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.
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.
Iron block with aluminum heads weigh very close to the same either way. I just weighed the LQ4 I pulled out of the 87 G20 prior to selling it. The L31 350 is 30 lbs heavier with iron heads. The iron block 6.0L block itself is 216 lbs. Both engine were fully dressed at the time. 6.0L had long tubes and the 350 has cast iron manifolds.
I have a stealthram and super ram ready to ship if you'd ever wanted to test just pay to ship back there not going no where so keep that in mind you could add two more graphs to the thread
Yep-yep. BHR is the MAN. IDK how or why, but he has trusted me enough to send me his Super Ram to test....and test it I will....then send it back to him. He has other intakes we may test as well....I'm all in for whatever he wants to send me, so we may crank this up dramatically from "Three times the Tork" to, up to the original "Ten times the Tork"....but on a stock engine! I'm pumped. We'll see how this goes. I need to swap intakes, make new fuel lines for the Super Ram and then? Get some warm weather to get rid of the 6'+ snow in my neighborhood so I can drive the Kart out of my house and get it to the dyno. I'll use the same dyno as the last tests, w/the same operator, for some consistency.
All aluminum ls is probably 80 lbs lighter in block alone compared to iron block ls. I thought i seen then weigh 120 something lbs. i know i can easily carry one and the iron blocks are very difficult to carry haha
sbc iron is probably similar to iron ls but ls crank is slightly heavier with its larger mains
Which base is being used for the Super ram test? Stock base, ported base, original Accel base, (TPIs Big Mouth, Edelbrock or later Accel base), other?
Probably won't make much difference, but still curious.
Original accel base. The first and second design accel bases can be distinguished by where the accel marking is stamped on the newer design is a edelbrock cast. Tpis took edelbrocks base grinded the numbers off the bottom and put there stamp on along with slightly cleaning up the port entries
Had a minute last night, so I popped off the Miniram. Went to drop the Accel base on and quickly realized that the pipe adapters for the oil pressure sending unit are too tall and the Accell base hits, so I'll grab some 1/8" pipe from work today and bring it home tonight. Get the base on, runners, fuel rails, then re-route fuel lines. I WANT to rush...but there is no real rush; there is still 5' of snow in my front yard.
I didn't do squat for the TPI intake. I didn't do squat for the T-Ram intake, but you can see in that graph that the A/F ratio is pretty good. The MiniRam had problems and could use a tune. I already posted about the MR in post #35
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
So basically with that one, all we could go for was peak HP, with both timing and fuel, and that's what we did. The number we got was after optimizing timing and fuel for the best peak hp number, which obviously means that tq was out of whack at RPM's below peak hp, but it got us the best hp # which is useful for comparing the intakes max potential on a stock engine.
I didn't do squat for the TPI intake. I didn't do squat for the T-Ram intake, but you can see in that graph that the A/F ratio is pretty good. The MiniRam had problems and could use a tune. I already posted about the MR in post #35
So basically with that one, all we could go for was peak HP, with both timing and fuel, and that's what we did. The number we got was after optimizing timing and fuel for the best peak hp number, which obviously means that tq was out of whack at RPM's below peak hp, but it got us the best hp # which is useful for comparing the intakes max potential on a stock engine.
Most weren't tuning these and still don't, imo you would also have to retune the TPI intakes even the stocker to make it fair, your data shows like I always thought that its not the intake that is the problem you cant go bolt on a mini ram and expect lt1 numbers the lt1 has superior heads, head chambers and cam shaft. The reason many feel its faster is that it has a broader flatter torque curve and the wheels arent spinning down low and doesnt have a sudden fall off.
I was looking over threads from like 20 yrs ago while figuring out how to port SLP runners on here where some California guys cut up there SLP runners siamesed all four runners into one and claimed that they made all this horespower and didnt lose torque over the stock length and its a bit biased there aswell because on the test where they test the new shorten SLP runners they also changed heads and camshafts
Mini ram peaked at 4.9k falls at 5.2k
Stock TPI peaked at 4.3 falls at 4.5
Point is you dont want a intake that makes its power at 6-7k on a engine and transmission that was not meant to rev past 5-5.5k you will make more power and torque with a long runner TPI from idle to 5k than any other intake, there are ways to move up the TPI power range by the little 500-600 as seen above without changing to a shorter intake and loosing the low end
I've read on the forums (from people who've supposedly done it), that "An L98 with a LT1 intake is an LT1" (in performance). I've had a hard time believing that; like you said -heads, compression, exhaust (from the manifolds to the tail pipes), ignition system....there is way more to an LT1 than an intake, compared to the L98. But some have been adamant about L98+MR=LT1. No it doesn't, and now I know.
Had a minute last night so installed the different pipe fittings and then got the base and runners on. I don't think that the wire looms will fit between the runner and the valve covers. The runners are FAT.
I'm obviously going to have to make new fuel hard lines....
Update; this is taking forever. Sorry guys. Had a work conference, gone for a week, birthday(s), and then recovering from this winter, in the Wasatch. Ended at 838" of snow, total.
Anyway, worked on it over the weekend a little. Rails in, runners on, need to run to Pick'n Pull to get steel valve covers as 'Vette Valve covers won't fit. After that it should be one more "session" of work time on it to get the plenum on, TB, and hook up all the ancillary things...then make an appointment. Hopefully this coming weekend, for a finish time.
Most weren't tuning these and still don't, imo you would also have to retune the TPI intakes even the stocker to make it fair, your data shows like I always thought that its not the intake that is the problem you cant go bolt on a mini ram and expect lt1 numbers the lt1 has superior heads, head chambers and cam shaft. The reason many feel its faster is that it has a broader flatter torque curve and the wheels arent spinning down low and doesnt have a sudden fall off.
I was looking over threads from like 20 yrs ago while figuring out how to port SLP runners on here where some California guys cut up there SLP runners siamesed all four runners into one and claimed that they made all this horespower and didnt lose torque over the stock length and its a bit biased there aswell because on the test where they test the new shorten SLP runners they also changed heads and camshafts
Mini ram peaked at 4.9k falls at 5.2k
Stock TPI peaked at 4.3 falls at 4.5
Point is you dont want a intake that makes its power at 6-7k on a engine and transmission that was not meant to rev past 5-5.5k you will make more power and torque with a long runner TPI from idle to 5k than any other intake, there are ways to move up the TPI power range by the little 500-600 as seen above without changing to a shorter intake and loosing the low end
An LT1 does have bit better heads and cam. So they do make a bit more power. But an L98 with 1.6 rockers and a short runner gets closer for sure and is faster that way than with tpi unless really big runner aftermarket stuff. First should make comparable power.
I know with just an stealth ram intake change on my bolt on L98, it picked up 3 tenths and 2 mph or so out the box and eventually .6 with few more changes/tuning. Peak power moved to 5100 and torque curve does broaden. Despite less peak trq it did 60 foot quicker. I think it was 13.89 at 97 in winter air with tpi and 13.40’s with stealth ram at 99-101 in similar air, eventually going 12.95 with rockers and drag pack. Low end is kinda a misnomer, tpi makes big mid range when it hits the tuned runner. More peaky of a curve. Short runners are more flat and seem to have abit more off idle and past peak. Hard to say i never was able to dyno one much below 2500-2800 rpm I think it was. Need a manual valve body.
Had a minute last night so installed the different pipe fittings and then got the base and runners on. I don't think that the wire looms will fit between the runner and the valve covers. The runners are FAT.
I'm obviously going to have to make new fuel hard lines....
Those are F-body fuel rails/ lines, do you have the stock vette fuel rail / lines?
An LT1 does have bit better heads and cam. So they do make a bit more power. But an L98 with 1.6 rockers and a short runner gets closer for sure and is faster that way than with tpi unless really big runner aftermarket stuff. First should make comparable power.
I know with just an stealth ram intake change on my bolt on L98, it picked up 3 tenths and 2 mph or so out the box and eventually .6 with few more changes/tuning. Peak power moved to 5100 and torque curve does broaden. Despite less peak trq it did 60 foot quicker. I think it was 13.89 at 97 in winter air with tpi and 13.40’s with stealth ram at 99-101 in similar air, eventually going 12.95 with rockers and drag pack. Low end is kinda a misnomer, tpi makes big mid range when it hits the tuned runner. More peaky of a curve. Short runners are more flat and seem to have abit more off idle and past peak. Hard to say i never was able to dyno one much below 2500-2800 rpm I think it was. Need a manual valve body.
I was able to pull a TPI from 1,000 rpm. Performer RPM dual plane with a GM TBI had more torque up until about ~2,700 and the TPI only made a bit more torque between that point and ~4,200.
Intake is on/done. Finally. Spent the last two days focused on that, mostly. Went to P&P and got the steelies, an L31 Vortec t-stat neck and upper hose, and some other misc bits and pieces that are easier to find at a yard than a parts house. Made some fuel lines to adapt the SR to the car. Learned a few things about the Super Ram that most/all Super Ram owners already know I'm sure:
*VC's have to be off to tighten the lower runner bolts.
*Vette VC's don't fit w/o grinding
*Don't tighten anything from the runner/base flange up, until all hardware is installed. -I got to take apart the top end twice for that lesson.
*TB ends up being a good bit farther forward than with the TPI, T-Ram and Mini Ram.
Anyway, done. I'll call Adrenaline tomorrow AM and see if I can get an appointment for Friday, so we can all see......"What'll she do?"
Last edited by Tom 400 CFI; Jun 18, 2023 at 10:59 PM.
Me too. It sounds good. It idle....and IDK why, but it sounds better than it did w/the MIniRam. That doesn't mean anything, it's just interesting/curious/surprising.
Well, appointment is a ways off; unfortunately. July 12th is the soonest they could get me in, so about 3 weeks off. I could get an appointment sooner, somewhere else, but I'd rather use the same dyno, same operator, etc. Same-same. . So now we wait, I guess.
Well, appointment is a ways off; unfortunately. July 12th is the soonest they could get me in, so about 3 weeks off. I could get an appointment sooner, somewhere else, but I'd rather use the same dyno, same operator, etc. Same-same. . So now we wait, I guess.
That'll give me more time, been busy at work and home....
I guess I should play too, right? I WANT to say, 275, for the SR. *I* think the SR and T-Ram should be darn closely matched...but my brain gives an edge to the T-Ram. I don't feel* that the SR will really hang....I'm "feeling" more like 265, 268?, but I THINK that it should...so 275.
*Same happened with the T-Ram though. I put that on, drove it, and said; "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 0-10 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."
That's the SOTP meter for you.
Really surprised the Mini-ram didn't have the highest peak. Is it just choked by the heads/cam that much?
IDK....makes sense to me. It's got the shortest runners (good for hi rpm). It's got the biggest runners, by far. Good for hi RPM and large displacement. Then, it's slapped on a low RPM, medium sized motor....Makes sense to me. Which is why I never liked the 10x the tork test. The motor was way, WAY to "big" to make the test relevant to most car guys installing these intakes back in the day.
I'd be similar to installing an RPM intake on this same engine, then a Torker II. Which would do better? Probably, the RPM.
Yeah, the MR is totally underutilized on top of this heads/cam/exhaust. IMO
Really surprised the Mini-ram didn't have the highest peak. Is it just choked by the heads/cam that much?
From the original article you can see the curves from each intake, the T ram made more than the mini ram at 5k, at 4k the T ram made around 25 Hp more than the mini ram the runner length on the mini ram is for 6-7k power
The l98 heads and cam will make its peaks between 4-5k
From the article the the super ram made the most Hp at exactly 5k followed by the Stealthram, T ram, and siamesed runners
Right on. Thanks for the "bet"! It's interesting to see what folks think, and why. I'm betting on the T-Ram, and hanging my hat on port entry angle.
In two days, we'll see. Played with the timing yesterday, then drove the Kart to work today...I have to say, it's feeling pretty damn strong. Especially in the mid range, it f'n EATS. I can't wait to see the graph and see how that compares to the good 'ol SOTP.
The bottom line is it's all about where you want power. Each intake is designed to work best with certain cubes, heads and rpm.
be realistic about budget, hp, rpm and you'll be rewarded with a great combo that any of these intakes can provide
All done! Had a GREAT morning away from work, in the dyno room with some VERY cool guys that own/run Adrenaline Service & Dyno. Great guys.
Any final guesses?....Was the SR able to out do the MR? Or even more so, the T-Ram's whopping 35hp gain?? On a stock engine...is the SR any good? Is it worth the PITA install/maintenance??
Enough suspense....y'all have already been waiting MONTHS.
Originally Posted by QwkTrip
Lingenfelter will own it below 5500 rpm.
Unfortunately, the SR didn't make it to 5500 on this turd. Didn't even make it to 5k. Heck, the MR barely wheezed it's way to 5!
For a reminder, here are all three, together:
Originally Posted by Tom 400 CFI
Stock TPI:
SLP T-Ram:
TPIS MiniRam
Originally Posted by QwkTrip
My bet is it won't make the most peak horsepower but it will have the most area under the torque curve.
Originally Posted by STREETDEMON
260ish HP and a nice big fat broad torque curve.
Originally Posted by Tom 400 CFI
I guess I should play too, right? I WANT to say, 275, for the SR. *I* think the SR and T-Ram should be darn closely matched...but my brain gives an edge to the T-Ram. I don't feel* that the SR will really hang....I'm "feeling" more like 265, 268?, but I THINK that it should...so 275.
Originally Posted by BHR
From the article the super ram made 14 more hp and 11 pounds of torque more than the T Ram Im gonna say 280s
Originally Posted by Tuned Performance
28-30 over stock ?
Stock was 241, so 269-271
Well? BHR FTW......but even HE didn't give enough credit!!
Ed Hamburger, he knew how to build a damn good intake. DAMN good. But, guys, John Lingenfelter made a better one. This thing blew my mind, today, with a 289/375 on the first pull.
That is a mind blowing (to me), 48 hp gain over stock. A gigantic 33 lb-ft more than stock. 14 horse more than the T-Ram, with 18 more lbs. Winner....WINNER. Wow.
I was a little surprised that the low end tq was about the same as the T-Ram....I don't think runner length matters for LOW end torque, based on some of these results. But both the T-Ram and SR made ~315 @1500 RPM.
Anyway....there it is, folks. Someone earlier said, that once I got the SR on, I'd want to keep it. They were right. The thing is awesome. A single, 48hp bolt on. WOW.
That is about right in my mind, a solid 10 more from SR than i was thinking tho!
all about making big power in a certain rpm.
Ryan Falconer is actually who designed the T-ram for SLP.
So is it the bigger plenum with shorter, but smaller runners that do it? Velocity? Ram tuning? I know uncle John and accel did a LOT of dyno tuning on that SR.
So is it the bigger plenum with shorter, but smaller runners that do it? Velocity? Ram tuning? I know unce John and accel did a LOT of dyno tuning on that SR.
I wonder what they tried. I mean at the end of the day, the runners were just cut in half. Granted it's all larger. I'd love to be a fly on the wall to see the thought process that really made a great intake that punches above it's weight.
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.
Show the SuperRam some love! 
