93 intake on a 95?
03-12-2009, 02:43 PM
#1
Staging Lane
Thread Starter
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Glendale BRO
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
93 intake on a 95? What do I need for a 93 intake to work on my 95? I bought a set of heads off a 93 and I'm not sure if matching intake will work on my 95.
03-12-2009, 05:26 PM
#6
Staging Lane
Thread Starter
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Glendale BRO
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I only need to use the 93 rails? Is the fpr not in the same spot? What's a ski jump? The heads are ported and the intake is port matched for the heads. I really want to keep the combo together.
03-13-2009, 09:07 AM
#10
03-14-2009, 01:46 AM
#12
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Decatur, TN (N-W of Athens)
Posts: 7,564
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Yea I can't see why 95 rails would benefit over the rest. 94 is when sequential started anyways...
The 93 intake doesn't have the large dip inside the intake plenum (I assume that is the Ski Jump) which causes a bit of an air flow issue. Doubtful it's at all beneficial to a stock/bolt on motor though. So unless you can get the intake a rails for $35-50 it's not worth the hassle. They do look 10x better than the 94+
The 93 intake doesn't have the large dip inside the intake plenum (I assume that is the Ski Jump) which causes a bit of an air flow issue. Doubtful it's at all beneficial to a stock/bolt on motor though. So unless you can get the intake a rails for $35-50 it's not worth the hassle. They do look 10x better than the 94+
03-14-2009, 09:53 AM
#14
If you really want an analysis of the two styles, I can give it, but for a modest buildup you will be fine with either...
If you end up wanting to go 550-600hp+ there are mods that should be done to the '92-93 fuel rails. As they are stock, they have inner logs inside them to provide the crossover between the two, as well as having an accumulator(buffer) on the inlet side which keeps the fuel lines on the 92-93 from pulsating when the injectors fire.
Batch fire has volume considerations which are mitigated by sequential firing, ie, you do not need as much volume as the drain is progressive through the rails, not all at once as with batch (and yeah, before those that think they 'know-it-all' start being morons, yes batch fire means it is either all at once, half at once, or even alternating on banks, key point is batch means more than one injector fires at a time, but all batch systems have higher static volume requirements than a similar sequential setup).
With the inner logs and such one of the 'potential' issues with '92-93 style fuel rails is the increased heat-draw into the fuel system. The fuel basically makes two passes through each rail, one through the inner log and one through the outer sleeve (where the injectors get thier fuel), thus, by the time it goes to the fuel pressure regulator it has absorbed that much more heat from the rails. Usually not an issue, but becomes a concern with high-flow pump and such as the higher volume of fuel can cause issues with vapor expansion and such.
The accumulator/buffer on the inlet line is basically a chamber with baffling to not only hold a volume of fuel, but to breakup pressure waves from vibrating back through the fuel lines that would cause a 'pulse' on them. I personally had a batch fire DFI setup on one of my cars for a few years, but with a 94+ intake/fuel system, without a accumulator/buffer, and you could feel the pulses on the dead-pedal.
The '92-93 manifold casting is a bit thicker and is asthetically more pleasing without the crossover in the front. They usually were better castings as well, with cleaner definition and overall less core-shift.
Oh, and for the record, I have modified '93 rails and intake on my T/A. The rails were modified for -10 AN feed, as well as the internal logs removed, and ports for pressure gauges added. Pretty easy if you have a skilled machinist. Just make sure you have an extra set in case something goes wrong while modifying them if you are going to do that. For me it was a matter of asthetics as the fuel system is far from stock anyways. I still have an extra '93 intake sitting in the garage.
But, like I said, if you are staying south of the 550hp mark, you should be fine with the 92-93 rail/intake setup as-is.
If you end up wanting to go 550-600hp+ there are mods that should be done to the '92-93 fuel rails. As they are stock, they have inner logs inside them to provide the crossover between the two, as well as having an accumulator(buffer) on the inlet side which keeps the fuel lines on the 92-93 from pulsating when the injectors fire.
Batch fire has volume considerations which are mitigated by sequential firing, ie, you do not need as much volume as the drain is progressive through the rails, not all at once as with batch (and yeah, before those that think they 'know-it-all' start being morons, yes batch fire means it is either all at once, half at once, or even alternating on banks, key point is batch means more than one injector fires at a time, but all batch systems have higher static volume requirements than a similar sequential setup).
With the inner logs and such one of the 'potential' issues with '92-93 style fuel rails is the increased heat-draw into the fuel system. The fuel basically makes two passes through each rail, one through the inner log and one through the outer sleeve (where the injectors get thier fuel), thus, by the time it goes to the fuel pressure regulator it has absorbed that much more heat from the rails. Usually not an issue, but becomes a concern with high-flow pump and such as the higher volume of fuel can cause issues with vapor expansion and such.
The accumulator/buffer on the inlet line is basically a chamber with baffling to not only hold a volume of fuel, but to breakup pressure waves from vibrating back through the fuel lines that would cause a 'pulse' on them. I personally had a batch fire DFI setup on one of my cars for a few years, but with a 94+ intake/fuel system, without a accumulator/buffer, and you could feel the pulses on the dead-pedal.
The '92-93 manifold casting is a bit thicker and is asthetically more pleasing without the crossover in the front. They usually were better castings as well, with cleaner definition and overall less core-shift.
Oh, and for the record, I have modified '93 rails and intake on my T/A. The rails were modified for -10 AN feed, as well as the internal logs removed, and ports for pressure gauges added. Pretty easy if you have a skilled machinist. Just make sure you have an extra set in case something goes wrong while modifying them if you are going to do that. For me it was a matter of asthetics as the fuel system is far from stock anyways. I still have an extra '93 intake sitting in the garage.
But, like I said, if you are staying south of the 550hp mark, you should be fine with the 92-93 rail/intake setup as-is.
