I saw this going bad... a shame that one individual has to wander off the tech issues and start calling people names. I hate to waste my time culling old posts, but this forces me to do it. It amazes me that its taken this long for people like Bret and Denny to respond..... they seem to be able to stick to the tech issues, without turning it into a personal attack.... but after a while, I can understand their need to respond.

There are valuable members who don't come here as much any more because of stuff like this.

 

Well I have been doing some mesurements and I have figured out that I can Raise the top of the Intake 2 3/4 inches and still have enough clearance.

I'm going to start a Long Hand Drafting of what I think would work and then fab it up.
SHould look like Denny's when I get done

 

When I first saw the intake it looked like a leap of faith for it to fit. Much to my surprise there is all kinds of clearance. You might have more room than you think as I was a bit nervous.

We did the very scientific measurement of crushing a beer can to see how much clearance there would be.

Will see what happens with a couple of cams and make a judgement then, but right now I'm thinking a little bit shorter on the runners might not be all that bad of a thing. All live and learn.

I called Wilson and gave them the complete engine spec's (the intake was not done by them) and they custom tune it to your combination so it would probably vary per the application.

 

It's a pretty good idea, though. Tell me you measured can height with a micrometer afterwards?

 

I like it!
I have a few more measurements to take yet but I have the general Idea.
I could raise the back about 1 inch more but I don't want it to get too close to the windshield

My main plan is to incresse the Volume so I can add some serious HP to my Stroker Motor and not be confined to the LT-1 intake.
My new cam right now has 108* LS with .565 lift and 226/234 for Duration so I will be trying to match for that cam and Bigger

 

I found a local guy that is very very good at welding and is willing to weld up an intake or two or four etc. His prices are pretty reasonable as well. I'm not going to pass up the opportunity.

My question is this...

I have LE2 heads that flow 291 cfm and a lumpy LE2 cam. What style intake would work best with these heads and at the same time allow me to step up to say a 210 or 220cc head if I want in the future? Or is this not possible?

Anything else we should know design wise in regards to placement of injectors etc?

Would the cam fall on its face at higher rpm because of he intake?

He says this design is do-able:



But this one would be cheaper:



He's built several intakes and headers for turbo applications on import cars like his own 240Z and 280Z.

 

I would say stick with the second plenum if you have the hood clearance. It leaves more room for engine specific tuning. And you could always add more plenum volume or runner length later without too much work.

As for the cam, if it has a lot of duration then use shorter runners for the high end.

My $.02

Jeremy

 

I don't think that's totally true. Runner length as well as IVC affect rpm range. If you shorten a runner, then a motor will gain top end and lose mid-range. If you increase intake duration, resulting in a later IVC, then you will lose more mid and low, while increasing top end even further.

For example, an LS1 performance shop has a very popular, very aggresive LS1 cam. It peaks in the 6800 rpm range. They installed a Victor Jr. in place of the stock LS6 intake and the power was still climbing at 7600. The actually had to shorten the intake duration to get the power back down to a reasonable rpm.

Mike

 

Well the LE2 is similar in specs to the GM847 cam if that helps any.

I'm discussing designs with him as we speak and we're planning on doing it come October. But he's by no means a SBC expert so he's asking me to see what people recommend for this cam and heads for runner size, length, and injector positioning.

 

My cam is 245/248 with .630 lift and the heads are 222cc and guess it all depends upon high you want to take the car. Right now with this cam it peaks at 6100 rpm vs 6650 with a welded/ported LT4 and no other changes.

 

I rev to 6800 right now.

 

I agree entirely. However, if the cam choice is to remain the same, wouldn't it make sense to play to it's strengths? If that cam is similar to the 847, then it does well in the high rpm, so I wouldn't suggest putting on a manifold with long runners that would die at 6500rpm. Unless that is as high as he wanted to turn the motor, in which case get all the low-end and midrange you can.

Tell me if I'm wrong about any of this.

Jeremy

 

I take mine to 7000-7200 and looking to restore the same powerband. The car made over 470 rwhp @ 7000 rpm and also @ 6000 rpm peaking a little over 480 around 6650 with the LT4 intake so I want to be able to keep the average power as high as possible. We'll see what a couple of cams do and figure it out. Haven't done the math yet but I may not have lost average power by lowering the powerband because it pushed it up down below 6000 rpm.

It's not peak power that makes one fast, but average hp within intended powerband that does.

 

It's not peak power that makes one fast, but average hp within intended powerband that does.[/QUOTE]


I havent heard a MORE accurate statement in a long long time, this is why we do not race dyno's, this is why a lower peak horsepower car can kick your *** for you.

David

 

I havent heard a MORE accurate statement in a long long time, this is why we do not race dyno's, this is why a lower peak horsepower car can kick your *** for you.

David[/QUOTE]

You have no idea of how many dyno sheets I've studied from professional builders/racers and everyone carries the power on top. Peak power is just for bragging rights.......powerband kicks butt. Right on Bro.