Edelbrock Manifold Results ! FINALLY! GMHTP
09-06-2008, 01:03 PM
#21
What heads are you using??
People ASSume the LT4 intake is better but the GM one it is internally the same as the LT1, just has more material above the runner which could be used to port match to heads IF the heads have ports a lot taller the LT1 ports.
People ASSume the LT4 intake is better but the GM one it is internally the same as the LT1, just has more material above the runner which could be used to port match to heads IF the heads have ports a lot taller the LT1 ports.
09-13-2008, 04:35 PM
#24
12 Second Club
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chehalis, WA
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. that would be no problem, heck it would even give it a couple extra CCs of plenum volume.
09-13-2008, 10:53 PM
#26
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Decatur, TN (N-W of Athens)
Posts: 7,564
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Cap's right, wth are you talking about? OK Stock TB for example is 'o' and the intake's TB holes are 'O'. Common sense tells me that there isn't going to be any power loss by putting a smaller hole up to a bigger hole, when the direction of air flow is from smaller to larger. Now, flip that around, by having a 58mm on a stock 54mm opening, and there's some turbulence to be made from that 2mm lip.
09-14-2008, 05:05 AM
#29
LS1TECH Sponsor
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Edelbroke intake is very small, that is for sure.
I prefer the stock LT1/4 intakes for the larger plenum volume and the way they runners reach the plenum are over the way the Edelbrocks are angked towards the TB.
Only advantage of the Edelbroke intake (other than having an "air gap" and being pretty and red) will be it starts off with a larger cross section through the runner at injector ski slope so you are gonna be limited less by THIS area than a stock LT1/4 intake but a ported LT1/4 intake can be opened just as large in this area AND the port can be made to steadily get wider as it tapers back to the plenum area resulting in a much larger cross section at this point where the air has to make a 90 degree turn to enter the port.
The way the Edelbroke intake runners are shaped, you can't do this to the runners since they all have alot of turn in them.
If they tried the test on a head that had a larger cross section at the pushrod pinch, maybe the Edlbroke intake would ahve done a lil better (in comparison to a stock LT1/4 intake) but it still has that small plenum that would suck dry even sooner with a better set of heads so who knows.
All being equal, a ported LT1/4 would have been better reghardless.
Lloyd
I prefer the stock LT1/4 intakes for the larger plenum volume and the way they runners reach the plenum are over the way the Edelbrocks are angked towards the TB.
Only advantage of the Edelbroke intake (other than having an "air gap" and being pretty and red) will be it starts off with a larger cross section through the runner at injector ski slope so you are gonna be limited less by THIS area than a stock LT1/4 intake but a ported LT1/4 intake can be opened just as large in this area AND the port can be made to steadily get wider as it tapers back to the plenum area resulting in a much larger cross section at this point where the air has to make a 90 degree turn to enter the port.
The way the Edelbroke intake runners are shaped, you can't do this to the runners since they all have alot of turn in them.
If they tried the test on a head that had a larger cross section at the pushrod pinch, maybe the Edlbroke intake would ahve done a lil better (in comparison to a stock LT1/4 intake) but it still has that small plenum that would suck dry even sooner with a better set of heads so who knows.
All being equal, a ported LT1/4 would have been better reghardless.
Lloyd
11-14-2008, 11:30 PM
#31
11 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Updated results in the new GMHTP today (my issue is dated Feb 2009, for some reason)
Ported Edelbrock Heads/Intake w/52mm VS Ported Edelbrock Heads/Intake w/58mm VS Ported Edelbrock Heads + Ported stock intake w/58mm
Peak HP 406.5 416.1 422.7
Peak TQ 402.0 409.4 414.3
A net loss using the Edelbrock intake VS a stocker, even with the Edelbrock heads.
Ported Edelbrock Heads/Intake w/52mm VS Ported Edelbrock Heads/Intake w/58mm VS Ported Edelbrock Heads + Ported stock intake w/58mm
Peak HP 406.5 416.1 422.7
Peak TQ 402.0 409.4 414.3
A net loss using the Edelbrock intake VS a stocker, even with the Edelbrock heads.
11-15-2008, 01:29 PM
#32
12 Second Club
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chehalis, WA
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Updated results in the new GMHTP today (my issue is dated Feb 2009, for some reason)
Ported Edelbrock Heads/Intake w/52mm VS Ported Edelbrock Heads/Intake w/58mm VS Ported Edelbrock Heads + Ported stock intake w/58mm
Peak HP 406.5 416.1 422.7
Peak TQ 402.0 409.4 414.3
A net loss using the Edelbrock intake VS a stocker, even with the Edelbrock heads.
Ported Edelbrock Heads/Intake w/52mm VS Ported Edelbrock Heads/Intake w/58mm VS Ported Edelbrock Heads + Ported stock intake w/58mm
Peak HP 406.5 416.1 422.7
Peak TQ 402.0 409.4 414.3
A net loss using the Edelbrock intake VS a stocker, even with the Edelbrock heads.
11-15-2008, 01:35 PM
#33
11 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's frustrating sometimes trying to get an apples to apples comparison *sigh*
