Think the First intake is something new, think again!
#1
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Charlestown, IN
Posts: 3,449
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Car: 1971 Camaro
Engine: 427
Transmission: TKO600
Axle/Gears: 3.73
Think the First intake is something new, think again!
I came across this while going through some old magazines. This is from 1991
#2
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Charlestown, IN
Posts: 3,449
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Car: 1971 Camaro
Engine: 427
Transmission: TKO600
Axle/Gears: 3.73
Re: Think the First intake is something new, think again!
Sorry for the upside down shot, I flipped them but I guess it didn't save.
#3
Supreme Member
iTrader: (20)
Re: Think the First intake is something new, think again!
For whatever reason this intake has always been around but rarely is it known by tpi enthusiasts. For tpi builders i dont see why you would mess with anything else for 350+ inch motors. First is the biggest and that is better for larger motors
#6
Supreme Member
iTrader: (20)
Re: Think the First intake is something new, think again!
No doubt there is a limit. Thats why i said for tpi builders, out the box the first is the best available.
Runner length for certain rpm ranges changes with engine specs but so does cfm demand and cross sectional areas. A big 400 may need total runner of 12-14" for a certain rpm range but that runner would need to be large to pass flow. Thats one of the problems with tpi, runners too small to support rpms. First helps but bigger is needed for the really big sbc's. Case in point, 1989gtatransam's tpi on his 369" motor. Its a true long runner design but its very large in diameter. Its supported 6500 rpms peak powers on that motor. Runner and base csa's are large enough. For a 400" sbc you'd have to go even bigger which isnt possible (i dont think). There are other short runner intakes that do that job just fine . I got a single plane on my car for that reason
Runner length for certain rpm ranges changes with engine specs but so does cfm demand and cross sectional areas. A big 400 may need total runner of 12-14" for a certain rpm range but that runner would need to be large to pass flow. Thats one of the problems with tpi, runners too small to support rpms. First helps but bigger is needed for the really big sbc's. Case in point, 1989gtatransam's tpi on his 369" motor. Its a true long runner design but its very large in diameter. Its supported 6500 rpms peak powers on that motor. Runner and base csa's are large enough. For a 400" sbc you'd have to go even bigger which isnt possible (i dont think). There are other short runner intakes that do that job just fine . I got a single plane on my car for that reason
#7
Supreme Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Il
Posts: 11,870
Received 895 Likes
on
587 Posts
Car: 1989-92 FORMULA350 305 92 Hawkclone
Engine: 4++,350 & 305 CIs
Transmission: 700R4 4800 vig 18th700R4 t56 ZF6 T5
Axle/Gears: 3.70 9"ford alum chunk,dana44,9bolt
Re: Think the First intake is something new, think again!
Yuuuup, It has been around for a looong time. Back when I was modding some of my 1st TPI builds.
I'm hearing its undergoing some improvements these days..
I'm hearing its undergoing some improvements these days..
Trending Topics
#11
Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Salem,Oregon.
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: '74 Firebird, '84 vette
Engine: 454 twin turbo, 350 HSR
Transmission: 4L80E, 700R4
Axle/Gears: 9", Dana36
Re: Think the First intake is something new, think again!
In the late 80's CB Performance (Claude's buggies) was also making a VERY nice small block chevy EFI mainfold. It had a lower piece that covered the valley and heads with bolt on runners. the runners were basically tunnel ram style with a seperate V-bottom plenum.
It was a nice piece that had the potential to have optional different length runners. Unfortunately CB was more interested in the VW stuff and one of the guys there I talked to said they never were able to get more than 300 horsepower from a small block chevy on their Dyno. Obviously the guys didnt know squat about making power with a chevy.
I've always wanted to see somebody market such a manifold again.
It was a nice piece that had the potential to have optional different length runners. Unfortunately CB was more interested in the VW stuff and one of the guys there I talked to said they never were able to get more than 300 horsepower from a small block chevy on their Dyno. Obviously the guys didnt know squat about making power with a chevy.
I've always wanted to see somebody market such a manifold again.
#16
Supreme Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Il
Posts: 11,870
Received 895 Likes
on
587 Posts
Car: 1989-92 FORMULA350 305 92 Hawkclone
Engine: 4++,350 & 305 CIs
Transmission: 700R4 4800 vig 18th700R4 t56 ZF6 T5
Axle/Gears: 3.70 9"ford alum chunk,dana44,9bolt
Re: Think the First intake is something new, think again!
I always just thought it was highflow runners and base.. either way works.
Just looking at the pic you posted of the street ram and it looks like the runners are on the wrong side along with the gaskets... Thats a big pet peeve of mine!!
#18
Supreme Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Il
Posts: 11,870
Received 895 Likes
on
587 Posts
Car: 1989-92 FORMULA350 305 92 Hawkclone
Engine: 4++,350 & 305 CIs
Transmission: 700R4 4800 vig 18th700R4 t56 ZF6 T5
Axle/Gears: 3.70 9"ford alum chunk,dana44,9bolt
Re: Think the First intake is something new, think again!
#19
Supreme Member
Re: Think the First intake is something new, think again!
Yep,, the FIRST intake has been around a while. I researched these intakes heavily back in the late 80s and early 90s. I really wanted one,, but they were very expensive – probably why there were not many sold and few seen on vehicles back then.
It was originally produced by AiRSensors. I believe they introduced them in mid 1987,, maybe early 1988 but the earliest magazine article I have on it is from 1989. Regardless,,, I know it was the Tuned Port Induction (TPI) system in their Fuel Injection Research Systems and Technology (F.I.R.S.T.) series. This is why there is “FIRST” cast on the plenum and “TPI” cast on the unused throttle body cover plate. The other two intake systems in that series were a “MultiPoint”, much like the Edelbrock Pro-Flo 2 system (http://www.summitracing.com/parts/EDL-35070/?rtype=10), and a “SinglePoint”, which was similar to the Accel DFI 4-Barrel TBI system (http://www.summitracing.com/parts/ACC-77135/?rtype=10).
All three F.I.R.S.T. intake systems were managed by an electronic fueling system utilizing a 4” Air Mass Sensor,, or mass air-flow sensor. IIRC,, their 4” replacement MAF sensor (if you killed one) was around $400 and you could upgrade to a 5” MAF. The two systems with throttle bodies used a “hat”, like the ones used for superchargers, to make sure the air flow was properly metered. AiRSensors’ electronics did not control the ignition or spark tables so even after spending around $2500 for their TPI,, you still needed an ignition system. Since I was interested in controlling the spark table as much as fueling,, there was no way I was spending that kind of scratch – keep in mind this is the late 80s!
Not long afterwards, AiRSensors sold the TPI’s rights to Electromotive,,, I think in 1991. Electromotive machined the “F” and the “T” from the plenum casting and marketed the intake as the Individual Runner System (IRS) as seen in the article. They dropped the MAF system and used a MAP and TPS for fueling,, they also added their high-end Electromotive ignition system,, bring the price up around $3000.
Neither AiRSensors nor Electromotive would sell the intakes without their electronics – I pestered them both to death,,, thinking they would eventually cave in. It never happened – it was all or nothing and I didn’t particularly care for the electronics sold with both system,, they definitely had their own set of issues . Thankfully Ken came along, bought the casting rights and started FIRST Injections, selling the FIRST intake system at a reasonable price, without electronics so people could use the GM “TPI” electronics.
It was originally produced by AiRSensors. I believe they introduced them in mid 1987,, maybe early 1988 but the earliest magazine article I have on it is from 1989. Regardless,,, I know it was the Tuned Port Induction (TPI) system in their Fuel Injection Research Systems and Technology (F.I.R.S.T.) series. This is why there is “FIRST” cast on the plenum and “TPI” cast on the unused throttle body cover plate. The other two intake systems in that series were a “MultiPoint”, much like the Edelbrock Pro-Flo 2 system (http://www.summitracing.com/parts/EDL-35070/?rtype=10), and a “SinglePoint”, which was similar to the Accel DFI 4-Barrel TBI system (http://www.summitracing.com/parts/ACC-77135/?rtype=10).
All three F.I.R.S.T. intake systems were managed by an electronic fueling system utilizing a 4” Air Mass Sensor,, or mass air-flow sensor. IIRC,, their 4” replacement MAF sensor (if you killed one) was around $400 and you could upgrade to a 5” MAF. The two systems with throttle bodies used a “hat”, like the ones used for superchargers, to make sure the air flow was properly metered. AiRSensors’ electronics did not control the ignition or spark tables so even after spending around $2500 for their TPI,, you still needed an ignition system. Since I was interested in controlling the spark table as much as fueling,, there was no way I was spending that kind of scratch – keep in mind this is the late 80s!
Not long afterwards, AiRSensors sold the TPI’s rights to Electromotive,,, I think in 1991. Electromotive machined the “F” and the “T” from the plenum casting and marketed the intake as the Individual Runner System (IRS) as seen in the article. They dropped the MAF system and used a MAP and TPS for fueling,, they also added their high-end Electromotive ignition system,, bring the price up around $3000.
Neither AiRSensors nor Electromotive would sell the intakes without their electronics – I pestered them both to death,,, thinking they would eventually cave in. It never happened – it was all or nothing and I didn’t particularly care for the electronics sold with both system,, they definitely had their own set of issues . Thankfully Ken came along, bought the casting rights and started FIRST Injections, selling the FIRST intake system at a reasonable price, without electronics so people could use the GM “TPI” electronics.
#20
Supreme Member
Re: Think the First intake is something new, think again!
SLP did bring their "Short Ram" to another shootout in a 1989 article and the author said it was a prototype that was planned for production. I don't think SLP ever produced it. It was very similar to the current Holley StealthRam.
#21
Supreme Member
Re: Think the First intake is something new, think again!
Obviously the shorter runner intakes are going to make more HP at a higher RPM, but the higher you make peak HP you’re going to need more stall speed and gearing. If your bottom line is ET,, then go with the short runner intake with a big cam and just gear and stall for it. However, if someone is willing to compromise a little ET for better drivability, especially with the old school 3-speed automatic transmissions, going with a long tube runner system might be the best fit for the customer.
#22
Supreme Member
Re: Think the First intake is something new, think again!
No doubt there is a limit. Thats why i said for tpi builders, out the box the first is the best available.
Runner length for certain rpm ranges changes with engine specs but so does cfm demand and cross sectional areas. A big 400 may need total runner of 12-14" for a certain rpm range but that runner would need to be large to pass flow. Thats one of the problems with tpi, runners too small to support rpms.
Runner length for certain rpm ranges changes with engine specs but so does cfm demand and cross sectional areas. A big 400 may need total runner of 12-14" for a certain rpm range but that runner would need to be large to pass flow. Thats one of the problems with tpi, runners too small to support rpms.
First helps but bigger is needed for the really big sbc's. Case in point, 1989gtatransam's tpi on his 369" motor. Its a true long runner design but its very large in diameter. Its supported 6500 rpms peak powers on that motor. Runner and base csa's are large enough. For a 400" sbc you'd have to go even bigger which isnt possible (i dont think).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jerflash
Engine/Drivetrain/Suspension Parts for Sale
5
09-24-2015 03:11 PM
toronto formula
Engine/Drivetrain/Suspension Parts for Sale
3
09-10-2015 07:31 AM
e3pres
Engine/Drivetrain/Suspension Parts for Sale
1
09-09-2015 01:51 PM