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.
I got my Holley intake today. It’s really a nice piece. It needs a thorough cleaning, and the runners need to be touched up with a die grinder to smooth out the transition, but overall I’m happy with it.
Some basic measurements I think it’ll fit my car no problem whereas the Fast was going to be hitting both the firewall and hood.
On my cathedral Holley intake, port alignment was terrible, the vee angle was also slightly wrong, although not too difficult to adjust with a trolley jack lol.
Surprisingly, I think the clear winner was the Edelbrock Pro-Flo XT LS3. This manifold even beat out the Performance Design (carbon fiber) manifold that had a 102mm TB. And the Edelbrock did it on a 92mm TB and 1/2 the price... just WOW!
The other notable takeaways:
- The stock LS3 intake handily spanks everything up to about 6000rpm
- The Holley Crossram didn't have as much top-end as I would have thought (but was the only intake that outperformed the LS3 across nearly the full RPM range)
- The lone ITB system performed pretty poorly
Summary:
If you want max HP and willing to sacrifice bottom end, buy the Holley Hi-Ram or Edelbrock XT LS3
If you want best performance for street and under 6000rpm. Give some respect to GM and their stock LS3 intake
The edelbrock numbers are skewed and irrelevant, it wasn't compared to anything but the carbon xr intake. Pay attention to the article.
The edelbrock numbers are skewed and irrelevant, it wasn't compared to anything but the carbon xr intake. Pay attention to the article.
It was also compared against a stock LS3 on the 415ci engine. Maybe you need to pay more attention?
The edelbrock did very well in the high rpm, but the avg hp/to suffered. For some race applications (such as my own) it could be a great option. I don't think it was a "clear winner", I think it's all application specific.
It was also compared against a stock LS3 on the 415ci engine. Maybe you need to pay more attention?
The edelbrock did very well in the high rpm, but the avg hp/to suffered. For some race applications (such as my own) it could be a great option. I don't think it was a "clear winner", I think it's all application specific.
Exactly it’s all application specific. The only clear winner would be an active runner manifold.
It was also compared against a stock LS3 on the 415ci engine. Maybe you need to pay more attention?
The edelbrock did very well in the high rpm, but the avg hp/to suffered. For some race applications (such as my own) it could be a great option. I don't think it was a "clear winner", I think it's all application specific.
It wasn't compared to any of the other intakes that actually matter (it probably was, but...) because edelbrock sponsors motor trend/hot rod. Surprise.
There are a LOT of sponsors for that whole group of magazines, just as there are a lot of sponsors here. Care to go on? You think the dyno was compromised in any way?
There are a LOT of sponsors for that whole group of magazines, just as there are a lot of sponsors here. Care to go on? You think the dyno was compromised in any way?
I simply think certain results were omitted in order for a perception to be created. Wouldn't be the first, second, or tenth time that rag has done it.
I simply think certain results were omitted in order for a perception to be created. Wouldn't be the first, second, or tenth time that rag has done it.
What results do you believe were omitted? Do you have some insider knowledge or just an opinion of how the manifolds should have performed and the results don't support your hypothesis?
One thing I find interesting is how much variation there is in the peak power RPM. Using the FAST manifolds as an example, you see a change in peak power of 200RPM for each of the shorter runners, just as you would expect would happen.
However, when these guys tested the cathedral manifolds, there there was only a 200RPM difference among all 20 manifolds, yet the runner lengths varied from 5 to 12".
These tests you have to take with a grain of salt. One wouldn't want to spec the same cam for a long runner fast vs a short runner fast or mid runner fast.
Also the loss of engine tq doesn't always mean the loss of wheel tq when you can pull more gear for the more rpm. They really do us all a injustice by not running out past peak hp rpm wise.
03-09-2018, 02:09 PM
