Topic: New LNF Aftermarket Manifold!!! Check it out

[40rtyp]

 This is the new Aftermarket intake now available. The company offering this has made comparisons already on the dyno as you'll see below.

Pre-Production manifold(Production one will have a better finish)




Basically, they designed The Manifold For Equal Flow which Is Why The Manifold Is Designed "Awkwardly". The Angle Of The Sides Is Also To Keep Airflow To Not Expand The Plenum. It Has More Flow Then The Stock Intake Manifold As Well. This Manifold And Proved To Hold 31-32lbs Without Issues And Will Hold Plenty More. The Runners Are Designed With Minimal Overlap Or Unequal Clearances. It Fits Perfectly To The Head Without Any Issues.

(Note, The Runners Can Be Ordered With Fuel Bosses For Secondary Fueling. Or You Can Tap For Meth Injection.)


Tuning Purposes, they were Able To Get 18* Timing On My Car At 29lbs To See How Far He Could Go. On The Stock Intake 15*-16* Was All. Differences In The Logs Were 1-2 More VE Due To The Extra Airflow With Minimal If Any Uneven Air Or Non Direct Airflow. Maf lbs Varied But Usually Averaged 1lbs Difference.
 Could Have Went All Out, But To Show Results From Where The Stock Manifold Differs From this Manifold, The Timing And Everything Else Needed To Be Very Similar...

This Will Directly Bolt Up, With Few Adjustments To DI Fuel Line. And The Removel Of The "DI Pump Cover Bracket"

This Manifold Has Been Tested For 6 Months And 5k+ Miles Without Any Issues or Problems.

This New LNF Intake Manifold Allowed The 400Whp Mark To Be Surpassed With The BNR 2871 Turbo. This Is The First BNR 2871 Turbo We Know Of, That Was Able To Achieve 400Whp+ On Just 93 Octane Pump Gas. This was the turbo used for these test.



As You Can See, With Just 93 Octane Pump Gas, 27Psi And 14* Timing.
There Is A 12Whp+ / 20Wtq+ Gain Over The Stock Manifold.

Performance Modifications For the Test Car:

 Racing LNF Manifold.
Revised BNR 2871 Turbo. (Stronger Wheels, Shaft, Seals)
K&N Short Ram Intake.
Injen Charge Piping.
TR12 Intercooler.
Maf Relocation Pipe (Cold side)
GMS1 Sensors
Comp Cams Stg 1 W/LFPL
#82 Springs W/ Retainers
Neutral Balance Shafts
Wiseco 86mm Pistons
4340 Connecting Rods
Tial Q 50mm Bov
Full 3" Exhaust With 3" Hahn Muffler (No Cats)
4.05 Transmission W/O LSD
HPTuned

Now All Gains Will Vary On The Turbo Setup Each Person Has. But Gains Are There To Be Made, No Matter What The Turbo Setup You Have!

The pictures above are of the prototype and production of 20 have already been started for the first batch. The final price will be $699.99 but for the Pre-sale they are saying the first 10 will be $599.99.

Let me just say that this product has not been tested on a Kappa but they are wanting for someone to purchase one for a Kappa and are 99% sure there will be no problems. They mentioned that if by chance it doesn't fit they will refund you your money.

Also, this will work with your current charge pipes. If you would like more info on this manifold just PM and I'll send you a link. They are not a vendor here so I'm just spreading the word. I'm looking forward to getting this manifold myself once I finish my engine build.

[DeepBlueGXP]

Send me a PM with the vendor who is selling this and are they interested in becoming a vendor?

[elff]

Do they happen to have the same graph vs RPMS instead of engine speed.

I will say this.
It is FUGLY, but if the advertising is true, that's a nice result.

I don't think we ever got the direct comparison from the Evo Modded Manifold. 

[GXP_Matt]

Lose 40hp in the mid-range to gain 12 up top?  No thanks.  Of course, that's what happens when you shorten the runners.  I'll believe it has even flow to all cylinders when I see a dyno verified unsteady 3D CFD model with pulses from the valve events, which is what GM used to design the stock intake manifold.

[elff]

40rty
You can sell me your 5th injector manifold if you get this one.

[miller11386]

if you are fully built, you really need to get a big power turbo. hta3586/GTX35R/ Prescision CEA 60mm etc.

Time to PUSH the kappa platform!

[Gentleman Jack]

Interesting that the stock manifold performs better up to 75mph (about 5000 rpm?) than the aftermarket one. What is the holdback at lower PRM for the aftermarket manifold?

[40rtyp]

Send me a PM with the vendor who is selling this and are they interested in becoming a vendor?

Will do

[miller11386]

Interesting that the stock manifold performs better up to 75mph (about 5000 rpm?) than the aftermarket one. What is the holdback at lower PRM for the aftermarket manifold?

Its larger and is therefore less efficient with low volumes of air than the stock manifold. At high volumes of air, it flows more, therefore has a larger advantage at higher rpm.

Tis the same on all platforms with larger manifolds... bigger the manifold, the better top end you have... smaller manifold, less top end, but quicker spooling.

[Carbon Sky]

Its larger and is therefore less efficient with low volumes of air than the stock manifold. At high volumes of air, it flows more, therefore has a larger advantage at higher rpm.

Tis the same on all platforms with larger manifolds... bigger the manifold, the better top end you have... smaller manifold, less top end, but quicker spooling.

Hmm, my understanding of intake design is that you want it to be ideally as long as it takes for the pulse of high pressure generated by the intake valve closing such that the wave will reflect back just as the intake valve is opening again.  Realistically, it is many feet, but if you go back to high school physics, if you were to say go with exactly 1/4 that length, you get the same effect, the pulse just travels back and forth more times before it gets to the intake valve.  And this affect of taking advantage of this pressure wave or pulse only works at a narrow rpm range.

It's more so in the intake runner diameter that you get the inverse relationship of diameter to flow and ergo horsepower.  Generally, you want a narrower runner diameter, and ergo longer intake to have the right volume now, for lower rpm performance, as the narrower diameter actually increases velocity without sacrificing on flow up to a certain point.  After that, and the narrow diameter starts to impede flow.  And in the higher rpm range, the larger diameter would necessitate a shorter length runner.

That's why cars with variable manifolds generally will have 2 rows of runners, kind of in a 90-180* sweep on a radius.  On the outside are the longer narrow runners for low rpm performance, and the inside runners have a smaller radius, and thus are shorter, and made wider for better high rpm performance.

I had this feature on an old Volvo 850 Turbo.  That car had a pretty bad ass 2.3L I5.  Was making similar power to my stock LNF back in the 90's.

[miller11386]

obviously there is a ton of science to the intake manifold market. That is why they cost so much

Im not uber familiar with the science, more of the application.

[Carbon Sky]

obviously there is a ton of science to the intake manifold market. That is why they cost so much

Im not uber familiar with the science, more of the application.

To be 100% honest, a non-moving part manifold like all these aluminum sheet metal ones with what I'm assuming are velocity stacks (funnel shaped ends) to the intake runners inside them, are not expensive for the "science" behind them.  I'm sure I could get you to be able to calculate what you'd need in an hour.  It's the expertise in design, materials, and time.  All that measuring, cutting, welding, grinding, etc.

The fancy schmacy intakes are the ones with variable length runners like I described.  In a way it's like having VTEC in terms of flow control.

[miller11386]

To be 100% honest, a non-moving part manifold like all these aluminum sheet metal ones with what I'm assuming are velocity stacks (funnel shaped ends) to the intake runners inside them, are not expensive for the "science" behind them.  I'm sure I could get you to be able to calculate what you'd need in an hour.  It's the expertise in design, materials, and time.  All that measuring, cutting, welding, grinding, etc.

The fancy schmacy intakes are the ones with variable length runners like I described.  In a way it's like having VTEC in terms of flow control.

Lol well tell that to Mr Buschur and others who get into that game. You can theorize all you like, but until you get one that is proven, you dont have anything. Here is a small list of evo intakes that he tested in 2008.. you will see that he made a couple that he thought would be great and they didnt do anything:

http://highboostforum.com/forum/showthread.php/20866-Intake-manifold-dyno-tests-and-facts-only

[Carbon Sky]

Lol well tell that to Mr Buschur and others who get into that game. You can theorize all you like, but until you get one that is proven, you dont have anything. Here is a small list of evo intakes that he tested in 2008.. you will see that he made a couple that he thought would be great and they didnt do anything:

http://highboostforum.com/forum/showthread.php/20866-Intake-manifold-dyno-tests-and-facts-only

With all due respect to Mr. Buschur, he is not an engineer, with understanding of flow dynamics, shockwaves caused by the intake valves closing are actually affecting the flow, etc, and most importantly access to computer simulation aids to determine how changes in the design are affecting results.  His and many of the other intakes are primarily trial and error, based on many years of experience, which is a very valuable thing.  But at the end of the day, it's an educated guess, and not nearly as precise/repeatable/and with a deep understanding of what is really happening.  Without a doubt these guys are doing bad ass work, but let's face it, they don't have an entire engineering department that can easily work this stuff out, and don't have to resort to hoping for the best and persistence.

I've dealt with Marco at Magnus long before he became a "big shot", and street racing became huge in Toronto, and the whole A&E documentary, which was a farce, if you actually knew the people in that documentary.  His shop built the 3" downpipe, and 2.5" catback on my old Volvo 850 Turbo.  It's all trial and error over there.  There's no use of computer aided design to simulate things, to understand how changes are affecting things, etc.  And that's not to say they haven't done badass things with DSMs and Geoff's old RX-7.  I was at the track when the diff exploded at the track as Marco launched Geoff's RX-7 (all before Geoff crashed it on the street, and it got rebuilt as the blue RX-7) after too much axle hop on the burn out.  No doubt, bad ass cars, but it's trial and error, there's no engineers there to understand what the hell is happening.  It's like tweak here, cause I hope this will happen, let's test it.

I'm learning UGS NX 7.5 right now . . . GM pays $2000/copy for students at my uni to use it.  I'm still a newbie to it, and there are pros with it.  Software like this could test in minutes what these guys think will work, build, and then dyno, with 100 other factors clouding the results.  I'm not saying simulation is the be all and end all, it must be verified through testing.  But comparing Mr. Buschur to an engineering department in a company like say BMW or Honda is a joke . . . and you can take that to Mr. Buschur . . . with all due respect.

[miller11386]

I understand that, but no one at GM is trying to make a top end manifold either. They are looking for reliability and durability. Not necessarily all out performance.

Congrats on learning UG. its a very powerful software. Just know that not everything works out the way the simulations show. We design all our new products in UG (IE the new Cub cadet Tank SZ/LZ), and in the end, you dont find everything out until it has been created and shown to work as a usable pc. Things like tolerance stackups and process variances come into play.

Are you going to use UG to design a superior manifold?

[Carbon Sky]

I understand that, but no one at GM is trying to make a top end manifold either. They are looking for reliability and durability. Not necessarily all out performance.

Congrats on learning UG. its a very powerful software. Just know that not everything works out the way the simulations show. We design all our new products in UG (IE the new Cub cadet Tank SZ/LZ), and in the end, you dont find everything out until it has been created and shown to work as a usable pc. Things like tolerance stackups and process variances come into play.

Are you going to use UG to design a superior manifold?

I have enough on my plate right now.  Just got out of a physics midterm.  I did however play with it to try to see what that weird bulge in the stock cat-back is near the drive shaft to see how that little bulge might affect flow and acoustics.  But if you're already into using similar software, it only takes about an hour to really get the meat and potatoes of UGS NX.  After that it's just playing around and what you can build, give parameters to, and simulate/test.  I chose to design a connecting rod with a stronger small end where it meets the crankshaft.  I played with various thicknesses around the open end to accept the crankshaft, and the contour where the rod meets the open end.  I've had 2 weeks to model various designs with mathematical calculations to support why my proposed designs would yield gains, and then simulate/test them, and my report is due end of this weekend (I'm in a mechanical engineering program specializing in automotive engineering, which is why I get to use UGS NX, when it's a $2000 program.

I really should be spending more time logging and playing with HPTuners, but this mech eng program I'm in is killer.  If I weren't naturally strong in maths/physics, there's no way I'd get through this program.

[gmtech16450yz]

With all due respect to Mr. Buschur, he is not an engineer, with understanding of flow dynamics, shockwaves caused by the intake valves closing are actually affecting the flow, etc, and most importantly access to computer simulation aids to determine how changes in the design are affecting results.  His and many of the other intakes are primarily trial and error, based on many years of experience, which is a very valuable thing.  But at the end of the day, it's an educated guess, and not nearly as precise/repeatable/and with a deep understanding of what is really happening.  Without a doubt these guys are doing bad ass work, but let's face it, they don't have an entire engineering department that can easily work this stuff out, and don't have to resort to hoping for the best and persistence.


I'm learning UGS NX 7.5 right now . . . GM pays $2000/copy for students at my uni to use it.  I'm still a newbie to it, and there are pros with it.  Software like this could test in minutes what these guys think will work, build, and then dyno, with 100 other factors clouding the results.  I'm not saying simulation is the be all and end all, it must be verified through testing.  But comparing Mr. Buschur to an engineering department in a company like say BMW or Honda is a joke . . . and you can take that to Mr. Buschur . . . with all due respect.

Carbon...

That is some of the most intelligent and eloquent stuff I've come across on any forum in a long time. You're a smart young man. My son is in his 3rd year of Mechanical Engineering, and yeah, the math stuff is insane!

Here's a little bit of advice from an old "trial and error" guy...

Keep learning everything you can about a wide range of areas since you never know what you might end up doing. You already realize that success comes from a mix of ALL kinds of skills, don't ever forget that. Yes, you absolutely need the math and theory, but don't be blinded by that and nothing else. (Not saying you are.) My point on that is 99% of Engineers work in black and white (in this case, the theory and math), and forget that there HAS TO BE a grey area (again, in this case, the hands on, trial and error or experience part) too. If you already realize that there IS a grey area, don't loose that and nurture it as well as the black and white. Amazing Engineers are the ones that have both skills and can work in both worlds. My Dad was one of those, he changed the way the Airline Industry worked by the things he did. I got his hands on skills, but my brain is not wired to do math. My "outside of the box" vision and being able to see a finished product in my head long before anything is even drawn up or started building is much better than even my dad's was. Just don't ask me to put anything on paper or give you calculations about it! Interestingly, unlike me, my son has amazingly strong mathematical and memory brain wiring. He was drawing train pictures IN 3D when he was like 3 years old! He did a pencil drawing of his shoe when he was in 3rd grade that would blow your mind. It was a class assignment, they had to put their shoe on their desk and draw a picture of it. His looked like a blueprint! I couldn't do much more than a stick figure even at 50! He isn't as strong on the vision (I mean seeing into the future, not eyeballs. Although interestingly enough, he wears glasses and at 50 I still don't. weird.) and hands on part, but he's getting there. I actually can't wait to see what my son ends up doing with his skills. With his math and Engineering wired brain, and my hands on, can make something up in my head and build it with my hands kinda brain, we could make some crazy stuff! (Can you tell the way the brain works and is wired fascinates me? lol. Learning and understanding how the brain works is almost as big for me as cars has been.)

Sorry to ramble, I think you get my point. My favorite saying is "Moderation In Everything." In this situation, it means theory and math is good and vital, but trial and error and experience is also vital. It's all a balance. Get the balance too far one way or another and things don't work as well. One of the most important things to keep in mind in EVERYTHING you do in your life. I think you already got that, just don't ever forget it.

Oh, one more piece of advice...
Don't bother arguing with Miller, it's not worth it. I've told him in the past everything I hear him say reminds me of another one of my favorite sayings...

"It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open ones mouth and remove all doubt" ­­- Mark Twain

Good luck in school!

[miller11386]

I have enough on my plate right now.  Just got out of a physics midterm.  I did however play with it to try to see what that weird bulge in the stock cat-back is near the drive shaft to see how that little bulge might affect flow and acoustics.  But if you're already into using similar software, it only takes about an hour to really get the meat and potatoes of UGS NX.  After that it's just playing around and what you can build, give parameters to, and simulate/test.  I chose to design a connecting rod with a stronger small end where it meets the crankshaft.  I played with various thicknesses around the open end to accept the crankshaft, and the contour where the rod meets the open end.  I've had 2 weeks to model various designs with mathematical calculations to support why my proposed designs would yield gains, and then simulate/test them, and my report is due end of this weekend (I'm in a mechanical engineering program specializing in automotive engineering, which is why I get to use UGS NX, when it's a $2000 program.

I really should be spending more time logging and playing with HPTuners, but this mech eng program I'm in is killer.  If I weren't naturally strong in maths/physics, there's no way I'd get through this program.

Thats pretty neat Carbon. Do you have access to the UG files that Gm has for the sky? or are you having to draw it all from scratch?

And I cannot blame you. I would soak up as much UG as possible. My Cad experience landed me my job and now I have gone up the ladder at where I work due to skills I have picked up along the way. My actually degree is seldom utilized, but I really enjoy it when I do get to use it.

[elff]

You two need to get a room

[Carbon Sky]

Carbon...

That is some of the most intelligent and eloquent stuff I've come across on any forum in a long time. You're a smart young man. My son is in his 3rd year of Mechanical Engineering, and yeah, the math stuff is insane!

Here's a little bit of advice from an old "trial and error" guy...

Keep learning everything you can about a wide range of areas since you never know what you might end up doing. You already realize that success comes from a mix of ALL kinds of skills, don't ever forget that. Yes, you absolutely need the math and theory, but don't be blinded by that and nothing else. (Not saying you are.) My point on that is 99% of Engineers work in black and white (in this case, the theory and math), and forget that there HAS TO BE a grey area (again, in this case, the hands on, trial and error or experience part) too. If you already realize that there IS a grey area, don't loose that and nurture it as well as the black and white. Amazing Engineers are the ones that have both skills and can work in both worlds. My Dad was one of those, he changed the way the Airline Industry worked by the things he did. I got his hands on skills, but my brain is not wired to do math. My "outside of the box" vision and being able to see a finished product in my head long before anything is even drawn up or started building is much better than even my dad's was. Just don't ask me to put anything on paper or give you calculations about it! Interestingly, unlike me, my son has amazingly strong mathematical and memory brain wiring. He was drawing train pictures IN 3D when he was like 3 years old! He did a pencil drawing of his shoe when he was in 3rd grade that would blow your mind. It was a class assignment, they had to put their shoe on their desk and draw a picture of it. His looked like a blueprint! I couldn't do much more than a stick figure even at 50! He isn't as strong on the vision (I mean seeing into the future, not eyeballs. Although interestingly enough, he wears glasses and at 50 I still don't. weird.) and hands on part, but he's getting there. I actually can't wait to see what my son ends up doing with his skills. With his math and Engineering wired brain, and my hands on, can make something up in my head and build it with my hands kinda brain, we could make some crazy stuff! (Can you tell the way the brain works and is wired fascinates me? lol. Learning and understanding how the brain works is almost as big for me as cars has been.)

Sorry to ramble, I think you get my point. My favorite saying is "Moderation In Everything." In this situation, it means theory and math is good and vital, but trial and error and experience is also vital. It's all a balance. Get the balance too far one way or another and things don't work as well. One of the most important things to keep in mind in EVERYTHING you do in your life. I think you already got that, just don't ever forget it.

Oh, one more piece of advice...
Don't bother arguing with Miller, it's not worth it. I've told him in the past everything I hear him say reminds me of another one of my favorite sayings...

"It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open ones mouth and remove all doubt" ­­- Mark Twain

Good luck in school!

I have a weird background in that I originally did an honors degree in science, and was working a little while in the math/science field, but haven't been happy with where that education has led me career wise.  Came across a mechanical engineering program that specialized in automotive engineering, which I did not even know was available in Canada (I've heard of such programs in the US and Europe) and that's what I'm in now.  I've always been naturally gifted at math/sciences.  I was labelled as smart, but no ambition, and a trouble maker in elementary school.  In junior high, I was "identified" as gifted, and after that, I was the gifted, and unchallenged student.  Suddenly with the change of a label, everything changed in the way my treated me.  I then went to a gifted math/science high school.  During that test, I also tested very highly for 3-dimensional spatial orientation.  So like if I show you a random bracket/component, I can draw it in 3 day accurately from multiple views.  A lot of people are struggling with this for example in my program.  Turns out it's a lot harder than it looks.

I've been working on cars for about 15 years now, since before I was driving.  Over those 15 years, my father and I have amassed a serious arsenal of tools.  From hand tools to pneumatic, to big compressors well into double digit CFMs at 120psi, Miller professional grade TIG welders, MIG welders, plasma cutter, shop press, chop saw, media/glass bead/sand/abrasives fun, hood with remote air supply, Sata HVLP paint gun, Snap On everything, Mitutoyo calipers, Fluke multimeter etc.  Basically, we don't skimp when it comes to tools.

So I started with the practical, and trial and error.  I cut my teeth proverbially on old domestics, and Volvos before I could drive.  I was wrenching on Oldmobiles standing in the engine bay as a kid, which progressed to general wrenching/maintenance, then I started welding in high school, and rebuilding transmissions and engines in university.  I was approached by Brian Catts (a mod guru in the Nissan scene) to help develop coilovers back when I was still in school for my science degree.  An international Volvo quarterly newsletter asked me to write a technical article for them.

I slowly started realizing that I don't have to make cars just for fun, and that I can make a living with them, in a way other than being a mechanic.  Not that there's anything wrong with it, it's just not what I'm passionate about.  I'm really enjoying the math/physics I'm learning to be able to effectively understand what's happening in a cylinder, or the transfer of loads during cornering.  And how to better engineer the vehicle essentially.  And to be able to work with cars in the way that I wanted, I needed the mechanical engineering.  I'm in a composite program right now (fast tracking through undergraduate requirements to enter the masters program because I did a degree in science and not engineering, so my undergraduate courses were different) and will be graduating with a masters in mechanical engineering with a specialists in automotive.  And hopefully pursue a P.Eng, but that's a long ways away.

And hopefully by then, regardless of what employers might think of me, I will be a far more complete "tinkerer" of cars.  Whether it leads towards graphics/components design, or noise/vibration/harshness/acoustics, or fuel systems, or composites/structural engineer, or vehicle dynamics (I'm really interested in this actually), only time will tell.  But in my own personal life, or if I decide to pursue a personal business, I'll have the tools to be very self-sufficient, and will be able to effectively engineer components in house.

[Carbon Sky]

Thats pretty neat Carbon. Do you have access to the UG files that Gm has for the sky? or are you having to draw it all from scratch?

And I cannot blame you. I would soak up as much UG as possible. My Cad experience landed me my job and now I have gone up the ladder at where I work due to skills I have picked up along the way. My actually degree is seldom utilized, but I really enjoy it when I do get to use it.

Yah it seems there is a market demand for good CAD people, regardless of what software you are familiar with.  I have a mech eng buddy that has a contract with Modern Niagara (hospitals and health care related), to do CAD work for them, and he runs an entire business off of that one contract.  Lots of people in my program get job offers to CAD before they graduate.  The students that do well on an annual CAD competition pretty much all get job offers before they graduate.

I have a large library of "standard parts", which I have barely scraped the surface of.  These are a lot of the smaller parts that make up the larger assemblies.  But the library of parts is not matched up with GM part numbers, and the library I have access to appears at least with my limited usage of it, to be a library of components that are pre-made, and ready to be adapted to whatever you need.  So for example, I have a library of valves (intake/exhaust), and I can easily alter parameters like the angles, how many, rounded, squared off, length of stem, width of head, etc.  I did however run into some of the NX files for things like the plastic clips that go on the end of door pulls, and to pop the trunk.  Those annoying plastic pieces that a few have broken and replaced

Here's a slightly more complex assembly.  It's part of the tiny turbo that we're trying to setup to run on a 1 cylinder engine we're putting into the uni's Formula SAE car.  I'm not an official member, but I help out when I can.  used to be part of the Formula SAE team at U of T when I was doing my undergrad in science though.  Don't have the time for it this time around to be a properly functioning member.

[Critterman]

All this math/science talk is making my head hurt, I just want to mash the gas and make it go fast - somewhat in control.

[Carbon Sky]

All this math/science talk is making my head hurt, I just want to mash the gas and make it go fast - somewhat in control.

Ha ha ha, the math/science is what makes it go fast when you mash the gas - somewhat in control.

[Critterman]

  unfortunately I can no longer remember what I forgot.

[miller11386]

I have a large library of "standard parts", which I have barely scraped the surface of.  These are a lot of the smaller parts that make up the larger assemblies.  But the library of parts is not matched up with GM part numbers, and the library I have access to appears at least with my limited usage of it, to be a library of components that are pre-made, and ready to be adapted to whatever you need.  So for example, I have a library of valves (intake/exhaust), and I can easily alter parameters like the angles, how many, rounded, squared off, length of stem, width of head, etc.  I did however run into some of the NX files for things like the plastic clips that go on the end of door pulls, and to pop the trunk.  Those annoying plastic pieces that a few have broken and replaced

Yeah. You will be amazed when you are professional and skilled in a wide variety of things how much easier it is to find a job compared to some who have had narrow training in only one thing. I studied as a manufacturing engineer and I am currently working with the scheduling of the assembly lines and other inventory metrics. I found that being flexible and adaptive to new things makes you more marketable for when opportunities arise.