When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
IMO start to weigh the cost vs rewards of your time and efforts more heavily than the sole $$money value of the parts.
In other words think of the situation as if parts cost is negligible (free).
This eliminates the benefit of the LS as a free power plant, which hurts it as a swap option.
Is it still superior in all aspects? Weight, balance, tech, delivery, support, yes.
I like the way you said all that, and it hurts me now cause it's back to an even playing field of if I want to keep the car respectful to it's roots or hog it out with an LS and say bye bye to historical value... But then again it's a car I never plan to sell because it's been in my family it's whole life. Thanks for the point of view! More options to think about for the coming years!
i dont believe the 540 figures for a 350 tpi
OP if you are going to use a FT better call Chris straub or mike jones. Most lifters today are garabge and will go flat.
THey will know which ones will hold up.They arent what they all were 20 yrs ago
I appreciate that tip! I'll keep it in mind in the future but if I do anything with SBC I'm probably going to be utilizing an aftermarket 400 based roller block instead of the flat tappet set ups.
Here is what Ken said about the runner length; “Yes, the FIRST runners are a bit shorter than stock. The rpm cap is increased over the stock tpi quite a bit.” I thought I saw somewhere that they were 19” but he didn’t give me exact measurements. I have seen ls swaps on a c4 and they are nice and powerful, but I really like the old style of the normal small block Chevy, and I know an engine swap like that would be too much for me to know how to do. I like the looks of the old style and I never have liked when cars have plastic intakes including later c4s plus all that wiring everywhere. The only plastic intake that doesn’t look cheap to me is the lt5 and I think that’s because when it’s painted you can’t even tell it’s plastic. When I do mine I don’t plan on doing anything to the bottom end because it seems fine and they are forged on the 85, and I plan on changing it to a roller cam as many people have suggested it.
Here is what Ken said about the runner length; “Yes, the FIRST runners are a bit shorter than stock. The rpm cap is increased over the stock tpi quite a bit.” I thought I saw somewhere that they were 19” but he didn’t give me exact measurements. I have seen ls swaps on a c4 and they are nice and powerful, but I really like the old style of the normal small block Chevy, and I know an engine swap like that would be too much for me to know how to do. I like the looks of the old style and I never have liked when cars have plastic intakes including later c4s plus all that wiring everywhere. The only plastic intake that doesn’t look cheap to me is the lt5 and I think that’s because when it’s painted you can’t even tell it’s plastic. When I do mine I don’t plan on doing anything to the bottom end because it seems fine and they are forged on the 85, and I plan on changing it to a roller cam as many people have suggested it.
Well only the pistons are forged. The crank is a regular nodular crank. And iirc some late 85s didn't get forged pistons even....
Well only the pistons are forged. The crank is a regular nodular crank. And iirc some late 85s didn't get forged pistons even....
Oh, that’s right I remember some people saying the 85 has forged pistons and some say it doesn’t so I guess that’s why. If I ever messed with the bottom end I would like to change it to a 383 but I have no clue about anything in the bottom end and how a 350 even gets changed into a 383. If you made it a 383 would you keep the same cylinder heads as were on it when it was a 350?
Here is what Ken said about the runner length; “Yes, the FIRST runners are a bit shorter than stock. The rpm cap is increased over the stock tpi quite a bit.” I thought I saw somewhere that they were 19” but he didn’t give me exact measurements.
LOL, best non-answer from a non-politician evar! I'm sure it's nominally shorter, but there's no way it's 5" shorter. Just compare the two side by side. It's not physically possible to make runners much shorter using the same architecture, and especially not if one keeps the mild bends in the runners. Also, with the much wider tubes used in the First intake a significant part of each runner has a significantly tighter radius than stock. Chances are that the vast majority of airflow is occurring on the outside portion of the major bend in the tube, and therefore may actually have a longer effective length. The First intake might have runners that are shorter by half an inch or something. Like I said before, the First will raise the resonance frequencies a bit just by having much larger-diameter runner tubes. But every dyno I've ever seen shows that it still has a hard rpm limit not much higher than 5000rpm, which puts a serious cap on power potential.
Here is my Dyno of a first intake showing before and after long tubes. The car is a 84 350 with trick flow heads and a Compucam 2040. Not a perfect cam for the intake however the car runs and idles perfectly and with a better cam will put down an additional 50hp and increase the rpms 500 to 750 I believe a 383 would produce close to 400whp
lol I always forget how tragic those TPI dyno graphs are
peak power at 4k lmao
leave that in the history books as a successful intermediary design of the first fuel injection apparatus,
from a time when engines produced by America detest anything more than 5k rpm
lol I always forget how tragic those TPI dyno graphs are
peak power at 4k lmao
leave that in the history books as a successful intermediary design of the first fuel injection apparatus,
from a time when engines produced by America detest anything more than 5k rpm
Well, that might be too harsh. In their day it was a way to get more oomph and excitement from an engine still hobbled by rudimentary emissions controls and crude ECMs. They didn't have near the knowledge of good combustion chambers that they do today, and compression ratio had to be kept low. The cams had to be teeny and have basically no overlap, too. All in all, there was no hope of getting a factory engine to run at higher rpms anyway. So, being stuck with a lower rpm range anyway, GM basically tried to get what they could out of it. It's hard to remember now just how big of a leap these engines were. Just five years earlier, all "musclecars" struggled to get 17-second quarter-mile times. Suddenly, the L98 and Ford's Mustang GT could get into the 14s in fully stock trim. That was a major milestone. The one bridge to that that I can recall is that both Ford and Chevy had "HO" versions of their 5-liters with carbs in 1985, just before EFI became reality for them (the Chevy was the L69).
So in my view they were far from tragic for their times. I just think it's important to recognize the severe limitations these long-tube intake put on modern builds. And again, if you have it and want to reuse it, that's one thing. But to spend over $1000 to get that kind of intake today is a real mistake.
Well, that might be too harsh. In their day it was a way to get more oomph and excitement from an engine still hobbled by rudimentary emissions controls and crude ECMs. They didn't have near the knowledge of good combustion chambers that they do today, and compression ratio had to be kept low.
yeah thats kinda what I meant. The graph is tragic; not the combination. I had my own TPI back in the day, when I was 17 years old check it out
motor ran GREAT. I think I went 13.2 at like 108 or something in 2002, I know for sure it did 25mpg and definitely felt powerful for just having less than 300hp or whatever.
The cams had to be teeny and have basically no overlap, too. All in all, there was no hope of getting a factory engine to run at higher rpms anyway. So, being stuck with a lower rpm range anyway, GM basically tried to get what they could out of it.
Yep its what I was getting at with my 5k rpm comment. props to them for figuring out how to 'supercharge' their engine with a redline of 5k. Good deal.
So in my view they were far from tragic for their times. I just think it's important to recognize the severe limitations these long-tube intake put on modern builds. And again, if you have it and want to reuse it, that's one thing. But to spend over $1000 to get that kind of intake today is a real mistake.
Agree, not a tragic setup. Just a tragic looking graph. A 2L turbo puts out the similar torque and over a hundred more HP from the same year, so uh. yeah
A milestone to chevrolet, sure,
but to Nissan and Toyota (of the same year ranges) it was absolutely tragedy to have 3x the displacement supplying graphs like that when those smaller engines were doing so much more.
This is a stock 2.6L (~150 cubic inches) from a skyline with a large turbo and fuel system upgrade.
Not exactly a cheap engine (5k ish) but nevertheless it shows what was happening with half the displacement (half of 5L) as early as 06?
And now here we are 15 years later from that day, and still talking about 5 to 6L engines making 400 or 500hp.
It takes a little perspective but. If you follow through with logic, double the displacement you double the power. Or supposed to.
So 5L engine should do 1200rwhp or what the **** are you doing, wasting your time. Unless its an antique/restoration project, gtfo
It takes a little perspective but. If you follow through with logic, double the displacement you double the power. Or supposed to.
So 5L engine should do 1200rwhp or what the **** are you doing, wasting your time. Unless its an antique/restoration project, gtfo
It's trivially easy to make 1200rwhp with any pushrod V8 and a turbo (you obviously have to pick correct parts if you want it to last). A friend of mine made 1500rwhp (or more - the tires started slipping on the dyno at that point) with a 351 in a Mustang at least 15 years ago. Turbos have their own tragedies, though.
Why does every thread about power turn into someone saying it should have over 1,000 horsepower with lots of turbochargers? Maybe someone just can’t spend that much or wants a classic style engine like the old small block Chevy. Anyway, I asked Ken again since you were wondering the length and here is what he said, “The FIRST runner length from plenum runner opening to base head port is approximately 17" on the long side or outside length. Please feel free to have anyone contact us from any forum if they have questions about our intake. We are more than happy to answer any questions.” If anyone wants to ask him about the intake his email is on their website at firstfuelinjection.com. From what I can tell this is a great intake for a 350 or even some bigger engines unless you want your rpms up around 7 or 8k. I’ll have to measure the runners when I have both intakes off and know the exact difference, I thought I saw the stock tpi runners are around 21”.
Interesting to see that intake. I wish the website had more information about them, like runner size, plenum volume, etc.
Theres a Superram on Ebay for about twice that price, and lots of information about them. I'd love to have the superram, but not for what its selling for.
This intake out performs the Super Ram for half the price.
I don't have any dyno numbers, but my best trap speed is 115 mph with 383 cid FIRST (1990 manual transmission). It would be interesting to hear what kind of mph figures are guys with 383 Miniram typically seeing? It would give some perspective how bad FIRST is compared to short runner intakes. ☺
The whole idea that torque at the crankshaft has some magical ability to create performance betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of torque and power. Torque at the crank is not what determines a car's acceleration - power is, and only power is. At any given speed, and assuming all else (weight, drag, traction, etc.) is equal, the car that put the most power to its drive tires will always accelerate the fastest. Period.
This is misleading and not exactly true. Power and only power determines a car's instantaneous acceleration, but it will not necessarily make it the fastest. At a given speed (and only at that one given speed) and assuming all else including gearing is equal, the car with a higher power will have a higher acceleration at that instant. Note it will by definition also have a higher torque at that instant. Acceleration is measured in feet per second squared or gs.
Having a higher acceleration at a specific point does not necessarily translate to having the faster car. Usually the faster car is measured in time or speed/distance, not in g. Being able to put the most energy to the pavement over a given time or distance is what will determine that, and in that metric what matters is the shape if the power/torque curve, the torque under the curve and the amount of time you spend in it. Mathematically it is the sum of the definite integrals of the torque with respect to time multiplied by the mechanical advantage in each gear. That will tell you which car will be going faster when you stop accelerating at the end of the race. The only way this automatically the car with the higher peak power is if you are using a CVT that will keep the engine at the peak power RPM.
This is misleading and not exactly true. Power and only power determines a car's instantaneous acceleration, but it will not necessarily make it the fastest. At a given speed (and only at that one given speed) and assuming all else including gearing is equal, the car with a higher power will have a higher acceleration at that instant. Note it will by definition also have a higher torque at that instant. Acceleration is measured in feet per second squared or gs.
Having a higher acceleration at a specific point does not necessarily translate to having the faster car. Usually the faster car is measured in time or speed/distance, not in g. Being able to put the most energy to the pavement over a given time or distance is what will determine that, and in that metric what matters is the shape if the power/torque curve, the torque under the curve and the amount of time you spend in it. Mathematically it is the sum of the definite integrals of the torque with respect to time multiplied by the mechanical advantage in each gear. That will tell you which car will be going faster when you stop accelerating at the end of the race. The only way this automatically the car with the higher peak power is if you are using a CVT that will keep the engine at the peak power RPM.
What you are saying is the same as saying highest power under the curve wherethe car is operated. As you noted the higher the torque the higher the power at any given RPM. Power is what determines the acceleration of a car. More power more acceleration. More torque is more power.
2020 Corvette of the Year Finalist (appearance mods)
C4 of Year Winner (appearance mods) 2019
Originally Posted by MatthewMiller
Well, that might be too harsh. In their day it was a way to get more oomph and excitement from an engine still hobbled by rudimentary emissions controls and crude ECMs.....
So in my view they were far from tragic for their times. I just think it's important to recognize the severe limitations these long-tube intake put on modern builds. And again, if you have it and want to reuse it, that's one thing. But to spend over $1000 to get that kind of intake today is a real mistake.
It's also important to recognize every person does not need to build for 1/4m times or to drive in a 1k higher powerband to leverage WHERE they "built" for power. If you have the fixed budget of spending "X" dollars and the goal IS maximum HP, long runners aren't the best choice. That said EVEN YOU recognize getting "more oomph and excitement" in a lower powerband has value. How?....That's a tough concept to convey or even qualify. But, I'll try.
I'll be the first one to admit swapping to an HSR/MR would make my 383 "torque build" faster on the track....or even on the hwy from 60-90mph. But, building for "torque" provides excellent opportunity to experience "oomph" without the need to run 4500-6000 rpms all day. Normal driving (at least for me) averages WAY closer to 3k rpms than 5k rpms. As such, I get to "feel" better torque because I built for it. For whatever reason, I might even get a bit better mpg. I have a small SUV and my 383 Corvette. When I drive on the hwy, I always pick the Vette because it's also happens to be my "economy" car! LOL
I will also add that a manual (like the ZF6 I have) makes the choice of a torque build more appealing than an automatic would. Of course, there are other factors too. Though it's fair to say HSR/MR/SR should be considered the best options for a "new" intake, I think it's also reasonable to avoid piling on threads the minute they mention HP. I'm guessing most people don't even understand torque vs HP, consider all aspects of "use and driveability", understand intake reversion, or even how a given person will drive their car from day-to-day.
Considering how many builds we've seen in Gen 1 and Gen 2 -- that are based on stock TPI or short-runner intakes -- I'm personally disappointed we don't see more builds with FFI intakes. It would be interesting to see more (HSR and) FIRSTs. Plus, there's a solid case for putting FIRST/SR/HSR in the "midrange" category of intake options...and probably in that order. And, we really only get to see SR builds...that are "in the true middle".
12-03-2019, 09:57 PM
