poncho@home

I can't beleive someone would try this on a $400 intake....
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...tem=1876259683

bigals87z28

what the hell did he do? double plenum? are u reading this... im not sure on if this means any good stuff... but thats a lot of cutting out of crap

BRIrocZ

iTrader: (1)

The fact that its $50 without a reserve should tell you something. Still, I wonder how his theory checks out.

Cruzin Kaz

Guys this already has a topic..did it got the T-shirt..it was posted here about a week ago.

poncho@home

What do you mean got the tshirt? was there some kind of stupidity contest?

mrr23

the "second plenum area" would become a vacuum and turbulent spot

89 Iroc Z

The "secoind plenum area" would slow down the velocity of incoming air, create an anormous amount of turbulence, and would heat up the incoming air. It would accomplish nothing; just make the car perform worse. Also it’s not easy to weld aluminum.

Cruzin Kaz

That is exactly what I wrote to the guy, but someone has him convinced it will work...shrugs shoulders.

sbrice18fan

I saw this on ebay and have never heard of this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...tem=1876259683

Jim85IROC

iTrader: (2)

Do a search. The whole vortec intake issue has been beaten to death to the ranks of 4th gen seats and 2.8 to V8 swaps. The siamiased port issue has been beaten to death nearly as bad.

sbrice18fan

I am not talking about the Vortec issue or really the siamiased base issue, I have seen the post on both, but I have not seen anyone cut the bottom of the intake base to create a second plenum, like this guy is talking about.

Black 91 Z28

Hey. I saw that on Ebay as well. Sure looks like a good way to ruin a nice intake base. Oh well maybe someone knows what the guy was trying to do.

David

Ed Maher

I thought about doing an intake like that a while back. OK, it wasn't my idea, but somebody i know managed to cut a big hole in the bottom of the runnners while siamesing a stock base, and thus the brainstorming went from there.

Dunno how it would work or not though. Maybe it would work. Maybe it wouldn't. Unless you've personally tried it, or have extensive experience in manifold design or relevant sciences i don't think theorizing is going to do anyone any good. It definitely could work, so dismissing it as a stupid idea at face value could be foolish.

(BTW, the guy i originally talked with it about had the manifold fixed because he didn't feel like being a guinea pig)

Cruzin Kaz

Well this is the 4th thread with that stupid intake on it..Doesn't anyone look at other threads here or do you all post blind.. Sorry but 4 different threads in one week about the same damn intake...it is ruined! By building a vent under the intake like that you not only heat the air faster, but create a unbeleivable amount of turbulance..It is a paper weight. Junk! that is what it is Junk!

sbrice18fan

Sorry, I serched under siamesed base and intake on ebay making sure that this had not been posted in the past and did not find anything. I finally found other post, so here they are:
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...ghlight=intake
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...ghlight=intake

Cruzin Kaz

No need to be sorry! It's not your fault..it is the fault of the idiot trying to sell it...Don't mind me..I've been getting alot of slack from people here on the boards lately and am getting touchy..Not your fault..sorry I came off so harsh.

sbrice18fan

No problem, I'm just glad to see others with the same opinion as me on this intake. Just seems like alot of money to spend on a good Vortec intake, just to junk it and try to sell it to someone else on ebay.

Ed Maher

1. A plenum in the lifter valley is not necessarily 'super-heated', it's not going to be any warmer realy than the manifold is normally anyway.

2. If the transitions are cleaned up well, i don't think it is necessarily going to create extreme turbulence either. Think about it, as each runner fires, it is drawing air from the beginning of the siamesed/cut section, which will then pull mostly through the plenum as well as through the runner. And the lower plenum is kept fresh by the other sets of runners as well the whole time. Unlike a siamesed base, this mod would give you a much more effective lower plenum area to draw from. With the couple inches of window it has to pull through, it's not like air has to make some kind of tight bend or anything to make it into the runer from the plenum.

Kaz, i'd especially like to know where you see unbelievable turbulence coming from in that situtation. The runners feeding the base should be sharing the airflow load into the lower plenum pretty equally so there shouldn't be a major collision problem with runner air hitting plenum air as a cylinder draws it's charge. And like i said above, the window from the lower plenum to the runner into the head is plenty large enough that it isn't really a sharp turn to make.

I don't think it'll necessarily work well, but like i said before, i don't think you can write it off either. I don't know of anyone who has tried it yet, so it's kinda hard to guess what would actually happen with it.

edit. BTW, i merged this with the other major thread with replies to simplify things. Hope noone minds

Cruzin Kaz

I guess your right Ed..it just doesn't look like it will work at all. I've heard and seen people how they have had problems when they just siamese their intake and runners due to some errors. this piece takes the cake in my eyes...but I don't know everything, and it is just my opinion but no way in heck, I would ever do that to a aftermarket intake like such. I just can't see how it would work. I've looked into it with some of the head mechanics at my local GM dealership and they too agree, that this fella just ruined a brand new intake...To each their own though. Maybe the thing works great, but I doubt it.

Jim85IROC

iTrader: (2)

Whoops. I completely missed that part!

Ed Maher

No problem Kaz. I'm just trying to stir discussion here, playing devil's advocate and all that. Seemed like everyone was trying to just quickly dismiss the idea without talking about it. Like i said, this came up before, and it didn't seem so cut and dry to me, thus if someone has some info, i'd love to hear it.

Cruzin Kaz

I agree with you there Ed..anyone have any solid facts that this may work...Engineers or someone with some really indepth knowledge for EFI and or what not...

poncho@home

i usually tend to trust GM Engineers, afterall they went to school to learn this stuff. that design has never shown up on any factory installed or over the counter GM part. I am not saying that it isn't possible, but hard to believe that this will work...afterall we all have theories, but they don't all work. For this to work, you'd need a way to measure flow velocity, turbulance and mass. i am not sure a typical flow bench can do everything we'd need to test hear.

Besides all the engine building formulas I have found and tried, conclude that a stock tpi unit flows enough air for our 350 street engines.

I am by no means an engineer, just a car enthusiast that's been around for awhile. For an engine to make power you must create an efficient air pump, not neccessarily the biggest. A powerfull engine is the sum of all it's parts, that have been carefully matched to one and other. An intake that flows in 1000cfm won't necessarily be better than the intake that flows 500 cfm, it depends on how much fuel you can burn and expell of after the burn.

What freaks me out with the guy attempting to do this is that he took a brand new $400 intake to experiment on. He could have easily traded me for the spare stock base I have, afterall I need this vortec base to put my vortec heads on!!!

Anything is possible, that's how I live my life, but usually if it smells funny, looks funny and tastes funny, I'll laugh!

poncho@home

What's even more surpising is that there are 4 bids already!!!

Ed Maher

Just a WAG, but i don't think the fella meant to do it on purpose, at least when he started. Like i said, the last time i was in this discussion was when someone accidentally went too far on the floor of the runner while siamesing, then the idea kinda hit him.

I wouldn't worry too much about flow benches and trying to measure turbulence and all that. I'd just run it on an engine and see how it does. I doubt it would be a good idea on a stockish engine, but start making some HP and it could do good things, you never know.

I do think the trust GM engineers thing is kinda funny, in the context of their first 2 performance EFI systems were made with looks rather than physics and common sense. CFI is a joke, and TPI is a horrible design all around. Even if you accept the long runner compromise, the whole design of the manifold is flat out wrong. Making the runners do a 180 is just stupid, and the angle of entry from the baseplate into the head is abysmal, way too low, and not even straight. Wanna make a decent functionl long runner intake, take a look at the LS1 manifold for cues. Runners straight shot into the head and only a gentle curve and then opening into the plenum.


Just one more thing to add. Everyone thought simply siamesing the base was pretty crazy and stupid to do, and it's worked out OK enough. And as groundbreaking as it seemed a year or whatever ago here, i've heard whispers that it might have been a secret type mod in some circles going back a little while. Absolutely no reason why the same couldn't be said for doing an intake like that since it would look normal on the engine.

Jim85IROC

iTrader: (2)

Don't ever assume that GM engineers design the most powerful option. GM engineers have a bunch of other criteria that falls higher up the food chain than performance, namely emissions, gas milage, and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Take the airbox on LS1 cars for example. GM's complicated, goofy design robs the car of nearly 10 RWHP compared to the much simpler aftermarket design. Why is it like that... it's about 2dB quieter, that's why.

MdFormula350

i dont think i will be bidding on that

92 heritage z28

aluminum is not difficult to weld for a GOOD alum welder, i am not a alum welder, let alone a good one, but i have spoken to some who are certifield alum welders, and they agree it can be welded, i say buy it for cheap, weld it back up like original, and use it!

Vader

Yee-HA!

That's a long way around to get an intake that is by design inferior to the LT1 system. I'd rather send a few more bucks to John Millican and get the proven results instead of some bastardized half-breed short-runner TPI. For that $400 he/she could have had a better intake ready to bolt up.

Ed Maher

For all out performance, i agree. keeping any type of TPI intake on the car is flat out stupid, nothing abotu the design is smart or conducive to makeing good power.

BUT. A lot of people have to deal with visual inspection, and don't necessarily want to swap intakes every year to get by. Also, if you get a TPI type intake to go fast, then you definitely have one helluva sleeper on your hands. So while a better inatake woudl almsot certainly make more power. If you combine visual inspections, with desiring a sleeper/stockish look, if something like this works better than simple siamesing, then why not.

Again, just playing the devil's advocate.

Guest

Unless I am wrong here, I think the EGR setup on that manifold is toast. I also see some holes into passages that I dont think should be there... Scary.

poncho@home

I really don't understand why you guys insist on bashing the LTR setup... It's a torque making design, which in my opinion is is more important than making peak HP at 7000 RPM...

Before I had my GTA I owned a '78 T/A with a mild 455...that had monster torque, and because of that I was untouchable on the street. You spend 95 of your time between idle and 3000 rpm....I would think that's were you'd want your power to be not at 5500 or 6000 rpm, by the time you get your revs up, guys like me will e long gone....and on the street you don't have enough space to catch us...that's how I was undefeated for over 4 years with my '78...at the track it only ran 12.7s but on the street I beat much faster cars than me.

How does the air know or care that it is in a curved tunnel? As long the flow is smooth and velocity stays up what the hell difference does this make? Ed aren't you the guy that ported and siamesed your TPI and ended up going slower? I can see why by that remark!

If you were building a track car then I can see you going to a different intake setup, match the torque convertor and camshaft to your RPM range and you'll be quick, but not very streetable. The LTR setup is a very streetable and fun to drive, mind you a little short on power from the factory, but nonetheless can be made to run high 12s to low 13s all day long and still look, sound and drive like a stocker....sounds more fun to me than a completely modified looking, loud and not very streetable car....

man this was a long rant....but I had to get off my chess...

Obviously the engineers had restrictions and benchmarks to meet that didn't always place performance at the forefront...but common guys this was the 80s...remember the 80s? We all dressed funny, but hindsight is 20/20 so sure today we can build better systems, but back then this was the start of EFI, it doesn't mean it was bad though....I still see plenty of 60s and early 70s cars running some very impressive stocker times with 50 year old technology! There is alot more pleasure in my opinion in making something work, anyone can build a fast car, but building under the guise of stock appearances is alot more fun!!!Just my 2¢

whoo...I'm winded....funny thing I'd never read something so long!!!LOL

REDZ28

I agree Poncho, I like the Tpi design and know of a few 11 second vettes with it. I gonna keep my LTR setup and just make it run even better with my 383. 13.11 is the best ive been so far with the original 350 and zz4 cam and headers and free mods,and Im not stopping there. Ive beat so many Lt1s its Hilarious, But hey I like the guys who think my TPI dont run especially when they see my tail lights

Guest

Any bend, change in size, or other restriction in a fluid path causes a loss of energy. That goes for the 180 the air doesnt need to pull as well. There are factors for each type, generalized, but I dont feel like cracking open a book. Ever notice what a race car has for ports? Straight.

Torque is what everyone around here raves about. It may be ok on the street (if you can even get it to hook up), but a car with relatively little torque but lots of upper RPM HP (read:LS1) is going to tear you up on the track.

Ed Maher

Poncho, thank you for saving me the trouble of debating you on anything here. If you don't think making air do a 180 affects flow potential then i think you don't have much grasp of physics. I can assure you that air does know if it is turning 180 degrees. How? It has inertia, and also experiences friction.

Why is the TPI design horrible? As previously outlined. Too many turns for the air. The transition from runner to base and base to head are both shaped completely wrong. I can't explain it any better than that, and i'm not making it up consideirng anybody can look at the intake and see what i'm talking about.

Torque wins races my ***. Please explain how my 305 runs better 330's than most guys around here with long runner L98 combos. Even after the 'torque killing' siamesing. Ahh, i'll save you the thinking, it's called a torque converter. There's a concept in physics known as work. Pushing a car 1/4 mile is an example of doing work. And the ability to accomplish a certain amount of work in a certain amount of time is measured with a quality known as power, which has the unit of work over time. If you can solve the math, if you want to do a piece of work (like go down a 1/4 mile) in less time, you need....more power. Sure, power in a car is derived from the torque of the engine, so making an engine make more torque will necessarily also implies it makes more power. But if you can trade off 'low end torque' and make more power (expressed as area under the curve since we're not just talking about an instantaneous action), you will go faster. That's why i can short better than cars with nearly 100lb ft of torque on me as a healthy L98 should. My TC allows me to put more power to the ground off the line. You can have 500lb ft of torque right off idle, with say a stock 1500rpm converter. And i'll take my maybe 275 on a 3k converter. I'd take that race for 60'. Considering the torque advantage, we wouldn't need to race any further to prove the point, eh?

Matter of fact, diesels make great drag racing engines too with their prodigious torque as well. :lala:


The reason your 78 did so well on the street was no doubt because it was a well set up, and most assuredly was a well hooking combo. But i guarantee you that an average LS1 with a lid and a converter would rip such a combo a new one the entire way down the track despite giving up what, 100-150lb ft of torque to the 455 indian. You act like you need huge amounts of torque to run good short times. I'd rather let you do the legwork to see how silly that idea is in the face of the relatively low torque stockish LS1s running 12s and 11s including 1.5-1.6 60' times to match. I'd be willing to bet that your 78 was not running 1.4-1.5 60's, so i'm not exactly sure how your torque is king combo would get ahead of the low-torque LS1 on the holeshot.

Is it possible to have a car with mega horsepower that doesn't run good shorts. Sure, they're called poorly done, tractionless, or FWD. All forms of wasting the power advantage. Kinda like the old joke about what a 900hp supra and a 500hp supra have in common. 12 second timeslips. Easy to make lots of power in those things. Very few people actually get the power down and run the ETs they should though.

BTW, i lost a whole tenth and a fraction of a mph with the siamesed base. Although my initial post reporting the results sounded dejected, fact is, i don't really consider that too bad considering i was running the same chipwith absolutely no tuning whatsoever, which was and is completely off for the different powerband i now have. Aired down drag radials were also in play on the later runs, which was no doubt giving me more parasitic losss than the real radials i was running previously. And to give you the whole scoop, i actually lost over a mph during the summer as well before i even put on the siamesed base when i first got the drag radials on it so in fact, i am quite sure the mph was a wash considering the small difference and small sample sets i'm comparing. Call them excuses if you want, but it's not like it was significantly slower. I'm confident it has a lot left in it once i have the time to work on it.

The Anvil

Well said. I'm a big fan of the long-runner setup myself. The torque curve of the the stock TPI setup is fantastic. I love all that torque right where I can use it most on the street.

That's very respectable times. 13.11 is awesome for the stock 350 setup and a mild cam. Nice work!



Dave

poncho@home

Do you guys really read what you type? the 180 degree bend is gradual not an abrubt turn around....yeah there still is friction, but keep in mind that the air travelling through is being pulled in by a vacuum created in the cylinders and I am sure the engineers calculated the amount of air needed to fill the cylinders and designed the runners and plenum and base in consequence...you'd be surpised how little air you actually need to make power, because power is derived from a fast efficient burn (alas the new fast burn heads) not the trip your air took getting there!

As for LS1s running 1.5-1.6 short times...yeah sure with a 4000 stall torque convertor and sticky tires, but let's call a spade a spade please, that's hardly a street setup, and yeah I didn't run those short times with my 78 but no LS1 ever stayed beside me on the street and my car was a timid daily driver....

And just because most bozos can't get an L98 to run respectable doesn't mean it's a lousy design...you know back in the days Pontiacs were looked at in the same manner, but if I remember correctly Jim Hand was a record keeper for a stocker class with a 68 Firebird 400...and no one could beleive it!

86 IROC

iTrader: (3)

Not wanting to stir up the old LTR vs. everything else debate, but I had a very basic high mileage L98 motor in my car that ran 13.00's at just under 103 MPH. It was able to jump out and hold it's ground on many faster cars, but in a roll race - it flat out got raped. I'm sure I might have been able to squeeze out another 4-5 MPH and go a little faster w/ an aftermarket base, the AFR 195's that went on my 383, and some real tuning. But, 107-108 MPH traps just won't cut it. I have a friend w/ an almost bone stock 2000 SS that traps 107+ I'm so sick of hearing how short runner inatkes have no torque. Ever driven an LT1? Do they feel gutless like an DOHC honda motor? 400ft/lbs of torque is fine & dandy, but RWHP in the 280's is less then stock LS1 territory.

By no means is this a flame, or a "my car is better than yours" post. Take it FWIW.

Ed Maher

poncho, there are lots of completely streetable 11 second LS1s out there. A 3-4k stall is in fact quite streetable with advanced torque converter designs like the vig and yank.

As for the 180 degree turn thing, you have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry, but there is just no way to candy coat it. You're using made up logic rather than accepting the fact that to make air change directions requires energy, and that energy could be better served helping the air get into the cylinder. It doesn't matter if youdo the turn instantly, or if you do it in an infinite radius loop. It still takes the same amount of energy to make a mass change direction. The frictional losses associated with teh turn will be slightly better with a larger radius, but that is only one piece of the puzzle. And you're still ignoring the abrupt change in direction has to make when it goes form the runner to the head. And you're also ignoring that the TPI base runners enter the head at a ridiculously low angle that sends al the air straight into the roof of teh port, where it then has to make an abrupt turn down into the cylinder. And don't forget that no only is that angle of entry low, but it is also coming in sideways. If such things didn't matter in intake design, how come big curvy intakes went out of style in the 80s. It's not because they look any less cool. But engineers realized that it was a horribly inefficient flowing design, which affects not only power, but overall efficiency (like MPG) as well.

Power is in fact very much a function of the trip the air takes on the way there. A fast efficient burn is only one piece of the efficiency of an engine. I can assure you, the more air/fuel you get into the hole, the more power you will make. And any energy wasted getting the air into the cylinders by making it turn and angle through horrible transition, just reduces the amount of air the engine can get into it.

PonyKiller87

Its posts like this that make me think alot about the possiblities. And wish that I had the time/money to make custom parts just to see how they perform. Anyways, heres one of the daydreams that I had during some boring class the other day.

What if you took the benefits of the LT1 (short runner), and the TPI (long runner) and combined them ??? I guess thats similar to what the guy was thinking when he hacked up that base. anyways I made a sketch of what I was thinking. What do you guys think?

P.S. Maybe when all this engineering school is over and Im pulling down some real money I can start trying some of these goofy ideas and see what happens.

REDZ28

My L98 got 1.73 60fts with stock converter and 3.42 gears. Thats a real good 60ft for a low 13 sec car. I wonder what it would do with a 4000 yank??

JAY87GTA

Hey PK, there are quite a few production cars running an intake like you sketched. I'm pretty sure the DOHC Taurus's run one, and I know there are a bunch of other ones as well. Be intersting to see how it works on a large displacement engine.
As far as the guy whooping LS1's on the street. There are way too many people with fast cars that flat out can't drive. I've seen Z06 drivers running in the 14's before, and that should be a mid-low 12 car right? TPI was great back in the day, and dressed up it looks good. But 15+ years of technology has brought us a long way.

87WS6

iTrader: (1)

I'm no mechanic. I have however observed that newer cars are more effecient than older ones. They seem to do better with less power than older cars. Torque still makes a difference though. I have outrun alot of vehicles in my 2002 F-150. I have also outrun a 2002 Mustang GT in the 1/4 with my near stock LB9 TPI. The Mustang has more horsepower than I do. The Mustang has less Torque though. I raced him twice. The first time on a corner and the second on a straight line. I really killed him in the curves. Did ok in the straight line.

Guest

I just dont know what to say, except you dont know much. How gradual the bend is doesnt matter much, it WILL flow less than a straight piece of pipe. You could make a 1000' arc if you want, still same result. The TPI tubes would be considered a fairly sharp bend by most people. And if you really think there is nothing to be gained by making the tubes and runners in the base larger, I guess you fell asleep. Do a search for people who swapped runners and/or bases to aftermarket stuff with larger diameters on the same block and heads, and tell me if they went slower or faster. And just in case you missed it, L98 heads are NOT fast burn heads. So much for that theory.



I thought about that, before I siamesed my base. I already have a cut plenum. It was going to be too costly to finish, so its still sitting there in an uncomplete state. I was planning on blocking the runners off initially, but then I wasnt sure. Doesnt matter much to me now though, I have scrapped the idea.

Swapmaster

Well I hate to admit it but this manifold WILL work. Forget about
the upper plenum and those pesky long runners. He has taken
those out of the equation all together. As far as the heads will
know they are drawing from about a 3 or 4 inch long runners.
The design will create a plunum which is fed by all 8 runners.
The head will pull like 60% or 70% through the runners and 30%
or 40% from the new plenum.

I would think this intake would perform close to the LT1 intake
with the only exception being the sharp turn the air must make
as it enters the head which has been a standing problem with the
LTR setup anyway.

With all that said, it is one hell of a waste of money. The manifold
will need several hundreds of dollars thrown at it to complete it
unless the guy who buys it works in a machine shop.

As a few people here know, I will try most anything and have. But
this manifold is just a bad idea.

Ed Maher

Well at least i know i'm not crazy. Thanks for the back-up that it isn't as hare-brained as people would like to label.

jmd

iTrader: (4)

I looked at the intake on eBay, got the link emailed to me, etc. ad nauseum, and didn't think about it that deeply other than "someone got a little deeper than the water that covers their head."

But....



If you look at a 1999 7.4L truck port injected intake, it does slightly resemble this. Follow along please.

In the 7.4L intake (and others,) there's an enormous plenum at the bottom of the intake, and the runners feed from one side and run over the top of the intake to the intake port of the head. The design of the 7.4L intake actually would allow the runners to be effectively shortened, being that it's a two piece intake; the access is there.

The main problems I see with making this work on the LB9/L98 intake that he's modded is that

• the mounting ring for the oil splash pan is directly in the way of the runner for #1 and the runner for #8.
• while I can certainly see the possibility of building a large under intake-base plenum, it's rather anti-servicable because of the sealed lower plenum being unaccesible without removing this base.
• also, i dont' see a place for the TB to meter air to this lower plenum. The runners go from one side to the other, keeping a central TB from working. The EGR feed, distributor, EGR valve surface, EGR passage, thermostat, etc. etc. all keep a valid TB to plenum path from being added.
• oh yeah... way too much effort to weld that humpty dumpty back together again LOL

Aron213

this Manifold will not work, Ill explain why....you will be adding unmetered air, like a vacuum leak, this will throw your air/fuel ratio way lean, with no way to meter it. By adding the "second plenum" the air will be salvedged from other runners.

Swapmaster

Unmetered air?
Have you guys been following along?

Once completed the entire intake would be put back together
including the throttle body being bolted back onto the front of
the factory plenum where it will meter air like it has always done.
There is no need to add an extra throttle body to feed the lower
plenum. The lower plenum is there to effectivly shorten the
runner length.

As far as salvaging air from the rest of the runners, thats what is
supposed to do. That is why it will work so well.

I don't think anyone will ever finish it, it will cost too much.

poncho@home

do you read what I typed? I said as long as velocity stays up. Obviously I know that the bend will drop the velocity, but I did say as long as it stays up, in other words it still supplies enough air needed, and the LTR currently supplies more than needed for a stock setup, so it stands to reason that it can supply enough for a slightly modified engine!

I didn't miss that...that's why I purchased a set of Vortec 062 heads for my car, along with SDPC TPI base (that's how I came across this auction on ebay) I will be making more power with the same or less amount of air/fuel because I will be burning the mixture more efficiently.

The problem with that is that most people on this board and many other boards for that matter don't qualify these statements...I have actually seen very few people say that I ran 14.3 this weekend, changed Runners and ran 13.9...obviously changing runners and intakes along with a host of other mods, like heads and cam you can benefit from more air....but for the most part our stock LTR can make plenty of horsepower along with great torque numbers...

Use what you got to it's maximum before looking elsewhere

Basically the point I am trying to make is.... in general I, and people I know run better times with a more tame(stock) setups than people with wild setups...You guys pretty much remind me of the 60s & 70s street cars with velocity stacks sticking out of the hood and massive street tires out back...remember those cars...I am sure back then the guys bolting on a velocity stack were thinking "Well we'll get more air...richen out the carb, put on some mother f***in huge tires and go fast!!!" Ha we used to kill vettes and camaros like this with stock '71 455 H.O. Trans Ams....that could only rev to 5000 rpm (another obvious limitation, no?)