Sunny RS

I have a 92 RS 305 TBI I was wondering if The dual air snorkel would work on this car with no or little mod? I know that this will work on other camaros

Aaron91RS

iTrader: (2)

the A/C lines might be in the way of the snorkel if you close the hood. Bend them down and it should work out fine.

azvolfan

It worked well for me with very few mods. I have the one off of an L69 engine. I have had mine on the car for 8 months now.

CHEVYTOWN

Or you could run a "velocity tube." (Prior to this, I ran the airliter right off the cadi TBI airduct) There is this particular hill/freeway where I could only muster up 65mph in OverDrive. After the tubing, it jumped up to 76mph. An 11mph difference! I also noticed the RPM's "gettin' up" quicker too...:hail: velocity tube

Chevytwon

SuperchargedRS

Why???? Open element is alot better

avro206

I added one. The A.I.R. injection box was in the way...so it had to go. No emissions here..
but it made no performance difference...loooks nice though

redflashblue

holy **** chevytown ur car is slow

philoldsmobile

What car is it?

NotDadsW41

Look at the pictures you idoits.

It's a fullsize 60s Chevy truck with a inline 6cyl.

All things considered it's pretty damn quick.

Keith5

I don't like my Open element because if there is any heat build up under the hood my car is slower than hell! Like the heat that builds up in the staging lanes at the track, or in traffic in town.

I think the caddi airbox with that tube is the best looking intake duct I've seen for tbi.

philoldsmobile

Doh, sorry dude! aint quite up to speed on chevy trucks!

the engine looks good, the only inline 6 i've had was a 1959 Ford Zodiac, it looked dull under the bonnet, coz evrything was satin black, and there were very few dress up parts available.

My Fathers Jaguar XJ6 2.9 looked nice under the bonnet though!

CHEVYTOWN

lo siento (sorry) hometowns...

I was on a holiday...

Muchas gracias for the compliments and taking care of me back vatos! It's a 63 Chevy C10 stepside with a 250cid mated to a 2004R running 3.73 out back. Going to limited slip soon.

Considering the uphill climb of that freeway and skaten' with one shoe, I'm jazzed at the gain in performance. Redfalshblue, Now on flat level, I know this L6 with a big 'ol bag of tricks will give your V8 a run for it's money...

The best thing I noticed on performance is that the RPM's climb upstairs A WHOLE LOT QUICKER NOW!!!

I need to thank that itg air filter too. Heads think I'm talking smack with em on this filter, but it's no big deal if they listen or not... I switched it from a K&N and the difference is like dia y noche!

www.itgairfilters.com

I'd like to tune that velocity tube someday, but no time for now. We figured for now, let's just get it away from the heat as much as possible with cool air flowing around...

Thanks again hometowns... CHEVYTOWN

Sunny RS

Does ITG have any products made for 3rd gen cars and if so has anybody put them on their car and seen improvement?

CHEVYTOWN

I used to run an open element and as open as one can get! No drop base or the like to restrict airflow. It really didn't do anything for the engine as far as torque. I chucked this filtration quick.

ITG:

Write to itg and tell them what you have. They can custom build whatever you want. Then they will tell you to work with one of their dealers here in the states. It's worth your time Ima tellin' ya!

Kevin Johnson

Here is an interesting bit of information for the people who still think open elements work better than dual snorkels with cold air intakes on third-gen Camaros:

"...A good example of this can be found on carbureted Z-28s from about 1983 to 1985. The filter case has two relatively unrestrictive ducts drawing cold-air from the front of the car. Track testing has shown that vehicles equipped with this assembly ran better than 0.2 seconds faster in the 1/4-mile than the same vehicle with a full 360-degree, open-element aftermarket case. These were controlled tests with carburetor recalibrations performed as necessary and high-flow air-cleaner elements installed during all runs."*

Case closed.


*David Vizard In Volume 1 of "How to build horsepower," Brea, California: S-A Design Books, 1990, page 86.

philoldsmobile

the reason i run a 360 deg. open element is simple, i couldn't find a dual snorkel, and the edlebrock unit is cheap.

Has anyone had carb icing with these, i'd rather prevent it before it happens!

CHEVYTOWN

Just a little extra thought on this one...

http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=129

A hometown from that forum has a nice ram air set-up, says he bought most of his stuff at Lowes and the like...

CTOWN

NJ SPEEDER

it sounds liek some of you guys have soem good ideas, but i still think you are missing the point of the open element. the idea is to have as great a volume of air available to teh tb as possible. warm or cold, an engien can draw air more freely through a 14x3 than a pair of squished down ducts.
if het build up under teh hood is affecting your car so severely that you aren't getting a big gain from an open element it is time for you to look at what those heat sources are.
i got all my fastest runs with no element on teh car. that is about the warmest air you can get into teh engine, unless mnaybe you leave the thermacs in a dual snorkel.
my air flow experience went liek this: stock, stock with removed thermac and spacer ring(tthe one tha is spot welded onto the stock air box), 14x3 drop base open element, 14x3 flat basse open element, 14x4 flat base open element(when i got a cowl hood), and then no element. each time i opened up to more fo that "hot engien air" the more i gained.
i know soemoen is gonna point to my cowl hood and say that is what gave me the gains, in fact a cowl hood is not functional unless it is panned ro teh car is moving at rather low speeds. once you get rolling teh pressure from air forced into the engien compartment just forces all the excess air out through the cowl, not drawing it in. i never got a chance to run the cowl pan i made
you can even look at teh nhra stocker crowd, they can run any air filter they want, and most of them run no filter because it allows the most air in, even though it is a slightly higher temp, it is so much more volume.

later
tim

deadtrend1

iTrader: (1)

Thank you Tim! I had the stock air cleaner, then to a paper 14x3 drop base .. and then a k&N non drop base cleaner and it got better everytime. Its the cheapest, simplest and as i can tell most effective for the price.

Personally, I think it looks great too. The good ol' shiney retro carb look...

Kevin Johnson

I don't think I am missing the point in this particular question. With this car (thirdgen Z28 Camaro with a stock hood) someone took a lot of time to quantitatively measure whether the L69 setup works better than an open-element. It does -- end of story. It not only works better but significantly better.

If you have a complete L69 setup with a K&N high airflow filter and a K&N high airflow open element (that fits under the stock hood) AND you take the time to run multiple, consistent, back-to-back, accurately-timed, quarter-mile-tests on the same car then you have a better position to dispute the results. I am leaving out that the original test optimized the carb for each setup since we have TBIs but that is certainly do-able too.


They only need to ask you if actually quantitatively compared the various setups you tried to a complete L69 setup with a K&N. It doesn't sound like you did.


Maybe you can beat them by using an L69 with no air-filter.

Kevin Johnson

There is no doubt that an open element is cheaper. It has been my impression, and you mention, that cost and complexity (including ease of maintainance) are major concerns. A complete new L69 setup is about $250; add-in another $40 or so for a K&N. I am going from memory here, but I believe the L69 doesn't even use the truck-type, higher lid and 3 1/2" filter. Add those in if you want a bit more boost.

Certainly there are aesthetic considerations as well but then you are in the realm of "go-faster stripes" rather than hardcore performance. I think Bill's chromed L69 assembly is beautiful, BTW.

Slade1

There are somethings you can do to make an open element more effective, fisrt is a proper way to vent out the hot air from underneath the hood. Removing the rear hood seal is a start.

Second, Kevin, take into consideration a day with a high humidity/warm or hot temperatures and a properly vented engine bay. In that scenario just how much more advantage would a dual cold duct system have over an open element when pretty much you can't get any cooler than the surrounding environment air.

Another matter is the major difference in fuel distribution of a carb vs TBI. As much as we'd like to say both are similar, tests have also proven that through a change in fuel distribution and significantly less air flow net air flow more power can still be made. I'd have to dispute that many carb statistical data may not necessarily apply to TBI especially when air/fuel distribution comes into play.

Unless a true study that says this was done on a TBI, the case may not be closed.

A member on this board, witnessed by me had run in late september with an open element AND the L69 dual snorkel setup. Temperatures were in the mid 70's with a humidity of around 80%. His car was properly vented, no rear hood seal and the L69 intake had the thermacs removed. As I recall he did a direct comparison of his L69 to the open element and neither showed a distinct advantage over the other over 15 runs. He goes by tanager11.

My opinion though still stands that I would rather draw outside air into my engine than use the underhood air. That's why I've gone to the trouble of creating a decent RAM air scoop (TPI hybrid).

Kevin Johnson

Yes, those are good ideas. Another would be to isolate a large area around the element (air box) and have that open into a high pressure zone. This could also be faced with radiant heat reflectors. In other words, incrementally approach the concept of the sealed and ducted air cleaner assembly. I was talking with a racer here and he told me that he just mounts a bolt so that when you close the hood it puts a big ugly crease in it by the base of the windshield. Cheap cowl induction.



That's actually the climate I live in for most of the year (Tampa Bay).

You are still getting positive pressure into the ducts at speed. If you are interested there is an interesting discussion on pages 120-121 of Mike Urich and Bill Fishers' book "Holly carburetors and manifolds" (Tucson, AZ: H.P. Books, 1978):

"Very minor pressure increases are obtained in this way, but even a minor pressure can aid the induction system at high RPM ...
Other writers have claimed the improvement can amount to as much as +1.2% at 100 MPH, ... No matter what the capability of an engine is, such increases could make the difference between winning and losing."

I also seriously question whether underhood temperatures on such a day are comparable to ambient. In fact, it seems like a number of people have written in to the boards saying that in comparable hot weather their open element performance went south big time -- but maybe they just did not have a properly vented engine compartment (yes, you can drive a semi through that loophole).




Yes, but the manifolds in this test were held as a constant for the carburetors, not a variable, so this really doesn't apply.

Your modified argument might be that I don't have direct proof that the same trend doesn't apply to a given TBI on a given TBI fuel distribution optimized manifold. Very weak position for you to argue from.



I would agree with you in the sense that data from slapping a given TBI onto a manifold designed for a particular carburetor may not necessarily be consistent with data generated by the latter. Similar to the quandary over whether a carb/TBI spacer will improve performance for a given setup: empirical testing is the way to go.



So you're essentially saying that in a worst case scenario for the L69, the open element (with proper venting) might be equal to it?

Did the L69 have a filter comparable in airflow capabilities with the open element filter? (I mean, were they both high flow K&N type or was the L69 equipped with only a paper element -- very important point...?)

Yep, I hear you. That design is what I am driving right now. Fairly straight-forward to fabricate but time consuming.

azvolfan

Thanks for the compliment, Kevin.

Bill

deadtrend1

iTrader: (1)

nevermind

NJ SPEEDER

more available air is the point here. teh restrictive snorkels on a L69 just don't cut it. there is no ram effect to even help them because of teh stock hood cofiguration
as far as beating a L69 with no air cleaner, i just run no air cleaner or box or base or anything. that is how you have the most air available to teh engien at the least restriction.
worrying about a 10 degree change in ambient air temp and restricting teh amount of available draw is nto the way to go fast.
if dual snorkels worked stocker guys aroudn teh country woudl be all over them, but they run no air filter, becuase that is faster. and believe me when i say those guys have tested otu everything, some of them can tell you how much of a difference it makes if they put tubes in their tires or not.
as far as quantitative comparisons go. i did take a stock air box, a flat base 14x3 and a drop base 1x3 and a 14x4 with both bases to teh track. teh results, i went the highest mph with no air cleaner at all on teh car. between teh 14x4 with a flat base and no air cleaner ti was a difference of about .2 mph, but the results were consistant.
all air cleaners used k&n filters when i did my testing.



later
tim

Kevin Johnson

That is an interesting position to hold but unfortunately it is exactly the one disproved by the test. To find out whether that was correct they ran the test: It's not.

Look, Slade's arguments offer you a graceful way out of this. You can change a lot more things on the car and still probably have it fall under stocker rules. Some of those synergistic changes could let an open air element equal or beat an L69. This reminds me of the TBI vs TPI debate.

NJ SPEEDER

kevin, i am not exactly sure why you thik i need to find a way out of this. you are refering to a test that is only valid from one source and only references speeds above 100mph. since i do not have that book at my disposal, i can also not comment on teh conditions under which it was tested.
i also do not understand how you can possible think that the combos that the stocker guys run would possible benefit from what you seem to believe is less air. if teh L69 snorkel could actually provide enough air to be of any benefit you woudl see them under teh hood on every stocker thirdgen in the country, the truth is, you rarely see any air cleaner of any type.
if speeds of 100+ were teh only concern, that article may hold some water to me. but since we are talking about drag racing where only a few secodns is spent at speeds anywhere near teh test speeds in these cars, i have trouble considering it valid. maybe in the last 100ft of the track you have a little more, and that is a big maybe. even then what about the rest of the way down teh track? is the lack of ram or the small snorkle costing air? we don't know with out teh rest of the test data. i seriously doubt that before this supposed ram effect starts working that a pair of 1x3 snorkels can out flow the surface area of a 14x3 or no element at all.
i think what we are gonna see at the end of our debating back and forth is that we won't have a conclusive answer until we can get someone on the track with several different air cleaners and then correct all teh times to standard for a fair comparison.
if anyoen wants to volunteer all we have to do is collect teh necessary air cleaners and plan a time to meet. i am thinking we need a stock air box with a K&N(this can represent teh control group from which to compare all gains), a stock air box with a gutted thermac, a 14x3 drop base with K&N, a 14x3 flat base, a complete stock L69 set up with K&N, and a L69 set up with gutted thermacs.
i have teh stock air boxes and the 14x3's we can use. if anyone has L69 set ups they woudl liek to volunteer for this we can get it done.

later
tim

Kevin Johnson

"Graceful" would be re-reading the original post and discovering that the test specifically deals with 1/4 mile drag racing. You are thinking about the second reference I cited.

Later,

Kevin

NJ SPEEDER

i don't see where you are coming from kevin. you can site one source and you think it shoudl out weigh what i have seen in my own car adn the results that a few thousand nhra stock racers around the coutry have seen in their cars.
i think you shoudl do more research before you take teh word of a sheet of paper, unless it is teh record pages otu of national dragster, hardly any of those guys run air cleaners.

later
tim

Guest

Here is the problem with that test:

How much power was the engine putting out?

Once you go past the effectiveness of air delivery of the L69 setup, it becomes a restriction and hinders power. This will vary depending on whats under it of course, and I am sure weather conditions play a huge factor as well. I couldnt pin a number on it, but there is going to be a point where it becomes a problem. I really doubt that David Vizard tried to find that spot.

I know of one person who did a back to back comparison between an open element and L69 (not the guy listed above). I dont remember the specifics of the test, but I do remember it was slightly faster with the open element. He was on the L69 bandwagon for a long time, and it sorta opened his eyes that what you see and hear doesnt always apply to your situation.

Kevin Johnson

Here are David Vizard's credentials; they look pretty impressive to me. Yes, I am willing to trust a controlled experiment he cited. Just call me odd.

http://www.motortecmag.com/profiles/david.html

David Vizard -Technical Editor

by Chuck McLean

It's pretty apparent that I have more to say about David Vizard than our other contributors. Why? Because, as a practicing work-o-holic he has packed probably three lifetimes work into his already 42 year long career and this technically makes him the oldest of our team with 126 man years of experience. Think I'm exaggerating? Well, try this for size.

Apart from a full time career as a designer and a performance consultant he has a full time journalistic career. In this capacity he has written over 3000 feature magazine articles. This alone makes him one of the most recognized and, more to the point, one of the most respected and read automotive writers in the world. This volume of material as far as I can determine, is more than the next two most published automotive writers put together. During one 20 month period in the early 80's he appeared in no less the 12 magazines a month with often two articles in some of these. With the aid of a 90 words a minute professional typist he once produced 11 feature articles in just 7 days! As a writer of performance stuff he is unique in that he is the only writer to have produced books that have allowed complete beginners to go out and win against pro builders. How did he get so far ahead of the game? A lot of determination and 50,000 dyno pulls just might have something to do with it.

Along with articles he has had 29 books published of which 5 have been publisher's best sellers. As much work as that may seem we are not done yet. The material for the articles and books was not from some outside source where all the work was already done. About 95% of the porting, engine builds, machining processes, dyno testing etc was done personally by DV.

Usually people who shine at theoretical stuff are a little short on the practical side. Not so DV. Apart from his academic qualifications in the field of both mechanical and electrical engineering he is also a qualified toolmaker and can expertly run just about any machine in a machine shop. On one occasion he made a camshaft using only a lathe and a file to form the lobes.

David Vizard's engineering background is the aerospace industry. He won an apprenticeship with one of the worlds leading aerospace companies and after attaining degree level mechanical engineering went on to become an R&D engineer for that company. During this time he worked on some pretty exotic supersonic aircraft and many of the contents of his desk drawers were in folders marked 'Top Secret'.

Since then he has been a consultant to many well known companies from top Formula one manufactures across the board to some of the best known names in the cam, induction and exhaust business. Just one example of his work is the range of cams he designed for a popular European car. These cams outsell all others combined. He also has his name on over 40 patents ranging from fuels to 4 valve cylinder head designs. Heading a team of four engineers he developed what could have well been the first 50/50 car. That's 50 mpg at 50 mph. I can't say for sure this effort was first but it was before Honda did it and done on a really skinny budget. This project not only showed DV's engineering talent to good effect but also the quality of the team he chose to work with highlighted his ability to surround himself with some of the sharpest brains in the business.

As if the forgoing was not enough David is also an accomplished race driver. He has driven his way to drag racing championships but really shines at road racing where he has set class lap records on every major racetrack in England. On 4 separate occasions he has taken a team to a 100% season win record by virtue of the speed he has found for them. Two of these occasions were at international level! In his best season his motors achieved a combined 169 track records, first places, and championship wins - from just 8 engines!

On each of two seasons when DV decided to devote time to a complete season of racing, his cars, by the end of the year, were not simply competitive, but totally dominant. How dominant, in the supporting race of the British Grand Prix at Brands Hatch, driving in the Sedan manufactures championship, he took his car from 28th on the grid to joint first by the first bend! Millions of British race fans watched that on TV. At Prescott hill climb, one of England's oldest tracks, David stormed up this 1000 yd. course on a damp asphalt surface 7 seconds faster than the current track record holder and a time 0.2 of a second faster than the fastest F1 car! These are not isolated events!

Although setting lap records is not unusual in itself there can hardly be many who have achieved it in cars where they developed not only the engines but also the chassis, including designing the shock absorbers, the aerodynamics and even doing the paint job.

DV is a man who seems constantly ahead of his time. Just one example of this is the 'tunnel' ground effects car he built in 1971, that was a full 7 years before we saw it at Indy. Most tech writers would like to be up to the minute with their material. Very few achieve it. DV is not only up to the minute most of the time but ahead of the game. Often , in his capacity as a consultant, he is doing research that will result in components that will be seen on F1 cars in a couple of year's time.

Unlike most effective sources of race technology DV is very generous with information being prepared to give out almost anything that is 'declassified'. Couple this to a renowned ability to simplify complex subjects and you have an information transfer formula second to none. This is in stark contrast to most engine builders who are 'paranoidly secretive'. Bearing all the factors in mind it is easy to see why DV's lectures to Pro engine builders at Universities such as Denver and Charlotte have proved unparalleled in popularity. Such popularity though is hardly confined to the US. In England he is known as Vizard the Wizard. During his one and so far only visit to Australia for a lecture tour he signed over 2000 autographs. Try naming one other writer that would be called upon to pen his name that many times?

Put all this together and I seriously doubt you will find a person with more overall qualifications to make your car go faster than the next guys or get it past the finish line first. This, my friends, is why we have David Vizard as the kingpin of our publication.

Kevin Johnson

Yes, certainly you can structure a counter-example outside the parameters of the original experiment. But then it is not strictly a counter-example to that experiment, is it?

Why not be fair and propose to run an experiment where identical open elements are used, save that one is enclosed in a ram-air, slightly-pressurized plenum (in other words, a morphed air-cleaner assembly) and the other is not but has proper hood venting. Ceteris paribus (all other things being held the same) my vote is for the pressurized plenum.

Guest

Now you are changing the rules. You have been talking about the L69 aircleaner, which has a small element and there is nothing you can do about it. All I said was that when this becomes a restriction, you will lose power. At a certain point, the benefit of the cold air will be negated by the restriction. Can I be any clearer? I guess not. You are just trying to save face that there is a point where it can and will become a problem. Even Vizard knows it:
From your own quote:
"The filter case has two relatively unrestrictive ducts"

Relative to what? Like I said, the parameters are not defined.

I dont think anyone is arguing that cold air or a ram air setup is better, but it has to be able to supply enough air to the engine too. How much is enough depends on the engine. The L69 aircleaner I can already tell you from cars I see at the dragstrip would choke some engines to death.

As for me 'structuring a counter-example outside the parameters of the original experiment', you didnt tell me what those parameters were anyway. I was thinking about a 100,000hp turbocharged and supercharged engine, because it wasnt specified what was under that L69 aircleaner, aside of a carbureted engine. I dont even know what vehicle it was in. If he gained .2, it could have been a lawnmower engine under there, that doesnt need much air. I dont really know what it was.

Kevin Johnson

Yeah, right.


When you get to the point of reading what I quoted then I might worry about saving face:

"...A good example of this can be found on carbureted Z-28s from about 1983 to 1985."

Jeesh.

philoldsmobile

I have just gone back to the stock set up for winter, to avoid carb icing. The difference between this and the Edlebrock air cleaner is minimal to nothing, depending on the time of day and ambient air temp, so i suspect in summer there wont be a differance at all.

Chevy spend a lot of money developing a car, so a £30 part may have an efect, but it will also have a counter effect, otherwise Chevy would have done it themselves.

CHEVYTOWN

le to race at a track without a hood? Or is that against the rules...

By "relatively" I'm sure he means the size of the openings for the ducts. Yes they are small, but without a hood, it will be a whole different game. The same for the open element! You certainly can't get bent out of shape about the idea because you are getting just as much air/possibly a little ram effect/Dense air. The L69 setup will benefit from not "running out of air and choking itself" to pack the cylinders with a higer velocity charge as the "ranfla" races down the track... I'll take velocity over the open element and sure as hell would never think of running without an airfilter. Talk about crap getting sucked in, shiiiiiiit.

Now as for me, I'll take that itg with that tube anyday. This is a perfect setup (for me) to run for the strip because these itg's are designed to take in most of the air from the tip. If I could run without a hood/or take out my right blinker assembly (for those of you familiar with 60-66 C10's)...talk about ram air power! The faster the charge can enter the cylinders and the faster the engine can spit the fire out them pipes, the faster one jets down da track.

Would be nice to see 2 third gen's without the hoods, one open element, the other with the L69 and may the best hotrod win!

CHEVYTOWN AND THE GENERAL MOTORS GANGSTERS having a little family rivalry, thas all....

(I could see someone getting bent about not running a hood..:lala: )

Guest

What vehicles? It doesnt say. It only says they used that particular air cleaner setup. Ive seen all sorts of stuff installed on different kind of vehicles.

NJ SPEEDER

kevin, those credentials soudn wonderful. but they still add up to teh same thing, one source with one experiment.
also, we don't know the notes on teh car. was it a dead consistant bracket car(liek mine was when i did my testing)? did the weather conditions change over teh course of the testing? where the results corrected to standard condidtions for comparison?
regardless of this guys rep, or his work in aerospace, or the magazine he writes for, i still see the way that stocker guys will run over every possible combo they have at their disposal and pick teh best one. those guys are meticulous to teh point that they know what to do to find another hundredth or two anytime they may need it. that is were the best answer will always come from in my mind, a wide variety of people trying lots of different combonations,and when almost all of them who run a carb/tbi come up with teh same answer, including all of the nhra national record holders, it is gonna be the right one.

later
tim

Kevin Johnson

HUH?

C'mon. This is getting old real fast.

"...A good example of this can be found on carbureted Z-28s from about 1983 to 1985. The filter case has two relatively unrestrictive ducts drawing cold-air from the front of the car. Track testing has shown that vehicles equipped with this assembly ran better than 0.2 seconds faster in the 1/4-mile than the same vehicle with a full 360-degree, open-element aftermarket case. These were controlled tests with carburetor recalibrations performed as necessary and high-flow air-cleaner elements installed during all runs."*

Kevin Johnson

Excellent point. Replication is always good to add power to a result and to doublecheck the protocol. (I am actually running a replication of a 1970s experiment right now.) And we don't know the p-value.

You know what, though? Even though this is just one controlled experiment I give it more credence than thousands of uncontrolled anecdotal experiences.


Yes, probably kinda like the reasons why he's run 50,000 dyno pulls.

Re-read his credentials. It's not just 'rep' or 'hype.'

Repeat the experiment. I encourage you. Find some bone stock 83-85 Z28s with the L69 setup and let'r rip. Read up about what "between subjects and within subjects" means in experimental science and report your results.

NJ SPEEDER

LOL...... i love that, "anecdotal"......haha..... you jsut made it really obvious you don't know jack about stock racing. these guys don't just show up at the track adn run teh latest rumor parts. they all have thousands of runs under their belts before they ever get past teh first few rounds of a national event.
and yes, what those credentials are is a reputation, not the word of ***. i am not rippin on him at all, that is a hell of a resume. but it still is only on person with one experiment that we don't even have a fraction of the data for.
i have already stated teh changes that different air cleaners made on my car, and if you think my results are "anecdotal" too, i will let you know now that i have nearly 1200 passes in my 91 with the 305. that is a lot of passes under all sorts of weather conditions, from freezing to 100 degrees and 100% humidity(ya gotta love summers in new jersey). that is teh reson i put more faith in my repeated experimenting adn the repeated experimenting of a few thousand stock class guys instead of a man with a great reputation and one experiment.
if you know where we can scrounge up aome air boxes and find a thirdgen camaro(carb or tbi) that hooks consistantly i am more than willing to put my position on the track. i will even pay for the persons track time to make my point.

later
tim

Kevin Johnson

"Repeat the experiment. I encourage you. Find some bone stock 83-85 Z28s with the L69 setup and let'r rip. Read up about what "between subjects and within subjects" means in experimental science and report your results."

NJ SPEEDER

i don't know if you noticed, but stock 83-85 z28's aren't exactly fallin out of trees in teh north east. also, i already offered, twice actually, to organize teh experiment if we get some volunteers.
since you seem to be teh one lacking in evidnce and myself and several otehr here have tried many air cleaner and no air cleaner combos, i think yopu should be the one stepping up to offer proof, but instead it me that is willing to put his position to teh test.
go get the rest of the information about teh results that were published. find otu what the car was that this was based on, was it dead stock? did it spin teh tires? was it a bracket car? stick or auto? was it an novice driver or a pro?
these are the things taht woudl lend soem level of credibility to taht article. until you can come up wiht anything more substantial than having read that soem guys says it works, you aren't conviving me of anything.
i am nto saying it is impossible that you are correct, you just seem to want to convince me when you have nothing more than a paragraph from an article to fall back on.

later
tim

Kevin Johnson

Tim,

I composed an email to Mr. Vizard with your questions. I hope to hear back from him.

Kevin

Nate86

Over a year and still no word?

Kevin Johnson

LOL! Just walked in the door from a trip to Pensacola returning a borrowed engine.

No, never heard anything back from Mr. Vizard. In the meantime my wife and I started a small business making crank scrapers for engines. It consumes all of my time, needless to say. We currently have patterns for over 200 engines (including the sbc of course). Just added the straight sixes for the old Datsun Z cars as well as the Chevy 2.8, 3.1 and 3.4 60 degree V6 engines.

Kind regards,

Kevin Johnson
Ishihara-Johnson Crank Scrapers
Land O' Lakes, FL
http://www.crank-scrapers.com

northerncalkitt

I just bought a L69 dual snorkel air cleaner for my carbuerated 84 Pontiac T/A K.I.T.T car. I am looking for the pieces that come off the air cleaner and mount to the car. All I have is the air cleaner assembly and nothing else.

If anyone has a line on the accessories, please shoot it my way..


Thanks...


Marty