e-racer-ls-1

iTrader: (1)

Parts direct has them for $408,a far cry from the 600 they sarted at.John at scoogin dickey are you price matching?I am ready to buy today!!

NemeSS

iTrader: (127)

Idk bout no dual plane Good price tho

e-racer-ls-1

iTrader: (1)

I have been on the fence with the victor junior but want to try the dual plane with my big lift,short duration howards cam.I have never seen anyone with the dual plane on this site.It's a 400 dollar experiment.

Beau@SDPC

iTrader: (14)

I never quoted $600. I said dealer list is $500.

As for GMPD.....ill price match that price AND their shipping. When you are trying to compare apples to apples, make sure one apple doesnt cost 97.92 to ship.


The object of this exercise is to understand that we know these parts are expensive, but we are not marking them up to make a killing. I listed dealer List when i put up the info in this thread. We are also not ignorant to other companies attempts to sell parts for cheap to an unsuspecting customer.

If you need intake gaskets for it, we have those as well. The intake is 475 + shipping. That will still get you in under 505.32.

Pop N Wood

iTrader: (1)

Seems kind of unbalanced using large port heads with a dual plane intake.

Be sure to post results.

3pedals

iTrader: (3)

I agree, put it on a chassis dyno so we can see just how good, or bad the dual planes are

rojs234

iTrader: (5)

Some of you guys just kill me. People post here looking for advice on what to run on their cars, and whether it is an all out race car or a mild street car, they get the same answer.....yea, man...you need a vic jr. and a big cam Stroll over to the conversions forum and read through *billyflantos * thread about putting a STOCK 100,000 mile 6.0 in his race car after he blew his regular engine. Check out the difference between the EDY dual plane and his Vic Jr. on a high 6 sec. run! .001..one hundreth of a second! Now, I'm not saying put a dual plane on every engine, but then again I think in a lot of cases they would be a better choice than the single plane. Bring it on! Ron

72VenturaII

iTrader: (32)

To be fair Billyflantos' thread is about a cathedral port headed motor and this one is centered on the L92 head which seems to have it's little quirks concerning getting big power out of them.

rojs234

iTrader: (5)

You are right that *billyflantos * car has cathedral port heads, but I still think there is a place for a dual plane L92-LS3. After all, there are many guys who run dual planes with great sucess on big block Chevys and other large port engines. And, before you even say it, not every one with an LS engine leaves the line at 5000 RPM or turns their street engine to 7500 RPM, LOL.

72VenturaII

iTrader: (32)

There may be a place for the dual plane intake and I think people are waiting for some dyno or real world testing to show the differences. You'll find that the single plane intake does not give up low end on an L92 motor as long as the correct cam is used.

I don't think you can directly relate the old school big block to the LS style motor though as they are two very different animals.

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

I see his comparison as very relevant. The BBC with rectangular port are a great comparison to the L92 headed engines. The reason I believe this is that they both have very large port cross section and volume in relation to their displacement. The Ford Cleveland engines might be a better comparison.

What was learned from those engines is that a conservative dual plane intake was a substantial improvement on street driven engines in regards to torque and drive-ability.

If you look at the Car Craft dyno comparison of cathedral port intake manifolds, the dual plane increased the torque band of cathedral port heads substantially over the single plane and the factory fuel injection manifolds. I believe this effect would be even greater on the l92 heads.

Unfortunately, conjecture is all I have until some real world reports/tests start coming in.

72VenturaII

iTrader: (32)

L92's don't really have a very large cross section or port volume as compared to a BBC. In fact they are only 12% bigger than a cathedral port.

It's hard to compare a motor that's 364 cubic inches making as much power or more than a 454 and with better road manners. The reason dual planes work on big blocks are because of the lazy ports which the L92 doesn't share.

Hopefully somone will do the dyno comparison and see which cams suit the different intakes.

Beau@SDPC

iTrader: (14)

Plus they use a bore size that is larger than 4.065. Even a 396 was larger than that with a longer stroke stock. Trying to compare computers to dinosaurs doesnt seem to be the way to go.

rojs234

iTrader: (5)

Anybody catch the new issue of Super Chevy? They built a 433 inch big block engine for street use, I would guess. Over 500HP and 475 torque way down in the mid range. Funny....they used heads with a 275 CC port instead of the normal big block size of ,what 320 CC? I guess they didn't have any of that magic dust that GM sprinkled on the LS3 heads to make the air flow faster in the large ports. They also used a " Thumper " cam. Whoops!....wasn't that the same type cam (closer LSA ) that *speedtigger* mentioned the other day for someone to help the mid range on his small engine and give it the "hot rod" sound. Oh! that's right...you all made fun and said it wouldn't work. Betcha can't guess what type of intake they picked for this 6000 RPM engine.

72VenturaII

iTrader: (32)

The LS3 intake runner size is only 260 cc. I haven't read that Super Chevy, but I would guess that was flywheel ratings not rear wheel.

A single plane 370 with L92 heads will make more power and torque down low with the right cam, plus weigh nearly 200 pounds less. I just don't think there as an apple to apple comparison to old school big blocks.

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

Yeah it is a different motor. Yeah it is more advanced. But, the basic principals of airflow, velocity and volume are still the same. While the degree of which it is a factor in the LS motors for the new dual plane remains to be seen. It will react in a similar fashion as all V8 valve in head motors have since the beginning of hot rodding.

rojs234

iTrader: (5)

Like *speedtigger * said...a chunk of aluminum with a well designed hole (port) in it is going to flow faster or slower, depending on the size of the engine and port or the speed (RPM). There's nothing "magic" about it...it's simple Laws of physics. The L92/Ls3 heads are excellent heads....the reason they work on your pick up is because of the fuel injection. The long runner intake manifold does not have to provide both air and fuel..only air. You don't have to worry about fuel "puddling" or about lean or rich cylinders at low speeds, because the fuel is sprayed at precise quantities right at the intake valve.
Now...slowly, repeat after me ...6.0 engine, big port L92 heads, BIG plenum single plane intake, STREET type cam, STREET drivable convertor, and CARBURETOR, CARBURETOR , CARBURETOR!! I think a Performer RPM type intake would be a big benefit to this type car.
Now, I've got a question for YOU and also for John@ Scroggin.
Do you own or have you even driven a 6.0 with L92 heads and a single plane with a dble pumper and a "tight" convertor??.....I HAVE!!
AS the kid on the playground says....you show me yours,..and I'll show you mine!
Here's mine. I don't know how to do the large photo thing, so you'll have to click on the thumbnails.

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

I love a guy who knows what he is talking about.

Smokin' nice truck by the way!

rojs234

iTrader: (5)

Thanks! Truck doesn't have an LS engine yet. May have in the future. It's the 2 in rojs 234, as in two '34's. LOL. It does have a Performer RPM dual plane though.

Beau@SDPC

iTrader: (14)

If someone would buy this one, it sure would end the arguement one way or the other. Seems like no one wants to pony up yet, just go at war with words.