View Poll Results: Would you like a composite Intake manifold?
Yes, less heat, lighter, and nicer.
68
88.31%
No, i like my cinder block intake!
9
11.69%
Voters: 77. You may not vote on this poll
composite intake manifold
03-30-2007 | 02:40 PM
#41
Originally Posted by T/A KID
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~squinn0039/ltx.html
Here ya go.
If I didn't like the way the new Edelbrock intake looked and wanted to mess around I would do a Converted Dual plane intake with a Elbow and monoblade. I think it would do better than most single planes below 6500RPM IMO.
Here ya go.
If I didn't like the way the new Edelbrock intake looked and wanted to mess around I would do a Converted Dual plane intake with a Elbow and monoblade. I think it would do better than most single planes below 6500RPM IMO.
YES! That is the manifold I am talking about. But the only thing is.......ANYONE with access to the tools can make one.
03-30-2007 | 03:11 PM
#42
Staging Lane
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Mike96z
YES! That is the manifold I am talking about. But the only thing is.......ANYONE with access to the tools can make one.
and the price is stupid rediculous....
just get a good die grinder and tig welder an make ur own.
04-01-2007 | 09:23 AM
#47
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
From: That Southern Fried Space City
Originally Posted by T/A KID
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~squinn0039/ltx.html
Here ya go.
If I didn't like the way the new Edelbrock intake looked and wanted to mess around I would do a Converted Dual plane intake with a Elbow and monoblade. I think it would do better than most single planes below 6500RPM IMO.
Here ya go.
If I didn't like the way the new Edelbrock intake looked and wanted to mess around I would do a Converted Dual plane intake with a Elbow and monoblade. I think it would do better than most single planes below 6500RPM IMO.
It's funny how people automatically think dual plane's are like taboo or sumin'. It's all about usable rpm range and what you want to do with your car.
04-01-2007 | 12:24 PM
#48
So we're talking about a semi-major design flaw here? Why don't the LS-style intakes (with the TB in front) have distribution problems as well? Does anyone here utilize a carb-style dual plane as described earlier?
04-02-2007 | 03:23 PM
#49
Staging Lane
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
From: Portland, OR
Do you think something like this might help with the distribution? Basically build a sheet metal box inside the intake to seperate the front 4 cylinders from the rear. You'd have to match the volume of both sides but it would prevent the first 4 from "stealing" air from the last 4. My other idea was using 2 stock TBs, one on the front and one on the back of the intake(where egr usually is) but I don't think there's enough room.
Last edited by Lazlo; 04-02-2007 at 04:50 PM.
04-02-2007 | 04:27 PM
#50
Originally Posted by Lazlo
Do you think something like this might help with the distribution? Basically build a sheet metal box inside the intake to seperate the front 4 cylinders from the rear. You'd have to match the volume of both sides but it would prevent the first 4 from "stealing" air from the last 4. My other idea was using 2 stock TBs, one on the front and one on the back of the intake(where egr usually is) but I don't think there's enough room.
why would anyone go through all that work when you can just get a carb style intake and fix everything.
04-05-2007 | 06:41 PM
#51
Originally Posted by otherwhitemeat
why would anyone go through all that work when you can just get a carb style intake and fix everything.
I still want to see a pic... would you use a 90 degree elbow or a carb-style TB 