someone needs to come out with an intake like the early cadillac northstars (forrunner on the ls1) the top of the intake was removable and the runners bolten in!! if we could have that kind of intake you could adjust the lenth of your runners to the rpm you were spinning <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Pro Stock John:
<strong> I'm not an expert but I am thinking that there is a loss of velocity and that kills the lowend?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Has to do with the runner length. When the fresh intake charge hits the intake port it sends an energy pulse back up the runner at close to the speed of sound. If you get the runner length right that energy pulse will bounce back with the next fresh air charge and actually help get more air into the cylinder. A shorter runner length has a shorter time interval for this effect to work and thus works better at higher rpms and a longer runner will have the opposite effect. Just from looking at the graph I would wager that the runner length is way too short and that intake would hurt more than help unless you are shifting past 7500 rpms...

 

PSJ, not for about 2 weeks. I a mtweaking mine a lil bit.

 

i have a question about intakes in general..

as far as a stock cube motor is concerned, are there going to be any viable alternatives to the ls6 intake in the near future?

i plan on running a semi agressive cam, but as far as heads go, thats alot of money that i cant afford anytime soon..

so im going to do the cam, finish up my bolt ons (a few left)...

but im still stuck with this god awful ls1 intake. i want to buy an ls6 intake, but i keep reading topics about new and improved intakes that are just over the horizon.. then i see dynos and they are good for nothing on stock cube motors, or motors that dont spin to 7500..

i just want to know if i should wait, or buy an ls6 intake. ive got the money right now for it, but damn i dont want to buy an ls6 intake, then 3 months later some other intake comes out that shows 10% gain across the board in HP and TQ over the ls6 intake.

<small>[ April 18, 2003, 03:07 AM: Message edited by: Seifer ]</small>

 

I have seen this intake perform on both big motor cars and upgraded 346's, My friend is working with this guy who makes them now. He is trying to find out what type of mods,motor build up's and modified 346's this intake would be most suitable for and produce the best numbers. Right now what I have seen is this intake only hurts horsepower + torque curves on the smaller motors (346)depending on mods. However it does work well with the big bore and highly modified motors. He is running tests on it now to see how the intake reacts to different volume's of air and heat retention. They have a few more bugs to work out but this intake will be mostly for the bigger motor enthusiasts.

<small>[ April 18, 2003, 03:03 AM: Message edited by: blown 346 ]</small>

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 00bluehawk#111:
<strong> someone needs to come out with an intake like the early cadillac northstars (forrunner on the ls1) the top of the intake was removable and the runners bolten in!! if we could have that kind of intake you could adjust the lenth of your runners to the rpm you were spinning <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Did you read my original post, that is what this intake will be, 3 piece.

 

The 4.6 SOHC mustang guys are going through this exact same thing (a couple months ago). Nasty low end losses with promising results up top. Not sure who was developing that one but maybe they could put their heads together? PSJ if you are interested send Bob C an email and ask about it, I saw this posted on Corral in the SOHC section a while back.

-Nick

 

Good to know...

If the designer can keep the torque the same from 5000 and up vs the LS6 intake I think we would be a lot closer to having it work.

 

Good to know...

If the designer can keep the torque the same from 5000 and up vs the LS6 intake I think we would be a lot closer to having it work.

 

John, how does the price compare with the hogan intake . I hear the hogan has alot of turbulence.

<small>[ April 19, 2003, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: jst psi ]</small>

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Fenris Ulf:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Pro Stock John:
<strong> I'm not an expert but I am thinking that there is a loss of velocity and that kills the lowend?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Has to do with the runner length. When the fresh intake charge hits the intake port it sends an energy pulse back up the runner at close to the speed of sound. If you get the runner length right that energy pulse will bounce back with the next fresh air charge and actually help get more air into the cylinder. A shorter runner length has a shorter time interval for this effect to work and thus works better at higher rpms and a longer runner will have the opposite effect. Just from looking at the graph I would wager that the runner length is way too short and that intake would hurt more than help unless you are shifting past 7500 rpms... </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">John is right here. 2 valve heads at lower rpms rely on intake velocity to produce their torque numbers. Intake runner length is important but not as much at lower rpms. If the velocity is to low torque falls off until the rpms rise and you wind up with a torque curve that starts to look like a 4 valve engine.

 

PSJ, any answers on the runner length and plenum volume yet?

 

The plenum volume about the same, maybe a little more. The goal was to have similar volume to the LS6 intake.

The runners are in the 4.25-4.50 inch range. He wanted to get to like a 5.00 inch runner but then the runners would protrude into the plenum. One of the plans is to try a longer runner, perhaps with a little less plenum volume. His goal is to try to mimic the LS6 intake from 4500 to 6000. He's not sure that tapered runners will be the best solution, he is not a subscriber to that theory.

Planned retail for this cast intake will be under $800. It will also weigh around 15 lbs. I think the intake will probably have to undergo one or maybe two more revisions until it reaches it's goals.

 

Runner length going to have to be 9-10" to satisfy most of the crowd on here. Might have to do some funky stuff to let this happen.

The intake would have to start taking over the LS6 intake by about 4000 to make it worth while for the street/strip guys.

Saw intake that was a runner per port that crossed to other side of engine, and large plenum box over all runners, something like this would have to be done if it wasn't desireable to do the bundle of snakes setup.

 

lets see it on a solid roller 422 stroker! with a cam matched to the setup.