question about first fuel inj manifold - Third Generation F-Body Message Boards


Alternative Port EFI Intakes This board is for tech discussions and questions about aftermarket port EFI such as the HSR, MR, SR, BBK, FIRST, etc.

question about first fuel inj manifold

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-30-2016, 01:42 PM   #1
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Woodstock
Posts: 114
Car: 1988 GTA Trans am 1 owner since new
Engine: 305
Transmission: t5 with 98 camaro t5 v6 gears
Axle/Gears: 3.24 posi

question about first fuel inj manifold

I am looking at buying a new first fuel inj tpi direct replacement intake for my 1988 gta 305 t5


my modded car got 240 rwhp and 310 rwtq and it was ruining rich at 11.8


my question is approx how much hp would I get on my car now


im just trying to figure out if its worth it


ty
let me know.
bensbaby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2016, 08:15 PM   #2
Member
 
no new tires's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Indy
Posts: 464
Car: 88 IROC-Z
Engine: L98
Transmission: R4
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt 3.42

Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Buy it and find out-
no new tires is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2016, 08:57 PM   #3
Senior Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Golden, CO
Posts: 861
Car: 87 IROC
Engine: 350
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.23 posi 10 bolt

Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by bensbaby View Post
I am looking at buying a new first fuel inj tpi direct replacement intake for my 1988 gta 305 t5
On a 305, you probably do not need the extra airflow provided by the FFI intake. If you've already upgraded cam, heads, headers and exhaust... maybe.

In other words, the TPI intake is not your only restriction. Therefore, you will not see the benefit of increase that airflow... At least not until you've upgraded the other restrictions.
MoJoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2016, 10:01 PM   #4
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Woodstock
Posts: 114
Car: 1988 GTA Trans am 1 owner since new
Engine: 305
Transmission: t5 with 98 camaro t5 v6 gears
Axle/Gears: 3.24 posi

Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

um I have all that plus way way more


my car got 240 rwhp and 310 rwtq
bensbaby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2016, 12:54 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Vanilla Ice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: ARIZONA
Posts: 857
Car: 92 Trans Am Conv
Engine: LB9
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: 3.08


Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

10-15whp. If you want hp get an intake better designed for more hp than torque.
Vanilla Ice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2016, 10:46 AM   #6
TGO Supporter/Moderator
iTrader: (12)
 
anesthes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: SALEM, NH
Posts: 10,430
Car: '88 Formula, '94 Corvette
Engine: 412" sbc, LT1
Transmission: TH350, 4L60E
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt, 3.42, Dana36 3.07


Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by bensbaby View Post
I am looking at buying a new first fuel inj tpi direct replacement intake for my 1988 gta 305 t5


my modded car got 240 rwhp and 310 rwtq and it was ruining rich at 11.8


my question is approx how much hp would I get on my car now


im just trying to figure out if its worth it


ty
let me know.
Not much. The first intake isn't much better than the stock TPI, and they rely on foolish people to buy their products.

A Singleplane, Ramjet, Miniram, HSR would all be better choices for your modified 305.

-- Joe
anesthes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2016, 11:14 AM   #7
Supreme Member
iTrader: (20)
 
Orr89RocZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 22,981
Car: 89 Iroc-z
Engine: Twin Turbo 401
Transmission: TH400
Axle/Gears: 4th gen 12 bolt 3.42


Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Very interesting comment
Orr89RocZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2016, 11:20 AM   #8
TGO Supporter/Moderator
iTrader: (12)
 
anesthes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: SALEM, NH
Posts: 10,430
Car: '88 Formula, '94 Corvette
Engine: 412" sbc, LT1
Transmission: TH350, 4L60E
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt, 3.42, Dana36 3.07


Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orr89RocZ View Post
Very interesting comment
How so?

-- Joe
anesthes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2016, 04:48 PM   #9
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
someone972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Posts: 563
Car: 1991 Firebird Formula
Engine: 5.7L TPI
Transmission: 700r4
Axle/Gears: 3.23

Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

I've heard the FIRST is pretty much the best flowing intake you can get while still sort of retaining the stock TPI look. Sure the SuperRam and friends is more than likely better for horsepower but if you're engine is flowing enough and the TPI is the restriction, it should add a fairly significant amount. Of course this is from my research, I have not yet had the opportunity to get my hands on one.
someone972 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2016, 05:22 PM   #10
TGO Supporter/Moderator
iTrader: (12)
 
anesthes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: SALEM, NH
Posts: 10,430
Car: '88 Formula, '94 Corvette
Engine: 412" sbc, LT1
Transmission: TH350, 4L60E
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt, 3.42, Dana36 3.07


Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by someone972 View Post
I've heard the FIRST is pretty much the best flowing intake you can get while still sort of retaining the stock TPI look. Sure the SuperRam and friends is more than likely better for horsepower but if you're engine is flowing enough and the TPI is the restriction, it should add a fairly significant amount. Of course this is from my research, I have not yet had the opportunity to get my hands on one.
If the goal is to make a fashion statement, then it's one of the better of the crappy intakes that are dead by 5,000 RPM.

If your goal is to make power, it's not the right intake. You want a manifold that has the runner length to support your camshaft, and cross sectional area to support airflow.

-- Joe
anesthes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2016, 05:25 PM   #11
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
someone972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Posts: 563
Car: 1991 Firebird Formula
Engine: 5.7L TPI
Transmission: 700r4
Axle/Gears: 3.23

Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

I guess this also gets into the question of what the intended purpose of the car is. If you're at the strip it's a lot different from a daily cruiser that you want some fun with. I'd be interested in a direct comparison between some of these intakes over the complete RPM range, I'm not saying the FIRST would be any better than a SuperRam or anything at lower RPM - I don't have the data to suggest that - but it would certainly be interesting. Anyone with too much money burning in their pocket want to round up some intakes and do some science?
someone972 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2016, 05:40 PM   #12
TGO Supporter/Moderator
iTrader: (12)
 
anesthes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: SALEM, NH
Posts: 10,430
Car: '88 Formula, '94 Corvette
Engine: 412" sbc, LT1
Transmission: TH350, 4L60E
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt, 3.42, Dana36 3.07


Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by someone972 View Post
I guess this also gets into the question of what the intended purpose of the car is. If you're at the strip it's a lot different from a daily cruiser that you want some fun with. I'd be interested in a direct comparison between some of these intakes over the complete RPM range, I'm not saying the FIRST would be any better than a SuperRam or anything at lower RPM - I don't have the data to suggest that - but it would certainly be interesting. Anyone with too much money burning in their pocket want to round up some intakes and do some science?
That testing was all done before you were born. Heck I think Lingenfelter even did a book on it in the mid '90s.



-- Joe
anesthes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2016, 05:49 PM   #13
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
someone972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Posts: 563
Car: 1991 Firebird Formula
Engine: 5.7L TPI
Transmission: 700r4
Axle/Gears: 3.23

Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

When did the FIRST manifold first come out? Earliest I could find was an article from 2003. I'd certainly be interested in seeing some such comparisons if anyone has saved some links. Note that I'm not being confrontational here, I'm just interested. I wouldn't even mention that but we've certainly had a fair share of arguments pop up out of nothing recently. I think we can all agree though that depending on what your goals are, there are certainly other intakes which will give you a better bang for your buck.
someone972 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2016, 07:20 PM   #14
Supreme Member
iTrader: (20)
 
Orr89RocZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 22,981
Car: 89 Iroc-z
Engine: Twin Turbo 401
Transmission: TH400
Axle/Gears: 4th gen 12 bolt 3.42


Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Read what 1989gtatransam did with a first base and custom bigger tube long runners. It made power and rpm
Orr89RocZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2016, 09:48 PM   #15
TGO Supporter/Moderator
iTrader: (12)
 
anesthes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: SALEM, NH
Posts: 10,430
Car: '88 Formula, '94 Corvette
Engine: 412" sbc, LT1
Transmission: TH350, 4L60E
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt, 3.42, Dana36 3.07


Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orr89RocZ View Post
Read what 1989gtatransam did with a first base and custom bigger tube long runners. It made power and rpm
He did essentially the same thing I did, just 10 years later, and makes about the same power I did. Then I switched to a singleplane and picked up another 10 MPH in the 1/4.

And I wasn't the first person either to hog the crap out of an aftermarket base, and modify some SLP runners, and siamese a plenum.

I think I did my first singleplane in 2002 after getting fed up with aftermarket TPI.

If you're restrained by the smog ****'s of California like he is, then that is what you do.

-- Joe
anesthes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2016, 10:16 PM   #16
Supreme Member
iTrader: (20)
 
Orr89RocZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 22,981
Car: 89 Iroc-z
Engine: Twin Turbo 401
Transmission: TH400
Axle/Gears: 4th gen 12 bolt 3.42


Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
did essentially the same thing I did, just 10 years later, and makes about the same power I did. Then I switched to a singleplane and picked up another 10 MPH in the 1/4.
When did you make 420 whp naturally aspirated with a long tube runner 10 yrs ago? I call bull

You say its no better than stock tpi then claim to have done something on the level of fairly impressive numbers....which is it?
Orr89RocZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2016, 10:33 PM   #17
TGO Supporter/Moderator
iTrader: (12)
 
anesthes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: SALEM, NH
Posts: 10,430
Car: '88 Formula, '94 Corvette
Engine: 412" sbc, LT1
Transmission: TH350, 4L60E
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt, 3.42, Dana36 3.07


Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orr89RocZ View Post
When did you make 420 whp naturally aspirated with a long tube runner 10 yrs ago? I call bull

You say its no better than stock tpi then claim to have done something on the level of fairly impressive numbers....which is it?
I have no idea what the whp was, I just know what it trapped for MPH.

It wasn't naturally aspirated, it was blown, but it was a POS long block compared to his. His motor is a 368 with AFR 195 heads and 11:1 compression. My combo was a 350 with iron world heads and 8.9:1 compression.

His combo and mine ran about the same MPH in the quarter. His combo and mine both had an aftermarket base which was completely hogged out, modified SLP runners, and a completely siamesed plenum.

Then I changed just the intake manifold and it ran 10mph quicker.

And that was my whole point to begin with. TPI is a waste of time.

I realize in the past 13 years that you have been a member you have had a few cool builds, and you have learned quite a bit. I remember when you first started posting.

In the nearly 20 years that I've been a member, including before TGO used Vbulletin and used the old 'wwwthreads' system, I've spent a couple hundred grand on cars, boats, bikes, mud trucks, etc. I've had a lot of exposure on a lot of different things. Heck, I've probably had more intakes on my Formula since 2012 than you've used in your entire lifetime. I buy things and build things just to try them. Heck, I've got just over 25 grand into the Formula and it's my cheap ******* build.


-- Joe
anesthes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2016, 02:27 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Vanilla Ice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: ARIZONA
Posts: 857
Car: 92 Trans Am Conv
Engine: LB9
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: 3.08


Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

All this crap you're spewing and you fail to realize that people don't all want what you want in a car.

I would NEVER do a single plane intake.

Can't you come to grips with this? Every thread you post in is bashing other people's way of doing things. If we were all the same every car would be exactly like yours and that's pretty damn boring.

I want a first TPI. I think that would be fantastic. I know its limits and I know where it shines. I want that shine. I will SETTLE for a lesser LT1 intake.
Vanilla Ice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2016, 08:15 AM   #19
TGO Supporter/Moderator
iTrader: (12)
 
anesthes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: SALEM, NH
Posts: 10,430
Car: '88 Formula, '94 Corvette
Engine: 412" sbc, LT1
Transmission: TH350, 4L60E
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt, 3.42, Dana36 3.07


Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice View Post
All this crap you're spewing and you fail to realize that people don't all want what you want in a car.

I would NEVER do a single plane intake.

Can't you come to grips with this? Every thread you post in is bashing other people's way of doing things. If we were all the same every car would be exactly like yours and that's pretty damn boring.

I want a first TPI. I think that would be fantastic. I know its limits and I know where it shines. I want that shine. I will SETTLE for a lesser LT1 intake.
He asked for peoples opinion. I gave him my opinion on the intake.

Why are you so offended by my opinion ?

I don't care what anyone puts in their car, but I'm obligated to share my experience because this is a technical forum.

I started the Alternative Port EFI Intake forum by the way, because we needed a place to share technical discussion of ALTERNATIVE intakes. Not because we're supposed to make everyone feel like a winner and back their choice.


-- Joe
anesthes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2016, 12:22 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Vanilla Ice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: ARIZONA
Posts: 857
Car: 92 Trans Am Conv
Engine: LB9
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: 3.08


Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by anesthes View Post
He asked for peoples opinion. I gave him my opinion on the intake.

Why are you so offended by my opinion ?

I don't care what anyone puts in their car, but I'm obligated to share my experience because this is a technical forum.

I started the Alternative Port EFI Intake forum by the way, because we needed a place to share technical discussion of ALTERNATIVE intakes. Not because we're supposed to make everyone feel like a winner and back their choice.


-- Joe
You apparently do care cause you've posted quite a bit in here when the OPs only question was how much hp was to be gained. And it was answered prior to your first posting.
Vanilla Ice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2016, 07:43 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
UltRoadWarrior9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: NC
Posts: 645
Car: 1986 IROC Z-28
Engine: OEM 305
Transmission: Rebuilt TH700R4 with B&M 70235
Axle/Gears: 4th Gen 10 bolt Eaton Truetrac 3.23

Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Jeez, guys, stay On Topic please! I've been lurking. I hate to see 3rd gen warriors go against each other on the forum.... Maybe on the track, but not in the forums.
Knowledge must be shared here...
UltRoadWarrior9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2016, 08:07 PM   #22
Supreme Member
iTrader: (20)
 
Orr89RocZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 22,981
Car: 89 Iroc-z
Engine: Twin Turbo 401
Transmission: TH400
Axle/Gears: 4th gen 12 bolt 3.42


Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
It wasn't naturally aspirated, it was blown, but it was a POS long block compared to his. His motor is a 368 with AFR 195 heads and 11:1 compression. My combo was a 350 with iron world heads and 8.9:1 compression.
Do not compare a blown combo to a 369" all motor car. The na combo is far more impressive. Most guys need a miniram or stealth ram or single plane to make 400+ whp on motor alone
All i will say is tpi has its place and the first is by far the best out of all the tpi long tube setups and the price is cheaper once you add things up. The tpi market has died so only few parts remain and are overpriced now.
Orr89RocZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2016, 09:58 PM   #23
Supreme Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 1,102


Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

[QUOTE=someone972;6074145]When did the FIRST manifold first come out? Earliest I could find was an article from 2003. I'd certainly be interested in seeing some such comparisons if anyone has saved some links. QUOTE]

Back in the late 80s a company out of Seattle, Washington called AiRSensors introduced an EFI product line called Fuel Injection Research and Technology Systems (F.I.R.S.T). The FIRST product line was comprised of their flagship “TPI” system - hence the reason “FIRST” is cast on the plenum and TPI is cast on the throttle body plate. The FIRST lineup also included a “MultiPoint” single-plane intake system, much like the Edelbrock “Pro-Flo” EFI and a “SinglePoint” throttle body system, similar to the Edlebrock “E-Street”.

They were well ahead of the times, but very expensive and not available without their electronics that utilized a 4” Air Mass Sensor. In the early 90s AiRSensors sold the TPI intake rights to Electromotive where they machined off the F and the T on the plenum and marketed it as an "Individual Runner System" (IRS). The Electromotive IRS intakes were even more expensive because they added an ignition system to the package. I’m pretty sure I wasn’t the only one that tried to get both those companies to sell me the intake without the electronics,, and I’m sure others felt just like me when they refused to sell just the intake. Best I remember it was around $2,700 from AiRSensors and $3,000 from Electromotive – that was crazy high back then,,, and the reason you didn’t really see any of them.

I was glad to see Ken of FIRST Fuel Injections resurrect this intake system and sell them with and without electronics. I’ve also heard FIRST is looking into siamesing the runners. I just wish they would take the creases out of them to look like the SLP runners so one could siamese them to whatever effective length you wanted!!!

As for comparisons, I really hate chiming in on these FIRST posts because it makes me look like some kind of poster boy for the FIRST. However, I think I'm one of very few people that has tested the FIRST against a HSR. So, I do believe I have a little better insight than most when it comes to the FIRST (the only thing in common it has with the stock type TPI intakes is it looks a lot like it). Anyway, whether the FIRST or any intake for that matter is “best” for a given combination relies solely on the intended use and the amount of compromises one makes for drivability and/or street manners. There is not a fixed runner intake made that will work “best” for all engine/car combinations.

TPI / SLP Intake (fully ported GM base and ported SLP runners to the 1/2 way point)
88*F / 29.92 barometric pressure / 86 percent humidity
8* initial timing, VERY heavy burnout, foot brake off idle, staggered throttle launch (pumping the gas well past the 60ft mark), 5,500/5,500 shifts. Practically impossible to launch with the base timing at 10-degrees – dropped timing 8* to help hooking, 6-degrees helped 60ft, but really killed MPH
60ft------ 1/8 ET -----MPH ------ 1/4 ET ----- MPH
1.873 --- 8.268 ----- 83.94 ---- 12.953 --- 104.40

Holley StealthRam (minor clean-up, rolled the top edges on the base intake)
85*F / 29.92 barometric pressure / 89 percent humidity
16* timing, 46 psi fuel, 20 psi tires, heavy burnout, foot-brake 1,800 rpm – full throttle launch with heavy burnout, 6400/6200 rpm shifts. A blind monkey could launch the car after a decent burnout,,, no traction problems.
60ft------ 1/8 ET -----MPH ------ 1/4 ET ----- MPH
1.803 --- 8.133----- 86.27 ---- 12.673 --- 107.84

FIRST (box stock, even used the older gasket that overlapped the runners)
83*F / 29.92 barometric pressure / 84 percent humidity
10* timing, 42 psi fuel, 20 psi tires, heavy burnout, foot-brake 1800 rpm, near full throttle launch, moderate traction problems
60ft------ 1/8 ET -----MPH ------ 1/4 ET ----- MPH
1.707 --- 7.992 ----- 85.53 ---- 12.599 --- 106.70

--------TPI/SLP – HSR -– FIRST
60ft --– 1.873 – 1.803 -– 1.707
1/8 ---- 8.268 – 8.133 -– 7.992
MPH -– 83.94 –- 86.27 –- 85.53
1/4 –- 12.953 – 12.673 – 12.599
MPH – 104.40 – 107.84 – 106.70

For a “driver”, I preferred the FIRST intake. It made a lot more midrange power and made the car feel like it was a much bigger and more powerful engine while playing around – MUCH more fun to “drive”. However, the HSR was much easier to launch and would have been my choice if I were more interested in racing the car than driving the car – I couldn’t mess up a launch at the track with slicks, just heat the tires and floorboard it. Now, I must add, once I got the tune right on the HSR it wasn’t what I'd call unresponsive – I’d compare it’s power band to a good dual plane carbed intake in the lower RPM range and a good single plane in the upper end. However, again the FIRST ran near identical times on this combination and I much preferred it over the HSR for its intended purpose.

So,, to answer the OP’s question, on a 305 making 240rwhp with a TPI, whether or not the FIRST would help or not. It’s all about making the most power under the curve. If this were an automatic 305 car, with lower than optimal (for racing) stall speed converter, I would say it could be possible for your current aftermarket TPI intake to be a better fit than the FIRST (depending on head flow and what if any work was done to the current TPI intake). However, since you’re running a close ratio manual transmission, the shift recovery is higher than a wide ratio automatic, so you’ll have a narrower rpm band for the “power under the curve” (favoring upper RPM power). Generally speaking, it’s harder for a long runner intake like the FIRST to equal the quarter mile performance of a shorter runner intake like the HSR with a 5 or 6-speed transmission behind a 350 or larger engine. With you having a relatively healthy 305 combo, I would say without a doubt the FIRST would perform better than an unported aftermarket TPI and probably better than a ported aftermarket TPI system. However, depending on the head flow and cam size, it is more likely that the HSR would perform better than the FIRST. Plus there is no doubt the HSR would be MUCH more favorable with that T5 if or when you ever decided to bump up in cubes.

Last edited by BadSS; 09-04-2016 at 10:03 PM.
BadSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2016, 07:40 PM   #24
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Woodstock
Posts: 114
Car: 1988 GTA Trans am 1 owner since new
Engine: 305
Transmission: t5 with 98 camaro t5 v6 gears
Axle/Gears: 3.24 posi

Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

cool ty
bensbaby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2016, 09:50 AM   #25
Supreme Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: North Salt Lake
Posts: 1,353
Car: '86 Camaro, '94 Camaro, 3 others
Engine: LG4 ->L29, L32->LR4, L36, LG4, L31
Transmission: 700R-4, T5WC, 4L80E, SM465, 4L60E
Axle/Gears: 3.42, 3.23, WTB/WTT 2.93

Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

This is really a new face on the old debate of a torque build versus an RPM build, and that boils down to personal preference. Revs plus gears wins races, and can be fun to daily drive, but torque is always fun, and generally cheaper.
I have driven an LB9 and an LT1, an LS3, and a 502HO, among many less-relevant other things. To my mind, the answer is owning 2 Camaros, one with a 454 that will end up turbocharged, and the other with a rev-happy small V8, that will also end up turbocharged. Best of both worlds, and something to drive if you break the other one.
But a torque build for a 305, versus an RPM build for a 305? It inherently can't excellent at either. The stock LB9 cam is a poor match for the RPM range of TPI runner lengths, the intake closing is far too late. Either swap cams then turbo it, or go 350. Either option will give more bang for less bucks than messing with intakes.
cosmick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2017, 09:57 PM   #26
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Bristol, Wi
Posts: 27
Car: 1987 T/A
Engine: 383 W/ FIRST Tpi
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: GM 10 bolt 3.73 auburn posi

Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by anesthes View Post
Not much. The first intake isn't much better than the stock TPI, and they rely on foolish people to buy their products.

A Singleplane, Ramjet, Miniram, HSR would all be better choices for your modified 305.

-- Joe
Hi Anesthes, Did you actually have a FIRST Tpi or another version of one of the aftermarket tpis that were offered before 2002? These statements are just not true. The FIRST flows over 30% more than the stock gm tpi, this has been proven time and time again by many people over it's almost 30 year span. Also, we are NOT relying on "foolish" people to buy the FIRST tpi, but educated ones. We want people to ask questions to be sure that this will be right for their application. The TPI is not always the best choice and I have told people not to purchase one for their application. The FIRST is not just about Fashion, it does actually work quite well. It does go well past 5000 rpms. It is OK to not like the Tpi design, but the bottom line is that the FIRST design did move the Tpi intake to the next level for sure. I have been an automotive tech for 30 years now and have been doing fuel injection swaps with Tpi intakes along with all kinds of different performance builds with carbs, turbos and superchargers so it is not like I am a desk guy. I can honestly say that the FIRST Tpi is the best overall performing intake that I have run across, that is why we continue to offer these. We do not NEED to sell these, we do because they work.
firstperf1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2017, 09:34 AM   #27
TGO Supporter/Moderator
iTrader: (12)
 
anesthes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: SALEM, NH
Posts: 10,430
Car: '88 Formula, '94 Corvette
Engine: 412" sbc, LT1
Transmission: TH350, 4L60E
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt, 3.42, Dana36 3.07


Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstperf1 View Post
Hi Anesthes, Did you actually have a FIRST Tpi or another version of one of the aftermarket tpis that were offered before 2002? These statements are just not true. The FIRST flows over 30% more than the stock gm tpi, this has been proven time and time again by many people over it's almost 30 year span. Also, we are NOT relying on "foolish" people to buy the FIRST tpi, but educated ones. We want people to ask questions to be sure that this will be right for their application. The TPI is not always the best choice and I have told people not to purchase one for their application. The FIRST is not just about Fashion, it does actually work quite well. It does go well past 5000 rpms. It is OK to not like the Tpi design, but the bottom line is that the FIRST design did move the Tpi intake to the next level for sure. I have been an automotive tech for 30 years now and have been doing fuel injection swaps with Tpi intakes along with all kinds of different performance builds with carbs, turbos and superchargers so it is not like I am a desk guy. I can honestly say that the FIRST Tpi is the best overall performing intake that I have run across, that is why we continue to offer these. We do not NEED to sell these, we do because they work.
Perhaps you should spend a few minutes looking at the last 15+ years of posts I've made testing various intakes and engine combinations, before trying to convince everyone that I'm wrong about the intake that you "don't NEED to sell" but think is the "best".

-- Joe
anesthes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2017, 10:45 AM   #28
Want a title? Post!
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Bristol, Wi
Posts: 1
Car: 1987 T/A
Engine: 383 W/ FIRST Tpi
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: GM 10 bolt 3.73 auburn

Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

I am in no way saying you are wrong about intake choice? I am saying you are wrong about us depending on "foolish" people to buy the FIRST Tpi. We do not try and fool anyone and it is true that we Do Not need to sell them, but choose to. It is again in MY professional opinion of over 30 years in the performance industry, that it is the best overall performing intake. You do not have to agree by all means, just as I do not have to agree with your professional opinion. I am also saying everyone has a right to their opinion. The Tpi intake design is NOT for every application as I said, but that does not make the FIRST a bad intake. I also asked a simple question..... have you used a FIRST tpi? If you have can you please give me the link to your comparisons, so that I can read the post. I am quite sure that you are a very knowledgeable person and I am not trying to discredit your opinion in anyway, I am just trying to establish facts. I know what the FIRST can do by factual tests. We are actually compiling dyno sheets and videos from over the past 17 years we have had this intake, to post on our website. We also just invested in a lot of flow testing equipment so that we can move forward on more accurate testing so we can generate even more factual information as well. I welcome your FIRST Tpi testing information as well as anyone else's info that we can share with the community. I know first hand that no design is perfect for every application and I welcome all input good or bad! This will then allow me to use my resources and maybe even create an even better design! I do not want to cause drama, so I apologize if you are taking this the wrong way. I just want everyone to have the correct information about everything.
FIRST1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2017, 02:21 PM   #29
Member
 
no new tires's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Indy
Posts: 464
Car: 88 IROC-Z
Engine: L98
Transmission: R4
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt 3.42

Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

subd

-this is about to get good
no new tires is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2017, 01:49 PM   #30
Junior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 73
Car: 89 Firebird Formula
Engine: 383 tpi vortec heads Xr 269 cam
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.73

Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Hi Ken at FIRST
Can you share engine combos with first intake and respective dyno numbers?
i think it would be very helpful to members who are always trying to piece together the "best" combo.
maybe you can start with 350 and 383's???
toronto formula is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2017, 03:51 PM   #31
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Bristol, Wi
Posts: 27
Car: 1987 T/A
Engine: 383 W/ FIRST Tpi
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: GM 10 bolt 3.73 auburn posi

Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by toronto formula View Post
Hi Ken at FIRST
Can you share engine combos with first intake and respective dyno numbers?
i think it would be very helpful to members who are always trying to piece together the "best" combo.
maybe you can start with 350 and 383's???
We are actually in the process of trying to re-gather all the customer supplied dyno info and engine combos we have received and have built over the last 17 years we have had this intake for sale by us. Unfortunately when we had our fire, it took all our files and computers and all our storage devices with it! We have been trying to go through our emails with the help of our providers to retrieve as many of our old emails as possible, which has the great majority of this info. We are reaching out to our vast network of world wide engine builders and performance shops that have tested the FIRST tpi and have many combos and dyno tests, for info they can provide as well. Hopefully we can gather all this info and add it to our tech page with the couple we already have on there soon. Until then, I have seen a few on this message forum and the corvette forum that have posted info as well from their builds, that may help too. I agree with you, this is very important info for people to help show what different things can be accomplished with the FIRST Tpi with a variety of different engine sizes, camshafts and head designs. Thank you for the input!
firstperf1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2017, 03:23 PM   #32
Member
 
GenX'Motorsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 220
Car: 1989 Trans Am WS6
Engine: SBC+TPI+BOOST
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: Eaton 373

Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Seem's "Anesthes" in every Thread he posts in, ALWAYS uses his "opinion" to put down every intake other than a SP. And any motor under 400 cubes. And any build that dosent go by his own little rule book of proper builds. Very Very Critical about every car on here! Aside from his Magical Formula. And after he bashes a members car. He defends it by saying its just his, opinion. Even though most of the time, he is not reply'ing based on the OP's question. Like in this thread. The Op asked, how much HP can this add? Instead of answering said question. He says FIRST Sucks! lol. And is the worst TPI intake out there. But, if youre building something like the OP, would it really suck? NO! It will do a great job with his H/C LB9. With the proper stall & gears. And IMO! would really perform great under bOOst on a setup like this one. Anyways, Ignorance is Bliss!
GenX'Motorsport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2017, 05:16 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Vanilla Ice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: ARIZONA
Posts: 857
Car: 92 Trans Am Conv
Engine: LB9
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: 3.08


Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenX'Motorsport View Post
Seem's "Anesthes" in every Thread he posts in, ALWAYS uses his "opinion" to put down every intake other than a SP. And any motor under 400 cubes. And any build that dosent go by his own little rule book of proper builds. Very Very Critical about every car on here! Aside from his Magical Formula. And after he bashes a members car. He defends it by saying its just his, opinion. Even though most of the time, he is not reply'ing based on the OP's question. Like in this thread. The Op asked, how much HP can this add? Instead of answering said question. He says FIRST Sucks! lol. And is the worst TPI intake out there. But, if youre building something like the OP, would it really suck? NO! It will do a great job with his H/C LB9. With the proper stall & gears. And IMO! would really perform great under bOOst on a setup like this one. Anyways, Ignorance is Bliss!
You're not the only one that notices.
Vanilla Ice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2017, 07:41 PM   #34
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Bristol, Wi
Posts: 27
Car: 1987 T/A
Engine: 383 W/ FIRST Tpi
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: GM 10 bolt 3.73 auburn posi

Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenX'Motorsport View Post
Seem's "Anesthes" in every Thread he posts in, ALWAYS uses his "opinion" to put down every intake other than a SP. And any motor under 400 cubes. And any build that dosent go by his own little rule book of proper builds. Very Very Critical about every car on here! Aside from his Magical Formula. And after he bashes a members car. He defends it by saying its just his, opinion. Even though most of the time, he is not reply'ing based on the OP's question. Like in this thread. The Op asked, how much HP can this add? Instead of answering said question. He says FIRST Sucks! lol. And is the worst TPI intake out there. But, if youre building something like the OP, would it really suck? NO! It will do a great job with his H/C LB9. With the proper stall & gears. And IMO! would really perform great under bOOst on a setup like this one. Anyways, Ignorance is Bliss!
Well let's just suffice it to say that everyone does have an opinion. The unfortunate thing, is when someone gives out an opinion on a product that they may have not even used...good or bad. I would like to believe that everyone out here is educated on the topics they are discussing and would really hope that biased opinions would not get in the way of actual facts about products. It would not be good if nobody gets real information about what they are planning and they shy away from things just because of ones opinion. Imo you are 100% correct with your statements that products can work great for the right application and just because the application may not fit that particular product, it does not mean the product sucks. Sometimes opinions are best kept to ones self, as not to show ignorance, but maybe replaced with facts?
firstperf1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2017, 08:32 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pasadena, TX
Posts: 982
Car: 1991 RS
Engine: 5.0
Transmission: 700r4


Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenX'Motorsport View Post
Seem's "Anesthes" in every Thread he posts in, ALWAYS uses his "opinion" to put down every intake other than a SP. And any motor under 400 cubes.
Oh you noticed that too. Seems like his answer to everything.

I want more power.
"you need a single plain and 400+ c.i."

I have cancer.
"you need a single plain and 400+ c.i."

how do I create world peace?
"you need a single plain and 400+ c.i."
RS Chris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2017, 08:34 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pasadena, TX
Posts: 982
Car: 1991 RS
Engine: 5.0
Transmission: 700r4


Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstperf1 View Post
Well let's just suffice it to say that everyone does have an opinion. The unfortunate thing, is when someone gives out an opinion on a product that they may have not even used...good or bad. I would like to believe that everyone out here is educated on the topics they are discussing and would really hope that biased opinions would not get in the way of actual facts about products. It would not be good if nobody gets real information about what they are planning and they shy away from things just because of ones opinion. Imo you are 100% correct with your statements that products can work great for the right application and just because the application may not fit that particular product, it does not mean the product sucks. Sometimes opinions are best kept to ones self, as not to show ignorance, but maybe replaced with facts?
Thanks for taking the time to actually come here and give your own real world knowledge and experience. There are a few other's who do the same and it's nice to see that kind of commitment to one's own product.
RS Chris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2017, 04:22 PM   #37
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Bristol, Wi
Posts: 27
Car: 1987 T/A
Engine: 383 W/ FIRST Tpi
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: GM 10 bolt 3.73 auburn posi

Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by RS Chris View Post
Thanks for taking the time to actually come here and give your own real world knowledge and experience. There are a few other's who do the same and it's nice to see that kind of commitment to one's own product.
Thank you RS Chris, that is what I would like to do... help. I really feel that it is important that everyone gets factual answers to the questions they have. I have been doing performance work for a long time and have many successes and failures too! If I can get info to people that may help them avoid the failure part, that would be great! I understand that anesthes has a "go to" combo that he has had great success with, but that does not necessarily fit all projects for sure. I certainly do not agree with anyone that puts down a project, just because they do not use my "go to" combo. I think with experience you learn that no combo fits every application out there, you have to have other options. The strange thing is when I first acquired the FIRST Tpi, it was for me to use on our in house projects. I never intended to sell them to the general public. I actually received so many calls when guys found out we had them, that we felt obligated to offer them! True story! I also could have just pushed only the FIRST Tpi, my "go to" but I did not. I knew all too well that it did not fit all applications, so I did tell people that it was not for them. I actually installed one right away on my 87 T/A with the 5.0 HO motor and was actually shocked at the seat of the pants improvement it made. I wish I would have been thinking back then about before and after dyno results, but I did not care at all about that at the time. The other thing is that the FIRST Tpi really does great on the larger CI engines like the 383, 400, 406 and it was even tested on a 421 in a 91 sport truck mag that did over 600HP with the FIRST Tpi. I really hope to regain that info so I can post that test as well. I am very committed to the performance world and FIRST Tpi, it is a great design and works very well with all different types of projects, so it is here to stay for sure! Any help or info I can provide on any performance or build project I will be more than happy to pass on. I do the machining, assembly and work in the shop everyday on projects, so my input will be based on facts and realities! I am kind of new to this forum, but I will dedicate more time soon to read up and join in on other topics for sure.
firstperf1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2017, 08:01 PM   #38
Member
 
GenX'Motorsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 220
Car: 1989 Trans Am WS6
Engine: SBC+TPI+BOOST
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: Eaton 373

Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Thanks FIRST for still catering to the 3rdGen market place. And GEN1 SBC's in general. Most of the companies only do LSX these days. So thanks Guys! And I hope you continue R&D, and to develop things for these cars that we all love.

Last edited by GenX'Motorsport; 08-23-2017 at 11:29 AM.
GenX'Motorsport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2017, 12:14 AM   #39
Member
 
no new tires's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Indy
Posts: 464
Car: 88 IROC-Z
Engine: L98
Transmission: R4
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt 3.42

Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Still waiting on those new runners, I still have "dibs" on the first set.

no new tires is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2017, 06:46 PM   #40
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Bristol, Wi
Posts: 27
Car: 1987 T/A
Engine: 383 W/ FIRST Tpi
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: GM 10 bolt 3.73 auburn posi

Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenX'Motorsport View Post
Thanks FIRST for still catering to the 3rdGen market place. And GEN1 SBC's in general. Most of the companies only do LSX these days. So thanks Guys! And I hope you continue R&D, and to develop things for these cars that we all love.
No, thank you guys for not abandoning the GEN1 bullet proof designed SBC! I will always have the upmost respect and support for the GEN1 SBC and all the 3rd gen F bodies! They are both statement pieces of history... in my opinion of course! Don't get me wrong, I do like the LS, but let's just see where they are in say..... 48 years! Someday when I get caught up, We are actually going to put a FIRST Tpi on our LS3 R&D Camaro, just to see what happens! I am sure the TPI haters out there are going to love that! But there will be a lot of work on making the base, But hey I can't wait to see the results! Nothing ventured, nothing gained right!

-Ken
firstperf1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2017, 06:49 PM   #41
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Bristol, Wi
Posts: 27
Car: 1987 T/A
Engine: 383 W/ FIRST Tpi
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: GM 10 bolt 3.73 auburn posi

Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by no new tires View Post
Still waiting on those new runners, I still have "dibs" on the first set.

OH Boy, I will try and get that on my short list for you!
firstperf1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2017, 11:03 PM   #42
Supreme Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 1,102


Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

I’m really glad Ken from FIRST has joined the board. He’s right on with his comments. There is no fixed runner intake that is best for all applications. The problem with intake selection for the old school SBC is the runner length selection is rather limited and there STILL isn’t a good out of the box “middle of the road” runner length with proper cross-sectional area available.

One of the reasons the LS engines perform so well is the intake’s runner length is around 10” with a cross-sectional area of around 2.7” (which is about 1.85” in diameter). That’s an excellent length and diameter to provide a considerable “tuned” midrange boost while still allowing good upper RPM power in the 6000 plus RPM due to the LS head’s cross-sectional area and flow. There isn’t an out of the box SBC that comes close to it.

There are SBC heads out there that have similar cross-sectional area and can flow as much or more than the stock LS3 heads. If you look at single plane LS combos compared to single plane SBC combos with comparable heads and cubes, there’s not a lot of difference between the two. Where the LS engines really shine is when the heads are fully ported or a stock type long or “tuned” LS intake is used. When running a stock style “long” runner intake, it’s almost impossible to match the power curve and RPM power band of an LS engine with a SBC of the same or close cubic inch displacement.

The FIRST is the only intake available that I know of that can be modified to get close to an LS style intake power curve with semi-extensive effort. The cross-sectional area of the FIRST’s intake and runners can be ported to 2.89” (more than a stock LS3 intake) and if you weld up the center runner creases and siamese the runners as far down as you can with a 6” burr, you can get an effective runner length within a couple inches of the LS intake. Here are a couple pictures of what I started a few years back and hope to start back up and finish within the next 6-months or so.

Welded creases



Extensive siamesed porting



If Ken comes out with a runner with the creases filled, or at least the bottom side filled, one could do pretty much as I’ve done without the added aggravation of having the current runners welded up. I’d rather see that than a 2” runner because you really don’t need near that cross-section area (3.14”) on 90+% of streetable SBCs. I’m planning a very healthy, near max effort 406 (for a long runner combo) and all my modeling says I need something in the area of 1.88-1.92” runner diameter. Any more than that and I’ll lose more midrange than I’d gain on the top end.

Ken, if you offer a runner of around 1.85”diameter siamesed about 2” down from stock that would work extremely well on larger cubed combos. It would also save folks a heck of a lot of time if they wanted to siamese it more, or port it to a little larger diameter. It took me a heck of a long time and I seriously lost feeling in fingers on both hands for few days and took about a week to get full feeling back after I finished siamesing and porting the runners - lol.

Last edited by BadSS; 08-26-2017 at 11:08 PM.
BadSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2017, 11:29 PM   #43
Member
 
no new tires's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Indy
Posts: 464
Car: 88 IROC-Z
Engine: L98
Transmission: R4
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt 3.42

Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by BadSS View Post



Extensive siamesed porting

You "for hire"?
no new tires is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2017, 12:07 AM   #44
Supreme Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 1,102


Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by no new tires View Post
You "for hire"?
Thanks for asking but no. I don't even have enough time to finish up my own project. Plus, there is no way I would feel comfortable charging for the amount of time it took to do all that with hand tools. If you want something like that done, you'll need to do it yourself or find someone with a mill or CNC machine that can do most of the work. I wasn't kidding about my fingers going numb from holding the grinder - there is a HUGE amount of solid metal between those two opening as you can see in that first picture.
BadSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2017, 08:31 PM   #45
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Bristol, Wi
Posts: 27
Car: 1987 T/A
Engine: 383 W/ FIRST Tpi
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: GM 10 bolt 3.73 auburn posi

Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by BadSS View Post
I’m really glad Ken from FIRST has joined the board. He’s right on with his comments. There is no fixed runner intake that is best for all applications. The problem with intake selection for the old school SBC is the runner length selection is rather limited and there STILL isn’t a good out of the box “middle of the road” runner length with proper cross-sectional area available.

One of the reasons the LS engines perform so well is the intake’s runner length is around 10” with a cross-sectional area of around 2.7” (which is about 1.85” in diameter). That’s an excellent length and diameter to provide a considerable “tuned” midrange boost while still allowing good upper RPM power in the 6000 plus RPM due to the LS head’s cross-sectional area and flow. There isn’t an out of the box SBC that comes close to it.

There are SBC heads out there that have similar cross-sectional area and can flow as much or more than the stock LS3 heads. If you look at single plane LS combos compared to single plane SBC combos with comparable heads and cubes, there’s not a lot of difference between the two. Where the LS engines really shine is when the heads are fully ported or a stock type long or “tuned” LS intake is used. When running a stock style “long” runner intake, it’s almost impossible to match the power curve and RPM power band of an LS engine with a SBC of the same or close cubic inch displacement.

The FIRST is the only intake available that I know of that can be modified to get close to an LS style intake power curve with semi-extensive effort. The cross-sectional area of the FIRST’s intake and runners can be ported to 2.89” (more than a stock LS3 intake) and if you weld up the center runner creases and siamese the runners as far down as you can with a 6” burr, you can get an effective runner length within a couple inches of the LS intake. Here are a couple pictures of what I started a few years back and hope to start back up and finish within the next 6-months or so.

Welded creases



Extensive siamesed porting



If Ken comes out with a runner with the creases filled, or at least the bottom side filled, one could do pretty much as I’ve done without the added aggravation of having the current runners welded up. I’d rather see that than a 2” runner because you really don’t need near that cross-section area (3.14”) on 90+% of streetable SBCs. I’m planning a very healthy, near max effort 406 (for a long runner combo) and all my modeling says I need something in the area of 1.88-1.92” runner diameter. Any more than that and I’ll lose more midrange than I’d gain on the top end.

Ken, if you offer a runner of around 1.85”diameter siamesed about 2” down from stock that would work extremely well on larger cubed combos. It would also save folks a heck of a lot of time if they wanted to siamese it more, or port it to a little larger diameter. It took me a heck of a long time and I seriously lost feeling in fingers on both hands for few days and took about a week to get full feeling back after I finished siamesing and porting the runners - lol.
That is awesome work badss! And I know about the numb hands, been there done that too! In the beginning I used to offer that service, not so extensive though! You are also correct about the sticker shock if you were to charge for all that time! It is funny that you bring this up, as that is what I have recently geared up for! I purchased new flow testing equipment so we can get flow numbers on each level of Siamese work also. I was actually going to flow every inch just to see the changes. I am totally up for changing the patterns to add some material so that there is still a parting line, but yet enough stock to do the Siamese. This is as soon as we get caught up! I do plan on writing a program to incorporate an actual CNC version of the Siamese runners with our 5 axis CNC. I figure you are probably spot on with around 2" down for being the optimum length. The reason for the 2" diameter is really 2 fold. I wanted that diameter for our big block FIRST version that we have been trying to finish up here, so I figured why not be able to make it work with the SBC one while we were at it! Maybe I split the difference and just go 1.9"? But testing will confirm that I guess? We are shopping for a dyno so we can actually not only flow test these different set ups, but do live testing as well! I plan to do much of this work throughout the winter. I plan on locking myself in the shop until I get everything finished up that I have had to put off since the fire! Even if I have to have them plow snow in front of all the possible exits, so I can't get out!! Everything requires time, which I am very short on! Believe it or not I put in 12-14hr days 6 days a week (VERY UNDERSTANDING WIFE!) and I still do not have enough time! I also want to THANK YOU for actually giving me input, I really encourage anyone to throw out ideas. This is how a guy can better things, by actually listening to people! Nothing is set in stone and I embrace change and new ideas!
firstperf1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2017, 11:12 AM   #46
TGO Supporter/Moderator
iTrader: (12)
 
anesthes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: SALEM, NH
Posts: 10,430
Car: '88 Formula, '94 Corvette
Engine: 412" sbc, LT1
Transmission: TH350, 4L60E
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt, 3.42, Dana36 3.07


Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenX'Motorsport View Post
Seem's "Anesthes" in every Thread he posts in, ALWAYS uses his "opinion" to put down every intake other than a SP. And any motor under 400 cubes. And any build that dosent go by his own little rule book of proper builds. Very Very Critical about every car on here! Aside from his Magical Formula. And after he bashes a members car. He defends it by saying its just his, opinion. Even though most of the time, he is not reply'ing based on the OP's question. Like in this thread. The Op asked, how much HP can this add? Instead of answering said question. He says FIRST Sucks! lol. And is the worst TPI intake out there. But, if youre building something like the OP, would it really suck? NO! It will do a great job with his H/C LB9. With the proper stall & gears. And IMO! would really perform great under bOOst on a setup like this one. Anyways, Ignorance is Bliss!
I started the forum, long before most of the posters joined.

I did a lot of testing on these intakes, over 15 years ago.

You're not actually reading my posts if you think I suggested everything should be over 400 cubes and a SP, or perhaps you just don't understand what I said.

-- Joe
anesthes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2017, 11:21 AM   #47
TGO Supporter/Moderator
iTrader: (12)
 
anesthes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: SALEM, NH
Posts: 10,430
Car: '88 Formula, '94 Corvette
Engine: 412" sbc, LT1
Transmission: TH350, 4L60E
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt, 3.42, Dana36 3.07


Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by RS Chris View Post
Oh you noticed that too. Seems like his answer to everything.

I want more power.
"you need a single plain and 400+ c.i."

I have cancer.
"you need a single plain and 400+ c.i."

how do I create world peace?
"you need a single plain and 400+ c.i."
Reading comprehension goes a long way. If you've actually taken the time to read what I've said, it was that more cubes have the potential to make more power but require a lot more camshaft to get RPM, and I've complained in several threads that my own combo is very RPM limited vs 355s that I typically build.

And none of my cars have a singleplane. Oh snap..

-- Joe
anesthes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2017, 05:58 PM   #48
Member
 
GenX'Motorsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 220
Car: 1989 Trans Am WS6
Engine: SBC+TPI+BOOST
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: Eaton 373

Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by anesthes View Post
I started the forum, long before most of the posters joined.

I did a lot of testing on these intakes, over 15 years ago.

You're not actually reading my posts if you think I suggested everything should be over 400 cubes and a SP, or perhaps you just don't understand what I said.

-- Joe
My reading Comprehension is just fine. I have an IQ north of 135. Anyway, I'm not just referring to this Thread. But every thread Iv'e seen you post in over the years. I've also been here a Very Long time. Just a Diff Username. But Honestly no Disrespect at all. I would just like to see you show the younger guys on here, and those whose builds you don't agree with, that same respect. You seem to offend some of the members on here. Thats all.

Last edited by GenX'Motorsport; 08-30-2017 at 06:02 PM.
GenX'Motorsport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2017, 06:15 PM   #49
TGO Supporter/Moderator
iTrader: (12)
 
anesthes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: SALEM, NH
Posts: 10,430
Car: '88 Formula, '94 Corvette
Engine: 412" sbc, LT1
Transmission: TH350, 4L60E
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt, 3.42, Dana36 3.07


Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenX'Motorsport View Post
My reading Comprehension is just fine. I have an IQ north of 135. Anyway, I'm not just referring to this Thread. But every thread Iv'e seen you post in over the years. I've also been here a Very Long time. Just a Diff Username. But Honestly no Disrespect at all. I would just like to see you show the younger guys on here, and those whose builds you don't agree with, that same respect. You seem to offend some of the members on here. Thats all.
First off, I don't care what anyone uses. But I think we should be debating tech. I don't agree with a lot of builds, but don't dispute the results if they work.

I don't recommend 400+ cid and singleplanes in a majority of threads, so I take issue with that assertion.

No disrespect either, and sure some people take offense. But if someone is offended because I don't like their intake manifold choice, I cant' really say I'm too broken up about it.

Vanilla got offended because I found it odd that he was modifying a bin for boost and didn't have a boosted car, and when I asked about some specific features he got his panties in a twist and said he was doing it for him and his specific goals. Yet couldn't test it because his car was naturally aspirated.

Some of you guys are a little too passionate about this hobby.

-- Joe
anesthes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2017, 06:35 PM   #50
Senior Member
 
Vanilla Ice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: ARIZONA
Posts: 857
Car: 92 Trans Am Conv
Engine: LB9
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: 3.08


Re: question about first fuel inj manifold

Quote:
Originally Posted by anesthes View Post

Vanilla got offended because I found it odd that he was modifying a bin for boost and didn't have a boosted car, and when I asked about some specific features he got his panties in a twist and said he was doing it for him and his specific goals. Yet couldn't test it because his car was naturally aspirated.
Way to act like a Moderator and single me out with panty comments.

I'm super impressed.

My distaste for your arrogance has nothing to do with my bin (that's modified for far more than boost). It has everything to do with your supercilious attitude and asinine comments... like the one I just quoted.

Edit: Also, the car has a turbo.
Vanilla Ice is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Go Back   Third Generation F-Body Message Boards >

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Advertising
Featured Sponsors
Vendor Directory

1982 Camaro '82 || 1983 Camaro '83 || 1984 Camaro '84 || 1985 Camaro '85 || 1986 Camaro '86 || 1987 Camaro '87 || 1988 Camaro '88 || 1989 Camaro '89 || 1990 Camaro '90 || 1991 Camaro '91 || 1992 Camaro '92


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:48 PM.


All content copyright © 1997 - 2014 ThirdGen.org. All rights reserved. No part of this website may be reproduced without the expressed, documented, and written consent of ThirdGen.org's Administrators. We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: