When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I was kind of shocked on how much bigger the runners were than the stock tpi.
Me too! They're not a percentage bigger....they're like, twice as big! I have the cut-outs from making the gaskets, I was thinking about measuring the cross section(s) and see what the total area is compared to the stocker.
I agree with you, and it's just like SuperZZ4 said; at this point, we're just testing the head. Your intake does, however, neck down quite a bit right before the head flange, and of course that makes sense, since the flange/port it's bolting up to, hasn't changed at all.
My GUESS is that it'll make more tq (peak) than any other intake, and the same hp as the AS&M/Super Ram (in the 280's), b/c the head/cam/exhaust is setting that limit?
Do you know who did all the grinding on it? Even things like the EGR flange have obviously been hand worked on for fitment? I'd guess? More back-story on this intake would sure be awesome!
ONLY HERE, on 3rd gen, FOLKS!!
Got the intake mostly put together. Need to bang out some plenum gaskets (ran out of gasket paper), hook up fuel lines and a couple vacuum lines and then fire it up and see what I missed.
I think it looks sick. I love how the runners are separate and not joined like the FIRST runners (and others)...I love how beefy it looks....but still looks very OEM/TPIish (if you don't look close at build quality!). The thing was as fiddle-some to assemble, as the Super Ram was. Fussy. Patience required. But it looks good. Soon we'll see how many vacuum leaks it has!
Last edited by Tom 400 CFI; 11-13-2023 at 09:44 PM.
I think some of the runner bolt holes may need opened up just a bit for better fitment.
It sure looks stock if you have no idea what you're looking at.
Not sure which thread measurements would be best but a link to them would work just fine.
Too bad you're not testing something that's readily available for the rest of us! <Jealousy> I think I saw one in the CF around 15yrs go. So yeah...it won't do the rest of us much good! FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised if it dyno'd in the ball-park of an FFI on a stock 350?
I noticed the welds in the first pick -- but I agree it'll be hard to tell from stock -- especially with the stock plenum and TB.
You know...the more I think about it, the better it would look on MY 383!!!
Ha ha ha...well, you'll have to work out getting it on your 383, with TTop350, Greg. He's the one who graciously and very trustingly, boxed it up and shipped it out here, to allow for this test to happen.
I've got more mainstream intakes in the pipeline. HSR (for sure, since I own one, now) and possibly a Pro Flow and a FFI has been talked about....we'll see what comes together still.
Originally Posted by TTOP350
I think some of the runner bolt holes may need opened up just a bit for better fitment.
I've been surprised at how easily all of the hardware has threaded in, thus far. The "fussyness" of it is in the order of operations. It's a bit of a puzzle getting it together. Runners/rails/injectors and gaskets all have to settle into their places, at the same time. I've assembled things loose, then tightened, like on the SR and that's worked good, (so far). I'll post the measurements w/link in the evening when I get home.
Last edited by Tom 400 CFI; 11-14-2023 at 03:46 PM.
At the AS&M dyno session, my son got a vid of one of the pulls, and he finally shared it with me, so I thought I'd throw it up here b/c there are a couple interesting things in it, IMO.
First, the dyno op using the dyno brake to drag the thing down to "500 RPM" starting point. IDK why he doesn't just get it rolling in 1st, shift to 4th and then coast or throttle it to 500 RPM...then go for it but he did it this way every time. NBD...just interesting way of doing it I guess.
Second...my god, listed to that poor turd scream in agony, trying to get from 5k up to 6k!! LOL!
Third, if you listen closely, you can hear valve float right before he chops the throttle. Lol, 2.
Yep sounded like valve float or high rpm ignition misfire. The large cap HEIs are not known for their high rpm ability atleast in stock form. The stock ignition module cannot generate the spark energy to keep a strong spark above ~5,000 rpm. I have seen them misfire so badly on top-end they might as well have a built-in rev limiter at 5,500.
Valve springs and valve train stability is a funky topic all together. I ran a set of Vortecs that someone else put together on my Express about 8 years ago. I did not realize they had installed valves 0.100" longer than stock when they put 2.02/1.60s in them. I later discovered they used what looked to be stock Vortec springs. They only had 55# at the installed height. Needless to say they started floating at ~4,500 rpm even with the tiny GM 196/206 @ 0.050 6395' cam. Above 5,000 rpm the dyno curve looked like a seismometer during a 7.0 earthquake. It lost 40 hp between 5,150 and 5,350 and then suddenly jumped back up nearly 30 hp at 5,500. I swapped the springs out for Pac1218s and used Comp 787 retainers on 0.050" offset locks. I shimmed the springs to the proper install height. Re-tested the engine and the curve was smoother all the way from the start of the pull at 3,000 rpm. It went from 229 hp @ 4,400 and 304 tq @ 3,400 to 257 hp @ 5,100 and 310 tq @ 3,100 changing nothing but the springs and retainers. It had a smooth curve that did not drop off nearly as quickly all the way to 6,000 rpm.
If the prototype’s runners and base entry are 1.6” wide and 2” tall, the area would be 2.01” cross-sectional area (CSA) for a 1.6” circle, plus .64” CSA for the remaining area of .4 x 1.6 rectangle, giving about 2.65” total CSA.
However, it looks like they could easily open up to 1.7” wide and 2.1” tall which would give you a 2.95” CSA.
I can’t tell if the intake to head transition is raised at the injector area. The “low rise” intake entry into the heads is one of the biggest issues the GM based TPI has - even the aftermarket intakes. That “low rise” base to head transition causes enough turbulence in the higher rpm band to start effectively reducing the CSA at higher RPM, rolling off upper rpm capability and power. The FIRST has a “high-er rise” base to head transition and reduces much of the turbulence that can be caused in that area. See below.
The runner to base transitions are pretty bad on all those GM based intakes also - with the exception of the SuperRam upper where they adjusted the runners slightly to help with the runner to base transition. The aftermarket TPI base helps a little with that transition, but not a lot. This prototype doesn’t look like the angles have changed at the runner to base transition, but it does look like it’s raised at the runners and probably large enough that the drop in flow wouldn’t be as bad as you would see on a stock base.
As for as the cross-sectional area of the FIRST, its base opening is right at 1.85” which gives a 2.69” CSA. The FFI runners are fractionally over 1.75” and are slightly oval shaped but more round than oval. The as cast CSA of the FFI runners are about 2.475”.
The FFI runners can be opened up to 1.92” and you can get to the center part of the outside wall of the runner when opened up that much at each end to keep the CSA constant through the runners. That’s something you can’t do with any of the GM based aftermarket cast runners without cutting and welding them. Opening up the runners to 1.92” you can get them to 2.90” CSA. It takes a lot of work though.
The FFI base can be easily opened up 1.92” for a 2.90” CSA. However, most builds with a FFI will fare better with leaving the base alone and maybe opening up the runners some - although many 383 and smaller builds would produce better area under the curve leaving the base and the runners as cast.
I’d love to see how a FIRST would compare to the other intakes you’ve dynoed. I’d send mine but I’ve ported it to match my head’s semi-raised 1207 gasket sized opening. I’ve also had the creases in the runners welded up and I’ve siamesed and extensively worked them. I doubt it would do that well on the stock 350.
If the prototype’s runners and base entry are 1.6” wide and 2” tall, the area would be 2.01” cross-sectional area (CSA) for a 1.6” circle, plus .64” CSA for the remaining area of .4 x 1.6 rectangle, giving about 2.65” total CSA.
However, it looks like they could easily open up to 1.7” wide and 2.1” tall which would give you a 2.95” CSA.
I can’t tell if the intake to head transition is raised at the injector area. The “low rise” intake entry into the heads is one of the biggest issues the GM based TPI has - even the aftermarket intakes. That “low rise” base to head transition causes enough turbulence in the higher rpm band to start effectively reducing the CSA at higher RPM, rolling off upper rpm capability and power.
In my observation, this casting is literally, a stock base casting, w/the mold modified to raise the runner roofs. The raised part, however only begins about 2-3" upstream of the injector bung, so in my observation, the port where it enters the head, the injector and the runner shape, CSA etc are all the same as a stock base, other than the hand porting that has been done.
If you look close at the side by side pics I posted, you can see where the runner roof begins to raise, or the angle of the roof changes about 2-3" back...just about where the driver's side fuel rail stand gusset it....and that is where the difference starts, moving up stream, compared to the stock base. You can use the thermostat flange and the pad where "2" and the snowflake are cast, as visual reference points.
Originally Posted by BadSS
II’d love to see how a FIRST would compare to the other intakes you’ve dynoed. I’d send mine but I’ve ported it to match my head’s semi-raised 1207 gasket sized opening. I’ve also had the creases in the runners welded up and I’ve siamesed and extensively worked them.
I hear you....I'd love to see this too. Hopefully, a FIRST becomes available at some point....and I have the time to do it! (I'd make the time). All of this process has been fascinating for me...and a lot of fun. It's my version of a "mid-life crisis", I guess....where I get to test all of the intakes that I drooled over as a late teen...but could afford (or afford the cars that they go on!).
Last edited by Tom 400 CFI; 11-16-2023 at 09:48 AM.
This intake still had to fit on the old cyl head design so it's no surprise it's kind of the same in that area.
I didn't even measure the length of the runners vs stock but they sure look shorter.
In hindsite, the TPI intake could be made so much better these days but I do understand all the hurdles the OE had to deal with
Thanks for offering! That is an awesome offer on your part! My personal interest is "mid". AFAIK, that intake is "unobtainium", and I think (possibly erroneously) that it'll perform similarly to the MiniRam. HOWEVER, if there is "stoke" among this thread's readers for the McFarland Ram, I'm totally down for testing it, too. So folks, share your thoughts, either by posting here, PM'ing me or "go_topless". I realize that this is QUITE a generous offer by go_topless and a rare opportunity, so I'm game...let's try to ascertain if others are interested in learning about this one, before we commit to the risk/expense (each intake ends up being ~$350 total) of shipping twice and testing?
I'm open to it... Share your thoughts, everyone!
Last edited by Tom 400 CFI; 11-21-2023 at 10:32 AM.
Hi, Tom 400 CFI, I have a set of SLP intake runners and plenum partially simeased w 58mm TB opening that have been worked on (ebay buy). That I would like to send you if interested 😉 I can send pics soon if you'd like (currently raining outside in AZ)
Let's stay in touch, but that'll be a long way off. I finally had a real weekend....off, so I finished installing TTop350's intake and fired it up, tonight. Needs to be dialed in, but it's running. It's unfortunate that it'll be ~4 month until I can drive the thing again.
After last winter (840"), I'm not "into it" this winter and am already looking forward to spring. I REALLY want to drive this thing and get the intake install dialed, see what it's like. That ain't happenin' right now though. 8-12" THIS AFTERNOON.
New findings about the tpi bases the first design accel base is NOT bigger or better than the second design edelbrock
There are three aftermarket base castings the first design accel, the edelbrock 3860 and the scoggin dickey vortec
The edelbrock base is indeed larger even with the large casting lip on runner entries, measurements where taken physically and with liquid measuring total volume of the runner
On top of that the edelbrock base is physically beefier allowing for more aggressive port work to be done where as the accel you would break through
If you have any skills and tools you can get the stock base to flow 250-270 cfm without welding it will also weigh much lighter than the aftermarket pieces, the edelbrock has material to reach 300cfm. I havent checked the FIRST base but if Tom or TTop get a chance to measure that prototype base I simply capped off the fuel injector hole taped off the side that bolts to the head and filled with water I used the runner that feeds number 3 cylinder
Accel base 235cc
Edelbrock base 260cc
Edelbrock ceiling max height 1.76
Accel ceiling max height 1.66
Cut number 1 on a stock gm base Im not welding or plan on too this is not pocket porting the whole runner is that height, this is for a customer that requires stock GM intake for his class, tom got me thinking to test a stock GM tpi intake but fully ported it would be hilarious if it can match the numbers of the other top dollar intakes Im not gonna give away to much but angles have been changed and the AS&M runners arent as big as the 146 gasket
Incredibly....I have an update! Snow is starting to melt away, roads aren't recently salted....First viable Park City C&C was yesterday*, the weather was spectacular....so I took the Kart!
First drive since the Prototype Big TPI, so I had a few "surprise of the day" events. First, only 1 of the three vacuum source nipples on the driver's side of the intake, are to a vacuum source. I had that one hooked to the PCV valve, and the one next to it, connected to the brake booster. So, I got driving down the road, hit the brakes and the pedal had a "block of wood under it". NBD, Madde adjustments and proceeded on.
The engine ran like ****; idled rough, wanted to stall, bucked and lurched at part throttle...it was pretty annoying. It seemed like a vacuum leak but none were obvious. When I got home, I went around all of the intake flanges w/a stethoscope and found slight vacuum leaks basically everywhere. I should have used thicker gasket material than what I chose. I don't think the flanges/finishes are what you'd call, "precision" on this what I believe is a hand made piece, and there are some areas where the port is incredibly close to the edge of the flange leaving mm's for any gasket material. Anyway, I tightened bolts as much as I dared and that did help...but it still leaks some, all over. It's good enough to drive and do dyno pulls. I need to buy some tires before the next session (need tires either way!), and there is snow coming next weekend so it'll still be a little bit until I get it on the rollers again.
*My GOD....Park City C&C is the most annoying, pompus car gathering. It's not about cars...it's about being more RAD, than the next guy. There are several ways to accomplish this, but the goal, in my observation, is to $pend bucket load$ of cash, to out "unicorn" everyone else's whatever. There were over 40 Porsche 911's there. That was ~1/2 the cars. Porsche 911's. You know how much cooler a 911 is than the identical 911 right next to it? At least 5 of them were GT3 RS's. I doubt any of them has touched a Pilot Cup 2 on a track surface. So there is that. 40+ 911's, and ~40-50 cars that were something else. That's been the normal "fair", at PC C&C for quite a while. A 911 dick comparing contest.
The newest thing? Overlanding!! My 4-Runner is Radder than your whatever. My Range Rover (when it runs) is the sickest go-anywhere! I have a deep river fording snorkel for running errands in Park City (a high mtn desert, BTW). You get vehicles like this, ALL over the place...now they're showing up at C&C. Spade shovel, Pick axes, extra gas tanks, racking galore, miniature ladders up the side or back, roof racks and/or tents, high lift jacks (that have untouched paint on the beam)...all to go pick up the kids from school...while being a super RAD Dad!!
But that's not all! You know, Lamborghini's...when there are 5 of them at C&C, you gotta do something to be RADder than the next guy's Lamborghini! Some guys get wraps...some guys put on $5k exhaust systems....now? There is this guy.....
70* day....he's got his snowboard. Think he was going snowboarding yesterday? Probably not. "Rally" lights, lifted suspension, "offroad" accents, ski racks....?? On a Lamborghini. Where the ***'s his snorkel!? Think any of these "Rad-wagons" ever touched dirt? "Yo man, I ain't never been off road before!" -Cars the movie. I'd bet money the the closest thing these vehicles have seen to off roading is the grocery store parking lot, right after they've sanded/salted, and that's about it.
:/Rantoff:
Last edited by Tom 400 CFI; 04-22-2024 at 01:40 PM.
I rarely go to C&C or car shows anymore. Totally different crowd than it used to be and I'm in rural BFE Kansas!
My favorite Porsche involved incident was a couple of years ago heading up to my best friends for his daughter's birthday. Pull in to the gas station off I29 in Onawa, IA and a 911 pulls in to the pump next to me, older gentleman and his wife, track stickers all over the back window. He has that smug, jean short/white shoes/polo tucked in/trendy shades look about him (I'm a dad in my 40s, so I can make fun of that!). As we are both filling up, a younger guy in his late 30s early 40s gets out of his pickup and yells "nice car". 911 driver yells back "thanks", younger guy from the pickup looking confused says "yeah, I guess yours is nice too". I laughed really hard. Then younger dude came over and talked to me for about 10min about my Z28 and the IROC his brother used to own. 911 dude quietly finished pumping his gas and left under radar.
Cut number 1 on a stock gm base Im not welding or plan on too this is not pocket porting the whole runner is that height, this is for a customer that requires stock GM intake for his class, tom got me thinking to test a stock GM tpi intake but fully ported it would be hilarious if it can match the numbers of the other top dollar intakes Im not gonna give away to much but angles have been changed and the AS&M runners arent as big as the 146 gasket
I just saw a ported stocker do 273cfm. Airspeeds were in the 290ish range average. I have been hearing a stock base is only good for 250cfm or so for many years.... I wonder how they got that number. I know the bench isnt the issue. The stock stuff tests normal. IF only we had stock mounted runners thatll do 280cfm or more.
I just saw a ported stocker do 273cfm. Airspeeds were in the 290ish range average. I have been hearing a stock base is only good for 250cfm or so for many years.... I wonder how they got that number. I know the bench isnt the issue. The stock stuff tests normal. IF only we had stock mounted runners thatll do 280cfm or more.
the internet states the aftermarket bases do 250-260 its unknown if that is alone or with a head or even with a radius, you cant get the port as tall with the stock base as the as cast edelbrock there isnt enough material so the assumption is that 260 is the limit
once attaching the runner plenum and throttle body cfm drops dramatically this is why lingenfilter cut the runner in half and made a huge plenum
even with that the internet says aftermaket base and SR runner that flow 290 on its own, once the two are attached it goes to 240 this is without plenum or throttlebody. I believe ASMs 260 claim for the runner is with the base I dont believe they do 260 when flowed alone most people dont flow the runners alone because it requires a custom attachment to the flow bench you need to make a piece with a 1.5-1.75 hole to test runners individually
once attaching the runner it introduces a new angle that hurts flow then you have the curve that doesnt hurt flow as much as many think and another hard angle at the plenum
Maybe it was. I couldn't look at the thing long enough to see it. But what good is that anyway?? How is a snorkel that you can't readily see going to help you social climb??
[QUOTE=Tom 400 CFI;6530876]Incredibly....I have an update! Snow is starting to melt away, roads aren't recently salted....First viable Park City C&C was yesterday*, the weather was spectacular....so I took the Kart!
First drive since the Prototype Big TPI, so I had a few "surprise of the day" events. First, only 1 of the three vacuum source nipples on the driver's side of the intake, are to a vacuum source. I had that one hooked to the PCV valve, and the one next to it, connected to the brake booster. So, I got driving down the road, hit the brakes and the pedal had a "block of wood under it". NBD, Madde adjustments and proceeded on.
The engine ran like ****; idled rough, wanted to stall, bucked and lurched at part throttle...it was pretty annoying. It seemed like a vacuum leak but none were obvious. When I got home, I went around all of the intake flanges w/a stethoscope and found slight vacuum leaks basically everywhere. I should have used thicker gasket material than what I chose. I don't think the flanges/finishes are what you'd call, "precision" on this what I believe is a hand made piece, and there are some areas where the port is incredibly close to the edge of the flange leaving mm's for any gasket material. Anyway, I tightened bolts as much as I dared and that did help...but it still leaks some, all over. It's good enough to drive and do dyno pulls. I need to buy some tires before the next session (need tires either way!), and there is snow coming next weekend so it'll still be a little bit until I get it on the rollers again.
I figured it would be very hard to seal up. Probably take oiling the gaskes, thread sealer on plenum bolts ect, all the tricks. Shes rough for sure.
I figured it would be very hard to seal up. Probably take oiling the gaskes, thread sealer on plenum bolts ect, all the tricks. Shes rough for sure.
Yep. If I were putting it on my car "permanently" or long term....if it were MY intake, RTV+ paper gaskets would work just fine, I think. So far, power feels pretty on par w/the other good intakes, but we all know how accurate the SOTP meter is. My SOTP meter says that it definitely won't be making peak above 4500...by 5 grand, it's languishing (like it has w/most of the other intakes) and the only benefit to revving it higher is for V8 sounds. Can't wait to see the results. Need to order and pony up for some tires.
the internet states the aftermarket bases do 250-260 its unknown if that is alone or with a head or even with a radius, you cant get the port as tall with the stock base as the as cast edelbrock there isnt enough material so the assumption is that 260 is the limit
once attaching the runner plenum and throttle body cfm drops dramatically this is why lingenfilter cut the runner in half and made a huge plenum
even with that the internet says aftermaket base and SR runner that flow 290 on its own, once the two are attached it goes to 240 this is without plenum or throttlebody. I believe ASMs 260 claim for the runner is with the base I dont believe they do 260 when flowed alone most people dont flow the runners alone because it requires a custom attachment to the flow bench you need to make a piece with a 1.5-1.75 hole to test runners individually
once attaching the runner it introduces a new angle that hurts flow then you have the curve that doesnt hurt flow as much as many think and another hard angle at the plenum
ASM does state 260 and if that’s with a base, which base?
the internet states the aftermarket bases do 250-260 its unknown if that is alone or with a head or even with a radius, you cant get the port as tall with the stock base as the as cast edelbrock there isnt enough material so the assumption is that 260 is the limit
once attaching the runner plenum and throttle body cfm drops dramatically this is why lingenfilter cut the runner in half and made a huge plenum
even with that the internet says aftermaket base and SR runner that flow 290 on its own, once the two are attached it goes to 240 this is without plenum or throttlebody. I believe ASMs 260 claim for the runner is with the base I dont believe they do 260 when flowed alone most people dont flow the runners alone because it requires a custom attachment to the flow bench you need to make a piece with a 1.5-1.75 hole to test runners individually
once attaching the runner it introduces a new angle that hurts flow then you have the curve that doesnt hurt flow as much as many think and another hard angle at the plenum
Question. Have you noticed any vacuum leaks by shaving all the bosses off eliminating the blind holes?
What are you sealing the bolts with? Thanks
no leaks I use black rtv, alot of the bosses dont need the bolt to be that long I weld and retap for example the throttle bracket and distributor cover
ASM does state 260 and if that’s with a base, which base?
I think ASM is 260 runners and edelbrock/TPiS base
I would be shocked if it was runners alone
I would guess ASM runner and clay radius would do 290
Im basing this info off of info stated on the net, accel runners which are not bigger than stock are listed as 240, super ram runners which are close to the ASM in diameter is listed 290
The ASM doesnt have a sharp of a turn as the super ram runner and is extremely smooth inside
Charlie got 230 stock runner and base with a head, his ported runner is still 37mm inside the ASM is 40-41, his SLP runners are low bc he didnt have clay on them the ST thread lists them with clay and are much higher than his recent videos
I have personally flowed stock runners that Ive ported and expanded at 270 this was runner alone with a custom plate on top of the 4 inch bore with clay
There is alot more to it though for example the accel runners are the same if not smaller in diameter than stock are shorter but for some reason hold much more volume when measured with liquid than stock
The edlbrock and ASM have there own unique curve shape to them that is different from slp stock and accel the way that curve is may impact power/flow tremendously
runner angles edelbrock which is the same as ASM, accel, slp, then stock pay attention to where the red arrows that turn almost simulates a shortside on a head and the edelbrock ASM have a longer straight before the turn red arrow on the bottom
just looking at them now the stock has a broad curve the asm and edelbrock have the tightest curve > )
I think that looks that way because the tubes are bigger. I keep flipping up and down but I’m old and half ****ing blind these days… so I can’t tell lol
Charlie brought up an interesting tidbit of data yesterday on the phone which I believe correlates your theories. The stock base flowed MORE with the runners on it @ 273cfm vs by itself. We both were a little nervous to post that so we left that info out for more testing but that explains it.
I think that looks that way because the tubes are bigger. I keep flipping up and down but I’m old and half ****ing blind these days… so I can’t tell lol
Charlie brought up an interesting tidbit of data yesterday on the phone which I believe correlates your theories. The stock base flowed MORE with the runners on it @ 273cfm vs by itself. We both were a little nervous to post that so we left that info out for more testing but that explains it.
260 through a base is fine for what I’m doing.
hard to see but there is a difference when you get your ASM you will see, best way i can describe is the asm/edelbrock are like the letter J they have a longer straight part where they bolt to the base while the rest are like the letter C and almost immediately curve out the base, the ASM/edelbrock are physically wider when bolted up on the engine because they are longer
I've noticed that the asm runner has the long straight at the bottom, and even the top has gotten longer than i remember from the early versions. I'd almost swear they used to be shorter, by 1.5-2" total for 1 runner.
Tall valvecover guys on fb are posting up issues with fitment and the asm, don't remember hearing about that long ago.
from that article super ram runner when bolted to the base flowed less than accel runner even though the SR runners flowed more on there own, this i believe is because of that bend SR is closer to 90 while ACCEL is broad like stock, Charlie did this similar almost 90 degree bend with his cut up slp runners that also didnt put up good numbers, how that bend is plays a big role in final flow
from that article super ram runner when bolted to the base flowed less than accel runner even though the SR runners flowed more on there own, this i believe is because of that bend SR is closer to 90 while ACCEL is broad like stock, Charlie did this similar almost 90 degree bend with his cut up slp runners that also didnt put up good numbers, how that bend is plays a big role in final flow
So on a super ram, if you put, for lack of better term, a gurney bubble, in the lid above the 90deg turn down to runners, it may help the numbers? By softening the turn by increasing the radius?
So on a super ram, if you put, for lack of better term, a gurney bubble, in the lid above the 90deg turn down to runners, it may help the numbers? By softening the turn by increasing the radius?
More like a small diff cover laying on the lid overthe runner entrances but open under it.
Maybe a spacer between the lid and plenum would help 🤔
Hmmm.... you could try it. I see super ram ports a lot like an exhaust port. It LOOKS like the air is separating off the ssr of the runner and slamming into the wall... Id try polishing the inside curve and see if that makes the air want to stick to it. It might also shrink the boundary layer there and cause a later separation where the air can make more of the turn.
11-13-2023, 10:09 AM
He's the one who graciously and very trustingly, boxed it up and shipped it out here, to allow for this test to happen. 
