As promised, here is the dynosheet for that prototype intake I was telling you guys about, thanks to Speed Inc. for taking the time to dyno the intake for us.

Please note these numbers are on an A4 car and the converter was locked for the runs.

http://home.austin.rr.com/jmx/stocki..._newintake.jpg

The mule car is a heads, cam A4 with full boltons.

I hope to see another version of the intake soon that we can redyno.

And I will not say who is making this intake but I can tell you it's a 3 piece, with a removable top and runners, and it's going to be cast aluminum.

 

very nice. it looks like the ls6 still beats it above 6200rpm though. can the sheetmetal intake be ported at all? how do you think this would perform on a larger motor?

 

You are not saying who makes it but do they plan on selling it to the public <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

 

Hondakilla, the the blue dyno line is the sheetmetal intake, and it made 8 more rwhp at peak.

This prototype has tapered runners and accepts factory rails, all sensors, and the factory throttle body. It's a three piece so it can be ported some more, but the design is already ported compare to stock.

Next step is to go with longer runners I would say. Need to improve the HP and TQ above 4000 rpms.

The intake will be available for distributors whenever the intake design is finalized.

 

Looks like it lost quite a bit across the band. I dont see it being worth anything on a 346 seeing these results. I wouldnt give up that much midrange across the board for a few up top. Im sure it will shine on a larger bore motor though.

 

Why do these sheetmetal intakes loose so much in the lower/mid RPM range? There's gotta be a design that can best the LS6 throughout the range eventually, right?

I agree w/ Cammin Beast, this seems only really beneficial for a big cube motor right now.

 

I know that MANY will disagree but I do not see the LS6/01-02 intake being a hindrance. I think it will be a long time before the LS6 will be outperformed over a broad rpm band.
Later,
Bart

 

They need a runner that retracts as rpm increases. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> It would be a long runner at low/mid rpm and gradually get shorter as rpm increased. Maybe make it so engine vacuum controlled the runners lengths.

Kinda like the V6 SHO dual runner intake where the second runner opened up above 4000rpm?.

John

<small>[ April 16, 2003, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: XLR8NSS ]</small>

 

http://home.austin.rr.com/jmx

Mayfield? Do you know something your not telling us local boys? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

 

PSJ, exactly how long were the runners that were on this test run?

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> http://home.austin.rr.com/jmx

Mayfield? Do you know something your not telling us local boys? [Smile] </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I second that <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

 

PSJ, thanks for the info.

Not to flame, but the SM is down until 6200, and down a bunch of torque (and hp) in the range where the engine, especially with an A4 spends the most time. I'm afraid the car is going to slow down with this combinaton. I'm guessing runners are shorter and fatter than the LS6.

I applaud everyone who is trying to "build a better mousetrap" for the LS1 intake, but it's no easy task.

 

PSJ
could you tell us the info on the car?
which cam, heads? stall?

thanks

Alex

 

As he said, it's a prototype intake. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> I'm sure the released version (if it gets released) will yield some better results.

It's really surprising to me that torque suffered as much as it did.. Not only in total area under the curve, but peak torque was down 25ft/lbs! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="gr_eek2.gif" />

 

Keep the flaming to a minimum, I posted the sheet since it's probably the first comparison a lot of you folks have seen.

And I totally agree, I don't think this intake would work on the mule car. I think it could be benificial to a car that spins to 7500 rpm. I'm not sure if it would help a bigger cube motor. Right now I just see that it will help a car that runs some serious rpms.

I don't know the current runner length I will try to make a call and find out.

This is like the second or third version of this intake...

So far I have not yet seen a dyno sheet where a sheetmetal intake picked up from 4000 and higher, it's always around 6000 and higher.

I'm not an expert but I am thinking that there is a loss of velocity and that kills the lowend?

The mule car has what we would generally call a stage II setup. It's mostly full weight and I recall it going 11.6@116mph last year with heavy wheels.

JMX is just hosting the pic, the intake was delivered to Speed Inc. and dynoed there a few weeks ago. Thanks again to those guys for dynoing it for free.

 

I cant wait to see the finished product and see what kind of numbers it gives.. I agree though looks like its going to be more for the larger bore guys than any H/C cars are gonna make..

 

The designer is looking at reworking the runners a bit more... He feels he can only go so much bigger before it starts to affect plenum volume. As an aside the LS6 intake has like 10% more plenum volume than a LS1 intake so I think most folks are trying not to take any away.

 

PSJ, can you also find out what the plemun volume is?

 

is this intake comparable, in runner length and plemun volume as the RGR SM intake that Speed Inc. sells?

 

I'll try to find out John...

SIR, I have no idea, I don't know what the RGR measurements are, do you?