gains from single plane with mild H/C setup?
11-21-2006, 10:53 AM
#1
12 Second Club
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Catlettsburg, Ky
Posts: 876
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gains from single plane with mild H/C setup? I know it's been in the making for a few months now, but I'm re-working a carb'd vic. jr for my car to be made into an EFI manifold (already milled the injector holes, and fitted the bungs, just needs welded up)
but anyway here's the deal:
the heads on my car are '97 heads that have had a a little cleanup work done around the bowl and port matched to the intake--- by far, nothing extravagant, but still, not stock. and then all the supporting mods that are in my sig (CC 503 LT's, full bolt-ons, etc.)
I assume that torque would have to be up all across the board (slightly longer runner) incoming air will have a MUCH better distribution from cylinder to cylinder as opposed to the mail-box looking intake we all have now.
does anyone have a clue as to what gains can and will be had with a single plane at my power level?
but anyway here's the deal:
the heads on my car are '97 heads that have had a a little cleanup work done around the bowl and port matched to the intake--- by far, nothing extravagant, but still, not stock. and then all the supporting mods that are in my sig (CC 503 LT's, full bolt-ons, etc.)
I assume that torque would have to be up all across the board (slightly longer runner) incoming air will have a MUCH better distribution from cylinder to cylinder as opposed to the mail-box looking intake we all have now.
does anyone have a clue as to what gains can and will be had with a single plane at my power level?
11-22-2006, 07:16 AM
#7
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SC
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like this set up (SORRY for the HUGE pic):
https://ls1tech.com/forums/drag-racing-results/611335-1-34-60-vid.html
https://ls1tech.com/forums/drag-racing-results/611335-1-34-60-vid.html
Trending Topics
11-23-2006, 12:42 AM
#8
12 Second Club
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Catlettsburg, Ky
Posts: 876
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RealQuick
Typically the single plain guys are making more power above 6000rpm then LTX manifold people... your cam/heads wont have you maing peak power above 6krpm, so the single plane is useless on your setup IMO.
11-23-2006, 04:19 AM
#9
Originally Posted by RealQuick
Typically the single plain guys are making more power above 6000rpm then LTX manifold people... your cam/heads wont have you maing peak power above 6krpm, so the single plane is useless on your setup IMO.
Im peaking at 6300. Goal is to peak at 6500.
Tony.
11-23-2006, 08:38 AM
#10
Originally Posted by Mighty Whitey
albeit, this is true, the ltx manifold does hamper flow up high (possibly from plenum volume??) but wouldn't the longer intake runners have an effect on torque output all across the board? that's my main goal with it, is torque increase (and the fact that few have this setup) it would have to yield some sort of power increase regardless of a stock car, or h/c or stroker. the stock intake is junk, not quite as bad as a tune-port, but still, FAR from what it could have been...
?It is good enough that Edelbrock and Lingenfelter both tried and FAILED to make any improvement worthy of production.
Edelbrock is not working on it again to take advantage of the LT4 intake shortage and general consumer ignorance the HIGHEST numbers I have heard them place on it for power gains is 7hp and that I asume is at the flywheel.
Look at the results of those who try to make power with the LT1 intake, I can think of a somewhat streetable NA Impala with 480rwhp solid roller 383 4000stall ATI and 4L60E, AI has an NA 355 customer making 490 through an M6, Rick Abare's car makes 52X through an ATI converter and 4L60E. The LT1 intake is different from gen 1 stuff so people pronounce it bad, much like they do the opti and waterpump, that is all ignorance though not reality.
On Camaroz28.com there is a week old thread where a guy lost power everywhere below 6K doing a carbed intake conversion, with the pcm's 7200 rpm rev limit no way in hell can he go faster losing torque over that wide an rpm range and gaining so little for such a narrow range.
11-23-2006, 10:22 AM
#11
There was a magazine test a long time ago, where they were mod'ing an LT4 crate motor. With ported LT4 heads, stroker kit, and a 230/238 cam, ported LT4 intake, and a 58 mm TB, they managed 496 hp and 508 ft-lb (engine dyno). They swapped to the GMPP dual plane intake and carb. The motor then made 503 hp and 522 ft-lb.
From the many dual versus single plane intake dyno tests, by switching to a single plane, you would expect another 10 or so hp gain and a 10 or so ft-lb lost. So, by going from an LTx intake to a SP, the net difference would be something like a gain of 5 ft-lb torque and 15 hp. Of course, the higher rev'ing stuff would probably gain more, but I'm talking about cams in the 250+ range.
Thunder just built a combo using a single plane and, in idle conversation, they said that it did actually lose low-end and gain up top. The hp gain was on the order of 10 - 15 hp. It was a pretty radical setup using AFR 220's and a big solid roller, making nearly 500 rwhp on motor. I'm starting to wonder if the sharp port entrances in the LTx intake actually promote low-rpm turbulance and boost low-end torque. . . Hmmm.
If you actually get in there and measure the LTx and SP runner length, you'll find that there is very little difference. The SP might be 1" longer, depending on whether you measure it on the top, bottom, short turn, or long turn radius. So, there just isn't that much difference in tuning rpm range of the two. However, the higher roof of the SP and radiused entries mean that the SP will flow better. I've seen as much as 25 cfm gained when going to an SP, but if your heads can't use it, then there's no point. The heads have to flow pretty well to really be able to use the extra flow of the SP.
Mike
From the many dual versus single plane intake dyno tests, by switching to a single plane, you would expect another 10 or so hp gain and a 10 or so ft-lb lost. So, by going from an LTx intake to a SP, the net difference would be something like a gain of 5 ft-lb torque and 15 hp. Of course, the higher rev'ing stuff would probably gain more, but I'm talking about cams in the 250+ range.
Thunder just built a combo using a single plane and, in idle conversation, they said that it did actually lose low-end and gain up top. The hp gain was on the order of 10 - 15 hp. It was a pretty radical setup using AFR 220's and a big solid roller, making nearly 500 rwhp on motor. I'm starting to wonder if the sharp port entrances in the LTx intake actually promote low-rpm turbulance and boost low-end torque. . . Hmmm.
If you actually get in there and measure the LTx and SP runner length, you'll find that there is very little difference. The SP might be 1" longer, depending on whether you measure it on the top, bottom, short turn, or long turn radius. So, there just isn't that much difference in tuning rpm range of the two. However, the higher roof of the SP and radiused entries mean that the SP will flow better. I've seen as much as 25 cfm gained when going to an SP, but if your heads can't use it, then there's no point. The heads have to flow pretty well to really be able to use the extra flow of the SP.
Mike
11-23-2006, 12:16 PM
#12
12 Second Club
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Catlettsburg, Ky
Posts: 876
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not trying to start a fight here, but:
you can't tell me that JUST BY LOOKS the single plane doesn't beat the pants off of a stock style intake in every aspect.
just by doing the finger test the lt1 runners are about as long as one of my fingers, the SP??? atleast 2 inches longer (or roughly 60%)
from TB to head mating surface, the LT1 intake has a difference anywhere from 6 inches to 18inches? the SP has a variance of maybe an inch or 2 (depending on whether it's an outside cylinder or inside)
carb guys use single planes for their High rpm stuff because the fuel wants to fall out of atomization before it gets to the intake valve in the lower rpm range (why you would lose low-end power with a carb'd SP) because runner velocity is pretty much extinct. and I need not go in to why it flows better up top.
EFI is completely different, a SP would have no effect on low-end power, except to maybe boost it somewhat. if longer runners build more power (think performer intake, rather than victor jr.) in the lower rev's with carb'd motors, wouldn't the same hold true for EFI? it's the same motor, just fuel delivery is different. the vic jr has MUCH longer runners than the stock intake, (again performer vs vic jr) so in the case of runner length a "high-rpm" single plane would actually-- on paper, be better suited for low-end power than the almost non-existent runners of the stock intake.
I realize that people HAVE made good power with stock intakes, and they continue to do so. I know the 380rwhp I made with it is a drop in the bucket compared to MUCH more radical setups. I just feel that those guys with big power would make even BIGGER power with a single plane setup.. and anyone else for that matter would make more power with it.
not to be an *** about it, but I hope your wrong, I guess when I finish mine and put it on we'll find out. hell, if it don't make any more power, ATLEAST it'll look better under the hood!
you can't tell me that JUST BY LOOKS the single plane doesn't beat the pants off of a stock style intake in every aspect.
just by doing the finger test the lt1 runners are about as long as one of my fingers, the SP??? atleast 2 inches longer (or roughly 60%)
from TB to head mating surface, the LT1 intake has a difference anywhere from 6 inches to 18inches? the SP has a variance of maybe an inch or 2 (depending on whether it's an outside cylinder or inside)
carb guys use single planes for their High rpm stuff because the fuel wants to fall out of atomization before it gets to the intake valve in the lower rpm range (why you would lose low-end power with a carb'd SP) because runner velocity is pretty much extinct. and I need not go in to why it flows better up top.
EFI is completely different, a SP would have no effect on low-end power, except to maybe boost it somewhat. if longer runners build more power (think performer intake, rather than victor jr.) in the lower rev's with carb'd motors, wouldn't the same hold true for EFI? it's the same motor, just fuel delivery is different. the vic jr has MUCH longer runners than the stock intake, (again performer vs vic jr) so in the case of runner length a "high-rpm" single plane would actually-- on paper, be better suited for low-end power than the almost non-existent runners of the stock intake.
I realize that people HAVE made good power with stock intakes, and they continue to do so. I know the 380rwhp I made with it is a drop in the bucket compared to MUCH more radical setups. I just feel that those guys with big power would make even BIGGER power with a single plane setup.. and anyone else for that matter would make more power with it.
not to be an *** about it, but I hope your wrong, I guess when I finish mine and put it on we'll find out. hell, if it don't make any more power, ATLEAST it'll look better under the hood!
11-23-2006, 12:27 PM
#13
On The Tree
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My setup is the combo that was referred to in the previous 2 posts...
I was also expecting a BIG gain in the 3k to 5k rpm range with the intake but it just wasn't there. My cam is a 256/264 @ .050 comp billet grind with about .660 lift. Here is a graph of my setup for what its worth.
As far as gains, I know the car will pick up at the track because the gains are where you would want them for the track, between 5500 and 7200, which is where the car is shifted. The car feels and is softer on the bottom which makes it "feel" a little slower on the street. It lost 10rwhp up to 5200rpm.
The intake did accomplish a few other good things compared to a stock intake, it picked up right at 10rwhp at 6200rpm, 30rwhp at 6800rpm, and 40rwhp at 7000rpm and continues to widen the higher you go. My motor was built to spin to 7600rpm, so without the stock computer limitations, it would be an even bigger difference at this rpm. The intake is also MUCH better with fuel/air distribution, there is minimal difference in A/F ratios and between cylinders. The other big difference, is with the carbon base and lifter valley oil shield, the car is VERY consistent from run to run. A standard LT1 will lose 10-30rwhp when hot depending on HP level. This motor will dyno within 3-5rwhp back to back to back.
So, given this we've learned a lot about the single plane debate. Is it worth it? That depends on what you are looking for. If you want max power for the drag strip, good air distribution and better tuning/consistency with minimal heat soak then it is. If you want broader midrange torque curve/driveability then it isn't.
Here's 1 dyno pull for comparison.
I was also expecting a BIG gain in the 3k to 5k rpm range with the intake but it just wasn't there. My cam is a 256/264 @ .050 comp billet grind with about .660 lift. Here is a graph of my setup for what its worth.
As far as gains, I know the car will pick up at the track because the gains are where you would want them for the track, between 5500 and 7200, which is where the car is shifted. The car feels and is softer on the bottom which makes it "feel" a little slower on the street. It lost 10rwhp up to 5200rpm.
The intake did accomplish a few other good things compared to a stock intake, it picked up right at 10rwhp at 6200rpm, 30rwhp at 6800rpm, and 40rwhp at 7000rpm and continues to widen the higher you go. My motor was built to spin to 7600rpm, so without the stock computer limitations, it would be an even bigger difference at this rpm. The intake is also MUCH better with fuel/air distribution, there is minimal difference in A/F ratios and between cylinders. The other big difference, is with the carbon base and lifter valley oil shield, the car is VERY consistent from run to run. A standard LT1 will lose 10-30rwhp when hot depending on HP level. This motor will dyno within 3-5rwhp back to back to back.
So, given this we've learned a lot about the single plane debate. Is it worth it? That depends on what you are looking for. If you want max power for the drag strip, good air distribution and better tuning/consistency with minimal heat soak then it is. If you want broader midrange torque curve/driveability then it isn't.
Here's 1 dyno pull for comparison.
Last edited by Turbo_6; 11-23-2006 at 12:33 PM.
11-23-2006, 06:15 PM
#14
On The Tree
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know about the SP conversion. I did well with the stock ported intake.
http://www.advancedinduction.com/Dyn...55-RPM-SAE.jpg
Here is a graph of my torque curve Vs. A/F. If not for the early lean spike it would have gone over 400 RWTQ much sooner than it did.
http://www.advancedinduction.com/Dyn...355-RPM-AF.jpg
My intake was $425 from AI. I know the SP conversion is well over $1,000
My set up is designed to safely rev to 7600-7700 RPM. My only limitation is the stock PCM, but I will have a F.A.S.T. ECU installed very shortly. I know that Rick Abare (another AI customer) revs well ino th 7000 RPM range and we have the same intake.
Turbo_6: Your cam is a lot bigger than the one I have
and you have ported AFR 220's. You definately need to ditch the stock computer, and get it in the "sweet spot". I am sure you will make power to 7300-7400.
I don't agree with your statement about loosing 30 RWHP with an LT-1 intake because of heat soak. I tried to heat soak mine on the dyno so I could get a feel for the real world performance and I never lost more than 5 hp.
I also don't agree with the fuel distribution "issue". Consider this... the fuel injectors are directly infront of the port on the head. I don't see how the fuel will "fall out of atomization" in that short of a straight distance. I could see this if the fuel was injected at the TB inlet, but it's not. I am not a professional, I could be wrong on this, but I just have not seen any evidence to show otherwise.
It's a good to see people trying new things. It takes courage to do it.
http://www.advancedinduction.com/Dyn...55-RPM-SAE.jpg
Here is a graph of my torque curve Vs. A/F. If not for the early lean spike it would have gone over 400 RWTQ much sooner than it did.
http://www.advancedinduction.com/Dyn...355-RPM-AF.jpg
My intake was $425 from AI. I know the SP conversion is well over $1,000
My set up is designed to safely rev to 7600-7700 RPM. My only limitation is the stock PCM, but I will have a F.A.S.T. ECU installed very shortly. I know that Rick Abare (another AI customer) revs well ino th 7000 RPM range and we have the same intake.
Turbo_6: Your cam is a lot bigger than the one I have
and you have ported AFR 220's. You definately need to ditch the stock computer, and get it in the "sweet spot". I am sure you will make power to 7300-7400.I don't agree with your statement about loosing 30 RWHP with an LT-1 intake because of heat soak. I tried to heat soak mine on the dyno so I could get a feel for the real world performance and I never lost more than 5 hp.
I also don't agree with the fuel distribution "issue". Consider this... the fuel injectors are directly infront of the port on the head. I don't see how the fuel will "fall out of atomization" in that short of a straight distance. I could see this if the fuel was injected at the TB inlet, but it's not. I am not a professional, I could be wrong on this, but I just have not seen any evidence to show otherwise.
It's a good to see people trying new things. It takes courage to do it.
11-23-2006, 07:26 PM
#15
Originally Posted by Mighty Whitey
just by doing the finger test the lt1 runners are about as long as one of my fingers, the SP??? atleast 2 inches longer (or roughly 60%)
Originally Posted by Mighty Whitey
from TB to head mating surface, the LT1 intake has a difference anywhere from 6 inches to 18inches? the SP has a variance of maybe an inch or 2 (depending on whether it's an outside cylinder or inside)
Originally Posted by Mighty Whitey
EFI is completely different, a SP would have no effect on low-end power, except to maybe boost it somewhat.
Originally Posted by Mighty Whitey
not to be an *** about it, but I hope your wrong, I guess when I finish mine and put it on we'll find out. hell, if it don't make any more power, ATLEAST it'll look better under the hood!
Anybody want to buy an almost-complete LTx setup?
11-23-2006, 09:19 PM
#16
12 Second Club
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Catlettsburg, Ky
Posts: 876
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alright, all things aside, a motor loses power below say... 6500, my setup peaks torque @4600 and HP at 5700 right now, so there's no need in me doing a single plane setup at all?? or not a substantial gain?
my post about "fuel falling out of atomization" was in reference to a carb'd engine; I know that fuel will not fall out when the injector is roughly 4" from the back of the valve...
I fail to see how the difference in distance from the TB to the intake valve would have no effect on engine performance... I would imagine that this length would matter more so in a N/A or nitrous application as air feeds through the TB, cylinders 1-thru 4 take in the air they require, and whatever is left is then distributed to the remain cylinders 5-thru-8. I know, if the air requirements of the motor are not met, this, theoretically COULD happen to some degree, but very unlikely. an intake design with runner length being within 1 inch would lessen the likely hood of inconsistent cylinder-to-cylinder A/F ratios... and therefore increase the longevity of the motor, correct? I mean, aren't LSx guys having problems with the #7 cylinders in the motor for some reason or another? the only reason I can think of, is that the runner for #7 is the very last runner in the intake and could potential get a different A/F ratio than the rest, but less air would mean a rich mixture, and that would most likely cancel that idea out.
I guess it's just hard for me to understand how something with longer runners than stock would lose low-end power. when the general idea is the longer the runner the lower/broader the torque peak, and the shorter the runner the higher/narrower the torque peak.. does it have something to do with the stock intake having a larger plenum volume?
on a different note, is there any benefit between running a standard 4-bbl TB mounted on top of the intake as opposed to a 90* or 100* elbow with a TB mounted on it?
would a single plane shine through in a forced induction setup?
my intent with this is not to upset anyone at all, I didn't come on this site to start ****, just wanted to converse with a few guys across the nation that might actually understand what I'm talking about and I'd love to learn a few things here and there from what everyone else has already experienced.
-robert
my post about "fuel falling out of atomization" was in reference to a carb'd engine; I know that fuel will not fall out when the injector is roughly 4" from the back of the valve...
I fail to see how the difference in distance from the TB to the intake valve would have no effect on engine performance... I would imagine that this length would matter more so in a N/A or nitrous application as air feeds through the TB, cylinders 1-thru 4 take in the air they require, and whatever is left is then distributed to the remain cylinders 5-thru-8. I know, if the air requirements of the motor are not met, this, theoretically COULD happen to some degree, but very unlikely. an intake design with runner length being within 1 inch would lessen the likely hood of inconsistent cylinder-to-cylinder A/F ratios... and therefore increase the longevity of the motor, correct? I mean, aren't LSx guys having problems with the #7 cylinders in the motor for some reason or another? the only reason I can think of, is that the runner for #7 is the very last runner in the intake and could potential get a different A/F ratio than the rest, but less air would mean a rich mixture, and that would most likely cancel that idea out.
I guess it's just hard for me to understand how something with longer runners than stock would lose low-end power. when the general idea is the longer the runner the lower/broader the torque peak, and the shorter the runner the higher/narrower the torque peak.. does it have something to do with the stock intake having a larger plenum volume?
on a different note, is there any benefit between running a standard 4-bbl TB mounted on top of the intake as opposed to a 90* or 100* elbow with a TB mounted on it?
would a single plane shine through in a forced induction setup?
my intent with this is not to upset anyone at all, I didn't come on this site to start ****, just wanted to converse with a few guys across the nation that might actually understand what I'm talking about and I'd love to learn a few things here and there from what everyone else has already experienced.
-robert
11-23-2006, 09:33 PM
#17
12 Second Club
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Catlettsburg, Ky
Posts: 876
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SS Aleks
My intake was $425 from AI. I know the SP conversion is well over $1,000
wow... that seems like an awful lot of money..
I'm looking at roughly 330 for an intake with bungs welded in, port matched and edelbrock rails.. and, at the most, another $375 for a 4-bbl TB, or $200 for an elbow. roughly $700 but I guess buying the intake used, and doing the machining on the intake at home is part of it..
I
plan on putting my intake on a mill and cutting the thermostat housing and all the material between it and the # 1 and 2 intake runners... just like this intake, I think that looks great, and definately like something that was meant for our motors. along with a crank-trigger dist. and an edelbrock 4-bbl TB mounted right to the intake..
11-23-2006, 10:32 PM
#18
Resident Racing Jerk
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: sc
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mighty Whitey
wow... that seems like an awful lot of money..
I'm looking at roughly 330 for an intake with bungs welded in, port matched and edelbrock rails.. and, at the most, another $375 for a 4-bbl TB, or $200 for an elbow. roughly $700 but I guess buying the intake used, and doing the machining on the intake at home is part of it..
I'm looking at roughly 330 for an intake with bungs welded in, port matched and edelbrock rails.. and, at the most, another $375 for a 4-bbl TB, or $200 for an elbow. roughly $700 but I guess buying the intake used, and doing the machining on the intake at home is part of it..
youll also need to add to that $700 another $300+ for a fpr and misc. stainless braided fuel lines and fittings.
by the time your finished with it, it will be at least $1,000.
11-23-2006, 10:53 PM
#19
On The Tree
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It'll nickel and dime you to death. I have probably $400-500 alone in braided lines and earls fittings for the fuel line plumbing. Figure $100-150 for regulator, cost for elbow $250 and cost for throttle body $300-400 if you don't get an intakeelbows.com piece to use the factory TB. Then figure TPS harnesses, distributor plugs, MAP sensor brackets, vaccuum fittings for the back of the intake. There's just a lot of little stuff that you don't realize until you start putting it together, especially if you want to do it right.
If anyone is interested in a complete nitrous ready setup, I'm thinking about getting rid of the car, complete.
If anyone is interested in a complete nitrous ready setup, I'm thinking about getting rid of the car, complete.
11-24-2006, 03:38 AM
#20
Launching!
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Greenup, Kentucky
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All RW power gain numbers aside....What kind of track #'s have you clicked off? B/C in the end, thats all that matters. After the swap from a conventional LT1 intake to a SP or DP, which ever, did it gain anything on the track?
Is it worth spending the extra 1k?
Is it worth spending the extra 1k?