L-92 Dual plane intakes
12-22-2011, 05:38 PM
#3
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I work for G.M and even with my discount it is out of my price range.I think no one is buying the dual plane from G.M and no one is going to tool up to make a manifold that isn't selling.Why is a regular dual plane 135 bucks(for a regular small block) and 500ish for our ls motors.Build one for the regular working joe and price it at say $275 dollars.I'll take one.....
12-23-2011, 08:43 PM
#4
Teching In
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have both the dual plane and a single plane for the L92. Yeah I wish the GM intakes were cheaper.
Paid well over $400.00 per intake.
That is not easy to swallow when you are on a budget.
Andy
Paid well over $400.00 per intake.
That is not easy to swallow when you are on a budget.
Andy
12-27-2011, 08:03 PM
#6
Teching In
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes we did. I will get the dyno sheets tommorow and post the numbers from the back to back tests.
The engine they were tested on was a 334 cube engine that we took to the Engine Masters Competion in October.
We are also getting ready to reassemble the 409 cube engine that we took last year and we are going to test it with both manifolds as well. I will post the results for that when we get them.
Andy
The engine they were tested on was a 334 cube engine that we took to the Engine Masters Competion in October.
We are also getting ready to reassemble the 409 cube engine that we took last year and we are going to test it with both manifolds as well. I will post the results for that when we get them.
Andy
Trending Topics
12-27-2011, 08:34 PM
#8
Yes we did. I will get the dyno sheets tommorow and post the numbers from the back to back tests.
The engine they were tested on was a 334 cube engine that we took to the Engine Masters Competion in October.
We are also getting ready to reassemble the 409 cube engine that we took last year and we are going to test it with both manifolds as well. I will post the results for that when we get them.
Andy
The engine they were tested on was a 334 cube engine that we took to the Engine Masters Competion in October.
We are also getting ready to reassemble the 409 cube engine that we took last year and we are going to test it with both manifolds as well. I will post the results for that when we get them.
Andy
Burgers saw an improvement of .15 and 3 mph in the 1/4 just bolting on the stock L92 Victor Jr vs. the GMPP single plane. 10.33@129 to 10.18@132
https://ls1tech.com/forums/generatio...intakes-2.html
12-28-2011, 05:45 PM
#9
Hope not to get too much disagreement on this, but the way I see the head setup, if you want a dual plain intake, you should stick with cathedral heads anyway, I believe them to be more efficient down low for more moderate performance as is, not to mention the castings are cheaper, so budget and l92/ls3 heads are not in the same range as the cathedral anyway. The square port heads are better off on a more high end build in my opinion, not all out to say, just for larger cubes are more along the lines of a motor that will be performance oriented to the point that a single plain will hold back more than help performance.
But I do believe a dual plain should be available for a few hundred anyway for the square port anyway.
But I do believe a dual plain should be available for a few hundred anyway for the square port anyway.
12-28-2011, 06:44 PM
#10
Teching In
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right that an L92 head seem to be better suited for a high rpm or larger cube engine but they can work really well when the combination is worked out right.
We used the L92 heads with a 409 cube engine and made 580 ftlbs and 595 hp
we used the same set of heads but prepped differently on a 334 cube engine and it made 460 ftlbs and 540 hp, Both engines had a torque curve that was nearly flat.
Both engines used the dual plane intake. The 334 was tested with both the single plane and the dual plane.
The 334 made 560 hp up top with the single plane but the torque was down.
I cannot remember the exact figures but will post them in a day or two.
I was going to bring the dyno sheets home tonight but I didnt have time to find them today.
We are doing a lot of testing and am planning to try a set of cathedral heads on the 334 and also am going to try the single and dual plane versions for those heads to.
The first LS1 that we ever built was the 409 that we took to the EMC last year so we are trying anything we can.
Andy
We used the L92 heads with a 409 cube engine and made 580 ftlbs and 595 hp
we used the same set of heads but prepped differently on a 334 cube engine and it made 460 ftlbs and 540 hp, Both engines had a torque curve that was nearly flat.
Both engines used the dual plane intake. The 334 was tested with both the single plane and the dual plane.
The 334 made 560 hp up top with the single plane but the torque was down.
I cannot remember the exact figures but will post them in a day or two.
I was going to bring the dyno sheets home tonight but I didnt have time to find them today.
We are doing a lot of testing and am planning to try a set of cathedral heads on the 334 and also am going to try the single and dual plane versions for those heads to.
The first LS1 that we ever built was the 409 that we took to the EMC last year so we are trying anything we can.
Andy
Last edited by D&A Machine Shop; 12-28-2011 at 06:56 PM.
12-28-2011, 06:54 PM
#11
Teching In
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here are the videos for both engines.
Dad had a lot of fun making these so dont make to much fun of them. LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52pNn...1&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWi31...eature=related
Andy
Dad had a lot of fun making these so dont make to much fun of them. LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52pNn...1&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWi31...eature=related
Andy
12-29-2011, 03:10 AM
#13
Hope not to get too much disagreement on this, but the way I see the head setup, if you want a dual plain intake, you should stick with cathedral heads anyway, I believe them to be more efficient down low for more moderate performance as is, not to mention the castings are cheaper, so budget and l92/ls3 heads are not in the same range as the cathedral anyway. The square port heads are better off on a more high end build in my opinion, not all out to say, just for larger cubes are more along the lines of a motor that will be performance oriented to the point that a single plain will hold back more than help performance.
But I do believe a dual plain should be available for a few hundred anyway for the square port anyway.
But I do believe a dual plain should be available for a few hundred anyway for the square port anyway.
As a bit of soapbox conjecture (ranting), I think one of the problems in the L92 world is folks trying to force the popular and proven cathedral cam profiles into use in the rectangle port engines. The L92 seems to be less forgiving towards overcamming. For best results it needs dramatically different cam events as compared to what makes a 243 or CNC 243 really tick. Some say that the intake port and valve are basically over-large for their own good and a bit lazy. If that is the case then the cam events need to inspire the head to "think" fast.
Anyhew...as a way to stop my bleary eyed late night rant and get back to the original topic at hand, perhaps the GMPP L92 dual plane intake is the ticket to great overall performance in that it makes up for some of the velocity and low speed shortcomings of the large L92 port.
One thing that I have noticed is that GMPP L92 dual plane looks like it has quite a bit of extra runner volume as compared to the cathedral RPM intake. Theoretically, this additional volume should allow the engine to keep building power at higher RPM's than the comparable cathedral performer RPM dual plane. Along with the increased volume, the dual plane design should also bolster the low end performance from the large L92 ports.
Seems like a win-win. It is very much a modern hi-rise design that seems to work well all around.
Andy & Don at D&A have definitely illustrated that the GMPP dual plane intake can make great power numbers and produce a very flat torque curve.
D&A 409" engine buildup article: http://www.popularhotrodding.com/tec..._ls/index.html What a Torque Monster!
Overall, I would venture that the Victor Jr would likely out power to the GMPP dual plane through the upper midrange and up on top, but I also believe that the GMPP dual plane would be stronger down low, in the bulk of the midrange, and at the shift points. Testing would tell the true tales. It would be fascinating to see the results of a 3-way test on the same engine using the GMPP L92 single plane, GMPP L92 dual plane and the Edelbrock Victor Jr L92.
.02
Pictures are always nice:
https://ls1tech.com/forums/new-produ...l#post13535970
L92 GMPP dual plane
pics below by txoldskool
Performer RPM cathedral:
Last edited by topbrent; 12-29-2011 at 07:13 AM.
12-29-2011, 11:38 AM
#14
Yep, could not agree more. I want to see a 6.0 lq4 outfitted with a ls6 casting, ported ls6 casting and ls3 casting, with different intake and cam grinds to get back to back performance. I want to think ported ls6 heads would be the way to go for a street car. But, I would not be surprised if the ls3 shined up top, but I suspect the ls6 castings to bring home the 90 percent more usable low end grunt.
01-06-2012, 04:20 PM
#15
Teching In
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok guys, It took me a while to do it but I finally found some dyno sheets.
Its not the exact ones I wanted but they will have to do since the dyno computer is acting up and we can't find the right ones.
These are from the same day about ten mins apart.
Sheet 1 is the single plane. Sheet 2 is the dual plane.
sheet 1.................sheet 2
3000[228hp[398tq] [235hp[412tq]
3200[249hp[410tq] [253hp[416tq]
3400[266hp[411tq] [269hp[415tq]
3600[282hp[412tq] [289hp[422tq]
3800[307hp[425tq] [316hp[437tq]
4000[327hp[430tq] [332hp[436tq]
4200[337hp[422tq] [342hp[428tq]
4400[355hp[423tq] [361hp[431tq]
4600[368hp[421tq] [372hp[425tq]
4800[379hp[415tq] [384hp[420tq]
5000[402hp[423tq] [406hp[427tq]
5200[421hp[425tq] [432hp[436tq]
5400[439hp[427tq] [449hp[437tq]
5600[455hp[426tq] [464hp[435tq]
5800[477hp[432tq] [480hp[435tq]
6000[489hp[428tq] [493hp[431tq]
6200[493hp[417tq] [494hp[419tq]
6400[491hp[403tq] [492hp[404tq]
This was some of the first pulls on this engine and before we swapped
to a different cam. It is a 334 cube with 11.5 to 1.
Both pulls were with an 830 holley on a 1 inch spacer.
Andy
Its not the exact ones I wanted but they will have to do since the dyno computer is acting up and we can't find the right ones.
These are from the same day about ten mins apart.
Sheet 1 is the single plane. Sheet 2 is the dual plane.
sheet 1.................sheet 2
3000[228hp[398tq] [235hp[412tq]
3200[249hp[410tq] [253hp[416tq]
3400[266hp[411tq] [269hp[415tq]
3600[282hp[412tq] [289hp[422tq]
3800[307hp[425tq] [316hp[437tq]
4000[327hp[430tq] [332hp[436tq]
4200[337hp[422tq] [342hp[428tq]
4400[355hp[423tq] [361hp[431tq]
4600[368hp[421tq] [372hp[425tq]
4800[379hp[415tq] [384hp[420tq]
5000[402hp[423tq] [406hp[427tq]
5200[421hp[425tq] [432hp[436tq]
5400[439hp[427tq] [449hp[437tq]
5600[455hp[426tq] [464hp[435tq]
5800[477hp[432tq] [480hp[435tq]
6000[489hp[428tq] [493hp[431tq]
6200[493hp[417tq] [494hp[419tq]
6400[491hp[403tq] [492hp[404tq]
This was some of the first pulls on this engine and before we swapped
to a different cam. It is a 334 cube with 11.5 to 1.
Both pulls were with an 830 holley on a 1 inch spacer.
Andy
01-06-2012, 06:05 PM
#17
Teching In
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cam specs are the same as the 409 that Popular Hot Rodding did the article on.
http://api.viglink.com/api/click?for...13258947177331
After we changed the cam the single plane did better up top but gave up a lot of torque.
It peaked at 560 hp with the single and 545 with the dual plane.
I will keep searching for the right dyno sheets.
Also keep in mind this is a short stroke engine that really didnt pull a huge amount of air.
Once we get the 409 back together then we will try the back to back test again. That should really be interesting.
Andy
http://api.viglink.com/api/click?for...13258947177331
After we changed the cam the single plane did better up top but gave up a lot of torque.
It peaked at 560 hp with the single and 545 with the dual plane.
I will keep searching for the right dyno sheets.
Also keep in mind this is a short stroke engine that really didnt pull a huge amount of air.
Once we get the 409 back together then we will try the back to back test again. That should really be interesting.
Andy
01-06-2012, 06:29 PM
#18
i am a stock cube 6.2 (376) with a mild cam ( comp lsr 219-235 at .050, 607-621 on a 113. stock heads (LS3) long tubes and full exhaust street car. im trying to figure out if its worth the extra $ for the dual plane. 10# on torque and hp wont be worth the price for me. 40+ft lbs might get my attention. see were im going with this? if it makes a differnce im running the FAST EZ EFI, instead of a carb.
01-25-2012, 07:12 PM
#20
Staging Lane
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm lookin for a dual plane L92/LS3 intake for my build. I'm selling or trading a 90mm Silverblade 4 bolt dbw throttle body thats been polished ,cc'd etc. With a TAC module,ELECT pedal,and an ECM I'm going carb. Thanks.
