savage9scorpio

Stamp I feel you on the street1st/track2nd talk. I plan to stay away from being a trailer queen unless its a far track like dinwiddie or further. So a torquey motor with pretty good HP will work for me. If I can get 11 anything next year on motor I'd be extremley happy and very satisfied.

Pop N Wood

iTrader: (1)

Not being able to hook at low RPM is a good argument for trading low RPM grunt for high RPM power. In other words a bigger cam and single plane intake. Then all you need to do is gear it right and you have the best of both worlds.

Also keep in mind roller cams give you options the average first gen didn't have.

newschool72

iTrader: (12)

That is a great argument as long as you stall it tight so you don't get to the meat of the torque curve too quickly from a stop. But my question to you is, have you ever owned a car with a lot of cam, but with a tight converter? They pretty much suck at everything except going fast "after" you finally get to the power band. No fun at all, down low ,where you drive a street car 90% of the time.

Sales@Tick

iTrader: (3)

I never said anything about only being able to make big peak power or have to spin 7,000 rpm. That is the myth of the single plane that I am trying to dispel.

My whole post was to be taken that you can have dual plane low end power, and single plane high end power put together if you take the proper steps to a LS3/L92 head combo.

My post was taken out of context as single plane does not automatically mean no power down low and only peak hp.

Read this thread:

https://ls1tech.com/forums/generatio...70-update.html

This can be done with LS3 heads. The cam just has to be proportional to the combination.

He went from a longer runner intake than a dual plane(will make more torque) to a single plane Super Victor and with the proper cam he lost NO power under the curve at all. Torque curve matched his Fast intake torque curve to 5000rpm where the Super Victor pulled away.

In fact, the new cam was bigger than the old one! It had more overlap too! Impossible you say? I think not.

It can be done if willing to take the proper steps.

Pop N Wood

iTrader: (1)

Never owned an auto...

newschool72

iTrader: (12)

I looked the thread over and that's a nice gain. My question is, how well matched up was the old setup he had with the plastic intake? Id like to see, just for the heck of it, the new cam with the Fast intake to see a more complete comparison. Im sure the cam you ground is wrong for the Fast in every way. It is just a way to see the whole story. And for the record, Ive always been under the assumption that the LS factory style intakes are junk compared to a good carb style intake, either the dual or the single plane. That holds true for the factory intake or the Fast. To me ,spending a grand for a Fast intake to gain 10-15 HP over the factory intake proves that there isn't much hope for that design, in general.
Im still in for a true comparison between the LS3 dual plane and vic jr with cams optimized for each. Its just a shame that a well designed intake is getting ignored , or bad mouthed by some, when no one but D&A has done any real work with it, and found it to make better average #s than the single plane. The same open minded thinking that figured out how to make great low end #s with a single plane would be a great thing for a study with the dual plane. After all, open minded thinking and good old hotrod ingenuity is what got us to where we are today, making more power than we could have imagined 20 years ago.

Sales@Tick

iTrader: (3)

The whole point of my post, is if you do it right, you can have your cake and eat it to. Not to bash a dual plane intake or shun a good part that makes good power. The myth that good power can't be made down low with a single plane was the only meaning of my post.

Of course the new cam he has now wouldn't be optimal for the Fast intake. The point I'm making here is a well optimized set-up will beat out a set-up that is not all day long. Most if not all single plane set-ups I see on this site are not optimized which is where the results and data came from that you will lose torque with a single plane over a longer runner intake manifold.

With a dual plane, and the length of its runners and runner lay-out it's just not possible to do both where you can make big power up top and down low. Can respectable power be made? Damn right! I just prefer a single plane with the cam timing events I've found to work optimally.

If the cam is proportionate to the induction system and size of the engine the results will be good.

newschool72

iTrader: (12)

Fair enough. Just for comparison, what different would you do with the cam profile if the runners of an intake were a third again as long as a Vic Jr, and had huge runners with cross section as big as the runners on an LS3 head? Am I loosing top end power because of the route the individual runner take to their head port? Or is it the length of the runner? Im just trying to understand why the dual in its particular app, with huge ports and good runner length would give up at upper rpms (6500-6800) compared to a single plane. Im not arguing , just trying to understand. In this case Im speaking on a 376cid engine, not a stroker 416-427, that would need quite a bit more air flow at higher RPM.

savage9scorpio

Even though you say yo prefer single plane cam layout ,because of your familiarity with it obviously, with a DUAL PLANE TORQUE BUILD with LS3 heads. What might you consider an optimal setup. (Can pm me or email me back)
I'm kinda curious to what rpm the dual plane is efficient up to to find a cam that gives those rpms the power they need. I'd be fine shifting @ 6500 if the power is felt throughtout.

newschool72

iTrader: (12)

Sad part is, I don't know that Martin or any of the other grinders on here can honestly say at what RPM the GMPP dual runs out of air. It may be my ignorance on the topic of a specific inductions ability to move air, but unless there is a formula that Martin and others use and they KNOW the actual runner volumes and lengths, they cant say with certainty . The only outfit that did extensive testing was D&A. This is why I keep dropping hints on here for Martin or another cam guru to take the plunge and give the intake a try. All of the comments on this thread are purely based on completely different dual plane setups and ,like I said before, this is the biggest dual plane Ive ever seen, and that includes BBC duals. On a smaller cube build it may just be the best all around induction, because of the shear volume AND the longer runners, but unless you use D&As formula, none of us will ever know unless someone that knows what they are doing, takes the intake and does some serious testing.

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

The GMPP is a rare and expensive niche intake that deviates from the norm. I would not expect to see many vendors spend any time developing products specifically to work with that piece.

newschool72

iTrader: (12)

Sad but true. Thing is, if the potential was proven, it may not be so niche and might be more the norm. It might even bring the price down with competition if more people wanted it.

3pedals

iTrader: (3)

The fact is that if people want to build low rpm torque motors, they should start with a cathedral head to begin with, and not a square port head with a dual plane bandaid

newschool72

iTrader: (12)

I dont think the LS3 headed engine is strictly a high RPM engine, as everyone on here has been lead to believe. Quality air flow isn't exclusively for high RPM use. GM surely isn't buying into the rec. port being high RPM use only. They have offered those heads on trucks , SUVs, pony cars ,and sports cars. The C6 vette picked up a solid 3-4 tenths gain from the LS2 to LS3 with the same basic car and the same basic redline. Stock LS cat head to stock square port head is no contest in average HP and TQ. LS3 head blows the cat head away! In top aftermarket offerings the 2 heads are almost identical in power production all the way through the rev range. Just check out GM High Tech mag on the "Ultimate cathedral/rec port shootout".
The dual plane is in no way a bandaid. It is a great STREET intake. Average power will be up in almost all cases. Average power is what a true street car is all about. My little street car has great power everywhere in the rev range with those big, high RPM heads. If we are to believe its a waste of time to have anything but a single plane carb intake, there sure are a lot of "lucky" plastic intake guys running around on this site! Just think about the statement you just made. Bandaid? I respect you and what you did with that 68, but Im calling BS on your last statement. I hope there is no hard feelings, brother.

Pop N Wood

iTrader: (1)

So there we have it

Street = dual plane
Strip = single plane

Everything else like cams, heads, exhaust, displacement, rotary, piston ,V8, V6, I4 and fuel type is derived from this one universal truth.

I never knew hot rodding was so simple.

newschool72

iTrader: (12)

Wow, Pop, did I say that? I sure didn't mean to. I did say you shouldn't make a blanket statement that anything other than a single plane is a waste of time and a bandaid to crutch poor low end performance on the rec. port head. Of the three LS based engines I have owned, the LS3 in my 72 Camaro is the best at overall punch, from idle to redline. The other 2 were cathedral port engines.

savage9scorpio

Newschool72 I like your point of views in regards to this dual plane option. Your keeping me in the dual plane corner 4 sure
I kinda don't think anybody would create a product tht performs less than what's currently out and it performs worse and sell it for more. Ijs

If the ls3 dual plane is anything like what I imagine my current gen1 dual plane to be like. It looks like it would b a raised floor where its feeding 4 cylinders quicker than the other 4. . . I can't explain it so well but (again I'm young forgive me 4 my ignorance). But someone will get what I'm saying.
Splitting the incoming air/fuel charge to make up for. . . I don't know I can't get 2 much into it cuz I'm @ work. Ill get on later if I need tobfinish

TXsilverado

iTrader: (18)

Am i the only one reading Martin's posts?

cliff notes:

with the right cam, the down low torque/power curve of a dual plane and the plastic intakes can be matched with a single plane intake, but around 5,000 rpm the single plane intake will continue to make more power while the others begin to taper off.

your argument "but i dont want to pull my car to 7,500 rpm"
my argument "fine. shift out early before peak and still make more power in wherever range you decided to shift"

now try to convince martin why he should spend boatloads of money investigating an intake that he can match the performance of down low, and exceed up high with a single plane???

TXsilverado

iTrader: (18)

we see it every day. throttle body spacers, tornadoes, filters, electric super chargers, fuel magnets, octane boosters, e3 spark plugs, super magical plug wires and coil packs. the list goes on and on.

newschool72

iTrader: (12)

Because he doesnt know what the dual plane intake will do on the LS3 heads? How can he say, and I don't think he did, that the dual will tapper off above 5K, if he hasn't tested it? He said he made more power down low than a customers plastic intake with his cam . That was the way I read it. I am still waiting for an explanation for the argument against a dual plane and why this specific very large and free flowing intake is going to fall away at higher RPM, if it can move all the air the average 6.0-6.2 can move. Im not arguing about it, I am asking for an explanation as to why he thinks this intake will not move the air. I go back to the only testing Ive seen that showed in black and white, NO drop off up to 6500 compared to a single plane. One more time I say, The intake is HUGE and has ample volume to feed a 409 to 6500 rpms. This wasn't a random test, these #s were posted on an engine that competed at the Amsoil Engine Masters Challenge and the guys tried the single plane, It lost the battle. Im here to learn, and to help out with what Ive learned ,which ever comes along.