Chickenbone

Good Afternoon everybody! I remember reading an article in either Super Chevy or Chevy High Performance about the different intakes for the LSx engines. This was several years ago so obviously things have changed. IIRC, they said that the truck intake flows good, but is tall and ugly. I read a couple stickies, but they were about cylinder head flow numbers. So, does the truck intake flow well? Or should I look into an aftermarket or a different stock set up? Depending on what engine I get, I might consider getting aftermarket heads and a custom cam.

I am looking into getting a 6.0L (LQ4) from a Silverado or something to swap into my '81 C-20. The truck is going to be pulling one load or the other pending what kind of work it will be doing. I don't care what the intake looks like, just as long as it gets the job done. This is a not-too-distant-future project. So I have time to research and think this one out. Thank you for any input you guys/gals

96capricemgr

iTrader: (1)

For that use I would not even think of anything but a stock truck intake. FWIW the "new style" 07 and up ones are supposed to be slightly better than the earlier ones bigger TB and some other revisions good for a few HP even on a bone stock 5.3l.

If you have cash you want to put into the project I would sooner get some 243/799 heads instead of the 317s. If you still want to spend more have the 243/799s ported by a reputable vendor from here. Don't consider aftermarket.

Z28Drifter348

If you need a truck intake off an 04 lq4 I have one complete with fuel rails sensors and tb. I'm in southwest pa.

Chickenbone

Okay, stay away from aftermarket heads and keep the truck intake. Sounds fair, plus a little lighter on the wallet.


Chickenbone

omc8

iTrader: (7)

Are you talking about this article in Hot Rod http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/e...k/viewall.html In their test the truck intake was 9 hp and 11 ft lb was better than a LS1 The LS6 was only hair better than the truck only gaining 3 hp @ peak and nothing on the TQ side.

96capricemgr

iTrader: (1)

That looks like an old 3 bolt truck intake and my understanding is the newer 4-bolt with bigger OEM TB is better than that so it might be better than the LS6.

Not saying I would jump through a lot of hoops for one but if you find a a couple LQ4s and one is later with the 4-bolt TB then you might consider paying a little more for that one.

wildcamaro

iTrader: (15)

Truck intakes are designed for low end torque to get trucks moving for towing and what not compared to ls1/ls6 manifold being better suited for higher rpm hp. If you will be using the truck like a truck and not a hot rod the truck intake is perfect no matter which one it is.

96capricemgr

iTrader: (1)

I believe the car guys grossly overstate the tq vs. HP potential of the manifolds. They like to neglect that the truck intake can be designed as a good intake with all the room in the world to work with where the car intakes have to clear low hoods which can push engineers to some compromises.

I am not a big fan of magazine articles as "data" particularly when say a advertisers junk is being pushed but when they compare a pile of stock parts I think the tests worth looking at. That article is interesting.

omc8

iTrader: (7)

How true the truck intake is very underated. If you are doing a conversion swap and have the room , hood clearance, this is the first intake to consider. If you can get past the looks of a truck , it does not make much sense to go to a LS6 for only 3 hp gain.

Chickenbone

I think it was CHP; but it was a while back. I haven't gotten Hot Rod mag in a long time. Yes, this will be used as a truck. It's only a 2wd and I don't plan on racing it. I just use it for bad weather and hauling whatever. I could look for a LQ9 as well; they can be found too. That way I can stick with a stock engine and just do the exhaust bolt-ons. Maybe a custom cam designed for the truck's intended purpose.

Yeah, definitely a conversion as the original engine is a 500k+ 292 inline six. This truck has seen a LOT of miles and looks it. A truck intake would probably improve the looks. LOL


Chickenbone

Joe69z28

Here we go again. Those that say the truck intake is only good for torque down low simply don't know what they are talking about.The truck intake is a great performer across the board low , mid, and upper range. It does not sacrifice power or torque compared to the car intakes. Look at the numbers the truck is as balanced as car period, and I would use in any swap that hood clearance was not an issue.

96capricemgr

iTrader: (1)

"performance car" guys are so so often like this. They get a stick up their *** about a non-performance vehicle using the same engine platform and blindly make up **** as to why it isn't as good. They will ignore advantages cars have like 91 octane tuning as opposed to 87 octane, or a more direct intake tract and claim the difference is in parts.

Like I said the fact of the matter is the car intakes had to be compromised to fit a low hood, the truck intakes were just designed to do what they wanted them to, and they had all the room they could ever want to work with.
The other inconvenient fact is that the truck engines were released after the LS1 so they could learn some lessons from the LS1 and apply them. This is not to say the truck intake are the best ever. It is to say those who dismiss them because they are "truck parts" aren't paying attention to reality.

garygnu

truck intakes flow great ,look at comp cam 54-408-11,or 54-455-11 for torque .

wildcamaro

iTrader: (15)

I would agree if I saw some proof of how awesome these 50$ truck intakes are...I've never seen any dyno/track testing that would make me change my perspective...just bc people claim this awesome truck intake with ls6 comparable performance, but none of them are running them that I've seen, the hood clearance issue can be solved with a cowl by the way...

daaaanz67

If you guys don't mind me asking are there any difference between 4.8 and 5.3 intakes thanks

96capricemgr

iTrader: (1)

You want to say the truck intake is bad how about you document it?
Someone already put up a magazine test of the truck intake holding it's own where is your documented rebuttal?

wildcamaro

iTrader: (15)

Got to go one way or another just looking for evidence to prove otherwise...I would be interested to see because usually magazine type articles usually switch more than just an intake but i would like to see everything else stay constant...it just makes sense to me that gm engineers would design a truck intake to maximize for goals which I can only assume would include bottom end-off a dead stop-torque...I'm not trying to blindly making comments, just spurring debate...I'd also like to know the different dimensions between the runners on the different intakes which would have a lot to do with the way the engine behaved...I'm just saying there is a reason people swap truck intakes for car intakes so let's see why...

I will say though the smoothed truck intakes at least look more appealing which sometimes makes or breaks decision to use one in the first place...

omc8

iTrader: (7)

Some of early intakes come with egr , but other than that they are the same.2003 and later are dbw. Vans are cable, same intake.

garcr4

iTrader: (1)

FWIW, the SCCA Trans Am 2 class Camaro racers use the truck intake's on their road race LS3's.

omc8

iTrader: (7)

There you go , if the truck intake was flat in the mid or upper range , do you think they would use it in Trans Am racing.