PerformanceTrucks.net Forums

PerformanceTrucks.net Forums (https://www.performancetrucks.net/forums/)
-   GM Engine & Exhaust Performance (https://www.performancetrucks.net/forums/gm-engine-exhaust-performance-21/)
-   -   Holley Hi-Rise vs Mid-Rise dyno results (https://www.performancetrucks.net/forums/gm-engine-exhaust-performance-21/holley-hi-rise-vs-mid-rise-dyno-results-525374/)

BlackGMC 01-06-2014 11:53 AM

Holley Hi-Rise vs Mid-Rise dyno results
 
I found this article on holley's website. it basically compares the Hi-Rise to the Mid-rise on the same motor...

Holley Intakes - Taking LS Intakes To New Heights - Super Chevy Magazine

results


Not surprisingly, the Hi-Ram intake offered more power and torque, with peak numbers of 563 hp and 505 lb-ft of torque. Extra top-end power is always welcome, but what about having to fit it underhood? That is where the mid-rise comes in. In terms of power, the mid-rise was no slouch, offering 543 hp and 499 lb-ft of torque. A review of the graph illustrates that the mid-rise actually offered more power than the Hi-Ram up to 4,800 rpm, and kept pace with its big brother up to 5,900 rpm. Only after 6,000 rpm did the high-Ram pull away, but there is no denying the extra 20 hp offered by the tunnel ram design. Loyal readers will remember we tested the mid-rise previously in carbureted trim back in Modern Mouse, part 5. Regardless of what system you pick, you'll be proud to pop the hood and strut your stuff.

Read more: Holley Intakes - Taking LS Intakes To New Heights - Super Chevy Magazine
http://image.superchevy.com/f/techni...-vs-hi-ram.jpg

RS/SS 4.8 01-06-2014 12:08 PM

So about a 20hp difference. In that case ill take the highrise cuz the mid rise still looks funny.

03sierraslt 01-06-2014 12:15 PM


Originally Posted by RS/SS 4.8 (Post 5179193)
So about a 20hp difference. In that case ill take the highrise cuz the mid rise still looks funny.

Beyond 6k. Below 4800 the mid makes more hp and tq. This was with a 383, so if you have a smaller engine the mid rise should prove to be even more beneficial. On 400 + CI engines I think the high rise would be the bet. Thats just my .02

Vortec350ss 01-06-2014 12:33 PM


Originally Posted by 03sierraslt (Post 5179194)
Beyond 6k. Below 4800 the mid makes more hp and tq. This was with a 383, so if you have a smaller engine the mid rise should prove to be even more beneficial. On 400 + CI engines I think the high rise would be the bet. Thats just my .02


I agree with this. Below 4500 there is a clear winner, and above 6k there is a clear winner. Toss that in a 364 and those RPM ranges are gonna move slightly to the right. If you spin high RPM in something larher than a 6 liter than its a no brainer... for everyone else its not so cut and dry.

I will say in quickly looking at the pics I am a little surprised. Whats different about the mid rise? To me it just looks like shorter runners. so I would have expected an opposite end result.

Atomic 01-06-2014 02:27 PM

I would have expected an opposite results as well...

Wouldve been really useful if they dynod a stock intake in there as well.

BlackGMC 01-06-2014 02:43 PM

i figured yall would find that result interesting...

TIM Z 01-06-2014 05:18 PM

Yeah good read , I want the bottom end to get a heavy truck moving .
Give me a light car and I'll take the highrise .

BlackGMC 01-06-2014 05:46 PM

Yeah so this is gonna be my next mod. Mainly for the cool looking factor. I just wonder what the results would be with boost. My truck makes good boost in low rpms so i am kinda thinking about the mid rise.

Atomic 01-06-2014 05:48 PM

Boost doesnt care about your intake.

BlackGMC 01-06-2014 05:49 PM


Originally Posted by Atomic (Post 5179320)
Boost doesnt care about your intake.

So since i am a huge vag that has not gone over 5800rpms since i put the kit on. You think the mid rise would fit my vag-e-ness better?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:48 PM.


© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands