LSx guys are doin soem wierd stuff

http://www.worldisround.com/articles/15303/photo33.html
that new design is supposed to equalize flow and provide 38% better flow

sorry for the craptastic drawing, i didn't feel like making a 3d model today

 

Yep that's the one I'm talking about.

 

As long as someone understands that the F-body hood will be a slight problem.

 

Even if someone like Edelbrock redesigned the LTx intake for a longer, say 6", runner I would think there would be a good enough improvement from the intake that it would be worth selling.

 

i've got 3 extra inches of clearance

 

And, what would be the total cost Bret? I'd be willing to try it on my new 396. I'd of course do a pull with the LT4 intake and then this one.

 

Yea the Holley is 10" tall and would require a cowl hood, but so would some other options like a Victor Jr style with a tb and injectors. But how many 4th gen fbodys already have an aftermarket hood, quite a few from what I've seen

 

E-mail me on that one.


A Super Vic Manifold's carb flange is the same height as the LT1/4 fined top. So if you basically took a carb and put it on top of your intake under your hood it's going to be at least that high.

Bret

 

"Hmm... I got a feeling 5 an 7 would hate this idea "

Years ago people with fast carberated cars that ran single plane intakes ran into a similar problem that leaned out the #7 cyl. because #5 had just used up the air furl charge in that cylander.

They ended up changing their firing order to somthing like....
18456372 granted it was much easier to do in a carb car. You would have to be running a stand alone engine menagement system to even think of trying this on a LT-1...


As somone mentioned earlier you can polish a dry manifold to a mirror finish and it shouldn't matter, that would slightly help flow and air velocity, But im not sure its worth the cost....

 

You could just swap your injector connections and spark plug wire positions on the opti.

 

Yep,
The problem is the disruption of the air/fuel ratio. Even a bigger problem in heads with lazy ports but it wouldn't really be an issue in an LT1 that gets it's atomized fuel right there at the valve.
In alot of ways I'd imagine that dry-head engines are alot easier to work with than ones that need to keep fuel in suspension. But yeah, that was a problem and the firing order changeup did help a bit.

-Mindgame

 

Mindgame hit the nail on the head. A Injector setup is not going to run lean since it injects the fuel right above the valve.

A carb setup can run lean on 5 & 7, and the firing order can be changed with a cam swap as long as it's not the stock ECU, but if you go carbed then you might as well ditch the opti too.

Bret

 

Isn't that non existant in the 93lt1 intake?

 

For all this trouble on designing an intake why not design a roots type blower for the lt1?

 

"but it wouldn't really be an issue in an LT1 that gets it's atomized fuel right there at the valve."

Shouldn't I guess... but think of it this way, If the ports were hogged out all the way into the cylander head, the runner is now alot smaller, and I can see air from the #7 runner moving backwards and going toward the #5 cylander. Then all of a sudden #7 opens and the fuel charge is dumped int turbulent air that is still figuring out which way to go. That would be an very lazy cylander. Also I think doing this mod with would move the HP peak to mabye 7,XXX. just look at the change the LT-4 heads make. Then again they say that port sizing has greater effect than runner length......