L76 Intake manifold flow results
L76 Intake manifold flow results Doing some baseline testing and thought I’d share this. I tested 2 ports on a new OEM L92 head with new OEM valves. The head casting number is #12595364. The ports flowed as follows:
Lift____.100”_.150”__.200”_.250”_.300”_.350”_.400” _.450”_.500”_.550”_.600”_.650”
Port 1_ 73.5_109.2_152.9_191.8_224.0_251.5_273.0_291.3_307 .9_319.7_325.6_326.0
Port 2_ 74.6_108.6_152.9_191.2_224.6_253.6_275.1_293.6_309 .4_320.1_326.6_326.6
Tested at 28” water.
4.030” test bore.
I retested the same ports with the intake bolted up. The manifold #12590124 flows as follows:
Lift____.100”_.150”__.200”_.250”_.300”_.350”_.400” _.450”_.500”_.550”_.600”_.650”
Port 1_ 73.0_107.0_148.7_182.8_211.5_235.6_253.6_267.6_278 .7_288.1_294.0_298.5
Port 2_ 74.1_107.5_148.7_181.9_210.6_234.5_253.6_266.4_276 .9_284.7_290.4_295.8
All port runners and vacuum port taps were plugged to force all airflow through the ttb flange. The manifold ports tested were driver side #1 and #5 cylinders. The intake runners tested were not at the extreme ends of the plenum.
Richard
Lift____.100”_.150”__.200”_.250”_.300”_.350”_.400” _.450”_.500”_.550”_.600”_.650”
Port 1_ 73.5_109.2_152.9_191.8_224.0_251.5_273.0_291.3_307 .9_319.7_325.6_326.0
Port 2_ 74.6_108.6_152.9_191.2_224.6_253.6_275.1_293.6_309 .4_320.1_326.6_326.6
Tested at 28” water.
4.030” test bore.
I retested the same ports with the intake bolted up. The manifold #12590124 flows as follows:
Lift____.100”_.150”__.200”_.250”_.300”_.350”_.400” _.450”_.500”_.550”_.600”_.650”
Port 1_ 73.0_107.0_148.7_182.8_211.5_235.6_253.6_267.6_278 .7_288.1_294.0_298.5
Port 2_ 74.1_107.5_148.7_181.9_210.6_234.5_253.6_266.4_276 .9_284.7_290.4_295.8
All port runners and vacuum port taps were plugged to force all airflow through the ttb flange. The manifold ports tested were driver side #1 and #5 cylinders. The intake runners tested were not at the extreme ends of the plenum.
Richard
You don't happen to have the truck manifold around to test that do you? There was someone that looked to be in the "know" that was saying that not like truck intakes in the past, the stock L92 intake would flow awsome. I think it was said it was better then the car intakes. That is what I have an was woundering if it was true at all.
isn't that about the same as what a FAST 90 would so with comperably flowing heads?? I'd really love to see some ported L92's that flow 360 and see how much the intake knocks it down
Trending Topics
Originally Posted by airflowdevelop
Richard,
What were you using for an ideal radius when flowing the head bare? I assume this is with the OE valve job.
Dennis
What were you using for an ideal radius when flowing the head bare? I assume this is with the OE valve job.
Dennis
Richard
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Topdon ONE vs. Artidiag 800 BT2: Which is the Diagnostic Tablet For You?
Pouria Savadkouei
Gas Monkey Built a 6-Wheel Ferrari Testarossa With a Corvette LT4 Engine
Verdad Gallardo
7 Most Reliable High-Performance Engines GM Has Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
Amazing '71 Camaro Restomod Is Modern Muscle Car Under the Skin
Verdad Gallardo
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
IMO there isn't a ton of porting that can be done of this manifold.
Its pretty good stock.
But even a 5% increase could be awsome.
Thanks for the test's. Great results.
Looks like we have a very top notch combo for a very good price.
Its pretty good stock.
But even a 5% increase could be awsome.
Thanks for the test's. Great results.
Looks like we have a very top notch combo for a very good price.
The know it all's know it all
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Richard@WCCH
Doing some baseline testing and thought I’d share this. I tested 2 ports on a new OEM L92 head with new OEM valves. The head casting number is #12595364. The ports flowed as follows:
Lift____.100”_.150”__.200”_.250”_.300”_.350”_.400” _.450”_.500”_.550”_.600”_.650”
Port 1_ 73.5_109.2_152.9_191.8_224.0_251.5_273.0_291.3_307 .9_319.7_325.6_326.0
Port 2_ 74.6_108.6_152.9_191.2_224.6_253.6_275.1_293.6_309 .4_320.1_326.6_326.6
Tested at 28” water.
4.030” test bore.
I retested the same ports with the intake bolted up. The manifold #12590124 flows as follows:
Lift____.100”_.150”__.200”_.250”_.300”_.350”_.400” _.450”_.500”_.550”_.600”_.650”
Port 1_ 73.0_107.0_148.7_182.8_211.5_235.6_253.6_267.6_278 .7_288.1_294.0_298.5
Port 2_ 74.1_107.5_148.7_181.9_210.6_234.5_253.6_266.4_276 .9_284.7_290.4_295.8
All port runners and vacuum port taps were plugged to force all airflow through the ttb flange. The manifold ports tested were driver side #1 and #5 cylinders. The intake runners tested were not at the extreme ends of the plenum.
Richard
Lift____.100”_.150”__.200”_.250”_.300”_.350”_.400” _.450”_.500”_.550”_.600”_.650”
Port 1_ 73.5_109.2_152.9_191.8_224.0_251.5_273.0_291.3_307 .9_319.7_325.6_326.0
Port 2_ 74.6_108.6_152.9_191.2_224.6_253.6_275.1_293.6_309 .4_320.1_326.6_326.6
Tested at 28” water.
4.030” test bore.
I retested the same ports with the intake bolted up. The manifold #12590124 flows as follows:
Lift____.100”_.150”__.200”_.250”_.300”_.350”_.400” _.450”_.500”_.550”_.600”_.650”
Port 1_ 73.0_107.0_148.7_182.8_211.5_235.6_253.6_267.6_278 .7_288.1_294.0_298.5
Port 2_ 74.1_107.5_148.7_181.9_210.6_234.5_253.6_266.4_276 .9_284.7_290.4_295.8
All port runners and vacuum port taps were plugged to force all airflow through the ttb flange. The manifold ports tested were driver side #1 and #5 cylinders. The intake runners tested were not at the extreme ends of the plenum.
Richard
We were going to post up our numbers of our L92 heads and manifold tmr, but looks like you beat us to it. I just got them off the flow bench too. The only changes we made were cleaning up the bowl area because the stock L92's have a crappy little lip in the intake bowl area. And we added some porting to the exhaust of it too. I will post up in the morning.
Rick
I just got them off the flow bench too. The only changes we made were cleaning up the bowl area because the stock L92's have a crappy little lip in the intake bowl area. And we added some porting to the exhaust of it too. I will post up in the morning.Rick
Originally Posted by WKMCD
Thanks for the info Richard. How does this compare to an CNC LS1 or popular aftermarket casting setup with FAST intake?
Lift____.100”_.150”__.200”_.250”_.300”_.350”_.400” _.450”_.500”_.550”_.600”_.650”
Port 1_ 70.4_104.5_141.5_176.0_209.9_239.8_267.3_291.0_307 .0_319.2_328.2_337.1
Port 2_ 69.9_103.9_139.2_171.4_200.4_225.8_248.5_265.6_279 .3_289.3_296.0_293.5
__________________________________________________ __________________________
Originally Posted by CollinsAutomotive
What type of flow bench ? Just trying to compare data.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
Originally Posted by Rick@Synergy
We were going to post up our numbers of our L92 heads and manifold tmr, but looks like you beat us to it. I just got them off the flow bench too. The only changes we made were cleaning up the bowl area because the stock L92's have a crappy little lip in the intake bowl area. And we added some porting to the exhaust of it too. I will post up in the morning.
Rick
I just got them off the flow bench too. The only changes we made were cleaning up the bowl area because the stock L92's have a crappy little lip in the intake bowl area. And we added some porting to the exhaust of it too. I will post up in the morning.Rick
Richard
The know it all's know it all
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Richard@WCCH
The test was done on a Superflow 600 with flowcom. I also retested on my JKM and saw within a 1% difference as usual.
Richard
Just comparing sf600 to sf1020 always seems to be different although with results backing up with the JKM suggest that the sf1020 is somewhat different in its measuring there always seems to be some disparity between those 2 benchs
thanx for the info though. Look like the intake works alot better then the ls6 peice at least
Originally Posted by CollinsAutomotive
Just comparing sf600 to sf1020 always seems to be different although with results backing up with the JKM suggest that the sf1020 is somewhat different in its measuring there always seems to be some disparity between those 2 benchs
thanx for the info though. Look like the intake works alot better then the ls6 peice at least
thanx for the info though. Look like the intake works alot better then the ls6 peice at least
................. The end result is the bench now mirrors a typical SF600. I've tested it with several in the area with very similar results. I've heard a number of SF1020 owners make similar statements to yours about the flow differences to other benches. Next week I'll be testing our new All Pro LSW head and will have the opportunity to compare the test head on a SF1020 while using the same fixturing. This should make an excellent apples to apples comparison. Richard
The know it all's know it all
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Richard@WCCH
I could write a dissertation on my JKM bench but this forum doesn't have enough band width ................. The end result is the bench now mirrors a typical SF600. I've tested it with several in the area with very similar results. I've heard a number of SF1020 owners make similar statements to yours about the flow differences to other benches. Next week I'll be testing our new All Pro LSW head and will have the opportunity to compare the test head on a SF1020 while using the same fixturing. This should make an excellent apples to apples comparison.
Richard
................. The end result is the bench now mirrors a typical SF600. I've tested it with several in the area with very similar results. I've heard a number of SF1020 owners make similar statements to yours about the flow differences to other benches. Next week I'll be testing our new All Pro LSW head and will have the opportunity to compare the test head on a SF1020 while using the same fixturing. This should make an excellent apples to apples comparison. Richard
Originally Posted by Richard@WCCH
Here's a recent back to back of our Edelbrock 245 cathedral head. The first test is the port with flow plate and the second is with a box stock LSX 90mm manifold.
Lift____.100”_.150”__.200”_.250”_.300”_.350”_.400” _.450”_.500”_.550”_.600”_.650”
Port 1_ 70.4_104.5_141.5_176.0_209.9_239.8_267.3_291.0_307 .0_319.2_328.2_337.1
Port 2_ 69.9_103.9_139.2_171.4_200.4_225.8_248.5_265.6_279 .3_289.3_296.0_293.5
__________________________________________________ __________________________
The test was done on a Superflow 600 with flowcom. I also retested on my JKM and saw within a 1% difference as usual.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
Sorry Rick. I wasn't sure if anyone else was persuing this info and since it's part of our development, I thought it would be of some interest here. My test head has no work. I felt it would be a better baseline for comparing against the other combinations, but I'm interested to see how your results compare.
Richard
Lift____.100”_.150”__.200”_.250”_.300”_.350”_.400” _.450”_.500”_.550”_.600”_.650”
Port 1_ 70.4_104.5_141.5_176.0_209.9_239.8_267.3_291.0_307 .0_319.2_328.2_337.1
Port 2_ 69.9_103.9_139.2_171.4_200.4_225.8_248.5_265.6_279 .3_289.3_296.0_293.5
__________________________________________________ __________________________
The test was done on a Superflow 600 with flowcom. I also retested on my JKM and saw within a 1% difference as usual.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
Sorry Rick. I wasn't sure if anyone else was persuing this info and since it's part of our development, I thought it would be of some interest here. My test head has no work. I felt it would be a better baseline for comparing against the other combinations, but I'm interested to see how your results compare.
Richard
Maybe you found the same thing, but the bowl work needed big help in the intake seat area. After this, I think we ended up in the area of 328ish with the manifold bolted on. Nice really. The exhaust is where I told my porter to spend time on. 230's without a pipe is where we landed.
Rick