Camin00

What if you evenly milled the runners entrance at a 45* to eliminate the 90* turn. Leave the runner length but just help air flow direction?

Vortec350ss

iTrader: (20)

Did anything ever come of this? I am curious how exactly it would have worked out.

Cakes

iTrader: (2)

This project is on hold for now because my 4L60 was destroyed. Once I swap in my Ace Racing 4L80 and get all the bugs out I will revive this. I am hoping by late summer/early fall I can get back into the project. I have yet to find a base to have milled so if anyone has one for sale it would be appreciated.

damianldaigle

My lower intake will be at TEA Tuesday for port matching to my heads. I'm going to send them a link to see what they think of this. No doubt it'll loose torque from the lose of low rpm velocity but it seems you would gain top end from less restriction.

To me it would seem best to cut the runners all the way back or leave a few inches as they did but cut the top back for a more direct flow. Opinions???

swift700

iTrader: (3)

Agreed. Cut the tops back to allow more direct flow into them.

damianldaigle

The guys at TEA felt the same as I did on cutting the runners out, There would be a shift in power adding a few more HP up top but loosing a few lb torque. After allot of debating I decided not to cut mine just yet. How I look at is the MP112 may not have enough *** as say the 2300 that could fully take advantage of an open plenum design. If I can find another lower intake I'll have it cut and do a dyno comparison to see exactly what the pro and cons will be. If I were trying to make every last bit of power I would definitely get it done but this is my DD and I'll be towing quiet a bit.

hyeride00

.....updates on this? Was a very interesting cliff hanger!

Cakes

iTrader: (2)

No real update on this as it sort of died on the vine so to speak. I got a hold of Mangacharger's technical people and they understood where I was coming from and said to give it a try as they never did test a Radix with the lower intake from a Corvette or GTO. These are the intakes that were created using the "prototype" photo shown in my original posts. After looking at those kits the main differences are the packing height to clear the car hood cowls and also the size of the intercooler. They must have liked the design as the newer generation TVS1900 and TVS2300 uses something similar albeit even larger. Unfortunately they directed me to their sales department so I could see if I could purchase a lower intake and I have yet to get a response.

Having said all that, I think I have come to the conclusion about a few things. The MP112 is a great supercharger for what it was intended. It loses adiabatic efficiency very quickly once the boost is turned up thus people think it is a weak supercharger. I think in the 9-11 PS range it can be a super-fun add on to peoples vehicles. The key to making it make decent power is doing everything you can to keep it cool. A larger reservoir and as much heat exchanging as possible will help with the drop in IATs once out of boost.

There are only a few things that I have found to substantially decrease in-boost IATs. From my research a phenolic spacer should in theory drop IATs significantly both in-boost and during no boost situations. The main reasons are two: (1) the phenolic isolates the supercharger and intercooler from the lower intake manifold limiting the amount of engine/oil heat that can be transferred and (2) the plenum volume is increased due to the thickness of the plate. This also would give the ability for a larger (i.e. thicker) intercooler for more cooling capacity to be fabricated and installed.

The phenolic spacer is my next major modification to my truck. Right now I would say my truck averagess around 45-50*F above ambient during non-boost situations. From the limited number of people who have used this on an MP112, they are seeing 25*F difference from ambient to IAT. This is pretty significant as the delta T from non-boost to in-boost will remain the same (in theory) thus WOT IATs should be -25*F from before. This with tuning could allow some good increases in power and also it will drop off slower compared to before.

Lastly, I think the MP112 is an awesome supercharger (as stated above) and as long as the people who are using them know what to expect from them, they will be happy. Assuming the setup is ideal (moderate boost, engine size, cam selection, etc.) they can be made to produce power in the upper 400 range to low 500 range without issue.

hyeride00

Thanks for the response. I have been searching for a shop that makes spacer for the 112, but have not come up with anything.

I just posted a thread in forced induction (https://www.performancetrucks.net/fo...te-s-c-532875/) about my setup and if a spacer is the easy fix, I'm in.

As much as I like your idea, I'm not sure Magnuson would want to be super helpful. Upgrades such as this could possibly hurt sales. While I don't necessarily agree with them not helping, I understand it.

Cakes

iTrader: (2)

I think there would be a world of difference between a phenolic spacer on an MP112 vs. TVS1900/TVS2300 upgrade. According to Ray at RDS (manufacturer of the spacers) he is claiming an average increase of 40HP with his plate. He did not say if that was with tuning or not but I would assume yes to take advantage of the decreased intake temperatures.

A TVS1900 upgrade could be worth easily over 100 HP to a MP112. I know the MP112 will bring in the power sooner but will run out of (hot) breath once it gets warm and that is where the TVS rotors will shine.