I'll ask.

Edit:
-----
We posted the AHP test which compared it to the stock intake. We haven’t posted anything with a competitor’s intake yet.
-----
Please see the attached photo. This was also posted on our Instagram and Facebook.
-----

 

For those who don't have Instagram:

 

I want to see a dyno test on an SBE LS3, because the gains might not be as significant. Plus, the biggest gain was had with a 112MM TB, which would add to the cost of the swap. Without it, I don't know if I'd want to deal with the loss of torque under 4000 RPM. That's where I spend a lot of my time, given my car is 99% street. Someone definitely needs to test this against a ported rod mod.

 

Agreed. It is odd that their claims are centered around a stock LS3 but they post a graph of a 416 stroker. Looking at the curves of the LS3 and 90mm XS, it looks like the XS lost about 25 ft/lbs at 3000 RPM, stayed even with the LS3 in the midrange, and started gaining at about 5300, with a peak of ~15 HP and 15 ft/lbs. The claimed gains only seem to come in with the 112mm throttle body, which is another $900 on top of the intake's $1000, and even then, I'm not sure the gains will translate to a chassis dyno unless you upsize your entire intake tract to match 112mm.

 

Inside of that intake looks like a huge restriction in flow compared to stock LS3 intake. Looks like its all pancaked in there too tight.

After 15 years of development you think they would have finally made an LS style intake that has the runners facing forward getting fed direct ram air from the TB......the way it should be to actually make the engine breath easier instead of relying 100% on the cylinders doing all the work pulling air into the runners.

 

I'm curious how you would get 8 long runner (9"+) bellmouths aimed at the TB, with similar CSA (@ ~5sqin), to fit under an unmodified OEM hood.

 

I'm curious to, maybe someone who designs intakes will figure it out one day. Until then we have a bunch of cheesy intakes to choose from. Thats why sheet metal intakes work so well, they aren't all jammed up inside like pancakes.

 

I don't think they're cheesy, they just want to have a larger market. A larger market makes the RoI easier. Most people don't want to chop their cowl or hood, lower their engine block, or significantly change the induction system in front of the throttle body. All those changes raise the owner's investment and potentially add complexity to future maintenance, and that gets weighed against the subjective value of those gains to the long term costs.

I don't recall seeing any long runner metal intakes with common plenum except for the CrossRam or ITBs, whose runners still cross banks. Sheet metal generally has short runners, which sacrifices area under the curve under 6000rpm. If someone wants that design in nylon, then they should just get the LSXT with red runners. And if I'm dreaming, may as well add auto adjustable runner lengths.

 

I think they're extremely cheesy. Again, what proves they are extremely cheesy is how sheet metal intakes crush them in power production. Why, they have proper and common sense flow into the intake and then into the runners. And all the talk about how using a sheet metal intake is a dog or bad on power down low and mid range compared to the OEM style......take a ride in a 650 RWHP N/A 427ci LS Fbody with a Wilson sheet metal intake on it, I have.....tell me you feel it has low power down low and mid range.....its ridiculous and we keep hearing this same statement since 1998. The only place these lower low-mid range numbers show up is on a computer generated dyno graph. A sheet metal car will smoke the tires through the 1/8th mile with drag radials on the street, there is no noticable difference in power in any street car going from a plastic OEM style intake to a sheet metal intake as long as it's not a factory stock engine. If its a medium to heavy modded N/A engine there's no difference to feel.

Boosted, we know there's no difference either.

So we are all still waiting for that intake company to design an UN-cheesy, crappy flowing intake. Or, sheet metal intake prices come down and everyone will just buy those.

 

Well, that LS7 will make torque on accident. Customers bitch about adding a $900 TB, a $2500 ITB setup, etc. They'll all jump on a $4500 sheet metal intake Maybe call Wilson and give them your ideas on the design and marketing strategy.

 

Not too shabby. Wonder how it would compare to my high hp fast intake. Don't need a lot of torque for cruising around town at sub 3000 rpm...especially in a stroker.

 

I mean, dyno graphs are a collection of data points to show you where the engine is making power, whereas a butt dyno is collection of bullshit people use to convince themselves their money was spent well.

 

I needed a laugh tonight. Appreciate this post.

 

The factor not taken i to account in regards to sheet metal is heatsoak... if a true street car on a warm to hot day a plastic intake will be up a lot of hp on a sheet metal.
I could tell the difference when i tried a different air intake tube which heat soaked big time

 

Thats the easiest issue to solve. Just make a sheet metal “style” intake out of plastic. Done.

 

And IF that were a worthwhile venture, it would be a fact today. BUT....

 

I also remember many idiots back in 1999-2000 saying there’s no need for TB’s larger than 90mm. SO……

All it takes is a compression mold and pour in some Nylon 66 plastic pellets, let it melt, form and cool. Put it together and see what you get. If it’s the identical specs of a known sheet metal intake that’s low-profile and fits under factory Camaro/Firebird Fbody hoods, then it will perform the same, or better without all the heat soak. I’m not interested in trying that investment because it’s not my field of expertise and I’m going the booster route so it means nothing to me.

Im just shocked an intake company like Wilson hasn’t done it. They would make 10 times the money selling an affordable plastic intake to the masses compared to a few high priced sheet metal intakes.

 

Afr did this for the sbc. Titan intake manifold. They discontinued it.

 

Fact remains that the metal intakes ALL have very short passages that are NOT conducive to low and midrange torque production. And the market is saturated with them because they look cool, limitations notwithstanding. Many dyno tests bear this out. Strip times are not a good measure because they are full-throttle blasts and little else. On the street, they work, but not nearly as well as longer-passage stock-type manifolds. Science bears this out.

 

As I'm needing to install an aftermarket FPR, it definitely looks to be a challenge to connect such an FPR directly to the rail (most commonly suggested location) with this manifold. If I were to ever purchase this manifold, I wouldn't want to re-engineer the FPR location.