Chicago Crew UnderBoss

iTrader: (1)

Yeah,

something is causing a bottleneck on the big cubed motors as most expected the LSX would shine the best with the big cube motors but the initial tests have shown the best gains on stock cubed LS1/6 motors. Give it a little time to get the bugs worked out and figured out what's the bottleneck and hopefully the LSX intake will bring a solid 20rwhp minimally, for us big cubed guys! Only time will tell and i will just kick back and see what happens!

WhiteDiamond

Angie and Thunder Racing,

First off, thanks for doing all this work so fast!!!!

Now, I was wondering if you can hook up a manifold pressure gauge to the LSX on the Shane's 375 motor? If the TB is really the restriction, I am thinking you should be able to see some vacuum pulled. I have seen the posts about the big cube motors pulling some vacuum on the LS6 intake in the higher rpm ranges. It would be interesting to know how that compares to the LS6 intake(not that I am trying to give you guys more to do. ).

Todd

whatever

As always first come first served.

Matthew

Ron@Vengeance

iTrader: (51)

Angie, is this the solid roller motor you guys built? Got any before/after dyno #s or better yet a graph? Just wondering if the gains were across the board like Jasons car.... I really want to see what this intake does in the 7k rpm range. Heck, maybe we can get Allan to test one on Gordons car since hes already making 612 rwhp through the stock LS6 intake/ported TB. That would be an excellent test bed for high rpms and big cubes.

Also, as posted earlier did you check for vacuum in the upper rpms? When you do the math 90mm TB should support a 427 Cu in motor all day long. I would think a 78 would be enough for under 400 cubes.

Thanx for all the quick results TR. You guys are on top of it!!!

Jason99T/A

iTrader: (21)

Ron, the motor is actually 370ci, and it is not the solid roller motor we had built (same car, different motor). This motor has a 4.03" bore/iron block, stock crank, Diamond pistons, Lunati rods, Absolute Speed heads, and a Comp 242/248 XE-R. And, yes, the gains were pretty much across the board. A dyno graph will be posted in the morning.

ezss

I think most of us larger displacement engines will be looking to see how the 90mm TB version works out. I think it will definately make a difference, and it would be further interesting to see if the rest of the intake path is opened up. Generally the TB is not supposed to be the widest part of the air pathways-- technically if your MAF is only 85mm then the only thing a 90mm TB is going to do for you is dilute your airflow velocity. Its not going to magically create 90mm of airflow unless the entire track is opened up, am I missing something here?? The 90mm TB might make a difference for the numbers, but I cant see it being optimized with everything else the same size.

I am excited about the intake but 7rwhp is not going to justify the cost, for now Ill wait to see more results.

mikey

iTrader: (6)

Angie, I think the TB is part of the answer. Maybe a mild port or port match would help as well. Thanks for the testing...good stuff.

Mikey

Angie

iTrader: (4)

The tb on Shane's car is one of our CNC ported ones.

Angie

ezss

I think Mikey means a mild port of the intake to match the ported cylender heads on the intake side.

mikey

iTrader: (6)

Yes and use of the 90mm I think will make a big difference.

Mikey

Angie

iTrader: (4)

Here's the graph from Shane's car....unfortunately, we have not had time to do any tuning on it even before the intake was installed. It would also be an interesting test to see what it would do after the car was tuned w/ the LS6 and then tuning it again w/ the FAST to see if any gains could be made. We're pulling it off of Shane's car today and it will be on a stock 2003 Z06 tomorrow morning (w/ just a Vararam & Exhaust.)



Angie

Scalpel

iTrader: (4)

Stupid question, how exactly is the port matching done?

CHRISPY

Something to think about

You could get a scaled 90mm Pro M MAF with the FAST intake and 90mm T-body, smooth bore tubing and then a big bejesus coned K&N in the hole underneath where the battery used to be.

That would likely eliminate all restriction and probably pick up 30+RWHP on a big bore/stroker vs stock ported T-body and LS6 intake.

2000Firehawk

iTrader: (248)

2005 Corvette LS2 engine has a 90mm TB with a 85mm MAF.
Maybe GM knows something...

Dave

Scalpel

iTrader: (4)

Where do we get a scaled 90MM Pro M Maf?

niphilli

Yes, and it also has a re-designed intake manifold...

CHRISPY

Harlan can give you info on the PRO M setups

NataSS Inc

iTrader: (9)

this is the second dyno sheet I have seen where the HP an TQ dont meet at 5250 with the FAST intake. This is something that ALWAYS happens. Any ideas or explanations?

verbs

Yeah, the scaling on the graphs are different. When the scaling is equal they will meet at 5250.

8POTS

Good to see Thunder Racing testing this 'puppy' out.

I'll be most keen to see the results from the 90mm version as I own a 428 CID and find that the LS6 manifold is starting to stuggle with the demands placed on it ... that and we may have been a little conservative with the 242/242 with very tight lobe separation we initially installed.

We are now going with a 252/260 with wider LSA and would like an opinion on whether this manifold will work well with it.

Note to the car has a mafless tune (as in the HSV GST300 - a very popular mod here in Australia) and takes it's airflow data from the MAP sensor. This removes the MAF constriction some are worried about. Custom formed 90mm smooth rubber pipes take air from the front air dam to the airbox and on to the TB from there.The only thing I need is a 90mm TB ...I have an 84mm unit at present.

Did someone mention that 90mm TBs aren't a real flash fit on the manifold? why's that?