SBC intake question for the experts

[Warp Speed]

Isn't this the "Engine Tech" board? So I guess if you want to build an engine and don't want a 4,500 rpm converter and 4.88 gears you need to go find a different forum?

Maybe a few of you should just start a new "My Way is the Only Way and you're an Idiot if you have a different preference" echo-chamber forum.

[randy331]

Maybe a few of you should just start a new "My Way is the Only Way and you're an Idiot if you have a different preference" echo-chamber forum.

ST already has that, it's called the political section.

Randy

[Carnut1]

TowVehicleTalk...........

It just needs a dual plane and a 224 cam with .450 lift! LOL

Actually it was 206 and .533" lift early 90's

[Warp Speed]

TowVehicleTalk...........

It just needs a dual plane and a 224 cam with .450 lift! LOL

Actually it was 206 and .533" lift early 90's

I wasn't referring to your comment, but if the shoe fits..........
Btw, almost 30 years ago, and "extensive testing"? Lol
You quoted me so...........

[rfoll]

Maybe GM thinks you will change the tiny cam on delivery, or they want to keep the tiny cam to boost the midrange on the motor with the cool looking intake. I have yet to understand the rather large duration spread on that cam.

[Carnut1]

TowVehicleTalk...........

It just needs a dual plane and a 224 cam with .450 lift! LOL

Actually it was 206 and .533" lift early 90's

I wasn't referring to your comment, but if the shoe fits..........
Btw, almost 30 years ago, and "extensive testing"? Lol
You quoted me so...........

It was extensive on multiple rides with lots of intakes. Single and dual plane, modded and stock. Add in spacers and different fuel injections, carb types and cfm's and it was costly and time consuming!

[randy331]

I have yet to understand the rather large duration spread on that cam.

How much duration spread does it need ?

Randy

[Warp Speed]

Actually it was 206 and .533" lift early 90's

I wasn't referring to your comment, but if the shoe fits..........
Btw, almost 30 years ago, and "extensive testing"? Lol
You quoted me so...........

It was extensive on multiple rides with lots of intakes. Single and dual plane, modded and stock. Add in spacers and different fuel injections, carb types and cfm's and it was costly and time consuming!

Using the old butt dyno I take it?

It all good, and I really don't care. It is funny though, Rev guy mentioned people hopping on others when they have a differing opinion. How ironic is That! Hahaha

[RevTheory]

ST already has that, it's called the political section.

Randy

Oh shoot, Randy, I thought an engine board was an engine board and other boards were other boards. My bad!

Let me add a couple of these because they always further the conversation

Yes, I'm only being sarcastic but really, why can't a guy ask a question about wanting to enhance a certain rpm range without being derided by the same three or four guys? Is it really that big of a deal?

Edit: I had an honest question for stat but now that you guys have started in, it's not worth it. That's becoming commonplace around here and it's no bueno.

[Warp Speed]

I have yet to understand the rather large duration spread on that cam.

How much duration spread does it need ?

Randy

He could tell you if he had the flowz! Hahaha

[Carnut1]

I wasn't referring to your comment, but if the shoe fits..........
Btw, almost 30 years ago, and "extensive testing"? Lol
You quoted me so...........

It was extensive on multiple rides with lots of intakes. Single and dual plane, modded and stock. Add in spacers and different fuel injections, carb types and cfm's and it was costly and time consuming!

Using the old butt dyno I take it?

It all good, and I really don't care. It is funny though, Rev guy mentioned people hopping on others when they have a differing opinion. How ironic is That! Hahaha

Yes Warp, I don't feel I am hopping on anyone. I have had good results with both designs but depending on application one design works better.

[randy331]

ST already has that, it's called the political section.

Randy

Oh shoot, Randy, I thought an engine board was an engine board and other boards were other boards. My bad!

Let me add a couple of these because they always further the conversation

Yes, I'm only being sarcastic but really, why can't a guy ask a question about wanting to enhance a certain rpm range without being derided by the same three or four guys? Is it really that big of a deal?

Edit: I had an honest question for stat but now that you guys have started in, it's not worth it. That's becoming commonplace around here and it's no bueno.

Wow, rev, my post was sarcastic. Well kind of. LOL
I haven't taken any offence from your posts, you shouldn't take any from mine.

Randy

[RevTheory]

It's hard to tell on written text especially when people have been getting dogpiled for daring to desire something other than a 7+ thousand rpm engine and making the cardinal sin of having a different opinion from the "experts".

And here the last few months, you can't even read through a thread without seeing all the not-so-subtle snipe hits from the same guys directed at certain people.

It's just getting old and sorry for taking your comment wrong. Maybe I'm on the verge of my "cycle"

[CGT]

OP. That manifold runs good, not overly big for a single plane. Same manifold that's on my special needs project.

And here the last few months, you can't even read through a thread without seeing all the not-so-subtle snipe hits from the same guys directed at certain people.

If someone or anyone for that matter, makes unproven statements, uses this forum as an advertising mechanism, gives advice to people as absolutes without any first hand experience in the matter, cites butt dyno improvements from porting "in the rain", makes 100% direct relations between flow and horsepower. etc etc. Prepare to get sniped. Its warranted.

Nobody knows everything, and I don't have a problem with people that don't...Im one of them. Just with people with no hands-on or real world experience in a matter, giving theoretical advice to someone as fact based on "belief".

I have received plenty of snipes on my projects, special needs in particular for being a "high rpm" engine, not streetable, etc. When it makes outstanding low end torque, just happens to like to rev. No big deal

[Carnut1]

OP. That manifold runs good, not overly big for a single plane. Same manifold that's on my special needs project.

And here the last few months, you can't even read through a thread without seeing all the not-so-subtle snipe hits from the same guys directed at certain people.

If someone or anyone for that matter, makes unproven statements, uses this forum as an advertising mechanism, gives advice to people as absolutes without any first hand experience in the matter, cites butt dyno improvements from porting "in the rain", makes 100% direct relations between flow and horsepower. etc etc. Prepare to get sniped. Its warranted.

Nobody knows everything, and I don't have a problem with people that don't...Im one of them. Just with people with no hands-on or real world experience in a matter, giving theoretical advice to someone as fact based on "belief".

I have received plenty of snipes on my projects, special needs in particular for being a "high rpm" engine, not streetable, etc. When it makes outstanding low end torque, just happens to like to rev. No big deal

ok Chad, by the way the paint on "special needs" looks great.