George / Doug ,
G ... dont worry ... I'm gonna look you go first ... give me the info on what trickflow intake we are looking for and I'll look for both of us. I got some young Mustang Freaks in the area .. I;m gonna ask around.
Brain storming here ... so the ideal thing would be to cut the intake flanges off a C302B intake and fit them to a 351W intake .. if it could be done .. of course port matching and probably adding to the rails on the block since the ports are raised would be needed.
R
Ron, look at the gaskets. The 351w port is about 1 inch lower.
Maybe George is right. A manifold for a 9.5 would sit higher I guess. Then all you would have to do is either mill the sides to equalize the top of the ports or machine unique thickness spacers.
If you look at the car that was done with the 2v heads, the assembly just fit under the stock screen.
If you raise this manifold 1 inch...guess what?
You can't mill the top down 1 inch, can you?
Yikes is all I can say.
Maybe George is right. A manifold for a 9.5 would sit higher I guess. Then all you would have to do is either mill the sides to equalize the top of the ports or machine unique thickness spacers.
If you look at the car that was done with the 2v heads, the assembly just fit under the stock screen.
If you raise this manifold 1 inch...guess what?
You can't mill the top down 1 inch, can you?
Yikes is all I can say.
Doug,
Is what your saying the TF intake is for a 9.5 deck ... I have a 9.2 deck with C302B's ... maybe the top of the port would be close to the right location ?? bolt holes and rails would need work ??? I'm gonna stop at my engine builder tomorrow and see what he has kicking to see if we could mock this up.
Ron
Is what your saying the TF intake is for a 9.5 deck ... I have a 9.2 deck with C302B's ... maybe the top of the port would be close to the right location ?? bolt holes and rails would need work ??? I'm gonna stop at my engine builder tomorrow and see what he has kicking to see if we could mock this up.
Ron
Yup. To make matters worse, you need to mill something like .375 off of each flange to fit it in the valley.
Look at the pics George posted of the manifold. Notice the thickness of the flanges? Ain't no way you can mill that much off of them. Your only hope is that the manifold comes close to matching your ports as a stock 9.5.
Good luck, you're going to need it.
Look at the pics George posted of the manifold. Notice the thickness of the flanges? Ain't no way you can mill that much off of them. Your only hope is that the manifold comes close to matching your ports as a stock 9.5.
Good luck, you're going to need it.
Below is a picture of a Trick Flow 351W intake milled to fit in the valley of a 9.2" deck 351C block.
Ron's application is a 9.2" deck SVO/Windsor block equipped with C302 heads.
I took an hour this evening and did the calculations. I even remembered the trigonometry!
Fitting this same intake into Ron's application will be easier than the application in the picture in 2 ways. (1) Ron's is a Windsor block, not a Cleveland, the rear of the manifold does not require modification. (2) The manifold will sit exactly 37/64" vertically higher in the vee and requires no milling.
The application will require 5/16" adapter plates (spacers) between the intake & heads to make the manifold sit high enough to align the ports in the heads with the runners in the intake.
Mount the adapter plates to the heads with countersunk screws using the existing bosses in the heads; then drill & tap new bosses in the adapter plates to match up with the bolt holes in the Windsor intake manifold.
Ron I believe your application is as easy to accomplish as fabricating 5/16" adapter plates and valley rail spacers. Period. NO intake manifold modifications are required whatsoever.
cowboy from hell
Ron's application is a 9.2" deck SVO/Windsor block equipped with C302 heads.
I took an hour this evening and did the calculations. I even remembered the trigonometry!
Fitting this same intake into Ron's application will be easier than the application in the picture in 2 ways. (1) Ron's is a Windsor block, not a Cleveland, the rear of the manifold does not require modification. (2) The manifold will sit exactly 37/64" vertically higher in the vee and requires no milling.
The application will require 5/16" adapter plates (spacers) between the intake & heads to make the manifold sit high enough to align the ports in the heads with the runners in the intake.
Mount the adapter plates to the heads with countersunk screws using the existing bosses in the heads; then drill & tap new bosses in the adapter plates to match up with the bolt holes in the Windsor intake manifold.
Ron I believe your application is as easy to accomplish as fabricating 5/16" adapter plates and valley rail spacers. Period. NO intake manifold modifications are required whatsoever.
cowboy from hell
Attachments
Images (1)
Ah well some of us are a little slower then others. Something just doesnt add up ... the 9.5 dech 351W intake on a 351C 9.2 deck motor. But the pic tells the tale .. ?? Thanks George
Got it George I wrote the previuos post before I read your last post .. sounds good ...thanks for your expert mathematical skills. Trig. was a long time ago ..12th grade ...LOL
Ron
Ron
It must be that I am stupid. How is one going to anchor bolts into a 5/16" thick plate?
How far away are the centerlines of those bolt holes? 5/16"?
Using a 3/8" flat head bolt to hold the plate to the head, ok, got that.
Don't mind me I must be retarded. No I am definately retarded.
How far away are the centerlines of those bolt holes? 5/16"?
Using a 3/8" flat head bolt to hold the plate to the head, ok, got that.
Don't mind me I must be retarded. No I am definately retarded.
Without regard to mounting issues for the Windsor intake, out of curiosity, does anyone know the length and cross sectional area of the runner? Plenum volume?
Ron, what's the bore, stroke, and target compression ratio of your engine? Hows about the port volume, cross sectional area, and flow data, for your C302Bs? Cam?
Kelly
Ron, what's the bore, stroke, and target compression ratio of your engine? Hows about the port volume, cross sectional area, and flow data, for your C302Bs? Cam?
Kelly
Kelly,
So far we are at 4.0 bore with std SVO 351G block, 3.75 stroke, 6.125 rod and target compression is 12 to 1. Port volume the builder has since these heads were used on a blown alcohol motor ( I dont have it, I could get it ) cross sectional I had given to you when I ordered the intake ..was it 2.1 x 1.65 ?? flow data I dont have ... cam has not been selected ..depends on what intake I use ... so how are they coming along ..
Thanks Ron
So far we are at 4.0 bore with std SVO 351G block, 3.75 stroke, 6.125 rod and target compression is 12 to 1. Port volume the builder has since these heads were used on a blown alcohol motor ( I dont have it, I could get it ) cross sectional I had given to you when I ordered the intake ..was it 2.1 x 1.65 ?? flow data I dont have ... cam has not been selected ..depends on what intake I use ... so how are they coming along ..
Thanks Ron
quote:Originally posted by PanteraDoug:
...How is one going to anchor bolts into a 5/16" thick plate?...
Well, 5/16" isn't that thin really, plenty thick for the torque associated with an intake manifold. You can maximize thread engagement by using National Fine threads instead of National Coarse. But it does make sizing the length of the manifold bolts rather critical. If it were me, I would probably choose to use 1/2 thick plate for the adapters, and mill the intake a bit. There is also the need for a bit of port matching, but that is rather minimal. Overall, to run a long runner 351W efi intake on Rons 9.2 Windsor block with C302 heads looks to me to be a rather straight forward thing to do. Having dual SVO & Windsor bolt holes/bosses in the adapter plate is the approach that makes this possible.
cowboy from hell
quote:Well, 5/16" isn't that thin really, plenty thick for the torque associated with an intake manifold. You can maximize thread engagement by using National Fine threads instead of National Coarse. But it does make sizing the length of the manifold bolts rather critical. If it were me, I would probably choose to use 1/2 thick plate for the adapters, and mill the intake a bit. There is also the need for a bit of port matching, but that is rather minimal. Overall, to run a long runner 351W efi intake on Rons 9.2 Windsor block with C302 heads looks to me to be a rather straight forward thing to do. Having dual SVO & Windsor bolt holes/bosses in the adapter plate is the approach that makes this possible.
I think the adaptation of the W intake may be a little more involved. I've spent a fair bit of time with 9.2 versus 9.5 intakes and bolt patterns, but that was always superimposing a 335 series pattern over itself in those two deck heights, not a Windsor pattern. I'd like to offer the following observations and comments:
It's true, applying the 9.5 deck intake to the 9.2 will raise and help align the ports on high port heads. The bolt patterns may be a totally different matter.
I think there are two approaches to this problem and they have been previously mentioned in this thread. -Mod the less expensive intake so it properly bolts to the heads or put a second pattern in the heads.
Offhand, I'd say weld up the holes in the intake and drill them in the right place to fit the head. You might try positioning the intake on the heads such that the ports align well (this may take adapter plates) insert a drill bushing in the Windsor mounting holes, and use it as a fixture to drill and tap the heads. You'd need to check to ensure that you don't punch a hole in the water jacket (most potential for this on the holes at each end) and that the holes don't partially overlap the old pattern. If you try to put a 9.5 335 series pattern over a 9.2 pattern, they will overlap.
Though I've seen heads with two 335 series, I've never attempted redrilling heads for a Windsor because (sorry fellas) there is no Windsor intake that's interesting enough to me to justify the effort. Based upon Ron's choices of parts so far, I doubt it's a good choice for his build. But.....
Even if you were to use the Windsor pattern, won't the bolts engage any adapter plate at an angle, say 45 degrees on the Windsor pattern? If this is so, you will have thread engagement on one side of the bolt. On something as thin as 5/16", won't that side hit the head about the same time the threads on the other side engage?
Though I can only see a couple of the mounting bosses, if you examine the modified Trickflow intake in this thread closely, you will see that the pad angle of these mounting boss has been modified to the 22.5 degree angle (Midway between perpendicular and 45 to the head) of the 3/8"-16 portion of the 335 series Cleveland pattern. If you look at the flange side of that Trickflow intake, it looks nice and clean. I'd have to guess is was welded, redrilled and milled because those holes use be at a different angle and would not have broken through the intake flange in that manner.
It's a lot of work and appears to have been well done. IMO, the intake would be better suited for a properly cammed 2V headed engine.
Kelly
Too many compromises for me at this point.
Ron certainly is in a better position to adapt the 351w intake.
Stock 351w gaskets are 1.360" x 2.140". Those are pretty close to his C302 heads.
The Trickflow may have more meat in the runner walls to port match then others. Maybe not.
Certainly I wouldn't touch those heads one iota.
He's running a 351w block.
No so my case.
I never said that I have the ultimate setup. What I said was that considering performance/dollar, mine is hard to equal.
With this much modification to the 351w EFI manifold to run on a 351c, Kelly's IR EFI is the best way to go, and it fits under the deck. A close second best is IDA throttle bodies on a Weber manifold. Especially if the deck is already cut.
Ofcourse if a nice EFI 351c hit the market tomorrow, that certainly could change things.
If a large comet or asteroid hit the earth it could also.
Just my very humble opinion gentlemen.
Ron certainly is in a better position to adapt the 351w intake.
Stock 351w gaskets are 1.360" x 2.140". Those are pretty close to his C302 heads.
The Trickflow may have more meat in the runner walls to port match then others. Maybe not.
Certainly I wouldn't touch those heads one iota.
He's running a 351w block.
No so my case.
I never said that I have the ultimate setup. What I said was that considering performance/dollar, mine is hard to equal.
With this much modification to the 351w EFI manifold to run on a 351c, Kelly's IR EFI is the best way to go, and it fits under the deck. A close second best is IDA throttle bodies on a Weber manifold. Especially if the deck is already cut.
Ofcourse if a nice EFI 351c hit the market tomorrow, that certainly could change things.
If a large comet or asteroid hit the earth it could also.
Just my very humble opinion gentlemen.
I agree ... there are advantages to both .. Kellys will fit like a glove on my motor .. but then there is MY OWN learning curve which I'm going to take that plunge and learn and set up the IR EFI. The advantage to the single plenum is DRIVEABILTY on the street. I'm not an expert ... but I'm going to learn soon.
Ron
Ron
I'm in agreement with all 3 of you gentlemen in one way or the other.
This is Doug's thread, and so I want to mention I've never written that the long runner EFI manifold would be a good match with his A3 heads, rather I suggested he convert to C302 heads. I read in what you've written Doug a strong liking for the long runner intake, and an equally strong dislike for having to roll your own manifold. That's cool and at least we've explored the idea and given you an idea what the gentlemen who have done so have gone through.
Kelly, You have a good handle on the situation, you are right the Cleveland intake bolts aren't perpendicaular to the head, but accuracy wasn't my intention, just painting a picture in the minds of the reader. While Thomas & Jim were able to mod the Trick Flow intake to work on the cleveland with the intake bolt holes in the standard location, I doubt the casting would allow redrilling for Cleveland angles 3/4" lower to match the bolt location on the SVO heads, hence why I believe using the spacer to adapt to the Windsor holes is the best alternative. Probably the only other alternative would be redrilling the heads. And as I wrote yesterday, if 5/16" is too thin, make the spacers 1/2" and mill the intake a bit. One advantageous thing about the vertical Windsor intake bolts, it allows the use of studs, and so it would be possible to install the studs in the spacers with loctite and grind away anything that pokes out the back side of the spacer.
As far as suitability for racing, Trick Flow intakes for the 351W have large volume runners that are 13.3" in length, the intake is available rated for 2000 to 7000 rpm on a 351 cubic inch motor with mounting for a 90 mm throttle body. If you need more, everybody, including Trick Flow, manufacture what they call "box intakes". a replacement upper that has no runners at all. The box intakes are normally rated for powerbands starting at 2500 or 3000 rpm and upwards. There are tons of guys out on the tracks around the world racing their cars with with long runner efi intake lowers and box intake uppers. Ron you're a drag racer, I know you've seen all the guys with motors like this. This includes big cubic inch Windsor strokers. Those intakes support all sorts of horsepower.
I'm also waiting for Trick Flow to produce that 2V lower for the Cleveland. I agree that would be the optimum situation. I think that intake mated to a pair of CHI or AFD alloy 2V heads would be the next hot set up for the majority of Panteras, Mustangs, etc. Combining the beneifits of EFI, improved throttle response of the small port head, and the ability to support up to 600 bhp out of the box. Sure they're not high port heads, but these new generation of 2V heads will support the kind of valve lift that is provided by the current crop of hydraulic roller cams.
take care,
George
This is Doug's thread, and so I want to mention I've never written that the long runner EFI manifold would be a good match with his A3 heads, rather I suggested he convert to C302 heads. I read in what you've written Doug a strong liking for the long runner intake, and an equally strong dislike for having to roll your own manifold. That's cool and at least we've explored the idea and given you an idea what the gentlemen who have done so have gone through.
Kelly, You have a good handle on the situation, you are right the Cleveland intake bolts aren't perpendicaular to the head, but accuracy wasn't my intention, just painting a picture in the minds of the reader. While Thomas & Jim were able to mod the Trick Flow intake to work on the cleveland with the intake bolt holes in the standard location, I doubt the casting would allow redrilling for Cleveland angles 3/4" lower to match the bolt location on the SVO heads, hence why I believe using the spacer to adapt to the Windsor holes is the best alternative. Probably the only other alternative would be redrilling the heads. And as I wrote yesterday, if 5/16" is too thin, make the spacers 1/2" and mill the intake a bit. One advantageous thing about the vertical Windsor intake bolts, it allows the use of studs, and so it would be possible to install the studs in the spacers with loctite and grind away anything that pokes out the back side of the spacer.
As far as suitability for racing, Trick Flow intakes for the 351W have large volume runners that are 13.3" in length, the intake is available rated for 2000 to 7000 rpm on a 351 cubic inch motor with mounting for a 90 mm throttle body. If you need more, everybody, including Trick Flow, manufacture what they call "box intakes". a replacement upper that has no runners at all. The box intakes are normally rated for powerbands starting at 2500 or 3000 rpm and upwards. There are tons of guys out on the tracks around the world racing their cars with with long runner efi intake lowers and box intake uppers. Ron you're a drag racer, I know you've seen all the guys with motors like this. This includes big cubic inch Windsor strokers. Those intakes support all sorts of horsepower.
I'm also waiting for Trick Flow to produce that 2V lower for the Cleveland. I agree that would be the optimum situation. I think that intake mated to a pair of CHI or AFD alloy 2V heads would be the next hot set up for the majority of Panteras, Mustangs, etc. Combining the beneifits of EFI, improved throttle response of the small port head, and the ability to support up to 600 bhp out of the box. Sure they're not high port heads, but these new generation of 2V heads will support the kind of valve lift that is provided by the current crop of hydraulic roller cams.
take care,
George
I'm not in love with the EFI. You know they make 'em with horses, and flames and other silly stuff inscribed on the top.
What ever happen to the cougar with the leaping cat on it? Now there was an ensignia!
What ever happen to the cougar with the leaping cat on it? Now there was an ensignia!
Nice kitty Mr.Pence.
One last point of signifigance here is that with a EFI FI system, a very radical camshaft with a lot of overlap can be run on the street.
That would not be so with the EFI and a common plenum.
Plenum reverb in theory no longer exists with IR EFI.
Since no cylinder is 100% efficient, there has got to be some unburned mixture or oil contamanent blown back into the intake system.
Maybe that's even a plus. Maybe it will lubricate the valve stems?
The question that was possed in another discussion is how signifigant is it?
It certainly won't have the reverse venturi flow problem that the IDA's do.
Probably the answer is that it will need to be determined by experimentation but I wouldn't be too surprized to find NASCAR or Prostock type camed engines idleing like a pusseycat with a IR EFI. It is certainly now in the relhm of possibilaties and evn very highly likey.
IR EFI opens up an entirely new era to radical street machines.
One last point of signifigance here is that with a EFI FI system, a very radical camshaft with a lot of overlap can be run on the street.
That would not be so with the EFI and a common plenum.
Plenum reverb in theory no longer exists with IR EFI.
Since no cylinder is 100% efficient, there has got to be some unburned mixture or oil contamanent blown back into the intake system.
Maybe that's even a plus. Maybe it will lubricate the valve stems?
The question that was possed in another discussion is how signifigant is it?
It certainly won't have the reverse venturi flow problem that the IDA's do.
Probably the answer is that it will need to be determined by experimentation but I wouldn't be too surprized to find NASCAR or Prostock type camed engines idleing like a pusseycat with a IR EFI. It is certainly now in the relhm of possibilaties and evn very highly likey.
IR EFI opens up an entirely new era to radical street machines.
quote:One last point of signifigance here is that with a EFI FI system, a very radical camshaft with a lot of overlap can be run on the street. That would not be so with the EFI and a common plenum. Plenum reverb in theory no longer exists with IR EFI.
You are absolutely correct. This is a point I have made before in regard to IR (and not limited to IR EFI) and attempted to make again earlier in the thread as well. I guess I just didn’t do so as well as you just did. But be advised, you can also lose the favorable affects this provides in a well engineered and highly tuned open plenum system. In practice, the latter is much harder to achieve for people (me for instance) that do not have the experience and resource of the pros. It’s also not unusual for IR systems to concede some peak horse power for the torque curves they yield. At the extreme, there can be a greater risk of fire with IR and big cams. Long duration and overlap can shove a lot of fuel out the top of the stack in certain cam profiles rpm ranges. Large fuel plumes above stacks are not an uncommon sight at the track.
quote:Since no cylinder is 100% efficient, there has got to be some unburned mixture or oil contaminant blown back into the intake system.
Sort of depends on what you mean by 100% efficient. It’s not out of the question for engines in high states of tune to show volumetric efficiencies >100% VE in their sweet spot. You know your induction is very well chosen (or perhaps the other way around) for your engine combo when this is the case.
quote:It certainly won't have the reverse venturi flow problem that the IDA's do.
Another reason why EFI and IR is especially desirable.
quote:……..I wouldn't be too surprised to find NASCAR or Prostock type cammed engines idling like a pussycat with a IR EFI.
In fact, it’s one of the most common comments from people that have run common plenum induction systems and then change nothing except to switch to IR induction. It can be pretty eye opening and really go a long way to eliminating some of the undesirable street behavior caused by cylinder communication in the plenum area outside of the optimal rpm range. Add the instrumentation, sensing, control, and programming ease of a modern ECU and it gives you a lot to fight with.[/quote]
quote:IR EFI opens up an entirely new era to radical street machines.
As I mentioned earlier, it can often be as much about who’s doing the build and tuning as what they’re building. Look at Kaase and his last EMC entry. About anything the guy touches sets the bar. For us mere mortals, I’ll take canted valve heads for their superior flow potential, IR EFI for the best street (maybe not limited to street depending upon the kind of racing we’re talking) tuning compromise, and as many cubes as I can reliably get into the build.
I just want to be clear on one more thing as well. I have not formed my opinions of IR induction based upon the desire to promote and sell systems or my intake. It's only hobby fellas. I have a day job. Others pioneered this long ago. I'm merely a disciple. Several other notable figures on this board and other forums asked me to replicate what I was doing for them. I've learned a great deal from them. I actually have far more requests IR EFI hardware than I can practically serve. The remarks that I have made are supported by my own experiences and more importantly those of others whose opinions and input I greatly value. As I have said, talented engine builders and tuners are tough to beat. I'm glad I know a few. I’d rather start with a combination that has the greatest potential.
Good luck with your EFI projects gents,
Kelly
I have been reading this thread with a lot of interest, but here goes a question. I have read that if you want a lot of low RPM torque, you run a long IR tube, if you want high RPN horsepower, you run a short stack. So does forced induction change all that? I mean if you are running a turbo or supercharger, would stack length matter that much? Or would shorter always be better in forced induction?
It doesn't apply to supercharging DT.
If you have a supercharger that kicks in at a low rpm then you want short runners in the intake.
If it doesn't kick in to say, 3,500rpm then you have sort of a hybrid induction in that you need the naturally asperated part of the system to provide as much torque as it can by using a long runner until the supercharger kicks in then you want as short runner as possible to reduce turbo lag.
The killer turbo systems use two small units that kick in right over idle, maybe 1,500 rpm.
The turbo has to be sized, or "tuned" to the set up to provide quick respose (that means a small turbo) and enough boost to go to the rpm limit that you want.
In your case that's about 12,000rpm right?
Good luck with that one.
You will need a set of staged turbos to kick in as you go through the rpm range.
I have a friend with a SB Chevy that runs in the 40psi boost range.
He has to let off of the accellerator to move the shift lever.
Last time I heard he was at 1000hp and kept breaking input shafts.
I just don't understand why, do you?
If you have a supercharger that kicks in at a low rpm then you want short runners in the intake.
If it doesn't kick in to say, 3,500rpm then you have sort of a hybrid induction in that you need the naturally asperated part of the system to provide as much torque as it can by using a long runner until the supercharger kicks in then you want as short runner as possible to reduce turbo lag.
The killer turbo systems use two small units that kick in right over idle, maybe 1,500 rpm.
The turbo has to be sized, or "tuned" to the set up to provide quick respose (that means a small turbo) and enough boost to go to the rpm limit that you want.
In your case that's about 12,000rpm right?
Good luck with that one.
You will need a set of staged turbos to kick in as you go through the rpm range.
I have a friend with a SB Chevy that runs in the 40psi boost range.
He has to let off of the accellerator to move the shift lever.
Last time I heard he was at 1000hp and kept breaking input shafts.
I just don't understand why, do you?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panterror:
As I mentioned earlier, it can often be as much about who’s doing the build and tuning as what they’re building. Look at Kaase and his last EMC entry. About anything the guy touches sets the bar. For us mere mortals, I’ll take canted valve heads for their superior flow potential, IR EFI for the best street (maybe not limited to street depending upon the kind of racing we’re talking) tuning compromise, and as many cubes as I can reliably get into the build.
Todays top engine technology is on tomorrows JC Whitney discount page.
A lot of "engineers" worry about the not invented here syndrome.
Not so the Japanese. They only steal the very best.
Technology control is like beauty, its fleeting. Not so ugliness, that's all the way to the bone.
As I mentioned earlier, it can often be as much about who’s doing the build and tuning as what they’re building. Look at Kaase and his last EMC entry. About anything the guy touches sets the bar. For us mere mortals, I’ll take canted valve heads for their superior flow potential, IR EFI for the best street (maybe not limited to street depending upon the kind of racing we’re talking) tuning compromise, and as many cubes as I can reliably get into the build.
Todays top engine technology is on tomorrows JC Whitney discount page.
A lot of "engineers" worry about the not invented here syndrome.
Not so the Japanese. They only steal the very best.
Technology control is like beauty, its fleeting. Not so ugliness, that's all the way to the bone.
Thanks Doug. I knew I could count on you to answer my question. I think of that friend of yours would just be a little gentler on the gas pedal, he might have his trannies longer. 1000 HP is only good for going for top end in high gear. Hammering the throttle and sidestepping the clutch with a thousand ponies on tap is just plain foolishness.
Doug,
If your friend is running 40 PSI boost on a SBC and only getting 1000 hp then he is doing something seriously wrong. A 40 psi boost level on a 350 should make over 2500 hp. You can get 1000 hp with only 15 psi. I get 600 hp with only 8 psi and no intercoolers.
And intake tuning also helps a supercharged car. The long and short runner still helps. Its just not easy to get long runners when you mount an 8-71 GMC blower so they are usually short. All a supercharging device does is to make the atmospheric pressure appear to be higher than normal. Since there is so much of a power increase, people may not know they are not getting all that could be had. Even a poor intake system will make more power than a good design N/A engine.
If your friend is running 40 PSI boost on a SBC and only getting 1000 hp then he is doing something seriously wrong. A 40 psi boost level on a 350 should make over 2500 hp. You can get 1000 hp with only 15 psi. I get 600 hp with only 8 psi and no intercoolers.
And intake tuning also helps a supercharged car. The long and short runner still helps. Its just not easy to get long runners when you mount an 8-71 GMC blower so they are usually short. All a supercharging device does is to make the atmospheric pressure appear to be higher than normal. Since there is so much of a power increase, people may not know they are not getting all that could be had. Even a poor intake system will make more power than a good design N/A engine.
Don't know Dave, never went that route.
quote:You will need a set of staged turbos to kick in as you go through the rpm range.
Or you can use a shot of nitrous until the turbos kick in. A good EFI should be able to handle the programming for this.
Hi guys, I spent some time with both Duane Hilborn and Gary Polled (twm) at PRI. Haven't made a final decision, but I have resolved myself to the fact that the deck is going to get cut. I guess a glass deck lid is a good investment. Anyway, I think the only IR EFI deal that fits under the screen is Dennis Quella's, and I believe this is accomplished by shortening a Weber intake, and installing injectors lower in the manifold. The Hilborn system looks incredible and with less sensors and no laptop time is quite attractive. The TWM as used on the roush motors has more "bling" and I guess more adjustability with the FAST or like ECU. Also spent time with Keith Craft (Ford engine builder here in the South) and was very impressed. Anyway, really enjoying the thread. Laughed my ass off at the Ferrari/Lambo cartoon. Got the Vincent on Ebay as we speak and if it makes reserve, perhaps I can mover forward on the engine. Dave Ferrato PS. finally got back in the house three weeks ago post Katrina. Hope to see the car soon as the furniture will soon be back in the house.
good news about the house Dave!Congratulations.
George
George