[1slo5.0]

Originally Posted by flyin ryan Did you dyno your car with the box? where was the powerband? Don't you currently have a holley systemax on your car? if so why? So losing torque at 2500 doesn't matter to a street driven car? Yes I have seen plenty of carb intakes.. I have a polished supervictor converted to efi with billet rails and 90mm spyder intake currently that i'd be willing to sell you to help you abtain those more average power and more average torque figures for your car that you mentioned

Dynoing the car doesn't matter but yes, it will show more average horsepower. We don't race dynos. Did the car accelerate faster with the box intake? Yes, I guarantee it did. Average power wins, always. Nascar does it, pro stock does it, class racing does it and the most responsive street engines do it. The combination matters, not at what rpm you make the power. The car as a whole is the combination, not just a single part. Having a box intake doens't mean you won't make power at 2500 either. The power band is dependent on many more things than just the intake manifold.

Your thinking is wrong but is "traditional" in a sense. People have been saying for as long as I can remember that short runner and single plane intakes kill low end power, are only good for high rpm power and are no good for the street. This is simply not true. However, this train of thought keeps me winning races because too many people can't break this traditional way of thinking.

By the way, that Super Victor EFI is the best intake to have if you are going to stick with EFI. Yes, in most cases it will make more average power than any other intake out there and consequently be faster and more responsive as well.

[flyin ryan]

Originally Posted by e3sean i switched from a long runner (trickflow trackheat) to an intake that has pretty much no runner at all and it has more all around power low and high end. i pretty have no air restriction at all. 4" self made intake 90mm lightning MAF,90mm accufab tb, edelbrock EFI spyder with a 90mm elbow.

Thanks for that info and I agree that a box would be good in your situation but doesn't the original poster have a stock motor?

[flyin ryan]

Originally Posted by 1slo5.0 Dynoing the car doesn't matter but yes, it will show more average horsepower. We don't race dynos. Did the car accelerate faster with the box intake? Yes, I guarantee it did. Average power wins, always. Nascar does it, pro stock does it, class racing does it and the most responsive street engines do it. The combination matters, not at what rpm you make the power. The car as a whole is the combination, not just a single part. Having a box intake doens't mean you won't make power at 2500 either. The power band is dependent on many more things than just the intake manifold. Your thinking is wrong but is "traditional" in a sense. People have been saying for as long as I can remember that short runner and single plane intakes kill low end power, are only good for high rpm power and are no good for the street. This is simply not true. However, this train of thought keeps me winning races because too many people can't break this traditional way of thinking.

Oh come on now.. We both know it's up to the combo not just the intake.

Is it safe to assume that the original poster has a stock car? So your saying take a stock car and throw a box intake on it and you'll make more average hp and torque then say a long runner style intake like the holley while still staying enjoyable to drive?

Dyno question was valid wasn't it? I mean I figured it would show where his power starts and ends. Wouldn't that be useful when making part selections That way we could see if it's beneficial to just go with a long runner setup for a dd app or not. That's the only reason for me mentioning the dyno. Im not a dyno queen, My cars get driven and raced on the street and at the track, not on rollers.

Originally Posted by 1slo5.0 By the way, that Super Victor EFI is the best intake to have if you are going to stick with EFI. Yes, in most cases it will make more average power than any other intake out there and consequently be faster and more responsive as well.

Thanks sir, not goign to use it anymore. My turbo car is fine the way it sits and my dd has a systemax and I like the torque it has So im going to sell it as soon as I get time to dig it out.

[93mustank]

Originally Posted by flyin ryan Oh come on now.. We both know it's up to the combo not just the intake. Is it safe to assume that the original poster has a stock car? So your saying take a stock car and throw a box intake on it and you'll make more average hp and torque then say a long runner style intake like the holley while still staying enjoyable to drive? Dyno question was valid wasn't it? I mean I figured it would show where his power starts and ends. Wouldn't that be useful when making part selections That way we could see if it's beneficial to just go with a long runner setup for a dd app or not. That's the only reason for me mentioning the dyno. Im not a dyno queen, My cars get driven and raced on the street and at the track, not on rollers. Thanks sir, not goign to use it anymore. My turbo car is fine the way it sits and my dd has a systemax and I like the torque it has So im going to sell it as soon as I get time to dig it out.

You have ASSumed wrong....He was asking about an intake for his new combo...you would have noticed that if you read the thread...

Can a dyno measure acceleration?

I dont get why everyone thinks that a box intake on an EFI will not make it a good dd....

Has any one looked at the modular motors or even the ls1 motors.???

Big head small cam theory....

Why dont you use stock heads and intake? There is your great dd with tons of low end torque.

Why restrict a motor of air with a long runner intake?

Whats the big hype about low end torque? You guys bolting hitches on your stangs....???? Racing from 2000 to 4000 in 3rd gear?

[93mustank]

Oh ya...How much for that intake?

[flyin ryan]

Originally Posted by 93mustank You have ASSumed wrong....He was asking about an intake for his new combo...you would have noticed that if you read the thread...

I did read the thread prior to posting.. I read that he was trying to get away with using stock injectors/cam etc with tfs top end kit which he never ended up getting. Then struck a deal with you for heads/rr but that's about it. The rest of the combo is most likely stock which is why I made the assumption.

Originally Posted by 93mustank Can a dyno measure acceleration?

No that's what gtech is for LOL

Originally Posted by 93mustank I dont get why everyone thinks that a box intake on an EFI will not make it a good dd....

stroked or power adder and i'd say go with the box

Originally Posted by 93mustank Has any one looked at the modular motors or even the ls1 motors.???

Please don't open up another can of worms

Originally Posted by 93mustank Why dont you use stock heads and intake? There is your great dd with tons of low end torque.

My turbo car does have stock heads on it

Originally Posted by 93mustank Why restrict a motor of air with a long runner intake?

So with a completely stock motor you'll make more average horsepower with a box intake then a long runner type?

Im done with this lol I don't have type to keep responding and not sure on the price of it yet. I have to grab it from my parent's house the next time im up there way.

[93mustank]

Thats fine....trying to show you the light. But your set in your ways...

If you want to see the truth sign up on sbftech.com

But try to keep the mis information to a low....Lots of these new guys will absorb this up quick and be ib the same boat you are in.

[stfudvs]

no i was not asking for a stock setup,

in one install i plan to do the tw heads, with matching custom cam, intake, c&l 4" cold air, 80mm or higher maf/tb, 24# injectors 255 lph fuel pump high flow fuel rails, a new aluminium radiator, new high flow water pump

so asking what intake for that combo, and i only asked about the box intake because i enjoy the minimal intake look and have been told by others i know not on this forum i would get good all over power

i just want to insure that i get a intake that will provide sufficiant air to my heads and give me a good wide range of power, with good torq

[superbean]

always make the most torque at the highest rpm possible...

Ever carbed car i've had has had a single plane on it and never really felt weird to drive on the street. If anything it made it easier to drive imo..

[flyin ryan]

Originally Posted by 93mustank Thats fine....trying to show you the light. But your set in your ways... If you want to see the truth sign up on sbftech.com But try to keep the mis information to a low....Lots of these new guys will absorb this up quick and be ib the same boat you are in.

Not set in anyways, just saying what i've seen first hand is all.

Short runner intake plenums are great if you build the motor to take advantage of design. Simply switching parts and not increasing the power band is not a good idea unless you want easy access to VCs and injectors. Intake lengths have specific purposes. No different than camshafts.

Just like the fact that Long runner intakes have a lower charge velocity that short runner intakes, as one would expect. This means that long runner intakes can fill cylinders efficiently at low RPM, but choke off in higher RPMS, and the inverse is true for short runner intakes. Cylinder filling is what makes torque happen, which is why increasing displacement causes such a large gain in torque. The same is true for intake runners in a cylinder head.

sbftech.. i've been a member over there for a few years and that site is very resourceful. Why don't you point me to something over there proving that a box intake doesn't cost you torque?

I like this thread though, has a dyno graph showing exactly what's going on
What does a LONG runner intake do for a turbo car?

And yeah i'll stop posting because I always post wrong or misleading information on here

[93mustank]

Originally Posted by flyin ryan Cylinder filling is what makes torque happen

So then why limit cylinder filling with a long runner? ..... What about a dual plane carb intake? 6" of runner?

Are you shifting at 3500? Pullin a trailer? I just dont get it?

[1slo5.0]

Originally Posted by flyin ryan Not set in anyways, just saying what i've seen first hand is all. Short runner intake plenums are great if you build the motor to take advantage of design. Simply switching parts and not increasing the power band is not a good idea unless you want easy access to VCs and injectors. Intake lengths have specific purposes. No different than camshafts. Just like the fact that Long runner intakes have a lower charge velocity that short runner intakes, as one would expect. This means that long runner intakes can fill cylinders efficiently at low RPM, but choke off in higher RPMS, and the inverse is true for short runner intakes. Cylinder filling is what makes torque happen, which is why increasing displacement causes such a large gain in torque. The same is true for intake runners in a cylinder head. sbftech.. i've been a member over there for a few years and that site is very resourceful. Why don't you point me to something over there proving that a box intake doesn't cost you torque? I like this thread though, has a dyno graph showing exactly what's going on What does a LONG runner intake do for a turbo car? And yeah i'll stop posting because I always post wrong or misleading information on here

You are way off. I can see why after reading some of that garbage on the link you posted. I didn't read thru the entire thread because there was so much bogus in there. But there was a lot of opinions and not facts. You must have to be a member to see any attachments because I couldn't see the graph posted. Saying "I lost 70 ft/lbs of torque" is very misleading. Lost it where? What were the average numbers? What is the rest of the combination? I personally don't think the Down's box and a GT40 lower is a good set up. Why run a box intake with a small runner lower? You are essentially mating a high capacity box with a restrictive lower intake. That would be like running a 2" primary header with 3 1/2" collectors and then putting a 2 1/2" exhaust on it. The small exhaust would choke off everyhting you've gained with the headers and then some. That could be half his problem right there. I've never seen a boosted engine slow down when switching to a good box intake. Then there is the guy that says "It will help preserve some off-boost torque". Says who? And even if it does, how is that going to affect overall performance. I see alot of people shooting from the hip and not having any real experience to stand on and I see an equal amount that have no idea what they are looking at when they see flow numbers or dyno numbers. Not just in that link posted, but all over the internet. Those are the same people that have heads/cam/intake cars that are running 12s and boosted cars running 11s and think they are doing good. "Short runners make crap power in the lower rpm ranges".....I'd like to know where he came up with that? I guess the dynos I've used must be way off. Either that or I made crap power with alot of engines. My black car made 585 ft/lbs of torque at like 5400 rpm or so. At 4000 rpm it was already making 500 ft/lbs. Short runner intake, big solid roller, big port heads, etc....you know, all of the stuff that makes for "crap power in lower rpm ranges" and makes for poor street driving. On a bone stock 5 liter, a box intake or single plane intake might cost some horsepower and torque which may or may not slow the car down but on an engine that requires the airflow capabilities of such an intake, it will not only be faster but also more efficient.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Its the combination, not individual parts.

[flyin ryan]

Originally Posted by 93mustank So then why limit cylinder filling with a long runner? ..... What about a dual plane carb intake? 6" of runner? Are you shifting at 3500? Pullin a trailer? I just dont get it?

soo what intake were you running with this head/cam package? and what intake are you running now?

Originally Posted by 1slo5.0 You are way off. I can see why after reading some of that garbage on the link you posted. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Its the combination, not individual parts.

I wouldn't say im way off.. that link showed how switching to a common box/truck setup cost him torque because he kept the same cam in from the long runner setup which is what I was saying all along. A box intake on a stock or stockish car isn't going to gain you nothing without the proper combo period. Without the right cam the power band of that box intake is useless right?

[JBIGBOOTSY]

On a car I had about 11yrs ago I had a stock lower, box upper, and It came off soon after it went on, and moved on to the next sucker down the line. the car was stock with pullies, and a 3.55.

[1slo5.0]

Originally Posted by flyin ryan soo what intake were you running with this head/cam package? and what intake are you running now?

.

Originally Posted by 93mustank Used the heads with a box upper on a systmax...also with a 90mm tb and 4 inch pipe.... Was my dd....Drove just fine........

[1slo5.0]

Here's another scenario that I have experience with. 347, pump gas, TFS R-series heads, custom solid roller, Trick Flow box intake and 2" primary headers with 3 1/2" collectors and 3 1/2" exhaust. Now based on the bigger equals high rpm power theory this engine should be a turd down low, right? Big runners, big headers, big solid cam, big box intake and small cubic inch should make for no low end power, right? This set up made 423rwhp at 6100 rpm and 403rwtq at 4500 rpm. It had power all over the place. This is totally untuned as well. No chip, no timing or fuel pressure changes either. This was a single baseline dyno pull. The timing and fuel pressure was done off the dyno which is another topic that will probably open up a new can of worms with the dyno lovers.

[econobarn]

Hi, I'm econobarn. This is my first post. I drive a 17 second 4 banger chevy pickup that traps at 81mph and I'm tired of misinformation and stupid on the internet.

Anyone who is debating with 1slo5.0 and 93mustank on this issue really needs to go back to the drawing boards and re-learn engine theory. How is inhibiting flow in any fashion going to create power? It can't unless you live in imagination land. Do you live in imagination land, flyin ryan?

93mustank mentioned the ford modular motors and the GM's LSx series and someone above said don't open that can of worms? Why not? Is it not basic engine theory?

I even just made this graph for another winner on another forum...



I made that with the data from AFR's Ford Dyno Page (Air Flow Research Cylinder Heads) using 165cc combo 1 and 185cc combo 3. Larger heads, larger short runner intake...so, who makes more power? Which would be more driveable (if you could even tell the difference around town)...? Why on earth would we want to be able to fill the cylinder faster with less movement of the valve, that's a stupid crazy idea, isn't it?

[JBIGBOOTSY]

^ So under 6500rpm the 165s make more power and torque?

Uhhh, good job?

[JBIGBOOTSY]

I made this for a dude on another forum.

[stfudvs]

Originally Posted by 1slo5.0 Here's another scenario that I have experience with. 347, pump gas, TFS R-series heads, custom solid roller, Trick Flow box intake and 2" primary headers with 3 1/2" collectors and 3 1/2" exhaust. Now based on the bigger equals high rpm power theory this engine should be a turd down low, right? Big runners, big headers, big solid cam, big box intake and small cubic inch should make for no low end power, right? This set up made 423rwhp at 6100 rpm and 403rwtq at 4500 rpm. It had power all over the place. This is totally untuned as well. No chip, no timing or fuel pressure changes either. This was a single baseline dyno pull. The timing and fuel pressure was done off the dyno which is another topic that will probably open up a new can of worms with the dyno lovers.

do you think you could have gotten more power or improved performance at all with a chip and a tune on a wideband