Best intake manifold for turbo kit?
#161
8 sec potential, 12 sec slip
iTrader: (50)
I thought that it had more to do with the fact that those injectors are furthest back on the rails and received slightly less fuel in the stock configuration? I could be wrong there, just speculation that I've heard. Maybe its a combination of the two?
#164
FormerVendor
#165
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Clayton, North Carolina
Posts: 3,898
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
Not positive what causes it, but to get a Motorola cup car to live on pump gas in the race, we changed the water flow in the heads. I ran a 346 engine on the engine dyno at 6000rpm steady state for 10 minutes at a time with 02 sensors in all 8 header tubes, and we could not see any a/f problem with the rear cylinders.
Kurt
Kurt
#166
TECH Regular
iTrader: (11)
intake choices
Well, I'm going to try a gmpp intake with an Arrons fabbed elbow .I didn't have either so not a tremendous difference in price.Its hard to decide which one when there are so many different opinons and choices.This is mine, I will try it and see what happens.Looks great but thats just a plus,I would not use it just based on that.I am using heads and cam on the large side and it just seems to go better with these.I just think any thing you can do to enhance the overall flow of your engine will help,forced induction or not.If this is the wrong decision it wont be the first time I made the wrong one,we will see what happens.
#168
10 Second Club
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 9,448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not positive what causes it, but to get a Motorola cup car to live on pump gas in the race, we changed the water flow in the heads. I ran a 346 engine on the engine dyno at 6000rpm steady state for 10 minutes at a time with 02 sensors in all 8 header tubes, and we could not see any a/f problem with the rear cylinders.
Kurt
Kurt
#169
Banned
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what about a wilson manifold. i know price is an issue. but i am planing on running that with my car. should be 12psi on strret and 18psi on track. wilson has told me that it would be a great manifold. and wilson helped make the fast.
so i think it is worth the money for the wilson manifold. a fast 90 ported for tony is like a total of 1600. so after puting 8,000 in the motor. what is another 900. no sense in going cheap now.
so i think it is worth the money for the wilson manifold. a fast 90 ported for tony is like a total of 1600. so after puting 8,000 in the motor. what is another 900. no sense in going cheap now.
#170
9 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
what about a wilson manifold. i know price is an issue. but i am planing on running that with my car. should be 12psi on strret and 18psi on track. wilson has told me that it would be a great manifold. and wilson helped make the fast.
so i think it is worth the money for the wilson manifold. a fast 90 ported for tony is like a total of 1600. so after puting 8,000 in the motor. what is another 900. no sense in going cheap now.
so i think it is worth the money for the wilson manifold. a fast 90 ported for tony is like a total of 1600. so after puting 8,000 in the motor. what is another 900. no sense in going cheap now.
#172
9 Second Club
what about a wilson manifold. i know price is an issue. but i am planing on running that with my car. should be 12psi on strret and 18psi on track. wilson has told me that it would be a great manifold. and wilson helped make the fast.
so i think it is worth the money for the wilson manifold. a fast 90 ported for tony is like a total of 1600. so after puting 8,000 in the motor. what is another 900. no sense in going cheap now.
so i think it is worth the money for the wilson manifold. a fast 90 ported for tony is like a total of 1600. so after puting 8,000 in the motor. what is another 900. no sense in going cheap now.
Im not knocking the product...but dont ya think they might say this ?
The sheet metal intakes do look superb, and I'd love one myself, even if only for looks. But unless there was a huge benefit, it is hard to justify that money on looks alone.
I seen a test recently on a custom fabbed intake in Aussieland. They did back to back dyno's, and while it was a prototype, they actually lost something like 15hp. They openly admitted this, and said they will re-design, and have another go. It did look stunning though.
Cant recall which forum though...probably one of the Aussie ones.
#173
Banned
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and next wilson aint a protype. they been around awhile.
#174
Banned
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 634
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well this is true for forced induction, as I said earlier, the optimal FI intakes are high flow units. Runner dimensions are useless for pulse tuning, it's all about CFM. But N/A, flow is secondary to pulse tuning.
#175
10 Second Club
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 9,448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It just seemed intuitive to me that those long runners would give the back cyls less air, caused to some extent by the pulses traveling back up from the cyls disrupting flow & mixing exhaust gasses with the fresh air & gas. Hence my purchase of a Vic Jr & interest in this thread.
And for once I disagree with you Kurt. This is one of the most imformative intake manifold threads I've seen in some time....due in large part to your posts.
#176
Banned
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 634
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True, but LS engines have TONS of intake flow. The exhaust seems to be the restriction from what I've seen. That restriction plus the long intakes probably helps explains why they make the huge torque numbers they do.
It just seemed intuitive to me that those long runners would give the back cyls less air, caused to some extent by the pulses traveling back up from the cyls disrupting flow & mixing exhaust gasses with the fresh air & gas. Hence my purchase of a Vic Jr & interest in this thread.
It just seemed intuitive to me that those long runners would give the back cyls less air, caused to some extent by the pulses traveling back up from the cyls disrupting flow & mixing exhaust gasses with the fresh air & gas. Hence my purchase of a Vic Jr & interest in this thread.
I honestly have no experience on why the back cylinders starve. I haven't looked into it, nor do I plan on it in the near future.
Sorry I'm missing r's, the r key on my laptop doesn't register half the time.
#177
FormerVendor
Not positive what causes it, but to get a Motorola cup car to live on pump gas in the race, we changed the water flow in the heads. I ran a 346 engine on the engine dyno at 6000rpm steady state for 10 minutes at a time with 02 sensors in all 8 header tubes, and we could not see any a/f problem with the rear cylinders.
Kurt
Kurt
#178
On The Tree
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Davison MI
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True, but LS engines have TONS of intake flow. The exhaust seems to be the restriction from what I've seen. That restriction plus the long intakes probably helps explains why they make the huge torque numbers they do.
It just seemed intuitive to me that those long runners would give the back cyls less air, caused to some extent by the pulses traveling back up from the cyls disrupting flow & mixing exhaust gasses with the fresh air & gas. Hence my purchase of a Vic Jr & interest in this thread.
The
And for once I disagree with you Kurt. This is one of the most imformative intake manifold threads I've seen in some time....due in large part to your posts.
It just seemed intuitive to me that those long runners would give the back cyls less air, caused to some extent by the pulses traveling back up from the cyls disrupting flow & mixing exhaust gasses with the fresh air & gas. Hence my purchase of a Vic Jr & interest in this thread.
The
And for once I disagree with you Kurt. This is one of the most imformative intake manifold threads I've seen in some time....due in large part to your posts.
#179
10 Second Club
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 9,448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some people believe the factory style intakes result in air packing the back cyls due to the velocity that it has...shoots straight in & bounces off the back. It would be interesting to have a clear top made for a FAST & inject smoke & see what's happening. Tho at the flow rate we're all worried about, you probably wouldn't be able to tell.
Regardless, a Vic should give a more equal distribution, & too much air or fuel could cause a problem.....
Regardless, a Vic should give a more equal distribution, & too much air or fuel could cause a problem.....
#180
On The Tree
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Davison MI
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some people believe the factory style intakes result in air packing the back cyls due to the velocity that it has...shoots straight in & bounces off the back. It would be interesting to have a clear top made for a FAST & inject smoke & see what's happening. Tho at the flow rate we're all worried about, you probably wouldn't be able to tell.
Regardless, a Vic should give a more equal distribution, & too much air or fuel could cause a problem.....
Regardless, a Vic should give a more equal distribution, & too much air or fuel could cause a problem.....
Maby someone could flow an ls6 with about 2000 cfm going into it and measure the flow at all the ports.