lt4 fd

My longtube headers are worth about 20 or so hp and roughly 15 lb/ft of torque across most of the rpm range on my stock motor and who knows how much on a heads and cam motor. On a stock motor thats around 100 bucks per 1% increase, something somewhere around that would probably be ok for me. I think if you could absolutly prove that it would do more than stroking the motor they would be all for the intake even if it was just as costly, because its a hell of a lot less work to swap an intake. I mean you can pick up budget stroker bottom ends for 1000 bucks so there would still be competition but as long as its not way over 1500 I think I would sure as hell buy it before a bottom end... also a lot of people stroke their motors and dont change their heads and cam setup, so if this intake requires a cam change from what they have its another added cost.

SStrokerAce

True with some cams it's going to work better than others. The problem with a stroker is that to get more out of it you need to put more into it, better heads, better cam, machine work, assembly etc.... it's not just the cost of a rotating assembly. $1000-$1500 is what I am thinking will be reasonable and fair for the amount of labor and work in it.

Bret

got_hp?

i think that is the proper price in that range.

steve quinn has his own modified intake design, and he also charges $1500 for it, but it includes new fuel rails.
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~squinn0039/ltx.html


btw bret, i think id include steves car on that list of impressive setups.
hes in the 9's with a 370ci LT1, with LT1 casting heads, n/a.

SStrokerAce

Yeah he does have a quick car, and with LT1 castings makes it all that much better. It goes to show what good head porting and a well done motor can do, a lot like Super Stock guys that run in the 10's on 40 year old head castings that at best flow 260cfm and the cars weight 3200lbs or more. MaxRaceSoftware over on the advanced tech forum is a guy with a lot of experience with things like that.

His intake basically adds pleanum volume for higher RPM and HP requirements, if you are going to turn 7,000 or higher then that is going to be very helpful. The problem with running the stock intake is the lack of any runner length, 3" doesn't get you anywhere. (excuse me if that has any other meanings) I definately am going to add more pleanum volume along with more runner length.

I'm going to include fuel rails also since it's almost manditory to do that on any aftermarket intake setup.

Bret

got_hp?

yeah thats something i was wondering about...........steve said his intake mostly picks up power in the upper rpm ranges.

7zark7

Thanks Bret.

One more question, how do these LT4 race gaskets compare to a Felpro 1206? Bigger port? Smaller port? Do they line up?

Schurters LT1

Bret,

As you said before this intake is for the heads and cam car's, As with me i have an LT1 head when i up gread to 210/220 or TFS ,Is there meat the to match head to intake.



What would be the time frame on the intake

As for price i think you are close.....

thx and good luck

arnie

This is a little removed from the 'theme' of this thread, but for clarification purposes, in what way, is the LT4 intake manifold runners different from the runners of the LT1 intake manifold?

What year LT1 manifold is being used, in your example, for comparo to the LT4?

SStrokerAce

One more question, how do these LT4 race gaskets compare to a Felpro 1206? Bigger port? Smaller port? Do they line up?

Not as wide and a bit taller, basically the best LT1 style gasket since you have to drill holes in the FelPro, not a big fan of the FelPros


As you said before this intake is for the heads and cam car's, As with me i have an LT1 head when i up gread to 210/220 or TFS ,Is there meat the to match head to intake.

What would be the time frame on the intake

I can check it see if it has enough meat to go out to that size on most of the aftermarket heads.

As for time frame what do you mean? How long till it is ready or how long to get one? Don't know yet I'm working on it now so a few weeks.



Arnie,

As for the LT1/LT4 The LT4 with it's outer port walls are slanted in at the top where the LT1 intake has a square port that is much closer to the shape of the LT1 head. The LT4 intake to me should be port matched to the heads hands down since it's main use is for aftermarket ported heads with a much bigger port opening.

Every LT1 intake I have seen is shaped the same way in the ports, so I don't know what you are talking about there. Mostly I use LT4 intakes up to this point anways.

Bret

SLeePer350

$1500 is the going price (search on the LTX welded intake) so you can either prove your product is superior and charge that, and still get customers...OR...chop a few hundred off to undercut the others and get customers based on price savings.

However with your reputation, people will expect this intake to already be up to par. Including fuel rails and the such is all the better, so yeah $1400-$1600 is fair.

If it's marketed as a street-friendly design geared towards practical use as opposed to some of the others available, then people will start considering budgeting in this type of mod. Up until now, people have said dont touch the manifold, "its the last thing that needs to be done"..."gm overdesigned it, dont even mess it"...these are the kinda responses I got in threads that I tried posting earlier to get some feedback about essentially "pros and cons of LT1 intake porting"...so it would need to be advertised as true HP/TQ to convince people it's something worth doing. Maybe those were just isolated people, but there are naysayers out there...just my 2 cents

arnie

Bret, the oem, as cast intake ports, of any LT1/4 heads I've been exposed to, have that wall (long wall or push rod side) slanted. This slant matches that of the as cast, LT4 manifold runner, at the flange.

From what I could determine/learn, about the time the (so called) LT4 intake manifold was originally cast, the LT1 manifold underwent a (internal runner) casting change. The slanted long wall, characteristic of the LT4 manifold, was incorporated in the LT1 manifold. The later LT1 manifold (internally) became virtually identical to the LT4 manifold. Prior to this point in time, the LT1 internal runner shape, at the flange, was (is) a crisp rectangle, with square walls. Why have the slanted wall on the LT4, or the later LT1 manifold? As mentioned above, the long wall, of the intake port, in the head, is slanted. This meant the later LT1 manifold now matched up better, to the head ports, at the flange. With the straight (larger) runner opening, the earlier LT1 manifold actually caused a turbulent mismatch with the head ports. Proper funds were not available/given to do the LT4 manifold properly, but enuf to make some minor changes. This allowed engineering to correct the bonehead manifold/head port match screwup. This may be trivial, viewed from the theme of this tread, but thot I'd address it, nonetheless. Thanks for responding to my post, Bret.

....The LT4 intake to me should be port matched to the heads hands down since it's main use is for aftermarket ported heads with a much bigger port opening.

Since the manifold runner is an extention of the head port, the manifold should be addressed, whenever the head ports are modified from as cast dimensions. Port matching AFAIC, does little more than aggrevate the non uniform port area, that exists from the runner entrance, in the plenum, to the valve. You are as familiar as I am on this, so I know the wording in your post, was unintentionally misleading.

As for it's use, well, I'll make this comment. Having that extra external cast material added, even when additional material is added with welding, there exists an opportunity to do almost as much harm as good, when raising the roof, at the flange.

SStrokerAce

Arnie,

Didn't know that long storied history of the intake so thanks on that.

As for the porting, the Welding is not the funest thing to do since material does get very thin there. I agree that in the LT1 intake the intake is basically an extension of the head port or should be when ported properly. Where the LS1 setup flows like junk but since the runner is so long the thing just makes unbeiliveable tuning pressure and therefore creates HP based off of that, not flow.

SLeePer,

I would consider making the cost lower if the production warranted that, but I'm thinking it's going to cost all of that to make it.

I've been thinking on how to make a intake setup that would work on these cars for about a year or more, making it an easy setup to run and all that you would need was a intake manifold rather than a intake (with fuel inj bungs, converted to LT1 bolt patterns etc...) a TB and an air duct, that all costs money plus you have to monkey around with everything else to get it setup properly.

I don't sell things on a price point normally, I believe that a fair price for what you are doing is key. One reason why my cam kits are not the cheapest is because I use parts that cost more than most places use based on their higher quality. You could go to them and by the same parts and get them for about the same price but the mix of the parts is what counts. Same thing for motors I build, it's not going to be the low buck special but then again there is a lot more prep time in the block along with parts that are specific to the application. That all costs extra money.

As for not touching the intake, that's where I think people are wrong. That's ok if you are going for 375-400rwhp but once you start expecting more than the average setup then it's all the little things that add up. That's the problem the next few HP here and there start costing more and more $ per HP. The intake even if it's $1500 it's going to be a big gain for the $$$ since hand ported AFR's are around $3K and stroker motors are going to start there and go up.

Basically yes I want a bolt in intake where you can use your 52mm, 58mm or Monoblade TB, and plug in your fuel lines and go. Also since it's SBC based you can run a FAST or DFI since it will have a distributor hole (plugged normally) in it already. It will have spots for all the fittings and fuel rails are included.

Bret

arnie

In my previous post, I was not referring to potential harm done during or from the welding itself, but the porting, er, process of stock removal, in inappropriate areas, just because there is extra material available, to do so. This comment prompted, after viewing various linked pics.

SStrokerAce

still don't get ya Arnie

marshall93z

so i guess this is going to mean lt1's are going to be approaching 500 rwhp soon then, right?