Ultimate LS7 intake
#181
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Lampe, Mo
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, its a sheetmetal intake, what do you expect? Its not some cheap ebay cold air tornado electric horsepower thingy..... Its a high quality, highly engineered, purpose built intake.
#182
If it is so good, why are there no back to back documented comparisons showing the gains and increases you get for $3000??
#183
#184
9 Second Club
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Back home in Texas!!! (DFW)
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know of back-to-back testing on a 427 with some minor gains, but I would want to know what rpm range and engine size the Billet Bank was designed for regarding runner size and length. I don't have all the engine specs, so, I won't speculate, but there might be a "sweet spot" that the intake will show significant gains, yet, with another combo, it may hurt it and/or be equal to say a stock or ported OEM LS7 intake.
#185
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Fort Knox, KY
Posts: 1,123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll spend my 3k on the intake thats on this:
http://www.streetlegaltv.com/index.p...flv&playlist=1
Although the inside of that wilson looks insanely hard to make
http://www.streetlegaltv.com/index.p...flv&playlist=1
Although the inside of that wilson looks insanely hard to make
#186
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (10)
Weve done some back to back stuff on the BB vs a few other intakes, not too many people are willing to spend that kind of $$$ and effort though to tell other people how to make a combo work, unfortunately.
The intake does have its place, but definitely not for everyone though, I wouldnt put it on a cam only car Although on a cam only car it only lost about 5 ft lbs of torque vs a FAST 90, which Im sure alot of people would be surprised to see, I sure was
The intake does have its place, but definitely not for everyone though, I wouldnt put it on a cam only car Although on a cam only car it only lost about 5 ft lbs of torque vs a FAST 90, which Im sure alot of people would be surprised to see, I sure was
#187