1QUIKWS6

iTrader: (61)

Looking to get into a Procharger setup for my T/A. Are there any real world, appreciable gains by going with say a GMMP or Edelbrock intake with the accompanying supporting parts over an LS6 or FAST90 setup?

I'd be going with a D1SC 8-rib setup on a stock cube LS1 with AFR heads and the new ATI thicker twin IC's (don't want to hack up the front of the car for a FMIC)

Any input would be appreciated!

TIA,
-Jay-

98turbls1

iTrader: (17)

Well for engine safety I know that it has a much better air transfer so that it's going to give each cylinder that same amount of O2...This being said look at how many stock engines blow the ringlands on #7 largely due to the design of the stock intake manifold...I also know that there are several guys that are running these with very good luck with a lot of boost and or nitrous and get down well into the 8's in some applications...W2W ran this type of manifold and got their car down into the 6's and was the FIRST GenIII engine to do this...I havne't seen too many dyno testing articles yet but in GMHTP there was a Procharged Camaro that claims to have seen over 50rwhp simply because of the switch to a carb intake...I'm sure there are going to be many more people chime in because this style of intake setup has become very popular and has shown to be very reliable...Hope this helped..

99SS-T

iTrader: (5)

I know i have read quite a few times that there is MAJOR gains from the carb style manifolds. I remember readin in one instance they gained 35RWHP from the intake and elbow alone. Ill try to find that article but isee that being a needle in a haystack. They are VERY worth it for FI. Non FI guys might be a tossup if they dont run nitrous. Ill definatly have one on top of my engine when i build it. GL man

John

1QUIKWS6

iTrader: (61)

Yeah, I understand this is also a whole new ball of wax as far as cam selection, timing/tuning vs. the LSX style

Just as I think I have the handle on engine combo's...

I'm guessing that a 108 - 110 LSA cam would be a better choice for the carb style manifolds? But the runners from the intake I have seen look as if they are a mix of both short and long - with any/all of them being much shorter than the LSX style manifold runners - plus the fact that there appears to be much less plenum volume available.

Am I correct in assuming that with a cam that normally works for the LSX style - the carb style intake will not really start to 'wake up' until after 4000rpm? Since my car is mainly street driven, I really don't want to lose the low/midrange for more top end. If there is a cam selection out there that will work with these manifolds and yield comparable low/midrange power to LSX style I'd be interested in the choices.

I don't mind going the extra mile with the GMMP intake if the results are well worth it...

98turbls1

iTrader: (17)

well sir it appears that there isn't that much plenum room and there isn't if you just run a tb on top but you also now have to factor in the intake elbow which is going to add onto that...You would still want atleast a 113-114lsa so that you don't lose the boost because of too much overlap...

1QUIKWS6

iTrader: (61)

Well, my cam choice was based on the years of tuning combos for carb'd cars. In that case, I would never run a 114lsa with a single plane + carb. This is essentially the same thing - in that case rather poor performance is seen by running a cam with too late Intake Valve Closing Point.

The tuning of a short runner manifold dictates the opening of the intake valve much earlier than a long runner to take advantage of the 'wave'. I would think that a 108-110lsa would bring on earlier IVC and help dynamic compression - something in the neighborhood of a 230ish duration on 108lsa with 108icl was my thoughts to not only keep a lot of the low end plus aid in upper end breathing?

Of course, my experience with carb'd intake cars of the past does not involve FI either. Would the addition of FI to the mix effect the cam choice that much?

98turbls1

iTrader: (17)

Yes it does... The point to have a lopey cam such as the 108-110lsa would to create a scavenging effect in a NA application...While this is awesome in a NA application this is not beneficial in a FI application because you are going to want to actually compress the boost instead of letting it escape into the atmosphere...

Gold Phoenix

iTrader: (1)

The narrow LSA is mainly for N/A motors to use the momentum of the exhaust gas to help draw more fresh intake charge. Since you are asking about forced induction, you don't need the overlap to help fill the cylinder. On top of that, you would be sending some of the fresh charge down the exhaust unburned which could raise your EGTs that could fatigue your exhaust valves and header pipes.

As far as the intake itself, the shorter runners will give you more top end and a higher peak rpm. There was an article in Popular Hot Rodding when they built a 402cid motor with a 98mm turbo for strictly track use. They started with the GMPP manifold with an elbow and TB, then switched to the FAST 90/90 later. They stated that both intakes made the same HP, but the FAST gave better torque and under the curve numbers since it had the longer runners compared to the GMPP. As far as plenum size, it doesn't matter too much with forced induction.

I will be using my stock LS6 intake and TB for now. I plan to upgrade to the Edelbrock Victor Jr./90mm TB setup later down the road and see how the power curve changes.

1QUIKWS6

iTrader: (61)

How do the FAST intakes behave under boost considering that they are a multi piece with a gasket between the halves - any problems with boost blowing by the gasket?

EPP

iTrader: (22)

I haven't seen a problem with the FAST intakes blowing out the gaskets. If your engines bottom end is still stock, I would just go with the LS6 intake manifold. With the addition of the AFR heads, you will be seeing over 500 rwhp, and you're going to need a good rich tune. Bob

1QUIKWS6

iTrader: (61)

Thanx Bob. In fact, I'll be calling you soon to pick out my ATI kit - hopefully it will be before the price increase