|
T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... ....on a stockish, L98. Yeah, yeah, yeah....there is the "10x the tq" article that has made the rounds for decades. Great article, but that test engine was too far from stock to be very relevant, IMO. And then there was the Summit Racing marketing literature. Claimed "broadest tq curve" of any intake, and "46hp over TPI". Was that true? Maybe...that is a LOT. Was it true at some RPM way past the TPI's peak? Maybe, and that's not exactly fair or forthcoming. So, for the past 30 years, I've always wondered. I finally bought one, had a stock(ish) L98 ('89 'Vette) engine to try it on, so it was time to find out....."What'll she do?" I established the baseline last summer, shown in the graph below. Mods to the engine were: *Dual exhaust, no cats *No air filter *Advanced timing (Fed it what it wants) *No smog pump or frisbee Result was 241rwhp @4200, and 342rwtq @ (of course) 3280 RPM. https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.thi...fcb3f92230.png Nothing to see there, really. Pretty darn typical and peaks are right where we'd expect them to be; ~3200 and ~4200. Next is the T-Ram swap, ONLY. No other changes....and no tune, either. This was a literal, R&R of the intake manifold and then another dyno pull. Ready? 276rwhp @ 4700 and 356rwtq @ 3700 RPM. https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.thi...249682176f.jpg For all of you who were on the edge of your seats, wondering what an SLP T-Ram would do on a stockish L98...direct A > B swap, no tune? A pretty substantial35 RWHP and 14 RWTQ. |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... I always purposfully start my pulls "at idle". I tell the dyno operator to start the pulls at 500 RPM. For a variety of reasons, they never quite "catch" the pull as low as 500, it always seems to legitimately start at ~1200-1500 RPM depending upon how they start the pull...but I always want the lowest RPM pull possible to shed real light on "low end tq"....since people like to credit the TPI with that attribute, so much. The first interesting thing to me, is that the T-Ram, in spite of shorter and larger runners, makes more "low end tq" than the TPI...by quite a lot. At 1500 RPM, the T-Ram is doing 320? 325? rwtq, to the TPI's, ~280 rwtq...that's ~40 lbs advantage by 1500 RPM. That advantage is present every where in the "low end range, with the T_Ram making over 300 lbs from the beginning of the pull, on up. Another interesting thing is that I don't see any point on the graphs where the TPI does better. Even at the TPI's actual strong point, "mid range tq", it's doing 341 at 3200 and at that same point, the T-Ram is doing ~351 or so. After the install, I was a bit disappointed in the results. Driving the Kart around, I could see/feel that I'd picked up about 500 usable RPM, but I "SOTP" guessed that I'd gained maybe 10hp. I figured it needed a tune. Going into the dyno session, I was expecting to see ~10 more hp than the stock TPI and I figured that I could only blame myself for not having tuned it for that intake. 35 was a very surprising number, and in line with the original claims. In the end? I'm pretty impressed with the T-Ram intake. That was a substantial, single part bolt-on. |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... About what I expected, pretty cool to see real numbers. Thanks for posting.. |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... Surprising to me. Hp gain is a touch more than expected but the most suprising is the torque gain. Figured it would give up some there, but just push the peak out further in the rpm range, which it did 500 rpm but actually made more trq. kinda like my stealth ram swap on my L98 bolt on car. I dont think i ever got a true dyno number with stock tpi as i think i forgot to reconnect the est when i set timing. But the stealth ram running lean made 254 whp 315 trq. Stock L98 was showing like 206/330 but like i said i think those may have been off and that also did not include 1.6 rockers or underdrive pulleys. thats pretty cool tho, i always liked those t rams. Expected to behave kinda like a superram. 30+ hp gain shoulf have been a big sotp change but if you are used to fast cars, then may not have felt it as much |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... That's a substantial gain! I Like seeing stock comparisons like this. |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... I thought the numbers were VERY strong,....for a single bolt on. And on a stock engine, to boot. I posted this over on the 'Vette forum too, but started by asking what an intake...ANY intake (HSR, Mini, Proflow, SR etc) would do on a stock L98. I did that b/c I was fairly sure that if I did, I'd get lower numbers; 10, 15hp or so. Only got two guesses @20hp. I figured if I'd posted the results first, like I did here, folks would just post and say, "yeah, that's about what I'd have guessed". :lmao: Anyway, I was quite impressed with the thing. I don't think many would do better on a stock or stockish engine. Pretty cool piece. |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... I have a upper with paired runner walls ported and cut back 3 inches, want to test it out? |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... An upper T-Ram with porting? Unfortunately, I pulled the whole thing off as it's sold and I need to get it shipped. I'm going to go to a SB 400 eventually, but I'd try and test anything on this engine though, if someone wants to ship/receive something. |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results....
Originally Posted by TTOP350
(Post 6437651)
I have a upper with paired runner walls ported and cut back 3 inches, want to test it out? i wanna see it tested..... |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... Id love to see what a good carb intake and 650 DP would do on a stock L98. Not that I would take that over a TPI setup just wondering whats left on the table. |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results....
Originally Posted by TTOP350
(Post 6437651)
I have a upper with paired runner walls ported and cut back 3 inches, want to test it out? |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results....
Originally Posted by dmccain
(Post 6437672)
Id love to see what a good carb intake and 650 DP would do on a stock L98. Not that I would take that over a TPI setup just wondering whats left on the table. I think the T-Ram shows "whats left on the table". |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... Years ago a friend of mine had an L98 Iroc that went to giving him all kinds of running issues. We had run it at the track when it ran well and it did 14.4s IIRC. Carb and intake change only... the car ran 13.88, I remember it like yesterday we could hardly believe it.Car would then run right with 4th gen LT1 cars of that time. Still, me personally I love the look of the TPI sitting up there myself |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... What was the trap? Trap tells the story. |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results....
Originally Posted by Tom 400 CFI
(Post 6437761)
What was the trap? Trap tells the story. |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... No. TPI "really shines" at 3200 RPM. And it's not even "shining" that brightly, there. But the TPI is, despite common lore, really a MID RANGE intake...only good, from ~3k to ~3600 ish, or so. It doesn't make more low end than other intakes and it doesn't make high end either. An LT1 makes more tq from idle to ~2500 than an L98 (according to GM). In this very thread, the T-Ram out pulled the TPI from the bottom of the pull to the top, making more tq....every where, but notably, it was making ~40 lbs more tq just off idle, than the TPI did. The TPI isn't a "low end intake". It's a mid range intake. The 13.88 is pretty good but w/o trap it's hard to know what power the car made. You could easily do a 13.88 w/260 NET hp. |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... I just always felt the TPI cars were really strong out of the hole then were done once they got to 4800 or so rpms. On the butt-dyno anyhow. That T-Ram REALLY woke it up! Great read- very interesting. |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... Copy. Yeah, people say that "low end tq" thing on the 'Vette forums all the time. It's understandable....Since it has more low end than what came before (the CFI and before that, the Carbed L82), then that stuck in people's heads. Plus, since it's no good above 4500 or so, it doesn't get recognized for top end, for sure. So, it get's the "low end" reputation even though other intakes do better on the low end. As to the SOTP on a TPI car....it IS good. But with regard to "out of the hole", over on the 'Vette forums I like to point out a really basic thing: the 60' times of any stock TPI car vs. any other EFI car's 60' times. And what are they? They're ALL right around 2.0 seconds. So when people claim "Out of the hole" and "TPI" in the same breath, I always ask them to think about the 60' at the drag track. It's no better than any other EFI intake set up. |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... Big tube tpi stuff that can flow more helps the power curve in my experience. Mild cam head L98 i did was over 300 lb ft from 2600 to 4700 rpm with a peak of 350 wtq. Felt very good. Simple 2500 rpm stall speed and thats a very stout fun vehicle. but i agree the short runner stuff isnt that terrible. It loses the midrange peak but always seem to carry better beyond midrange peaks and doesnt lose much if anything below the mid range. My stealth ram swapped car actually 60 ft quicker and ran quicker short track vs stock tpi, no other changes. Same gear and 2800 stall. Stealth ram was like 15-20 lbs less trq at peak midrange but more everywhere else from what I remember |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results....
Originally Posted by Orr89RocZ
(Post 6437773)
Mild cam head L98 i did was over 300 lb ft from 2600 to 4700 rpm with a peak of 350 wtq.
Originally Posted by Orr89RocZ
(Post 6437773)
but i agree the short runner stuff isnt that terrible. It loses the midrange peak but always seem to carry better beyond midrange peaks and doesnt lose much if anything below the mid range. My stealth ram swapped car actually 60 ft quicker and ran quicker short track vs stock tpi, no other changes. Same gear and 2800 stall. Stealth ram was like 15-20 lbs less trq at peak midrange but more everywhere else from what I remember |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... Wow! I’d love to see what it does with say an LT1 cam, 1.6 RR’s, and a little better head on it. I would bet it would keep all that tq and move the power up in the RPM and make it seem like a whole different beast! |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... Yep, you saw it. It's always fun to think about "what if's" and of course it would be fun to throw a cam/headers and other things at it....but then I'd want to put the TPI back on and see the diff w/those changes too. Also, I suspect that the further you go from stock, the less advantage the T-Ram would have when compared to other options, such as the HSR, Mini Ram and a single plane. It has long been my belief that the T-Ram was the only absolutely optimized intake for a stock (ish) 350 engine. The Super Ram would be a very close second IMO. The other intakes (HSR/Mini/Single plane) are optimized for bigger/higher revving engines due to larger runner cross section and/or shorter runners. Which is why they "won" in the legendary "10 times the torque" article, being tested on a high hp 383. MY biggest point of interest was, as I said in the first post; "What'll she do?" Meaning, let's say that it's 1993. We/you/I/any of us are our current age and have our current "means", but it's 1993 and we have a nice 3rd gen, a C4....with TPI and we have some money to spend on 'em. The cars are still pretty new and we're all likely battling GN's and 5.0's at the strip and likely early in our mods with stock displacement....most of us. We're debating an intake swap....how does the T-Ram rate? Would that be a good mod? Would it be one of the better intakes? I've always beleived that it would be the BEST intake for that scenario, but in 1993, I had an '83 F-bod, with an LU5 and no money for intakes (or much else). Well back then there was zero data on this stuff. Today, it's still sparse as hell b/c no one is modding stock TPI's at this point and certainly, not with T-Rams. Back then, access to chassis dynos was virtually non-existent (for me anyway) and probably expensive. SO....no data. This whole exercise, for ME was, if it's 1992, '93, '94 or so, and I have a TPI car....would the T-Ram actually be a good mod? A good intake swap decision? It turns out based on these results above that the answer is YES. 35hp from an intake swap only is pretty fantastic and I doubt that there was another intake at the time (or even now) that would do better. A bonus was that the T-Ram wasn't all that expensive @ $514 from Summit, back then. SO...I agree, more testing would be fun, but you or someone else will have to do it. I wanted to see what a typical early '90's intake swap would have gotten us, and now I know; 35 RWHP. :thumbsup: |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results....
Originally Posted by charlie6178
(Post 6437887)
Wow! I’d love to see what it does with say an LT1 cam, 1.6 RR’s, and a little better head on it. I would bet it would keep all that tq and move the power up in the RPM and make it seem like a whole different beast! Wish there were dyno graphs out there of a stock Firehawk. |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... Wow i wouldn’t expect it to have fallen off that soon in the RPM, it sure feels like mine pulls leaps and bounds better than it did with the stock TPI intake as far as upper end pull, but I guess that might just have been my excitement playing with me! |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... IDK.....I have to admit that after I installed it, I was pretty disappointed with the SOTP. My *** couldn't really feel any difference until the tach went above 4000...then the major diff that I could feel was about the same "Fade"....only at 5k instead of 4500...or so. Yes, I thought it would SOTP transform to about 5500, but...stock cam, heads, manifolds....all junk crappity crap. :D |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results....
Originally Posted by charlie6178
(Post 6437917)
Wow i wouldn’t expect it to have fallen off that soon in the RPM, it sure feels like mine pulls leaps and bounds better than it did with the stock TPI intake as far as upper end pull, but I guess that might just have been my excitement playing with me! |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... I should also add we did long tubes dual exhaust and a cam only mod on a stock L98 that was just rebuilt from machine shop. Cam i believe was comp 218/224 xer grind. After driving and dyno tuning it only made 226 whp on that dyno. Wasnt impressed. Stock tpi is def the bottle neck. Seems shorter runner intakes or aftermarket big tubes with bolt ons stock cam get into the 240-250 whp range. But it all depends on the dyno and condition of the motor |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... Damn.....I would have been pretty unhappy with that (226 rw) too. I'd think that just the LT headers and duals should do better. Hell, that's what my baseline was (stock 'vette "shorty's", dual exhaust) and it did 241 rw. Different cam and heads on the 'Vette but yeah....226 is pretty disappointing. |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results....
Originally Posted by Tom 400 CFI
(Post 6437231)
I always purposfully start my pulls "at idle". I tell the dyno operator to start the pulls at 500 RPM. For a variety of reasons, they never quite "catch" the pull as low as 500, it always seems to legitimately start at ~1200-1500 RPM depending upon how they start the pull...but I always want the lowest RPM pull possible to shed real light on "low end tq"....since people like to credit the TPI with that attribute, so much. The first interesting thing to me, is that the T-Ram, in spite of shorter and larger runners, makes more "low end tq" than the TPI...by quite a lot. At 1500 RPM, the T-Ram is doing 320? 325? rwtq, to the TPI's, ~280 rwtq...that's ~40 lbs advantage by 1500 RPM. That advantage is present every where in the "low end range, with the T_Ram making over 300 lbs from the beginning of the pull, on up. Another interesting thing is that I don't see any point on the graphs where the TPI does better. Even at the TPI's actual strong point, "mid range tq", it's doing 341 at 3200 and at that same point, the T-Ram is doing ~351 or so. After the install, I was a bit disappointed in the results. Driving the Kart around, I could see/feel that I'd picked up about 500 usable RPM, but I "SOTP" guessed that I'd gained maybe 10hp. I figured it needed a tune. Going into the dyno session, I was expecting to see ~10 more hp than the stock TPI and I figured that I could only blame myself for not having tuned it for that intake. 35 was a very surprising number, and in line with the original claims. In the end? I'm pretty impressed with the T-Ram intake. That was a substantial, single part bolt-on. |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results....
Originally Posted by Orr89RocZ
(Post 6437951)
I should also add we did long tubes dual exhaust and a cam only mod on a stock L98 that was just rebuilt from machine shop. Cam i believe was comp 218/224 xer grind. After driving and dyno tuning it only made 226 whp on that dyno. Wasnt impressed. Stock tpi is def the bottle neck. Seems shorter runner intakes or aftermarket big tubes with bolt ons stock cam get into the 240-250 whp range. But it all depends on the dyno and condition of the motor |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results....
Originally Posted by Fast355
(Post 6437984)
I tested a couple different engines years ago that had more low-end torque and more top-end power with a dual plane or even single plane manifold under TBI or a Q-Jet. TPi had more in the midrange but the RPM window it made more torque was only about 1,500 rpm wide |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results....
Originally Posted by dmccain
(Post 6437770)
I just always felt the TPI cars were really strong out of the hole then were done once they got to 4800 or so rpms. On the butt-dyno anyhow. That T-Ram REALLY woke it up! Great read- very interesting. Adam |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results....
Originally Posted by dmccain
(Post 6437672)
Id love to see what a good carb intake and 650 DP would do on a stock L98. Not that I would take that over a TPI setup just wondering whats left on the table. "260 I think the T-Ram shows "whats left on the table". By 260 I meant 260 RWHP. On the 'Vette forums today, someone posted this old dyno comparison from the early '90's comparing a stock L98, L98 w/a dual plane and 750 carb, and a MiniRam. https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.thi...3acda15497.jpg As expected (by me, at least) the Carb did 285 crank so I'd say my "260 wheel" guess was pretty darn close. Also not surprising to me, is that the T-Ram (and the miniram) handily out performed the carb'ed intake pretty much across the board. :thumbs: |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... Well....car was on the rollers today! What'd it do??? 240/340 rw with the stock TPI! 276/350 with the T-Ram. Now? ____/____ RWHP with the TPIS Mini Ram??? https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.thi...2233570b11.jpg . |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... I was hoping for it to match my stock LT1....so, 279/312.....but that was not to be. In fact, it wasn't even close. SOTP...it felt great today. I drove it ~75 miles today, going to work, the dyno, lunch, then home. I would swear that the car felt quicker, lighter, faster than it did with the T-Ram. The mid range pull, from ~2500 to ~4500, just felt awesome. BUT...that's the 'ol SOTP meter. Worthless. https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...milies/lol.gif After 5 pulls and a couple partial pulls, several timing adjustments, increasing fuel pressure to get the A/F ratio down to a sane level....she landed on 258/321. Up 17 hp over the TPI....but down 18 from the legendary T-Ram. https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.thi...52129ed107.jpg https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.thi...7033d7dcd5.jpg https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.thi...212cc98037.jpg |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... No one's offered me a Super Ram to test (or anything else) so I think this just about concludes the "5 Times the Tork"....AKA, "Hot '80's Intakes!" test. Here are all three, together for easier comparisons: Stock TPI: https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.thi...ad4732f072.png SLP T-Ram: https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.thi...3f62e239e2.jpg TPIS MiniRam https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.thi...f84aa692be.jpg I started out this whole thing thinking that on a STOCK or STOCKISH L98, the T-Ram might dominate the options of the era. That was SLP's claim, back in the day, anyway. I know that the "10x the tork" article originally had a similar intention; to test all those intakes on a mild 350, but that engine didn't work out. The T-Ram got beaten by the Super Ram, HSR, MiniRam, and single plane....on a stroker 500hp engine. I've felt that since the T-Ram was specifically developed for a CARB cert'ed, OEM optioned car, it was optimized for the engine it was put on -essentially a mild L98. On this/my three-intake-test, it certainly did damn well and supports that theory. Wish I'd had a Super Ram to try too, but that will have to be done by someone else. This neglected, oil burnin', sludged up, 150k mile 350 is going to move on to a quieter career. I'll throw one other tid-bit out there; the T-Ram ran great on the car/engine, w/no tune at all -direct bolt on. Look at the AFR on the T-Ram dyno graph; it's nearly perfect. The MiniRam is a different story...it definitely needs a tune. The drivability at part throttle is bad. It hesitates, bucks, surges... it's hard to modulate and cruising at a constant RPM at light load is impossible. It was super lean until we bumped pressure up (by 7 psi) and then is was still, pretty lean. So in my observation, the MiniRam isn't a direct bolt on. It needs a tune, too. . |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... That is a whole lot of information to digest, thank you for putting it together. I could send you a super ram if you really want one but I'm sure there's got to be one closer to you! |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... I would love to do a super Ram. I threw out the offer on the Corvette forum also but nobody stepped up. A few people there were interested in seeing that data as well but those who seemed interested don't have one. If you really wanted send one, I for sure would test it. Shoot me a PM or email if you want to talk about it. -Tom |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... LAST CALL. If someone wants to commit to trying another intake before Friday night....I'm game. Otherwise, I'm going to start pulling the motor out Saturday, AM. :thumbsup: |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results....
Originally Posted by Tom 400 CFI
(Post 6448172)
No one's offered me a Super Ram to test (or anything else) so I think this just about concludes the "5 Times the Tork"....AKA, "Hot '80's Intakes!" test. Here are all three, together for easier comparisons: Stock TPI: https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.thi...ad4732f072.png SLP T-Ram: https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.thi...3f62e239e2.jpg TPIS MiniRam https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.thi...f84aa692be.jpg I started out this whole thing thinking that on a STOCK or STOCKISH L98, the T-Ram might dominate the options of the era. That was SLP's claim, back in the day, anyway. I know that the "10x the tork" article originally had a similar intention; to test all those intakes on a mild 350, but that engine didn't work out. The T-Ram got beaten by the Super Ram, HSR, MiniRam, and single plane....on a stroker 500hp engine. I've felt that since the T-Ram was specifically developed for a CARB cert'ed, OEM optioned car, it was optimized for the engine it was put on -essentially a mild L98. On this/my three-intake-test, it certainly did damn well and supports that theory. Wish I'd had a Super Ram to try too, but that will have to be done by someone else. This neglected, oil burnin', sludged up, 150k mile 350 is going to move on to a quieter career. I'll throw one other tid-bit out there; the T-Ram ran great on the car/engine, w/no tune at all -direct bolt on. Look at the AFR on the T-Ram dyno graph; it's nearly perfect. The MiniRam is a different story...it definitely needs a tune. The drivability at part throttle is bad. It hesitates, bucks, surges... it's hard to modulate and cruising at a constant RPM at light load is impossible. It was super lean until we bumped pressure up (by 7 psi) and then is was still, pretty lean. So in my observation, the MiniRam isn't a direct bolt on. It needs a tune, too. . the t ram also is in need of some porting and the boxes on the sides can be modded to allow the air to inter the runners more efficiently i wouldn't be surprised with a bigger TB and some mod/port work that the tram couldn't get near that 500 mark |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... I agree. But IMO, the way that the TTTT article is misleading is the engine they tested it on! I mean, you are totally right that a TB would make a diff (IDK why they used a 48), and for sure, porting would help on a 383. But, if they'd ran the test on the engine most people had, when it the T-Ram came out (a 350 with bolt ons), it would have been one if, of not the highest performer.Simply b/c it's optimally sized for....a 350 horse 350. Back then, not many folks had 383's built like the TTTT engine. |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... I ran a SLP full package T-ram on my 87 IROC with a ZZ4 shortblock and TQF heads / custom cam for almost a decade, then AFR heads and bigger roller cam. It ran really well with a cobbled together set up and have RWD sheets to prove it. Thank you for the diligence to prove out how well the T-rams worked on SBC's. I made big swings when I was modding my car but they paid off on the seat of the pants feel and hurt a lot of feelings on the commute drag strip. |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... Sounds like a super fun package. I dig it. :thumbsup: |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results....
Originally Posted by Tom 400 CFI
(Post 6448170)
Well....car was on the rollers today! What'd it do??? 240/340 rw with the stock TPI! 276/350 with the T-Ram. Now? ____/____ RWHP with the TPIS Mini Ram??? https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.thi...2233570b11.jpg . I love VetteKarts. |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results....
Originally Posted by EliminatorDave
(Post 6489689)
I ran a SLP full package T-ram on my 87 IROC with a ZZ4 shortblock and TQF heads / custom cam for almost a decade, then AFR heads and bigger roller cam. It ran really well with a cobbled together set up and have RWD sheets to prove it. Thank you for the diligence to prove out how well the T-rams worked on SBC's. I made big swings when I was modding my car but they paid off on the seat of the pants feel and hurt a lot of feelings on the commute drag strip. |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results....
Originally Posted by Thirdgen89GTA
(Post 6489718)
Considering how LIGHT that thing must be, I don't think you need torque at ALL lol. You could use a lot more RPM though. I love VetteKarts. |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results....
Originally Posted by Tom 400 CFI
(Post 6489727)
You're right. It does need more RPM for sure. It's weighs 2250 w/no gas and no one in it. I'm going to replace the ZF6 with a T5...the trans/flywheel combo will reduce weight by nearly 100 more lbs. I wish I could get it lighter but I don't see much low hanging fruit for weight reduction at this point. |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... Yeah.... no.
Originally Posted by Fast355
(Post 6489774)
L33 or other aluminum 5.3L would take over 100 lbs off it compared to an all-cast iron small block. Then again, a newer 4.3L direct injected V6 based off the L83 5.3L or L86 6.2L makes a stupid amount of power for a V6 when it has a mild cam. Both might be a chore to hook to an earlier manual trans though. The little LV3 4.3L made 368 hp at the crankshaft with a 210/223 @ 0.050 cam! No V6's. Sound is part of the experience. That 368 GROSS is probably pretty close the the ~300 NET that I'm already making. No, no V6's in this car. Just like the C4 did, I reject a V6 solution. :D |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... I don't know real numbers, but I was under the impression aluminum LS vs. iron block LS was ~100 lb difference, and that an iron block LS was similar weight as an aluminum headed SBC. And the center of gravity of an LS is a little rearward. All I know is I had to re-adjust the front springs on my car when I swapped from iron LS to aluminum LS because the nose rose so much from the weight loss. |
Re: T-Ram vs. TPI, Dyno Results.... IDK...Engine weights are pretty hard to come by on the 'net, b/c there are so many ways to configure any engine, before weighing it. Numbers are all over the place. I thought an aluminum head L98 is about "high 400's" and most any aluminum LS was about 450. If I DID lose weight, my front suspension is adjustable via a bolt & nut. So, that's quick 'n easy. https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.thi...b7db4a30a0.jpg https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.thi...6bbdf49236.jpg |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:34 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands