When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Im not a big fan of the T Ram power wise out the box until you have one in your hands and really look at it closely
The lower is basically a tunnel ram and the runners are off set for even better port angle and they are nice large rectangle shape good, the problem is with the plenum the runners are integrated into it blocking a lot of the throttle body entry and then you have the runner entries, there blocked off with the tanks. The tanks are rather small shrouding the runner and the flow has to make a sharp 90 through the center and the tanks are squared off inside not helping the turn plus the intake is heavy but so is the SR
The SR the runners entries are wide open with a huge empty plenum no blockage and one turn at the runner I believe this is why it made more power
I have a customer sending me a T ram for some work he has a radical setup so I have to put alot of thought into the port work I may have to fabricate my own larger tanks this time so the runners arent as shrouded
Aren't the SR runners still longer than the T-Ram? T-Ram runners are 11.5" long, the ones that I measured, at least.
The thing works though. Blew my mind. Think about this, too: The SLP Firehawk was rated at 390 lb-ft. That's DAMN good torque for a 350 in the 90's....damn good for a 350 any time, but it's a lot, it's always impressed me....it's even more torque than the LT5 engine. It's a lot. They got there with the T-Ram, mildly ported 113 heads, mild-medium cam and not-bad shorty headers. Today, I was w/in 15 lbs of that rating.....at the wheel! To me, that engine today made more NET tq at the crank than the Firehawk's 390 lb rating. Stock cam, stock heads, stock shitty pinched down manifolds...wow.
Im not a big fan of the T Ram power wise out the box until you have one in your hands and really look at it closely
The lower is basically a tunnel ram and the runners are off set for even better port angle and they are nice large rectangle shape good, the problem is with the plenum the runners are integrated into it blocking a lot of the throttle body entry and then you have the runner entries, there blocked off with the tanks. The tanks are rather small shrouding the runner and the flow has to make a sharp 90 through the center and the tanks are squared off inside not helping the turn plus the intake is heavy but so is the SR
The SR the runners entries are wide open with a huge empty plenum no blockage and one turn at the runner I believe this is why it made more power
I have a customer sending me a T ram for some work he has a radical setup so I have to put alot of thought into the port work I may have to fabricate my own larger tanks this time so the runners arent as shrouded
Here is one with the tanks modified and runners cut back
I have one that has runners cut back as well. The center plenum area with runner intrusion right behind the t-body has always bothered me along with plenum volume(is it enough?). I have pictures of a hawk with the throttle mount raised a bit to get more air over the front internal runners. If you look at the firehawk vid from slp really close when they pull a side tank off, you'll see its been cut back about 3-4 inches.
We are on to round five I sent Tom siamesed runners and matching plenum to test a "poor mans" super ram, this was very popular where cast runners where ported with various different divider lengths many would go to great lengths to hog out there runners. This set is imo max effort with out welding, the runners are a pair of siamiesed AS&M runners that used to be sold through them. This set was chosen bc the AS&M runners are the best out of the box runner available even to this day with a near 41mm inner diameter runner with no protrusions to speak of as seen on cast runners, this is the same size as the SR runners only difference is the SR expand almost to 43mm at the entry. The plenum was port matched to the runners almost perfectly and the throttle body entry was set up for mono blade to increase what ever plenum volume can be had with the small plenum.
To get this out of cast runners would be a undertaken bc its very hard to open them up to 41mm near the center and certain areas may need welding where they cast indents into them for the TB coolant line and clearance for the bolts
T ram, SR, and siamesed runners, I dont believe the test went to the extents I did with there porting, what is interesting to note is how close the three are yet how different they are physically with the siamesed set producing slightly more power than the T ram at 5300 and below
I've always wond wondered why the peak is left between the runners, nor.ally up and down.
I have an intake id like to send as well
what do you mean peak?
From what Ive seen its best to to leave the runner entry facing the plenum rather than siamesing them so far down that it now faces the sky I believe this is because the entry of the runner isn't funneled anymore because the outer runner walls are now blocking the entry's, imo its best to only go 2-3 inches back when using a the stock TPI plenum, going further will not add more top end but will also lose lowend. The runners that I sent him arent like this though there siamiased far back more than half way down but I had no choice because it would of taken me alot more time to do a set of cast runners. I do have the first design SLP runners but I dont want to port them and I dont think they would perform good out the box because like most cast runners the inner diameter is around 38mm
The SR are facing up because of the huge plenum they are not shrouded at all and the runner actually starts from 40mm and goes to 43mm at the plenum a golf ball does fit at the top but not at the bottom where it meets the base
I would of liked to see a AS&M standard long runner before or after the siamesed set to see how it compares but i don't have a set atm
I think the Accel hi flow base does 20 on its own followed by another 25 from the SR runners and bigger plenum without the SR plenum just doing runners on a TPI would cut down some of that gain
The peaks in plenum and on runners between the ports after cutting out the center wall. I know it's more work to the gasket surface on the outer plenum to make the paired runners 1 large oval.
The intake you have pictures of shows the peak on the lower side of runner inlet but not the upper.
just wondering if it helps at all removing those peaks completely
The gm intake i want to send has its own base that would need to be used
The peaks in plenum and on runners between the ports after cutting out the center wall. I know it's more work to the gasket sureface on the outer plunum to make the paired runners 1 large oval.
The intake you have pictures of shows the peak on the lower side of runner inlet but not the upper.
just wondering if it helps at all removing those peaks completely
The gm intake i want to send has its own base that would need to be used
oh yes the ridges, that is a older pic that lower nub has been removed since then and the other ridge wall that separates the runner pairs has also been dialed back
my theory is that i need to remove anything i can from the plenum to gain volume because its small to begin with the other theory is that the air is moving from front to back those peaks ridges would act like flaps/walls causing turbulence to the air flow
I had a little more work finessing to do with the plenum removing and cutting down some of the bosses but ran out of time I wanted to test runners before Tom ships the base back but I do have a belt sander and with that you can remove and go to places you cant with carbide burrs. Those are my personal plenum and runners I do plan on completely removing the bosses welding them and using shorter bolts but for testing purposes I just wanted to simulate what the average joe can do
Hi everyone. I should have posted an update yesterday, but I was out of town over the weekend....long/holiday weekend here in UT, thanks to the Mormons! Anyway, got back late Monday night and the next test victim, the AS&M runners had arrived in good shape. I MAY go out of town this weekend, if not, I'll swap the upper parts and make an another appointment.
Heck yeah, I'm interested. I THINK, that most on these here forums would be pretty curious about that intake that you've got, too. Keep me posted on your thoughts.
All these intake test are still cool. I have always loved the way the Super Ram looked since I first saw one on a 39 Chevy with a C4 Driveline, Chassis and Interior at a car show over 20 years ago.
The intake that still impresses me for cost and availability vs power on a milder combination is the Vortec truck manifold. The base is similar to a crossfire, but much larger ports. It has a ton of meat for the ports to grow to match even 210cc port heads. It has a fairly flat torque curve that puts a LT1 to shame under 5,000. The marine version is even stronger running. It is ugly and unconventional but even with the small stock cam and stock Vortec heads those engines run extremely well. Stock WOT shift points are 5,100 and they feel strong up to that point. The vortec truck manifold is also noticeably lighter than many other options since it is an aluminum base with a plastic lid and no fuel rails.
I appreciate the effort and reporting of your dyno results. It’s been extremely interesting and informative.
As I understand you’ll be testing a siamesed runner intake next and possibly a FIRST intake?
Would you happen to have an estimate on when you’ll be able to dyno the siamesed intake? I’m really interested on how that’s going to work out compared to the large tube long runners.
Hey there, I've gone MIA for a while. Sorry for that. Just got back from a week of back-packing in the Tetons. Before that, wife and I were up at Mt Rainier camping/hiking. I'll get after the parts swapping after work this week.
As for "What's next", that is up to others who've been graciously lending intakes, thus far. I supplied the stock, T-Ram, and MiniRam....BHR has loaned the SR and ASM siamesed top end so far. We've discussed the FIRST and HSR as well. We'll see. I can probably squeeze in the ASR's and one more test, this year, before snow fall.
Thanks for the update. I’d love to go back to the Tetons - loved Jackson Hole, but it’s been a number of years. Hopefully, it hasn’t changed a lot and I can see it again sooner than later.
It's a pretty special place, IMO. Bar-J ranch closed in 2021 which is a bummer, but town is cool as ever, Snow King is putting some capital into their littler operation, adding summer ops, Jackson Hole will always be top 3 in the country, IMO, and the Tetons are breath taking. I also hope that you can go again, sooner than later.
Next intake is finally on, the ASM siamesed runners, commensurately ported TPI plenum and Accel base.
I have a problem though, and maybe I just didn't notice or pay enough attention assembling, but here it is: I have a massive vacuum leak. Both side runner assy's seem to be the same, and they both have an EGR pipe. The driver's side EGR pipe doesn't align with a flange on the plenum, so it's open to atmosphere, below the plenum. Vacuum leak. I can look at it again in the AM with fresh eyes, but I'm thinking that I may have put the wrong runners on the wrong sides? Maybe?
My as&m semi Siamese runners had tubes on bolt sides, but I remember they were sealed with a urethane or rubber. Was so clean i believe that’s the way they came from as&m.
Next intake is finally on, the ASM siamesed runners, commensurately ported TPI plenum and Accel base.
I have a problem though, and maybe I just didn't notice or pay enough attention assembling, but here it is: I have a massive vacuum leak. Both side runner assy's seem to be the same, and they both have an EGR pipe. The driver's side EGR pipe doesn't align with a flange on the plenum, so it's open to atmosphere, below the plenum. Vacuum leak. I can look at it again in the AM with fresh eyes, but I'm thinking that I may have put the wrong runners on the wrong sides? Maybe?
You'll just have to plug that driverside small hole. That driverside port is one of the differences between 85-88 and 89-92 plenum.
Took the driver's side runners off, I used a Caplug that looks sort of like a top hat?
Shoved that in the EGR pipe. It seemed like a proper fit for the hole but I think the whole gets smaller further in and prevents the top hat from sealing properly. Anyway, put it all back together and it stays running now but idles like poo (surges and stumbles) like it has a vacuum leak. Using a stethoscope, I'm pretty sure I can hear air around where that plug is. I think I'm going to leave it. It shouldn't affect wide open throttle.
Last edited by Tom 400 CFI; Oct 16, 2023 at 04:15 PM.
I think if TTOP350 sends his intake in you can test that and we can do the stealth next spring I believe his intake should perform similar to a FIRST intake
Sounds good. He already sent me his intake...it's sitting my my house, still boxed ATM.
Your posting reminded me: were we going to test this/the ASM intake with a bigger TB? Or the same/stocker? With an hr of dyno time, I could probably swap TB's and test again, but not sure if we care about TB effect at this point? LMK.
I'll not booger your runners up w/JB. It's good enough to test and get a good number....it just idles a little rough.
Sounds good. He already sent me his intake...it's sitting my my house, still boxed ATM.
Your posting reminded me: were we going to test this/the ASM intake with a bigger TB? Or the same/stocker? With an hr of dyno time, I could probably swap TB's and test again, but not sure if we care about TB effect at this point? LMK.
I'll not booger your runners up w/JB. It's good enough to test and get a good number....it just idles a little rough.
i would run it with the same you did with the SR just to keep it consistent but if you have time to swap go ahead so we can see if it makes a difference just post what TB was on when you post results
Bit of a delay; Wife wanted to go for a walk in the woods this weekend, so we hurried and packed our gear and hit the road Thursday night, headed to the Wind River range, in Wyoming. I hurry and emailed Adrenaline Dyno Thursday right before we left, and asked for a reschedule, which they graciously accommodated....So, I'm on for Thursday, the 21st...three days from today. Sorry for the delay, but here is a pic to fill the gap....
Last edited by Tom 400 CFI; Sep 18, 2023 at 10:29 AM.
Hey Guys....another delay. We had RAIN AND SNOW TODAY today, so I had to postpone again. Waiting for a date from the dyno shop, but he said it wouldn't be next week, it'd be in October.
Update; I'm having a hard time getting another appointment w/the place. I think the dyno operator is annoyed with me. He has a 2 day cancellation policy, which I'm aware of, so although I was carefully watching the weather leading up to my last appointment, I wasn't able to determine if I could drive the Kart to the appointment until about a day and a half before. I called, he sounded irritated. I told him I was aware of the policy, that I could pay the $175 again to set up a new appointment and he didn't need to worry about it. Whatever the case, he hasn't returned a phone call yet, and I haven't scheduled and paid for another appointment yet either, sort of hoping that he'll let me slide on the policy and reschedule. An additional thing is that I get the feeling the dyno op doesn't really have much interest in pulls....I think what he really wants to do is tuning on cars.
I'll call him again today and see if he answers.
I REALLY want to get this intake tested at the same place....and I REALLY want it done this fall so I can send all of BHR his stuff back. Anyway...that's what's going on here.
How'd she do?
I expected it to do worse than the SuperRam. BHR may disagree but that's what I was thinking. I was a little pessimistic and I was thinking the number would fall somewhere in the mid 260's, I was "feeling" 264. I got schooled, in that respect.
Here is where everything landed. Later, I'll post an image of all of the pulls so far, overlaid.
Last edited by Tom 400 CFI; Oct 13, 2023 at 02:10 PM.
Thanks for yet another great effort at overlaying all of the tests!
BHR, True about the tq being the same as the SR. Something holds it back a little, up...."top". ...compared to the SR. It's a good intake though, it works, way better than I thought it would....2nd best intake so far. It really surprises me how none of the intakes, other than the MR have raised the hp peak much. The AS&M peaked 100 RPM higher than the stock TPI, if I have my numbers right in my head. I'd have thought that w/the shorter effective runner and the larger cross section, it (and the others w/similar features) would have really driven up the RPM range, but the cam, heads and stock "headers" must really put a cap on things. I wonder how much just the exh manifolds are limiting things? My guess is that they're the worst part of the system, w/all of these better intakes.
I'm so glad I was able to get this done before weather. Driving it down Friday AM....it was freakin' COLD! But it turned into a nice day, session went great and everything was good. Time to pull it, box 'em and ship 'em. Thanks a BUNCH, to BHR for the loaner, killer intakes. The MAN! W/o his generosity, this data wouldn't have happened.
Last edited by Tom 400 CFI; Oct 15, 2023 at 11:09 PM.
Here is the run, w/o the text box blocking the tq peak.
Here is the overlay. Unfortunately, two things are botched with this overlay:
1. The stock intake pull isn't on there, since I had done that original pull at a different facility*
2. The Super Ram curve is not the best one (from the super ram day). All of his files were a bit jumbled, mis labelled, so I was ID'ing them and we were re-naming them, by memory. Anyway, somehow I/we identified the SR correctly, but it wasn't the SR's best pull. So numbers on the SR are a little lower than they could/should be. Anyway, here it is....
1. The stock intake pull isn't on there, since I had done that original pull at a different facility*
*The first place I dyno'd the Kart at, was a place called TurboLabs. They're down in Provo...I recall that I went there b/c they were available, and cheap @~$90 bux. They used a dynojet, too. That place is owned/operated by two "kids". I call them kids...they're probably in their mid 20's? Props to them for having the ambition to open a shop, buy the tools etc. and make a go of it. Anyway, there were two funny things about that visit.
First, Neither of the kids knew how to hook up the Dyno inputs to the Kart, since it didn't have an OBD II connector. I had to show them how to use the inductive p/u for the tach signal...they'd never used it before and had no idea what it was/for!
Second, I told them to start the pull at 500 RPM...as I've requested for each and every pull. They didn't like that. "You're going to blow a connecting rod!", they told me. Blow a connecting rod, lol. I assured them that it would not blow anything, by starting the pull that low. They didn't believe me. After much assurance and convincing, they finally, begrudgingly agreed to start the pull down low. They missed 500 RPM (as most dyno ops seem to do, in my experience), but they still captured a pretty low number that's good enough. No rods blew.
Last night, I was looking at a dyno sheet that I have from back in the day when I had my '06, C6, with the (stock) LS2 engine and I had a little epiphany. I've never really thought too much about it in the past but I was looking at the curve, and I was thinking that something didn't look "right". WTF was it? The tq part of the curve looked WAY off, to me. It looked too low...way too low. How could it be that low!? Recently I've become accustomed to the Tq numbers that the Kart's been making, in the 370's, and here I am, looking at a 400hp engine that's making ONLY 355ish tq!? How in the world is a larger cube, higher compression, better tuned/ECM'd engine making less tq?? Well, it did. It's pretty surprising to me that the LS2 doesn't do more peak tq, w/all of the advancements, size and compression advantages that it has. It makes it all the more impressive (to me) that with exhaust and some intake(s), this sludged up, ****-box 350 is doing over 400 crank tq.
I like how this shows the real world "bolt on and go" approach that was the norm back in the day.
I should have sent the cut back runner SLP upper intake, curious if it is worth the mods. Looking at other intake results, I'm guessing it may help a little.
I agree. That's what we were doing back then. Bolting the junk on and goin' to the track to see...."What'll she do, now?"
"Tuning?? Ahhh...I want to get an FMU..."
One thing that this show or reminds us, too, is how far you CAN go, w/o "NEEDING" a tune. This thing's gone about 70-80 hp from stock (I'm assuming ~210-220 RWHP for a stock L98). Thing starts great, idles good, drivability is good, fuel economy is good....it could be better, I'm sure...but it works, it's good enough.
It's good enough to test and get a good number....it just idles a little rough. 
...compared to the SR. It's a good intake though, it works, way better than I thought it would....2nd best intake so far. It really surprises me how none of the intakes, other than the MR have raised the hp peak much. The AS&M peaked 100 RPM higher than the stock TPI, if I have my numbers right in my head. I'd have thought that w/the shorter effective runner and the larger cross section, it (and the others w/similar features) would have really driven up the RPM range, but the cam, heads and stock "headers" must really put a cap on things. I wonder how much just the exh manifolds are limiting things? My guess is that they're the worst part of the system, w/all of these better intakes. 
W/o his generosity, this data wouldn't have happened. 
