Will a LE ported intake work with my Non-LE ported heads?
10-13-2011, 10:53 PM
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will a LE ported intake work with my Non-LE ported heads? I found a great deal on a LE2 ported intake with the standard port job, 58mm throttle body holes, runners and gasket ported ect. Now I'm wondering, will I be able to use this intake with my heads since they are non LE ported? The are the equivalent to about a LE2 port job, but I had it done locally.
The other thing, is my car is a 93. I know the intakes are different, but I don't know how. The LE2 intake is a 94-97. Can anyone tell me what the differences are and if this LE2 intake will work for me or not?
Thanks in advance for helping a noob
The other thing, is my car is a 93. I know the intakes are different, but I don't know how. The LE2 intake is a 94-97. Can anyone tell me what the differences are and if this LE2 intake will work for me or not?
Thanks in advance for helping a noob
10-14-2011, 06:06 AM
#4
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: fort walton beach,fl
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Save your money, or get your 93 ported by LE.. The 93 is a better flowing intake in stock form than the 94+ and the fuel connections are behind the intake on 94+'s so your fuel hoses will be all jacked uP
10-14-2011, 08:00 AM
#7
So you don't think the fact it has the largest stock ports and lacks the fuel rail trough obstruction could make any difference?
The later intakes work better on as cast heads because the ports are smaller more closely matching the as cast heads.
Not that I think it is a big difference, but I certainly wouldn't jump though any hoops to put a 94+ intake on a 93 for the sake of the intake.
Heads and intake ported by different shops can be a nightmare. A local guy with a different engine had an intake done one place and the heads another to the same dimension, one shop went higher on the port the other went lower. Ports were the same size but in different places. That doesn't work too well, the OP is begging for a similar problem.
The later intakes work better on as cast heads because the ports are smaller more closely matching the as cast heads.
Not that I think it is a big difference, but I certainly wouldn't jump though any hoops to put a 94+ intake on a 93 for the sake of the intake.
Heads and intake ported by different shops can be a nightmare. A local guy with a different engine had an intake done one place and the heads another to the same dimension, one shop went higher on the port the other went lower. Ports were the same size but in different places. That doesn't work too well, the OP is begging for a similar problem.
Trending Topics
10-14-2011, 12:50 PM
#8
So you don't think the fact it has the largest stock ports and lacks the fuel rail trough obstruction could make any difference?
The later intakes work better on as cast heads because the ports are smaller more closely matching the as cast heads.
Not that I think it is a big difference, but I certainly wouldn't jump though any hoops to put a 94+ intake on a 93 for the sake of the intake.
Heads and intake ported by different shops can be a nightmare. A local guy with a different engine had an intake done one place and the heads another to the same dimension, one shop went higher on the port the other went lower. Ports were the same size but in different places. That doesn't work too well, the OP is begging for a similar problem.
The later intakes work better on as cast heads because the ports are smaller more closely matching the as cast heads.
Not that I think it is a big difference, but I certainly wouldn't jump though any hoops to put a 94+ intake on a 93 for the sake of the intake.
Heads and intake ported by different shops can be a nightmare. A local guy with a different engine had an intake done one place and the heads another to the same dimension, one shop went higher on the port the other went lower. Ports were the same size but in different places. That doesn't work too well, the OP is begging for a similar problem.
10-14-2011, 03:44 PM
#9
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: fort walton beach,fl
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea You heard me right, I own a 93 and obsessed with my intake
I like the sound of that statement
I like the sound of that statement
Last edited by defaultexistence; 10-14-2011 at 03:59 PM.
10-14-2011, 11:52 PM
#10
Banned
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah I doubt it's a huge gain or anything but from the pics I've been looking at the 93 intakes definitely look like they flow a bit better without the fuel rail obstruction and the difference in the ports.
Well the only reason I'm looking into this LE intake is because I can get it for 100 bucks. Getting my 93 intake ported will be 200 + shipping...
Well the only reason I'm looking into this LE intake is because I can get it for 100 bucks. Getting my 93 intake ported will be 200 + shipping...
10-15-2011, 06:43 AM
#11
If you ship the intake out how will they know how to match it to the heads???
Maybe you should save your money since you didn't have it done in the first place. I think you are asking for trouble with little potential gains.
As already covered the 93 intake already has pretty good sized ports, and what we have not mentioned yet is that heads/cam cars have done over 425rwhp on unported stock later model intakes.
If having it done with heads I am all in favor of porting the intake, but now that the heads are bolted down and you are talking about having someone a distance away do the porting you are begging for for misalignment unless the heads were CNC'd and you sent the intake to the same shop.
Maybe you should save your money since you didn't have it done in the first place. I think you are asking for trouble with little potential gains.
As already covered the 93 intake already has pretty good sized ports, and what we have not mentioned yet is that heads/cam cars have done over 425rwhp on unported stock later model intakes.
If having it done with heads I am all in favor of porting the intake, but now that the heads are bolted down and you are talking about having someone a distance away do the porting you are begging for for misalignment unless the heads were CNC'd and you sent the intake to the same shop.
10-15-2011, 05:52 PM
#13
Banned
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh I've got a cam... lol I've got a built 383 LT1. That's the only reason I'm even considering this intake. Everything is done and ported but the intake is stock.
10-15-2011, 06:27 PM
#14
TECH Addict
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: limbo
Posts: 2,124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm surprised joe and wrd have never heard that before about the 93's, not to knock, I know they know way more than me
like stated OP you could possibly run into some alignment problems
like stated OP you could possibly run into some alignment problems
10-18-2011, 12:37 AM
#16
11 Second Club
The fuel rail obstruction on the 94-97 intakes does not protrude the intake cavity...
10-18-2011, 04:19 AM
#17
Tried a search but it was YEARS ago, so I couldn't find the thread.
I would, however, like to see proof of the claims that the 93 is superior. Moreso, I'd like to see proof that the gains are quantifiable enough to consider swapping out a ported 94+ for a 93. I personally don't think that's going to happen.
10-18-2011, 05:54 AM
#18
Its not the fuel rail casting hanging in the way of the intake air tract, its more of a plenum volume gain that I see worth switching over to a modded 93. Imagine having that little little bit of extra plenum volume gained by not having to work at cutting back the 94+ fuel rail hump. Then add up the little bits of plenum volume gained by cutting back all of the casting lines and opening up the throat behind the TB holes.
Then to go more extreme to gain plenum volume weld/epoxy behind the injectors and recut the port roof as to add a more straight airflow shot like on Stealthformula's epoxy intake. I really think the gain in plenum volume was where he picked up over a standard ported intake getting rid of the ski slope inside intake port runner.
Every tiny bit of air helps out/adds up as alot of people dont give the little things enough credit
Then to go more extreme to gain plenum volume weld/epoxy behind the injectors and recut the port roof as to add a more straight airflow shot like on Stealthformula's epoxy intake. I really think the gain in plenum volume was where he picked up over a standard ported intake getting rid of the ski slope inside intake port runner.
Every tiny bit of air helps out/adds up as alot of people dont give the little things enough credit
10-18-2011, 06:42 AM
#19
TECH Veteran
If you are trying to eek out every little hundredth at the track, I agree, but for the guy on the street, I think the intake difference is negligible. People also seem to get hung up on bragging rights (that never amount to much in the real world).
10-18-2011, 08:59 AM
#20
I agree on this 100% the cost involved to redo the fuel lines and fittings plus cost of intake is just not worth it. Only on max effort SuperStocker's does the 93 give them that mouse fart blowing on the back bumper gain.