comp 216/220?
Oct 3, 2004 | 08:31 AM
#82
man and all i said is i liked my 216-220-525-532-114 cam. all this talk about intakes and cams and duration numbers. hell this makes me want to go put a 396 in my truck with a carb and run it.
Oct 3, 2004 | 10:27 AM
#83
TECH Addict
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,618
Likes: 0
From: Central, MA
This is a great thread. Good call on logging vacuum and using it as a intake restriction tool, MRR23. Some things seem so obvious when they're pointed out to you, but I never would have thought of it on my own.
I was getting close to seriously looking into LS6 or LS2-truck intake soon... but I'd love to know what's up with the small cam vs truck intake "oddity" first.
One thing about the 10* less duration (at .050") I'm running on the intake now... the cam feels much more "cammy" compared to the very linear TR220. It's very pronounced when the cam wakes up and makes good power down there at like 1,800rpm. That's one thing I don't hear many people mention with the Comp 212/218 low lift... which I would kind of expect...
I don't know where the think the power, streetability, and FUN comes from - VE's, Accelerate Lift technology, or...............?
I was getting close to seriously looking into LS6 or LS2-truck intake soon... but I'd love to know what's up with the small cam vs truck intake "oddity" first.
One thing about the 10* less duration (at .050") I'm running on the intake now... the cam feels much more "cammy" compared to the very linear TR220. It's very pronounced when the cam wakes up and makes good power down there at like 1,800rpm. That's one thing I don't hear many people mention with the Comp 212/218 low lift... which I would kind of expect...
I don't know where the think the power, streetability, and FUN comes from - VE's, Accelerate Lift technology, or...............?
Oct 3, 2004 | 08:33 PM
#84
Originally Posted by SportSide 5.3
Look at the dyno graphs of LS1's. Power begins to fall off. This is a clear sign.
The intake manifold becomes a restriction and bottle necks the engine. It can not meet the demands of the cylinder head.
This is why tq is usually at its peak around 4800rpm or less. And hp at 6200-6400rpm's or less.
Most all EFI motors are intake restricted. Power drops. In the carb world, some of the setups will climb to 7400rpm. Like I said, the design is the restriction.
The intake manifold becomes a restriction and bottle necks the engine. It can not meet the demands of the cylinder head.
This is why tq is usually at its peak around 4800rpm or less. And hp at 6200-6400rpm's or less.
Most all EFI motors are intake restricted. Power drops. In the carb world, some of the setups will climb to 7400rpm. Like I said, the design is the restriction.
Oct 3, 2004 | 08:40 PM
#85
Originally Posted by SportSide 5.3
Vinci now is porting cylinder heads, correct?
Do you have flow numbers with the intake manifold in place? If so, could you post the results?
Thanks.
Do you have flow numbers with the intake manifold in place? If so, could you post the results?
Thanks.
Oct 3, 2004 | 09:00 PM
#86
your looking at this from a completely drag racing setup.
A performance stand point I would call it.
why do you want to turn 7400 rpms if you don't have to
Perhaps we could gain power getting there with a non restricted manifold.
Of course, this might lead to lack of low end power and throttle response.
This is where you come up with reverse splits to compensate for the restricted intake manifold.
It seems you feel because the FAST manifold isn't revealing better dyno results, we are not intake restricted. Is that a false assumption?
Get Vinci to flow a set of HEADS
w/ the manifold in place. 
Oct 3, 2004 | 09:31 PM
#87
Originally Posted by SportSide 5.3
A performance stand point I would call it.
Originally Posted by SportSide 5.3
Your missing the point. With the GM manifolds in place, power usually begins to drop at 6200-6400rpm give or take w/ setup.
Power begins to drop at 6200, but perhaps we could gain power there with a non restricted manifold. Possibly, but then we might suffer with low rpm power and throttle response.
Either way...
The intake manifold is a restriction.
Power begins to drop at 6200, but perhaps we could gain power there with a non restricted manifold. Possibly, but then we might suffer with low rpm power and throttle response.
Either way...
The intake manifold is a restriction.
Originally Posted by SportSide 5.3
Get Vinci to flow a motor w/ the manifold in place.
Oct 3, 2004 | 09:59 PM
#89
Originally Posted by SportSide 5.3
Your missing the point. With the GM manifolds in place, power usually begins to drop at 6200-6400rpm give or take w/ setup.
Originally Posted by SportSide 5.3
Perhaps we could gain power getting there with a non restricted manifold.
Of course, this might lead to lack of low end power and throttle response.
This is where you come up with reverse splits to compensate for the restricted intake manifold.
Of course, this might lead to lack of low end power and throttle response.
This is where you come up with reverse splits to compensate for the restricted intake manifold.
Originally Posted by SportSide 5.3
It seems you feel because the FAST manifold isn't revealing better dyno results, we are not intake restricted. Is that a false assumption?
we can go round and round on this for weeks to come. you are dead set on wanting to change your intake. time to get off the pot and do it. but, when you do, get ready for a large cam (with driveability issues, i like lumpy cams sounds too), more rear gear, shorter tires (or larger if you went too far on the gear swap).
