TXsilverado

iTrader: (18)

hell, i pulled a truck intake to 6,500. why end a test so early if they are trying to compare intakes?

snook

iTrader: (1)

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

That doesn't look like a Mast intake.

snook

iTrader: (1)

I just like throwin some sarcasm in there, lol. I saw one yellowbullet a while back that had the 6.0 in the same scenario. It just struck me as funny, even though I'm a big LS fan

Sales@Tick

iTrader: (3)

Not sure I understand this question, "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?"

Length of the runner and volume will dictate power band. More so length as inertia is amplified as length is increased. In an induction system, the length and cross section of the runner along with the plenum it draws from will dictate the power band of the engine it feeds.
I've measured every readily available LS intake but a dual plane.

That said, after doing as many cams and set-ups as I have, I have learned what runner lengths and plenum volumes will do what in regards to RPM when paired with a given intake runner CSA and intake valve diameter.

If we have runner length that will support the RPM we'd like to achieve, but not enough volume that RPM won't ever be realized. Same goes the opposite. Both have to be working together correctly for the set-up to be optimal.

No formula, just trial and error and good data.

That definitely made me laugh!

newschool72

iTrader: (12)

Thanks for the explanation, Martin. I just want to be sure I understand your answer. I got this out of your post. In order of a combination to reach its potential, the intake runner length and to a lesser degree, the volume of the intake needs to match the cam events , and of course it all must work together with the rest of the components in the engine to reach that goal.
You haven't measured the GMPP Dual Plane to see if it has the volume or runner length to support any given combination, thus have no idea what it is ,or isn't capable of. You have measured and tested enough intakes to have a solid understanding what it takes to build a cam to work optimally with any intake you have worked with.
Is that about right? OP, it looks like you will need to run the single plane ,if you want to be in the club. Maybe one day someone other than D&A will do some more testing , but for now I will enjoy having my cake and eating it too with a combo that will run 11s in a car that is setup to turn corners, will idle in traffic with the AC blasting, has the low end grunt to cruise at 2000rpms up and down the rolling hills of middle GA, doesn't have to spin up to 7K to haul the mail, and knocks down 20+MPG.
Im not going to beat a dead horse anymore about this intake, its just sad that , what I think is a great STREET FIRST combo is going to be brushed under the rug because the people that have the power to try it have too much work in making the single plane work down low, that they don't want to invest in the dual plane bandaid. No hard feelings and good luck to all.

newschool72

iTrader: (12)

If you are referring to the tests D&A did, they stopped the test at 6500 because the pull started at 2K, where it was above 500ft lbs of twist. That's the point, why spin to 7K when you can make better average power across the board and save some rod bolts by shifting a 6K? Why run low gears and a loose converter when you can do just as good with 3.42 gears and a tight, street friendly converter? Maybe Im getting old, but it makes sense to me. You, of course, are welcome to your own opinion.

TXsilverado

iTrader: (18)

i think you belong on a deisel forum they love down low 1k to 3k power. JFWY. pull past 6500 because your are COMPARING the characteristics of intakes. i pulled a 160,000 mile stock bottom LS1 to 7200 daily. it was sprayed for about 10 years. i finally scattered the motor N/A dicking around in my dads driveway. rods EVERYWHERE. stock rod bolts still intact.

Sales@Tick

iTrader: (3)

You don't have to spin 7k to make a single plane work. You don't need a loose converter to make a single plane work. You don't need 4.30+ gears either.

I have not measured a GMPP intake, but I Have the measurements at my disposal.

We all have our own opinions and preferences. A large plenum, short intake runner is my preference.

No one is shunning the dual plane. I just did a combo for a guy with a 408, GMPP dual plane and a custom set of 243's that I had Phil@AI do a new port program and valve combo for. That combo was all about velocity and power under 5000rpm. He did not care at all about power above 5000-5500rpm and was going to shift it at 6200-6400rpm.

It should be a solid combination.

I've also never seen a rod bolt break, only rods.

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

I want to share something on this topic. When I went from the Performer RPM to the Victor Jr. in my car. I had, at the time, a smaller 222/224 112+2 camshaft. The car lost .05 in the 60' and similar in the 330'. However, the ET stayed the same in the 1/8th and was faster in the 1/4 in ET and MPH.

Later, I changed to a bigger camshaft that was 226/234 110+1. The 60' stayed the same, but the car pickup up in the 1/4 in ET and MPH. After that, I advanced the cam to 110+3. The car picked up .01-.02 in the 60'. The rest of the pass stayed the same.

What I am demonstrating is that the intake made far greater impact on lower speed torque than the cam change did; albeit a smallish cam change.

If the descriptions I am hearing about the GMPP square port dual plane are correct, it is a completely different animal than the Performer RPM. The Performer RPMs ports choke down significantly as they make the bend into the plenums. If the GMPP dual plane maintains a good cross section and port taper all the way to the plenums, I think people will find it can hang with the Victor Jr. all the way to 7,000 RPM on medium displacement engines (5.3-6.2 liter). I say this because of how we have seen similar intakes perform on small and big block Chevy engines. I personally do not write off the GMPP dual planes performance potential until I see hard data to prove otherwise.

One thing I want to throw out there on this topic: Breaking is one thing to be worried about with insufficient clamping strength. Spun rod bearing are another. While things break when they are exposed to too much tensile stress, they can also stretch. If they stretch, they lose the clamping force on the bearing shell which can allow the bearing to spin in the bore - "spun bearing". I AM NOT saying this is a common occurrence with LS engines. I am saying it is a consideration. For the record, my motor has stock rod bolts.

newschool72

iTrader: (12)

Ive never broke a rod bolt either ,but it seems to be popular to change them out to ARPs.
In the end the comparison was to build the best average power on **** water 91 gas, not to make an intake comparison. They made better average power on the 409 with the dual plane. I don't know how high they turned the single plane in the tests, but Im sure it was until it turned south on the pull. Best average power for the CID was the goal.
Like Martin just said , in the end its really about what you feel comfortable with. I bought that intake because I wanted great average power across the rev range. I built my car for playing on the street, doing some auto cross stuff, and to basically hang with or out do the modern stuff the big 3 are selling now, at everything, not just a straight line. That meant big brakes ( and the vacuum to work them), stiff suspension to hold a curve and conveniences like AC, PS and PBs all with enough power to break into the 11s.
That is my 72 Camaro. I have a 68 Camaro that is set up for a street strip car. It has a SBC 406 in it that runs really solid for what it is. Low 11s with a converter that could stand to be a grand looser. If I ever get around to blowing a rod through that block, an LS will be going in its place and sense a straight line quickly is the only goal, I will be spinning it to the moon and will be doing something with a single plane, fat cam, loose converter and the 4.10s it already has. Different goal, different parts.
Ive enjoyed the back and forth, guys. Op, if you are going for all around power, id still go with the dual plane. I haven't regretted pulling the Vic Jr off of mine at all. Good Luck!

Sales@Tick

iTrader: (3)

Whichever intake the OP ends up with, I will be glad to spec him a cam for it.

topbrent

iTrader: (1)

Not trying to beat a dead horse, but for information purposes here are some pictures of the plenum and runners on a GMPP LS3 Dual Plane intake. Nice big runners and very smooth transitions.

topbrent

iTrader: (1)

Here are a few more pics.