower hit 12k but It's just a little over 11. Vail pass is over 10. Independence pass right next to me hits 12

[Blof-fan]

At least I don't have to worry about those kind of things. Down here, we live beneath sea level!