Super Vic., Edelbrock Pro Flow XT, Holley High or Mid Rise Intake For Max Effort 346
12-04-2013, 09:19 AM
#82
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://ls1tech.com/forums/conversio...o-build-4.html
Last edited by usdmholden; 12-04-2013 at 09:26 AM.
12-04-2013, 09:24 AM
#83
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That yellowbullet thread is interesting.
The off the shelf Pro Flo 7139 (p/n guess based on pictures) was within about 8hp to 9hp of the ported Fast 92, and I suspect the cam is really better suited for the Fast 92 runner length.
I'm getting the 8-9 hp based on rules of thumb. IE, average trap speeds were .85 mph different and 1mph=10hp=100lbs (vehicle weight).
Is it possible to fit an LSXRT under the fbody hood? I understand they perform better than the car version Fast 102 / 92. I could get one in my Mustang, but frankly, it's like $400 more than an Edelbrock 7140.
The off the shelf Pro Flo 7139 (p/n guess based on pictures) was within about 8hp to 9hp of the ported Fast 92, and I suspect the cam is really better suited for the Fast 92 runner length.
I'm getting the 8-9 hp based on rules of thumb. IE, average trap speeds were .85 mph different and 1mph=10hp=100lbs (vehicle weight).
Is it possible to fit an LSXRT under the fbody hood? I understand they perform better than the car version Fast 102 / 92. I could get one in my Mustang, but frankly, it's like $400 more than an Edelbrock 7140.
12-04-2013, 09:34 AM
#84
11 Second Club
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Gloucester, VA
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, I agree. I know the cam is the key to the whole combo, whichever intake I decide to go with. Anyone know the clearance difference between a Super Vic./4150 TB and the Pro Flo intake? I would assume the Pro Flo would have more clearance, but not sure.
Another reason why I'm leaning toward the Super Vic./4150 TB is because I could run the Nitrous Outlet Stinger Plate setup. With the Pro Flo, it would be their traditional 90/100mm plate setup.
Another reason why I'm leaning toward the Super Vic./4150 TB is because I could run the Nitrous Outlet Stinger Plate setup. With the Pro Flo, it would be their traditional 90/100mm plate setup.
12-04-2013, 02:01 PM
#91
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So basically the LSXRT install would be about the same as the Pro Flo, except for the small amount of vomit in one's mouth every time they opened the hood. 
I really don't care about the looks so long as it performs. That extra $400 is pretty much the deal killer for me.
I really don't care about the looks so long as it performs. That extra $400 is pretty much the deal killer for me.
12-04-2013, 03:32 PM
#92
I need to do some more research on what others have done to keep their wipers, or at least the driver's side wiper. Like I said before, seems to be a 50/50 toss up who kept them and who didn't. Is there something that can be done with the stock K member to make some more clearance?
12-04-2013, 04:43 PM
#94
For ease of install and tune ability, plug and play parts, I'd take the RT.
UNLESS- it's a dedicated track car.
Tony himself said the RT is worth 30ftlbs over the regular car 102, all while giving up nothing up top.
12-04-2013, 06:11 PM
#95
I see a lot of posts these days saying that a single plane can make just as much low RPM and midrange power as a long runner intake with the right custom camshaft. I am starting to think that some in the community thinks this is a win win. I do not think this is true.
I have experience testing similar scenarios. Back in the day, when the old tuned port engines came out, I was the manager of a Corvette specialty shop. The owner tasked me with making the shop car (an 85 tuned port Vette) an publicity tool for the shop. Through this project, I learned a lot.
If you have ever seen a tuned port intake set up, it is a long runner design that is very small in cross sectional area. They make extraordinary low end torque right off idle and were stone cold dead before 5,000 RPM. It was not the runner length that was the problem, but the cross sectional area. So, not a good comparison to start. However, once I got started with my grinder, welder and epoxy, I tried many configurations and I learned a lot. I also did a lot of custom porting work and manifold testing on 455 Buick engines back when I was playing with them. That is another engine that was head/intake limited. Again, I learned a lot.
So, what does all this have to do with LS plastic intakes? The same principles apply. And, to cut to the chase, here is what I am suggesting.
Runner length is one factor, cross sectional area is another. And, both of those are relative to the displacement it is trying to feed. This is important because there is more to this conversation than just RPM range. Displacement vs air/flow and volume is also part off the equation.
I can see this post getting too windy, so let me go to a few generalities.
Short runner (single plane) Advantages:
Long Runner (typical LS factory intake) Advantages:
In specific to LS engines, here is what I am suggesting: If your engine is not "hungry enough" to benefit from easier access to the plenum volume, you will not benefit enough from the this gain to make up for the loss of velocity at low RPM and midrange. And, no special camshaft can make up for that. You can help reduce the ill effects, but not completely.
So, if you have a stock displacement engine that is intended to run in the 2500 to 6500 RPM range, no camshaft can have a victor or victor jr. make more average horsepower than an LS6 intake in that range.
Now if you have a large displacement engine and/or a setup that allows the engine to operate in the 4000-7000 or higher range, then you can appreciate the short runner intake. Then you can spec a camshaft to really optimize that scenario.
I would go so far as to say, that unless you have a stroker or a stall converter of 4000 or more or both, a well optimized FAST intake will likely run quicker at the strip and make more MPH.
There are many if not most in this thread that know the above, but I am betting there are many who have read it and threads like it that may get the wrong idea about a single planes capability.
I have experience testing similar scenarios. Back in the day, when the old tuned port engines came out, I was the manager of a Corvette specialty shop. The owner tasked me with making the shop car (an 85 tuned port Vette) an publicity tool for the shop. Through this project, I learned a lot.
If you have ever seen a tuned port intake set up, it is a long runner design that is very small in cross sectional area. They make extraordinary low end torque right off idle and were stone cold dead before 5,000 RPM. It was not the runner length that was the problem, but the cross sectional area. So, not a good comparison to start. However, once I got started with my grinder, welder and epoxy, I tried many configurations and I learned a lot. I also did a lot of custom porting work and manifold testing on 455 Buick engines back when I was playing with them. That is another engine that was head/intake limited. Again, I learned a lot.
So, what does all this have to do with LS plastic intakes? The same principles apply. And, to cut to the chase, here is what I am suggesting.
Runner length is one factor, cross sectional area is another. And, both of those are relative to the displacement it is trying to feed. This is important because there is more to this conversation than just RPM range. Displacement vs air/flow and volume is also part off the equation.
I can see this post getting too windy, so let me go to a few generalities.
Short runner (single plane) Advantages:
- Easier access to to plenum volume.
- Less resistance to flow
- Extends upper RPM range due to the above
Long Runner (typical LS factory intake) Advantages:
- Holds it's velocity at low and medium RPM
- Tames larger camshafts
- Extends lower RPM range due to the above
In specific to LS engines, here is what I am suggesting: If your engine is not "hungry enough" to benefit from easier access to the plenum volume, you will not benefit enough from the this gain to make up for the loss of velocity at low RPM and midrange. And, no special camshaft can make up for that. You can help reduce the ill effects, but not completely.
So, if you have a stock displacement engine that is intended to run in the 2500 to 6500 RPM range, no camshaft can have a victor or victor jr. make more average horsepower than an LS6 intake in that range.
Now if you have a large displacement engine and/or a setup that allows the engine to operate in the 4000-7000 or higher range, then you can appreciate the short runner intake. Then you can spec a camshaft to really optimize that scenario.
I would go so far as to say, that unless you have a stroker or a stall converter of 4000 or more or both, a well optimized FAST intake will likely run quicker at the strip and make more MPH.
There are many if not most in this thread that know the above, but I am betting there are many who have read it and threads like it that may get the wrong idea about a single planes capability.
12-05-2013, 10:43 AM
#97
Some very good points made. Honestly, a RPM power range of 4000 to 7000 rpms would be more usable to me. Before I did the head/cam swap, I was so worried about the lower RPM's, but after having it done and driving the car a lot more, I'm not as concerned about anything below say 3500 RPM's. I think with the proper cam, it can really help with the lower RPM power/torque. A gear change will be in order too.
