91L98Z28

anyone have any real world results (or even dyno results) of a full superram vs. siamesed runner TPI?

I'm already running an accel base and the AS&M siamesed runners (the ones that are siamesed over half their length). The goal (in the future with the help of some afr190's) is to get somewhere into the 12's.

My reason for asking is this, if the superram isn't worth a whole lot over the accel base/as&m SS runners at the high-12 second level, I'm inclined to sell it and put the $ to something which will show better gain for the $.

thougths?

Ragtop89

Check out this thread:
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...light=SuperRam

85TPI400

this link should be somewhat close to what you are looking for, although it does not compare the SS runners it compares the TPIS/ ASM Large tube runners to a Superram, check it out...
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...hreadid=168418

BuckeyeROC

If you're looking for high 12's, the intake you have will do it.

If you get a SR and the AFR 190's you plan on and get a cam matched to the combo, there's no reason you should be stuck in the high 12's.

The SR is nice b/c it lets you make power to 6000 rpm while retaining that nice low end TQ, or as shown on that link 85TPI400 posted, actually gaining more TQ. The cam you use will be important too. I wouldn't use the same cam in a LTR as I would a SR motor.

Since you seem to be thinking of going to a SR/AFR 190 combo, if you have any questions, just PM me. I did MUCH research a couple yrs. ago before getting this combo. And I feel that once it's tuned, I'll be running high 11's on my drag radials or be VERY close to it.

camarojoe

Just so you guys know, in case you don't, the guy with the vette that gained 38rwhp with the superram over ltr's only gained 4rwhp peak with the 219 cam over the zz9 cam. I think the zz9 cam gave a little more tq across the board. He also ran slightly better times with the zz9 cam. I'll tell you why this is though. The Trickflow heads don't have the flow characterisitcs that Lingenfelter had in mind when he designed the superram (219) cam. The superram works its best when the heads have a good I/E ratio, eg. AFR's or LPE vette heads, plus it likes a single pattern cam. The reason the zz9 made better power under the curve is because of it's a dual pattern cam, which helped the weak exhaust flow of the Trickflow heads. I'm sure most of you guys noticed this, but I just want to make sure for new guys interested in the SR, that you must have heads that flow great on both sides!

Jed

You'll have no problems reaching that goal with your current intake. I also run AS&M SS runners & siamesed plenum on an Edelbrock base. I bought these runners several years ago from Traxion, who was running mid twelves with them. Do a search under his name, I know he has posted a good deal of info on them in the past.

BuckeyeROC

Excellent point!

DannyT

I am running the TPIS stage I AFR 190 heads with my 383 SuperRam but I am running the ZZ9 cam (212/226) with 1.6RRs. Do you think I would run better with the 219/219 cam?

DannyT

I also noticed his HP peak at only 4800 RPMs? WTF is up with that?
Are those heads that lame? I thought most HP peaks for SRs were around 5200 RPMs.
I definitely need to my car dynoed again with the new setup to get some current REAL numbers.

bjankuski

I am the guy with the vette and trick flow heads and I need to set the record straight on the trick flow heads. The trick flow heads flow very well and compare nicely to the AFR 190 heads. The intake ports on both the trick flow heads and AFR heads on the flow bench are almost copies of each other flowing within 2 or 3 CFM of each other at each checked lift point. The exhaust ports are also similar but the AFR head is slightly better. With a maximium difference of 10 CFM at .550 lift. The intake to exhaust ratio on the trick flow heads is 78% while the AFR's is 82%. A good designed cylinder head will have an intake to exhaust ratio of better then 70% which both of the heads acheive. With the ZZ-9 cam my peak power with the Superram occured at 4700 RPM, with the 219 cam I had a double peak of both 5500 RPM and then 6000 RPM. I do not believe the cylinder heads are holding me back.

camarojoe

Your heads are not the problem. But they're not exactly the ported vette heads that Lingenfelter designed the 219 cam to with for either. JFYI, according to Chevy Hi-Perf. the Trickflow I/E ratio is around 73% and that's flowed through a pipe, which yields better results than just flow from the port. Peak flow was 183 cfm at .600 lift. The AFR's had a 77% I/E ratio and flowed 211 cfm peak on the exhaust. Both sets of heads were tested on the same bench, so CHP did an unbiased test. I think the AFR's may only give you a few more hp maybe 10 tops with the 219 cam, but it be interesting to know what the gain would be. I think porting the exhaust of your heads would give you the same gain as the AFR's and would help your cam max out its potenial. But really, a fully CNC'd head is not the same as a partly CNC'd head, that's why the AFR's are more money. Trust me, I like Trickflows, they can be ported to make more hp than any head, if you know the right people. I just like the AFR's better out of the box, they are going to make more power only if a little, and that's why I bought them.

camarojoe

I think you'd gaind a little 10-15hp max, which if it were me, it wouldn't be enough to warrant the change. Check out the cam in my sig, now that ought to be wicked in a SR'd 383. Even though my 383 never ran right or I should say it isn't running right, I thought the 219 cam doesn't have enough lope for my taste. I only managed a 13.2 in the 1/4 but some of my cylinders are leaking 15-20% from my rings being fubar'd. A re-build is coming this month.

DannyT

Thanks for the clarification. I am just surprised that there is such a big difference in the peak RPMs with the ZZ9 compared to the Accel 219 cam. Here I am shifting at 5700 RPMs and if your numbers are on par with my then I am really overrevving. That would make sense though because I pulled pretty well on a buddy of mine from a roll when shifting in the low 5000RPM range but at the track I was pulling 109 MPH trap speeds shifting at 5700 RPMs to his 107-108 MPH and I thought there would be a larger gap.
When you said you had a double peak of 5500 RPMs and 6000RPMs was the cam the only difference?
What were the torque peak RPMs at also?