QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

You're wrong again.

Tom 400 CFI

Ahhh, good for you! Weird that your not showing a Moderator status. Welp, ya made the "threats"....better ban me then. LMK what infraction I made, b/c I don't think that I made one. Let's not forget who and how this whole conflict was started:
Pretty impressive behavior from a "moderator". I think it's probably time to move on...don't you? I tried taking it to PM's, like one ought to, but we're still wrecking what's otherwise an interesting thread with some great pics, topics and talk.

bloodhound1

How did a thread asking about First Fuel Injection turn into a dumpster fire pissing match between strangers on the internet?

dabomb6608

iTrader: (3)

I've been holding my tongue on this whole thing but I can't anymore...

Let me preface by saying I have a lot of appreciation for both users contributions to this site. Lots of good information shared by both.

QwkTrip - WTF is up with the threats and personal attacks? Firstly as a member who is either a mod or has mod capabilities you shouldn't be threatening people as a general rule. Let alone handling yourself as shown in this thread. It is unwarranted and honestly surprising coming from a seasoned member. I've read plenty of your posts through the years and don't ever recall seeing this kind of behavior.

Tom - Sometimes it is just best to move on and not feed the fire. Not saying I believe you were in the wrong here though...

As a third party reading this thread I don't see how Tom was out of line. The initial discussion of the T56 was just him pointing out that the claims of shifting too much were not based in fact (which is true). That transmission has been used in many factory drivetrains that mostly all have redlines (well) below the claimed 6000+ sweet spot. Not only that, but to then claim the TKX would be a better fit to prevent this "issue" is also a ill-informed statement. Gears 1-4 of these transmissions aren't vastly different. They are manual transmissions so you learn to shift where they are best fit. That's one of many great things about them, you aren't held to shifting at certain rpms while cruising along. In a WOT run from a dig the statement is irrelevant because you are still shifting the same number of gears in a 1/4 mile. Sure you can dial in your gearing for all out performance and racing scenarios, but that doesn't make the statement of shifting too much anymore true for a vast vast majority of the real world scenarios. If you feel you are shifting too much during regular driving then a manual isn't for you. Because it is beyond easy to just adjust your shift points or skip a gear if you really think its necessary. Again, benefits of a manual.

Then QwkShift added his chart and comments. Which is totally fine. But I don't believe it was really adding anything to the discussion at hand. Nobody boxes themselves in to a RPM range of 800 rpm when driving. As previously mentioned you learn to shift conservatively and efficiently in each setup. Which is the point I again believe Tom was trying to make. There isn't enough difference in those various transmission ratios to really justify a "shift to many times" statement between one ratio or the other. What difference is present is overcome by the simple act of learning the setup and shifting appropriately for that setup to limit your gear searching. We aren't talking about huge differences in RPM/speed here, especially when casually driving. If it's best to hold one gear a few extra hundred rpms then that is what happens.

After that post with the chart Tom responds pointing those things out. QwkShifts response after that is where things dive off the cliff. There was no reason to respond like that. Tom wasn't pouncing on anyone. Tom wasn't being rude in pointing out the inconsistencies in the T56 discussion. There was zero need for him to try to be the savior for GCrites. He obviously hadn't taken offense to any of Toms posts considering he had since responded to Tom in a friendly manor. And absolutely zero need for the personal digs and telling him to shut up. From there things just snowballed. I think Tom, rightfully, tried taking things to private messages. What was said or how that was handled doesn't really matter at this stage. QwkShift then takes things further by calling him out for doing so and threatening him.

Maybe I am mistaken on my assessment, but that's how I see it. Sorry OP for further derailing the thread, but I felt something needed said. I hope you two can just move on and forget it happened.

GCrites80s

I'm not really concerned with anything "negative" that went on in this thread. I would probably be better off with a 3.42 around town as GM installed in the LT1 cars instead of the 3.27 or else GM would have installed 3.23s in both the manual and automatic LT1s in order to keep the part numbers down. 3.42 also makes up for the loss of the torque converter.

As far as I know, the only new gears available for my 9-bolt are 3.70s so I would be looking at the used market for something approximating 3.42 for it.

Tom 400 CFI

I agree.

Of course opinions will vary, but in my 3rd gen experience, the lower (numerically higher) the rear gear, the "better" the car was; felt faster, lighter, more fun, more "athletic", etc. I never went lower ratio than a 3.73 so I can't speak to 4.XX ratios in a stockish 3rd gen, but for me, going from 3.23 to any thing lower (numerically higher) ratio turned out to to be beneficial with no draw backs. These were all stick shift cars.

BadSS

This may be hard for some to believe, but if you want to get the most power out of a FIRST, you need to go big on the cubes, large on the heads and head-flow, and relatively big on the cam (compared to typical TPI thinking). The runner length does limit the RPM capability, but the cross-sectional area of the intake tract is (or can be made) big enough to allow the cam you pick for the heads to make “short-runner” peak torque. Meaning, you can extend the upper RPM of the bell shaped curve you see with a “typical” TPI.

Most people stick to the typical TPI “recipe” and they only get a marginal advantage from the FIRST.

For example the top graph is a set of “bigger than typical” 220AFR heads on a 383 and 427 (same compression) with the FIRST (stock runner length but opened up to 1.875” diameter) and a “typical” TPI cam, the 219/219 LPE hydraulic roller. Note they peak at the same RPM, which in most cases the typical TPI will peak at a lower RPM on a larger engine.

The bottom graph is the same 427 as above comparing the LPE 219/219 cam to a moderately sized 240-ish solid roller cam. Note that the bell shaped curve with the big heads, while similar to a “typical” TPI curve, is extended well past the “typical” TPI RPM range.


If that didn’t do it for you and you wanted more RPM, then you could always weld up the creases and Siamese them.

Fast355

iTrader: (2)

I see it different myself. Tom was being sarcastic in response to Kwiktrip throwing up an example of the differences in gearing. I do not feel he was boxing in anything, just had to pick two different RPMs for the chart. 2,500 rpm is a reasonable part throttle shift point.

Yes gearing matters! Take the 3 spd manuals I ran in alot of C10s I owned years ago. GM had atleast 4 different gear ratios for them. Different engines got different ratios and some resulted in you shifting a lot more. A C10 with a 250 I6 sucked to drive in traffic where a C10 with a 350 was much nicer to drive. They had the same 3.08 rear gear, but the 1st and 2nd gears were much lower in the 250 trucks and the 250 did not have the powerband or torque of a V8. There is definitelty merit in what Kwiktrip was trying to say. Tom is quick to try to dismiss or otherwise discredit anything anyone has to say that does not line up with his own beliefs.

I have driven various versions of both the 5spd and 6spd manuals. The combination matters a lot. My brother and I once owned identical 6spd LT1 cars. His was an early build with the previous year model gear ratios and mine was a later build. My car was much nicer to drive around town and his was more fun to rip around at WOT shifting it near redline. They were both 94s according to the VIN, but his was built early enough it still had the old speed density computer without a MAF and older manual trans variant.

Tom 400 CFI

Just for clarity's sake (and for the second time), I don't think that Tom ever said, "Gear ratio's don't matter". If Tom did, please quote where Tom said that, so that Tom can correct it, would you? Thanks.


Back to the FIRST Program. I "think" the FIRST is too big (cross section) for a 350 but am looking forward to trying one. IOW, it makes sense to me that it is better exploited on a large cube motor As BasSS was pointing out. One question that I have, that I have no experience with....and never will, is: Would a "medium" (CS) TPI like the TPIS Big Mouth base/runners, on a 350 with the same cam , OR with a "proportionally" sized cam (for the 350 vs 427) make power peak at the same RPM as it does on the 427 with the FIRST? IOW, is the 427, simply a "TPI" engine where the engine and the runners are proportionally larger, and thus is does the "same things at the same RPM"....only MORE so? Or, put another way, if more cam makes the big motor/big runner combo rev higher, will a proportially bigger cam on a small motor with medium runners mirror that tq/pwr curve (make peaks at the same RPM's), only lesser of it? Does that question make sense? I'm thinking BadSS can answer this from experience? IDK....

QwkTrip

iTrader: (22)

Axle gears have a big affect on the torque multiplier when in 1st and Last gears of transmission, but to a much lesser degree with gears in between. The combined gear ratio of trans and axle (at the same road speed) tend to be fairly similar after a car is up and rolling past 1st gear. By the time most cars hit ~45 mph they have given up the advantage they had with a numerically higher axle gear ratio and it becomes more a game of who has more horsepower and better transmission gear splits. For a street car, I'd choose an axle gear that makes the car behave the way I want in 1st gear, and get a deep enough overdrive to be comfortable on the highway.

Regarding those engine torque comparisons, being able to carry torque to higher RPM's is a huuuuge deal. Not only do you get the benefit of making more Horsepower more of the time, but you also get the benefit of torque multiplication by holding a gear longer before shifting. Each shift is ~30% loss of torque by change of gear multiplier. Holding a gear +1000 RPM, or even +500 RPM longer ends up making a pretty big difference in the real world as you walk away from the guy that had to shift gears. Increasing your engine's RPM range is the gift that keeps on giving.

BadSS

Generally speaking, when you go bigger on the CSA than you “need”, it won’t be able to pick up enough top end to make up for the midrange it will lose.

There was an old test on a stock engine where they tested the stock TPI against AZ Speed’s long/large tube runners with an aftermarket base and the FIRST. It showed that the smaller CSA of the AZ combo worked a little better than the FIRST on a stock engine. However, the FIRST did improve power at all points compared to the stock TPI. To me, that pretty much proved that the stock TPI is too small and restrictive even for a stock engine. The FIRST made better peak HP and didn’t drop off as quickly, but the average power was about the same for the aftermarket large tube combo and the FIRST. So, even though the FIRST may be “too big” for a stock 350, it’s still better than the stock TPI and has a lot more room to grow than the AZ combo.


I'm not sure I fully understand what you're asking, but maybe this helps? On a 355 capable of making 420-ish FWHP with a short runner intake, the box stock FIRST was 0.4-seconds and 2-mph faster in the quarter mile than a heavily ported (but not welded) stock TPI base and SLP runners siamesed to a little before the halfway point. It had a 218/228-110 flat-tappet hydraulic and heads flowing in the 240 cfm range at cam lift. I shifted the TPI/SLP at 5500/5300 and the FIRST at 5800/5600, although the FIRST ran the same time shifting at 6000/5800. So,,, it was definitely holding the power out a lot longer than the TPI/SLP combo even though the TPI/SLP had a shorter effective runner length. The FIRST did roll off a little torque around and below the stall speed of the converter (3200 rpm) which was actually a good thing – hooking up on the street tires was practically impossible with the SLP/TPI intake, but semi-manageable with the FIRST. The trade-off was well worth it as it shifted the peaks up in the RPM scale.

So, it’s not too big for a moderately powered 350 and the ability to increase the CSA of the intake tract to keep up with the airflow of bigger heads is why the FIRST can work so well on larger engines.

Tom 400 CFI

Thanks for all of that info/experience. The more that is posted about the FIRST, the more I think it is one of the most under-appreciated intakes out there. It certainly has been by me...


^That is basically the test that I'm trying to do, right now. I've never seen one before that was done on a stock or stockish engine, so that is interesting to see. Thanks for sharing.

SbFormula

Here's a comparison I did a few years ago with a '91 LB9 305 with headers, cat back and SLP cold air intake.

Everything else stayed the same except the OEM TPI intake was replaced by the FIRST intake. There was no port match or anything. I had to retune VE tables at WOT to bring back the AFR where it was before the swap. After the swap, it had been running a bit leaner at WOT. Fuel pressure remained the same at WOT. Since everything stayed the same, there should be no other variable to explain why it got leaner. The FIRST intake was the only variable!. I could definitely feel the improvement with seat of the pants. The FIRST did improve torque on the LB9, but the curve stayed pretty much the same with peak torque moved up a bit.



Here's a funny picture with the FIRST's gasket vs the 305 heads. Quite the port matching

Tom 400 CFI

That gasket pic is a good'n

If the actual power curve looks like the VE curve, which I'd think that it would, that's pretty wicked...especially on a 305 to have more tq, even all the way down at 1600.