Nitsuj86Iroc

well if nobody knows what siamesing does to the harmonics of the intake, you just may be the man to find out! i would guess, that the siamesed section may have to be included in the length of runners, but not completely. say your siamesed section is 4 inches, maybe they act as if they were a 1.5" section of runner? who knows, but im sure its affecting it in some way. maybe negligable

1bad91Z

iTrader: (1)

I'm not at all saying that the dyno results are completely impossible either. However, it will be interesting to see the track times.

The siamesing of the lower portion of those ported runners look like it would cause turbulence. If the lower base was siamesed as well to match the runners, this will most likely cause a few cylinders to be leaner than others (like the mini-ram). That's the answer I was given from SLP a few years back when I was thinking of doing this mod. The engineer at SLP also told me to port match the plenum to the runner opening diameter but do not siamese the plenum. His explanation for that was, if you siamese the plenum, it will starve the front runner tube of that particular opening, hence giving more air to the second tube in that part of the runner. His final statement was that SLP came up with the second runner design for a reason, according to him the new style runners flow better and have more velocity.

1989GTATransAm

iTrader: (3)

I was in contact with Larry Meaux the author of Pipemax used by many of the top engine builders. He gave me some good information on seperating runners which I will incorporate into my First Injection intake modification. He did not have an answer as what effect the siamese runners would have on the harmonic wave tuning. Maybe no one has been down that path with the posible exception of GM etc.

Ibad91Z I know what you are saying in regard to the runners at the plenum. I think my design goes a long ways to negate that effect. With the larger open plenum area the air is not moving as fast and can negotiate the turns a lot better.

That is one of the main reasons I'm thinking of going to a monoblade. The air at the throttle body will be moving slower through the one big opening versus two smaller openings. It will also increase the plenum area and offer even less resistance to atmospheric filling of the plenum. I think this would help cylinders 1 and 2 in that regard.

Regarding the runners at the intake manifold. I did some cleanup this time that I was not able to do with my last upgrade around with both the runners and intake manifold to help the air transition. I don't see to much of a problem there.

However when I do the First intake mod this area will be redone and I will incorporate what Larry Meaux had to say. Every little bit helps.

HD4mula

This is great news. I'm using the same cam but I don't expect those high numbers as some parts are not that heavily modified.
Are the dyno numbers SAE? What is that "SAE 1.1" on yor chart?

1989GTATransAm

iTrader: (3)

Yes the standard SAE correction factor. I assume the 1.1 is the correction factor.

By the way the cam is retarded one degree and that would help the top end a wee bit.

DAVECS1

iTrader: (2)

I also also was told the same thing by SLP. When I prted my runners and plenum I did simese the plenum area. What I did to try and even things out was put a knife edge biasing the first runner. When I read my EGT they are all with 5-7 degrees of each other. This would atleast indicate to me things are not that far off.

I think 1989 GTA is right about the velocity playing a part in that. My temp gradients were larger with the stock throttle body.

The intake is not as much a mystery to me as the fact that they are not smacking pistons with their valves. Maybe I never learned to read my degree wheel right

1989GTATransAm

iTrader: (3)

Dave, it sounds like you were off a tooth or accidently used the wrong marks to line up with.

Larry Meaux said the same thing about using a knife edge to favor one runner over the other. This is probably what is done to help "even" out longer and shorter runners.

He also said a sharp runner divider tends to make the runners act longer and favor torque and a round divider tends to make the runner act shorter and favor higher rpm.

Guest

Probably because a rounded object in the middle of an airstream has less restriction than a sharpened object in the middle of an airstream.

JERRYWHO

I think the Dyno used has a barometric sensor problem.

The dyno shows 26.70 for the test
The 1 year record low for Fullerton airport is 29.2 (less then 5 miles away)
Fullerton airport recorded 30.01 at the time of dyno.

Try this calculator.

http://home.comcast.net/~mmsmith17/et/index.html

Input the dyno info
Humidity 21
Temp 63.75
Bar 26.70
Elev 90
Hp 362.89 ( uncorrected )

Hit calculate.
It will show the corrected peak on the chart 401.39 hp.

Now change the bar to 29.20 the record low and you will get 361.15 hp.
Now change the bar to 30.01 the recorded Bar and you will get 349.56 hp.

26.70 Bar = 1.1061 SAE cf = 401.39
29.20 Bar = 0.9955 SAE cf = 361.15
30.01 Bar = 0.9632 SAE cf = 349.56

I think it's a 350hp to 360hp. car

Jerry

Guest

I see the sails deflating already.

1bad91Z

iTrader: (1)

I was thinking dyno problem myself (as stated in my previous posts).

Still sounds like a pretty stout TPI motor though! I also still want to see track times.

In my opinion, you will have a better shot at 400 to the wheels with the First Injections TPI setup.

Good luck!

DAVECS1

iTrader: (2)

Still pretty impressive. My self confidence is slowly returning

cali92RS

Baaah nothing to get deflated over...
I mean fellas, vince and I both had extrudehoned super rams, bigger cams than that, plus i had fully worked heads, a manual tranny, and Allen's dyno run showed 30 RWHP more than ours.
30RWHP is A LOT more when your talking about how far we pushed the envelope of smog legal TPI based 350's.
Its still a damn good number.

Guest

No doubt. At least I dont have so far to go to pass him again. Well, at least until he puts that First manifold on there...

JERRYWHO

Can you post the dyno run of your car.
Please........

Jerry

Russ-So Cal

Even if the dyno was off a bit, it was the same dyno that gave Vincent a 370 rwhp, so considering all else being equal, that is 30 more rwhp. Vincent has run a 12.40 with his set up, so I would expect to see Allen around 12 flat or high 11's if he can get it to hook, and not break anything.

1989GTATransAm

iTrader: (3)

I believe Jerry is correct. After checking the weather sites at the time the barometric pressure on the dyno is off. The humidity and the temperature also are taken into account. I did not check them. When we do the dyno tune I will post the results and check the weather as a back up to what the dyno said.

From Jerry's testing and other reports the Edelbrock intake manifold Extrude Honed appears to flow in the 260 to 270cfm range. That is what is on my car now. Jerry rechecked the First Injection intake Manfold and untouched it flows 301CFM. I believe with some minor port work it should be no problem to get it to 310cfm.

Hopefully that will alow my heads to flow as much as they can. They flow a minimum of 276cfm now.

james_85Z28

You are assuming the dyno barometer was out of calibration at that time as well, but that has yet to be determined. Ken and Vincent had 365/371 RWHP respectively. I would be surprised if those weren't good numbers. I scared myself a couple times in Kens car, which I never did in my car. My best dyno number was 340 at a reputable dyno and that was with 1 5/8 headers, milder cam, cruddy air filter, and non-extrude honed (but slightly ported) super ram. The power difference between my car and kens was very, very noticeable.

I expect that Allen's new combo will be able to consistently run quicker times then Vincent. Vincent ran 12.40 on an exceptional day. I doubt he will be able to replicate that time on a not so exceptional day. But anyways, talk is cheap and that is why we race them.

injdinjn

Something might have got knocked out of kilter when he moved his shop.

1989GTATransAm

iTrader: (3)

Ok, I just looked at the uncorrected figures. They are 364.15rwhp and 354.14rwtq which is close to what Jerry came up with considering the dyno posted barometric pressure versus the weather office.

IMHO there is no way I'm only making 354.14 rwtq. Heck last time I was at 370rwtq and 330rwhp and that was with a weaker combination. Also a lot of us were at the same dyno on that same day. So is the rwtq a believeable number? That may hold the key to the real dyno numbers. Bottom line is I will just have to do some more testing.

Update: The last time I was in the 354RWTQ area was two upgrades ago and I have been going faster with each upgrade. Lookout Vincent!

VincentZ28

iTrader: (2)

I'll be waiting for ya! So far I'm still the king in SoCal.

1989GTATransAm

iTrader: (3)

Checked the barometric pressure from previous dyno pulls. On 7/22/05 it was 27.72 for run #9 and on 11/28/05 it was 27.95 for run #7. The pulls previous to that were in the 29.xx range.

I wonder if he is using barometric pressure to calibrate the dyno? The track times seem to validate the previous dyno results.

Vincent no matter what your days are still numbered.

Dyno Don

iTrader: (7)

The fact remains...where it made the numbers, not how accurate they were.
I don't remember anyone making peak tq. at 5250 or peak power at 6000.

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

very interesting..i guess we will wait and see how it runs at the track...that could help tell the story of the real power. 400whp or near that should be pretty fast on the trap speed.

1989GTATransAm

iTrader: (3)

Probably be sometime in May before we get to the track. Don has a couple of more cars comming out of his shop. Then we should have around 6 cars ready for dyno tunning. Then on to the track. We have a California North vs South meet at Famoso Racetrack just North of Bakersfield on June 2. We will get more track/tune time then.

1bad91Z

iTrader: (1)

Well, if you look at it, that TPI intake was effectively in a way turned into a super-ram (runner length etc..). Shortening the runner length raises the RPM where peak power can be made......

I'm curious to see where the peak will be with the first injections setup.

Dyno Don

iTrader: (7)

Bingo....that's exactly why it was done.
All the benefits without the hassle of the PIA pizza box.

1989GTATransAm

iTrader: (3)

...and IMHO better looking.

I was just thinking. BBK has shown some interest in a new TPI intake. Maybe Jerry and Don can stear them in the right direction. One thing is to not make it also suit the 305 unless they build two versions with the smaller runners for the 305.

WillSpeedy

Hey 1989GTATRANSAM, what are you using for prom tuning. Just interested in the custom touches you have going on there as well.

1989GTATransAm

iTrader: (3)

Kevin91Z is doing the tuning on the car. We have pretty much done the road tuning. Next up is the dyno tunning.

Believe it or not the gas milage is up from the last combination. On the highway with 3.70 gears I'm right at 20 mpg.

Guest

Our gas mileage went up too with the XFI cam, even though mine has more duration than yours... getting 21 instead of 18 previously.

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

well if i do go 383 and LT1 intake or something along those lines, i will look into the XFI 230/236.

1989GTATransAm

iTrader: (3)

That should be a fine cam for a 383.

1989GTATransAm

iTrader: (3)

Couple of things. After further review and talking to some people I think there is no doubt that the tires are still spinning on the dyno up to at least 5200 rpm. So the numbers below that are out to lunch. The torque reading should be higher.

I ordered some BF Goodrich G Force tires for the back. That should help on the next dyno pull to get an accurate reading. My old tires are hard as a rock.

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

wow, definately get some new numbers... how do you know for sure they were spinning?

Kevin91Z

iTrader: (1)

Speed vs RPM doesnt line up with known values from regular street driving.

Allen, we need to find one of those dynos where you bolt the axles to the dyno itself.

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

could u try having some ppl sit in the trunk with the hatch open to put some weight on the back end? seems to work with cars that spin tire on dyno

1989GTATransAm

iTrader: (3)

On the first pull the dyno operator could feel the tires slipping and shut it down. He had his people recinch the tie downs. That made things better.

With every run the power was going up. I believe what was really happening was that the tires were getting hotter and gripping better.

The waves in the lines below 5200 are an indication of tire slippage and as Kevin said.

The power and torque curves below 5200 just don't match the eye or any computer similation. Something amiss. Hence the tires slipping.

We shall see with the next run with the new tires.

Zipdrive

My buddy Shawn owns Church Automotive Testing in Wilmington and he has a few Dyna Pacs which 'bolt' up to the hubs. Give him a call at 310-713-6171. He has reasonable rates for just placing the thing on the dyno and doing a few pulls.

Tom.

1989GTATransAm

iTrader: (3)

Thanks for the information on the dyno. We will keep it in mind.

Jeffrey Fontaine

Any progress after the FIRST installation???

1989GTATransAm

iTrader: (3)

Hi Jeffery

I'm right in the middle of doing the conversion using the First intake manifold. I expect to complete the project around the end of August. I want to get the manifold flowed and compare it to the out of the box test. I would expect it to be up maybe another 10cfm and that would put it around 310cfm.

I'm going to have the underside coated to slow down the heat transfer.
I also have to get the intake manifold shaved to fit the milled head and decked block. These things will take some time. That is why the time schedule.

Jeffrey Fontaine

Cool, I look forward to it! To me, the TQ seems very odd, peaky instead of flat... Might have something to do with the high RPM test window though.

1989GTATransAm

iTrader: (3)

It is. I have a Yank SS3600 stall converter. You have to throw out the lower portion of the torque curve. It was started higher than I would have liked but the transmission wants to kick down into 2nd gear if the dyno run was any lower.

I will make a new thread and start posting pictures of what modifications I have done to make this all work. I also I'm using the factory fuel rails and regulator. Also converting the factory plenum to accept AS&M monoblade.

shocker89bird

Did I miss something? Are the times in your sig with this motor in your car with the 400rwhp? Just curious because the times look really slow for that kind of power at the wheels. If I missed something please correct me.

1989GTATransAm

iTrader: (3)

Yes you missed it in the thread. The dyno correction factor was way off drat it. The dyno shop had everything recalibrated and I went back and turned out 350rwhp.

I'm now in the process of upgrading my intake system using the First Injection TPI intake manifold. We shall see what that does stay tuned.

shocker89bird

Ok gotcha. I know that dynojets are not as accurate as mustang dynos plus your times suggested more like 320whp at your race weight. I would like to see the numbers with the FIRST intake. Still you made great power im not goign to argue that. Keep up the good work.

1989GTATransAm

iTrader: (3)

I have not gone back through the thread but my latest track times are in my signature. Not sure which ones you saw. Still having trouble getting the power the ground and I'm working on that part of it.

Kevin91Z

iTrader: (1)

We're also racing at a density altitude of 3000+, due to the only tracks here in SoCal are out in the foothills. Sea level ET's should be 2-3 tenths faster.

shocker89bird

Ok Kevin that sounds more accurate. Just doing basic numbers in my head and thought the car had more in it.