1 3/4" vs 1 7/8" Long tube
Feb 21, 2016 | 08:15 PM
#11
You don't have the slightest clue. 
Since you'll disagree, answer this one question, if there is absolutely nothing to lose, why do most engines come with cast manifolds? Point being, LTs would come on every single engine manufactured if there truly was nothing to lose.
Watch who you listen to bud.
Since you'll disagree, answer this one question, if there is absolutely nothing to lose, why do most engines come with cast manifolds? Point being, LTs would come on every single engine manufactured if there truly was nothing to lose.Watch who you listen to bud.
Manufacturers use cast manifolds for considerations other than just performance.
My point being that he won't suffer any loss going from factory manifolds to LTs, whether 1 3/4" or 1 7/8".
Feb 23, 2016 | 09:04 PM
#14
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (87)
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 19,145
Likes: 8
From: Turnin' Wrenches Infractions: 005
Ive owned them all. Every time you go up in size on the primary, low and midrange suffers, and top end gains. Doesn't mean the low and mid range is crap, it just means it is less then the smaller primary. And that's fact!!
Feb 23, 2016 | 09:29 PM
#15
I went from 1 3/4" long tubes to 1 7/8 long tubes and I can not even tell the difference. it does sound a little deeper but as far as losing low end I cant tell or gains on top end. I have a 5.3 l with a low lift 212 218 cam. 2600 stall 4.11 gears magna flow cat back, CAI. 2005 CCSB Silverado.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
TAPyvehc93
INTERNAL ENGINE MODIFICATIONS
1
Feb 15, 2016 09:35 PM