93BlackZ28

iTrader: (5)

This was posted on a local forum and I thought I'd share. October 1995 Article.

myk

iTrader: (4)

Cool article, thanks for posting. Reading about the pluses on the LT1's almost allows me to forgive it for being a pain in the *** to work on, lol...

BizZzatch350

iTrader: (33)

There was a kid at my high school who had a black 96 SS, this was in 98-99, it was a bad *** looking car.

LigHtEmUp01

lmao awesome

LilJayV10

iTrader: (39)

I like how the formula was .4 slower. Which is lighter I believe!

jasonisdn

iTrader: (1)

that brings back memories. i have that mag in a huge plastic container with a ton of my old comics. i got my SS later on with only 228 miles on it. it even had factory flaws in the hood from slp. that they wouldn't fix as it got worse with a little age.

GR33N GoblinM6

iTrader: (14)

Funny how it talks and talks about the ram air and it's added 15hp, yet there is a thread on here that has everyone saying that intake is a piece of crap and it strangles the engine and it doesn't flow

Someone show me #s to prove this claim of it being a Bad intake

IronOutlaw

iTrader: (4)

Remember though that is magazine numbers and that is over the stock intake. I think the Ram air may be fine at high speeds but I can see how a 90 degree turn could probably hurt air flow. Only thing I didnt like about mine is the fact that it was ALWAYs in the way when working on the car.

fex77k

iTrader: (2)

I like the top gear 30-50 test. They failed to mention the Mustang is a 5 speed and the Camaro is a 6 speed, of course it would be slower. Also, it took "4 months" to develop the intake? I'm sorry, but it really is a POS. The only part of the system that I like is the hood, it looks good and cools down my engine bay.

93BlackZ28

iTrader: (5)

hahaha, I almost posted this in that thread too.

1995blacktattop

iTrader: (2)

here's the motorweek review of the 1996 SS as well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKcdR...eature=related

jasonisdn

iTrader: (1)

i wish i would have only paid 27,000. i got stuck for 32,000 and at age 20 that hurt a little.

SS RRR

iTrader: (2)

LOL... the skidpad test... Minivans can pull that kind of g-force these days...

What is proven is the positioning of the scoop is too low and in a dead spot on the hood. Dave Hamburgler himself stated this years ago. The only real advantage the SS had was 3" exhaust and a muffler that flows superior to most any other on the market.

wrd1972

iTrader: (12)

A long time ago, someone once posted a wind tunnel test graphic of a non SS 4th gen and the test indicated that the air does not "ram" itself into the scoop the way you might think do to a lower air pressure on top of the hood. It was agreed by folks who conducted the test that at best, the ram air scoop provides simply cooler air in much the same way a conventional CAI does but the CAI does not have the multiple bends and turns that scrub of air flow and velocity. Thats why most folks with a LT1 SS install the conventional CAI and see gains at the track.

I personally conducted tests to roughly measure the amount of air flow restriction in several CAIs and the deleted intake using Datamaster (MAP comparisons) a few years ago. My findings showed that the biggest intake restriction was the 90 degree turn rubber elbow hands down. Obviously the SS intake has three 90 degree turns.

ks my ss

I have all these articles as well. At the time I was working for the railroad and off loading gm cars. I was the first one to unload and see one of these in the Midwest. We offloaded every one that was delivered anywhere in the midwest. I drove a few comp tas as well and a hand full of the lt4 ss'. When I saw the first 96ss I swore I would own one some day. I got my 96 in the summer of 98 with 6,000 on the clock.

As for the intake the bends are what kills it. If you get rid of the baffles in the hood it helps out. It is better as far as getting cool air into the motor than the cold air set ups that suck under hood air in. The ait would read outside temps when tuning.

LSWHO

iTrader: (1)

Tires have a LOT to do with it. Stick some 2011 tires on it and it'll do significantly better.

Also, .86 Gs is not bad. Compared to Ferraris at the time that equates to the camaro holding 100mph on a curve the Ferrari can do 103. HUUUUUGE difference.

speed_demon24

iTrader: (6)

And the decarbons which were complete ****, weak swaybars, soft springs, ect. Stock these things handled horribly.

LSWHO

iTrader: (1)

I'm not disagreeing. It's pathetic that the third gens out handle the 4th. Gm is stupid.

nascarnate326

iTrader: (1)

Maybe when 4th gens were new but many have a few mods now...

SS RRR

iTrader: (2)

It was tested with a 275 BFG Comp T/A tire. Unless you want to step up and get something with a softer compound then sure it may make a difference, however for what it was that tire is just as good for today's standards as it was 15 years ago. Regarding this scenario it would have more to do with what is being done with suspension today.
I believe the skidpad test was with SLP Level II suspension.