When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Looks like .550 and above the ported dorman takes off! Now everyone is going to asking for ported ls6 results lol.
Still plenty of meat left from my porting even so who knows! Not bad for a 3 inch port job lol
Stellar results though. Bbk def has more top end than the ls6 above .550 also.
Doesn't look like porting the Dorman LS2 accomplishes much except at .650.
Seems more like above .550 but of course i am biased
Remember the tb opening is ported still and the center supports removed so the only difference you really see between the two is the unported vs ported port.
Seems more like above .550 but of course i am biased
Remember the tb opening is ported still and the center supports removed so the only difference you really see between the two is the unported vs ported port.
This test was conducted the same as the other tests as mentioned above. Same cylinder head etc.
I greatly appreciate WS6 Store and Darth providing intakes for this test. We all owe WS6 Store & Darth a big thank you for helping expand the test results.
Since all of the flow data is very similar, I think it would require a dyno test to make any solid conclusions between the BBK vs Dorman vs LS6.
I think the BBK would excel at forced induction. It also appears to have material that serious porting could be done.
This WS6 Store supplied Dorman is one of the newer Dorman LS2 intakes. My Dorman LS2 was an early production one. I think this explains the slight variance in flow numbers. The port work on the Dorman does improve the high lift flow. If I use my Dorman LS2 on my next project - it will get the WS6 STORE porting and clean up.
My LS6 intake had a lot of oil residue in it after 133,000 miles of use. I spent yesterday evening cleaning it. After 3 cans of degreaser and being washed out in the shower ,twice - it was clean.FWIW this same intake flowed ~ 245 cfm at peak lift on TEA's old 5.3 Stage 2 heads.
Overall, when you look at these three intakes they look very similar and flow similar.
One very interesting tidbit is the intake port on these heads stalls before .650 lift when the heads were tested.
Wow! Good testing! Was somewhat surprised at how similar ALL of them were. The BBK did better than I thought it would, being a somewhat older design, but then ALL of these are, when you think about it! The ported Dorman LS2 did pretty well, but I thought there would be a bigger gap over the stock Dorman. That must say how good the Dorman is out of the box.
The BBK I feel has potential but its not quite executed right. Runner length is shorter, plenum is decent, etc. I agree it would be a good FI intake. Certainly can take a hella boost.
But I see room to remove tons of material, and it is heavy.
it def won’t keep up with fast on NA application.
Wow! Good testing! Was somewhat surprised at how similar ALL of them were. The BBK did better than I thought it would, being a somewhat older design, but then ALL of these are, when you think about it! The ported Dorman LS2 did pretty well, but I thought there would be a bigger gap over the stock Dorman. That must say how good the Dorman is out of the box.
Your only seeing diff in porting and transitioning the last 3 to 4 inches of runner.
The BBK I feel has potential but its not quite executed right. Runner length is shorter, plenum is decent, etc. I agree it would be a good FI intake. Certainly can take a hella boost.
But I see room to remove tons of material, and it is heavy.
it def won’t keep up with fast on NA application.
The BBK runner length is about 1 inch shorter than the LS6 and about 1 inch longer than the OE truck intake. As for bang for the buck for a street car, the BBK or Dorman are about $400 less than a Fast.
Depends on if it needs to be modified for fbody ac, rear map, and front egr plug.
Normally we only charge 700 for all of that though including parts and shipping.
We are trying to go direct with Dorman...it is proving to be rather difficult but ill keep everyone up to date on that.
Well the reason I ask is because according this data the dormant out of the box is not any better then the ls6 and even the ported version is minimal for another 300. Im all for finding other avenues other then ca fast on a budget but 700 with potentially only 10 HP increase is not worth it to me. Do you have ANY dyno results of yoour ported dorman ls2 vs anything?
I have been on this bandwagon since it took off and had really high hopes but I am disappointed in the results. I really hoped that the ported version would closer to a fast since that is the original design.
Its not bad for a "bastard" intake. Seeing that the minimal amount of porting was worth something, it gives me alot more room to work with. Not going crazy by any means, but only working one side has left me with a blank canvas on the other. We shall see what can happen.
Im still not going to butcher one up or cut it apart though.
Ok, this is my question. Did you flowtest another stock nonported Dorman LS2 intake manifold? Because it appears that the nonported Dorman LS2 flowed less this time around than the results from post 3. I'm adding a comparison picture between post 3 data and post 280's data. Post 3's nonported Dorman LS2 flowed significantly better and almost on par with WS6store's ported Dorman LS2. Was post 280 a different setup?
Ok, this is my question. Did you flowtest another stock nonported Dorman LS2 intake manifold? Because it appears that the nonported Dorman LS2 flowed less this time around than the results from post 3. I'm adding a comparison picture between post 3 data and post 280's data. Post 3's nonported Dorman LS2 flowed significantly better and almost on par with WS6store's ported Dorman LS2. Was post 280 a different setup?
He addressed that in the post if you read it below the flow data.
Also different data collected months apart wont always be consistent.
11-07-2017, 09:06 PM
