I came across this while going through some old magazines. This is from 1991

 

Sorry for the upside down shot, I flipped them but I guess it didn't save.

 

For whatever reason this intake has always been around but rarely is it known by tpi enthusiasts. For tpi builders i dont see why you would mess with anything else for 350+ inch motors. First is the biggest and that is better for larger motors

 

Recall the company that originally developed it when through several owners and it sat on the back burner for a long time before being re-released.

 

Nice grab of history!

The runner length still has a detrimental impact on power curve. There's no way I'd be caught dead installing that on a customer's 408 I'll be EFIing.

 

No doubt there is a limit. Thats why i said for tpi builders, out the box the first is the best available.
Runner length for certain rpm ranges changes with engine specs but so does cfm demand and cross sectional areas. A big 400 may need total runner of 12-14" for a certain rpm range but that runner would need to be large to pass flow. Thats one of the problems with tpi, runners too small to support rpms. First helps but bigger is needed for the really big sbc's. Case in point, 1989gtatransam's tpi on his 369" motor. Its a true long runner design but its very large in diameter. Its supported 6500 rpms peak powers on that motor. Runner and base csa's are large enough. For a 400" sbc you'd have to go even bigger which isnt possible (i dont think). There are other short runner intakes that do that job just fine . I got a single plane on my car for that reason

 

Yuuuup, It has been around for a looong time. Back when I was modding some of my 1st TPI builds.
I'm hearing its undergoing some improvements these days..

 

 

don't see that they listed the street ram

 

I like the look of the BDS.unit...

 

In the late 80's CB Performance (Claude's buggies) was also making a VERY nice small block chevy EFI mainfold. It had a lower piece that covered the valley and heads with bolt on runners. the runners were basically tunnel ram style with a seperate V-bottom plenum.
It was a nice piece that had the potential to have optional different length runners. Unfortunately CB was more interested in the VW stuff and one of the guys there I talked to said they never were able to get more than 300 horsepower from a small block chevy on their Dyno. Obviously the guys didnt know squat about making power with a chevy.
I've always wanted to see somebody market such a manifold again.

 

Street ram? You mean holley stealth ram? or? I don't the HSR was out back then. It came out around 2003?? IIRC..

 

It made pretty good power too! Very streetable.

Only the center butterfly opened, giving it 1000cfm!

The test engine was a typical 355, but they never said what heads they used.

 

This is from 1991, so no stealth ram then if thats what you mean.

 

Accel had a street ram I thought it would show in the line up if they showed the super ram. It was there high flow runners opened up plenum and accel base with a 58mm tb.

 

I never heard it called that, or I just 4got..
I always just thought it was highflow runners and base.. either way works.

Just looking at the pic you posted of the street ram and it looks like the runners are on the wrong side along with the gaskets... Thats a big pet peeve of mine!!

 

Did the SLP S-h-ort Ram predate this article? I'd have thought it would be included.

 

Even tho it was in their 1st catalog, I'm thinking it was a custom, build to order intake.
I think it had a very short life from about 1989 till ????

 

Yep,, the FIRST intake has been around a while. I researched these intakes heavily back in the late 80s and early 90s. I really wanted one,, but they were very expensive – probably why there were not many sold and few seen on vehicles back then.

It was originally produced by AiRSensors. I believe they introduced them in mid 1987,, maybe early 1988 but the earliest magazine article I have on it is from 1989. Regardless,,, I know it was the Tuned Port Induction (TPI) system in their Fuel Injection Research Systems and Technology (F.I.R.S.T.) series. This is why there is “FIRST” cast on the plenum and “TPI” cast on the unused throttle body cover plate. The other two intake systems in that series were a “MultiPoint”, much like the Edelbrock Pro-Flo 2 system (http://www.summitracing.com/parts/EDL-35070/?rtype=10), and a “SinglePoint”, which was similar to the Accel DFI 4-Barrel TBI system (http://www.summitracing.com/parts/ACC-77135/?rtype=10).

All three F.I.R.S.T. intake systems were managed by an electronic fueling system utilizing a 4” Air Mass Sensor,, or mass air-flow sensor. IIRC,, their 4” replacement MAF sensor (if you killed one) was around $400 and you could upgrade to a 5” MAF. The two systems with throttle bodies used a “hat”, like the ones used for superchargers, to make sure the air flow was properly metered. AiRSensors’ electronics did not control the ignition or spark tables so even after spending around $2500 for their TPI,, you still needed an ignition system. Since I was interested in controlling the spark table as much as fueling,, there was no way I was spending that kind of scratch – keep in mind this is the late 80s!

Not long afterwards, AiRSensors sold the TPI’s rights to Electromotive,,, I think in 1991. Electromotive machined the “F” and the “T” from the plenum casting and marketed the intake as the Individual Runner System (IRS) as seen in the article. They dropped the MAF system and used a MAP and TPS for fueling,, they also added their high-end Electromotive ignition system,, bring the price up around $3000.

Neither AiRSensors nor Electromotive would sell the intakes without their electronics – I pestered them both to death,,, thinking they would eventually cave in. It never happened – it was all or nothing and I didn’t particularly care for the electronics sold with both system,, they definitely had their own set of issues . Thankfully Ken came along, bought the casting rights and started FIRST Injections, selling the FIRST intake system at a reasonable price, without electronics so people could use the GM “TPI” electronics.

 

SLP did bring their "Short Ram" to another shootout in a 1989 article and the author said it was a prototype that was planned for production. I don't think SLP ever produced it. It was very similar to the current Holley StealthRam.

 

I wouldn't say it has a detrimental impact on the power curve but the runner length absolutely dictates the power curve. Depending on what you're looking for, it could be detrimental or advantageous.

Obviously the shorter runner intakes are going to make more HP at a higher RPM, but the higher you make peak HP you’re going to need more stall speed and gearing. If your bottom line is ET,, then go with the short runner intake with a big cam and just gear and stall for it. However, if someone is willing to compromise a little ET for better drivability, especially with the old school 3-speed automatic transmissions, going with a long tube runner system might be the best fit for the customer.

 

I agree 100%. One of the biggest problems with most GM style TPI builds is the runner’s cross-sectional area is too small causing peak torque to be made at a lower RPM than the shift recovery points for 2nd and 3rd gears. Open up the inside diameter of a long runner system to the appropriate cross-sectional area,, and with the right combination,,, you could build a long runner system where peak torque comes in AFTER the shift recovery points – even on a healthy 406.

Maybe Allen will visit this thread, but he did it right,,, doing a taper,, I think having a larger 2.68” cross-sectional area up top and necking down to 2.4”??? Regardless,, there was more left in his intake. The inside diameter of the FIRST's runners can be taken out to around 1.92", which is close to a 3” cross-sectional area – the intake flange at the heads can be take out to a 1207 gasket,, which is also right at 3”. So,, the FIRST is more than capable,,, with a lot of porting to support a 406 and maybe as large as a 434. Well,,,, that is assuming you’re going to reduce the effective runner length by deeply siamesing the runners. The problem with that is you need to weld in the creases in the runners to appropriately siamese them.