New! Edelbrock LS XT Intake Manifold
Nov 21, 2008 | 08:36 AM
#73
Shorter runners generally optimize towards higher rpms, so I would think these would benefit the cars more than the trucks.
Nov 21, 2008 | 08:42 AM
#74
oh wait my truck weighs the same as a car, I guess that just means it sucks for you guys.
Nov 22, 2008 | 07:29 PM
#75
Now tell me the gains are @ off idle or 1200- 5000 or to 1200-6200, & u have my attn. ( & my truck's)
. Richard, thanks for sharing your pictures and information.
How would you characterize this manifold versus something like a composite manifold as far as the power range that it's tuned for?
Thanks,
Steve
PS
It appears that by mid to later 2009, we'll have a host of intakes (single and dual plane, composite OEM and aftermarket, sheet metal with short/fat runners , individual throttle bodies on short runners and now a tunnel ram style with mid length runners) for cathedral and rectangular port engines. Who could have imagined this just a few years ago?
How would you characterize this manifold versus something like a composite manifold as far as the power range that it's tuned for?
Thanks,
Steve
PS
It appears that by mid to later 2009, we'll have a host of intakes (single and dual plane, composite OEM and aftermarket, sheet metal with short/fat runners , individual throttle bodies on short runners and now a tunnel ram style with mid length runners) for cathedral and rectangular port engines. Who could have imagined this just a few years ago?
Well, its pretty much nothing new but over the years the lack of truth is present in all the parts and forum talk.
A truck is heavy. What does it take to move a heavy vehicle? Low end TQ and low speed air movement. You can never go wrong about building for too much low end power in a heavy vehicle. Why do you think all the magnacharged guys do so well with such little HP dyno graphs? That same reason. TQ on tap down low. Thats all. No rocket science here.
So now here we are as time goes on and new parts are introduced on a daily basis around here. Manifolds all seem to be the new thing in. And whats happening? Everyone is going slower. People are building trucks for HP. Wrong!!! Just because it looks promising on a dyno graph from Edlebrook, which companies like that all make it sound great, does not mean you gained anything from the truck at all.
Getting back to the manifold. GM was not stupid, composite is great. NO HEAT!!! Heat is power. ... But the argument could be that I want top end power right? When was the last time you saw an LS style motor spin 7200rpms? Or even 8K where it finally shines? Yeah, see where I am going with this? Work with the range the motor was built to work with. And everyone around here who has went carb style went to a stroker crank. The reverse of what should of happened. No one is putting thought anymore into building the right way. They are just slapping parts on. Take time to realize how this motor is really built, and then people will start realizing its very easy to make a truck fast, and they could spend less.
Rick
A truck is heavy. What does it take to move a heavy vehicle? Low end TQ and low speed air movement. You can never go wrong about building for too much low end power in a heavy vehicle. Why do you think all the magnacharged guys do so well with such little HP dyno graphs? That same reason. TQ on tap down low. Thats all. No rocket science here.
So now here we are as time goes on and new parts are introduced on a daily basis around here. Manifolds all seem to be the new thing in. And whats happening? Everyone is going slower. People are building trucks for HP. Wrong!!! Just because it looks promising on a dyno graph from Edlebrook, which companies like that all make it sound great, does not mean you gained anything from the truck at all.
Getting back to the manifold. GM was not stupid, composite is great. NO HEAT!!! Heat is power. ... But the argument could be that I want top end power right? When was the last time you saw an LS style motor spin 7200rpms? Or even 8K where it finally shines? Yeah, see where I am going with this? Work with the range the motor was built to work with. And everyone around here who has went carb style went to a stroker crank. The reverse of what should of happened. No one is putting thought anymore into building the right way. They are just slapping parts on. Take time to realize how this motor is really built, and then people will start realizing its very easy to make a truck fast, and they could spend less.
Rick
Offer it both ways.
+1.
Dec 8, 2008 | 09:55 PM
#77
Watch again: When the pull starts at low rpm, you can see the throttle open to almost full before they fade into a shot of the screen. You'll see that the cam that the cable pulls starts out in an almost verticle position, and goes horizontal as the cable pulls it. Then in the rest of the video, it stays horizontal. It's not that the blade wasn't opening, it's that it was never closed!
Dec 8, 2008 | 10:17 PM
#78
It looks like the runners are a little shorter than the Vic Jr's four long runners, but noticably longer than the Vic's four short runners, going by comparing pictures.
Just from that info, my fantasy dyno would show more power at a lower rpm than the Vic, but not much lower, and over a narrower spread.
There, it's official.
Just from that info, my fantasy dyno would show more power at a lower rpm than the Vic, but not much lower, and over a narrower spread.
There, it's official.
Dec 9, 2008 | 08:55 AM
#80
Truck guy's need new fuel rails for anything then our intake. You car guys can use a fast or pro prod intake with your stock stuff. But no matter what we get we need to change everything. An ls6 intake swap cost us double then an f-body because of everything that needs to be modified.