290 thats great....Im going to be pulling mine soon and putting the die grinder to it again.
----------

So which intake flowed over 300 cfm?

 

I hate to be the one to tell you this Jerry but you installed the Alternator in the wrong spot and clocked the thermostat housing in the wrong direction. Plus I don't think that throttlebody spacer is good for any power increase

 

To get over about 280 cfm you will need to fire up the Tig welder before the die grinder is used. The intake that flowed 301 cfm was a First injection base.

Jerry

 

The Alternator was moved to make room for a big blower. The thermostat housing will be changed after I get some time to fab something that clears the dual inlet air filter system I have.

Jerry

 

The port on the left was ported to the injector o-ring. That will get you a 1.875 tall port and will flow in the low 290s. The next thing to try is making a new injector bung and weld it in, this will let me move the roof up more and give it room for a 2.025 tall port.

Jerry

 

The port on the right is .250 up and flowed 290. The one on the left is rough milled to show how much is removed to get 1.875 tall. With the injector bung relocate I hope to get .150 more.

Jerry

 

I have seen the worked Jerry has done on the port. I might mention what does not easily show up in the photo is that he has changed the port angle in the roof to more closely match the angle into the head. A big improvement. What Jerry has done is a major improvement over the Edelbrock design.

 

Jerry,

What are you going to do about the fuel rails with the revised fuel injector geometry? Are you going to modify the stock fuel rails to work or go aftermarket?

 

I would guess that he is going to raise the fuel rail with spacers. If he needs to narrow the rails that is not a big deal. I have to do that when I adapt the GM fuel rail assembly to the First intake. Just have to make shorter cross over tubes. He may not have to make them narrower. There may be enough play as is.

 

The stock fuel rails will still work, I moved the injectors and rails up .250. Not on the center line of the injector but still at the factory 26 degree angle. To do this the new injector bung is bored .109 offset to outside of the factory injector centerline and then you will still have everything at the factory angle. The super ram has over .375 from the plenum to the fuel rails and if needed I will use button head bolts or countersink them to hold the fuel rails down.

Right now the welded intake has a minimum area of 2.23 sq in. that is up from a stock Edelbrock TPI at 1.74 sq in. I hope with the injector relocation I can get to 2.54 sq in. and then the runner to base interface will start to be a problem.

FYI
Stock Edelbrock TPI--1.74
My welded TPI-------2.23
Victor 2 bbl----------2.60
Victor---------------2.80
Victor Jr.------------3.00
Super Victor---------3.20
Billy G. Victor--------3.80

 

WOW,

This is a super technical thread. You guys are really cutting edge TPI pioneers.
I hope to see an article with some step by steps. That would be a keeper!!

 

first time checking this out. Once you guys get it all nailed down for a 300CFM edelbrock tpi base and runners. Will you guys be takeing any jobs on the get these done for others . I would be interested in it with the new turbo setup ... any and all improvements are welcome .

congrats ... screw all the tpi haters

 

Hey Jerry.. Hows it going!

Just wondering How this setup worked out for you? Havent read anything about it.

 

Any news? Looking FWD to hearing about this. I plan on keeping the TPI in my IROC when I do the 383 and have plans for a TPI in my '54 Chevy truck.

 

Hey Daniel! Hows it going? The Truck is looking awesome! Its really come along way sence the last time i seen it. Should be a blast to drive with a TPI sb.

Hang in there it will be worth all the work and money when its done.

 

Where did you get the stock to weld on the injector bungs?

 

Is the modified base a stock or edlebrock base?

Do the original pictures from the beginning of the thread still exist? I’d bet that with respect to actual performance on a running engine you’d get more from fixing the port entry angle than just a raw increase in flow since with the stock entry angle I would be surprised if there wasn’t some flow separation on the port floor in the head.

 

Edelbrock base. You are correct in that the port angle entry to the head is not the best. The modification is killing two birds with one stone so to speak. Help correct the port angle entry into the head and also open up the cross section area to match the head port.

You don't want the runner to have less of a cross sectional area than the head you are using. In other words you don't want the intake manifold or anything else for that matter upstream of the head to be a restriction on the head. Then again you don't want it to big as then you will have lazy air flow.

 

I have them some where......

 

Noticed this thread has been going for quite some time. Is there any chance on seeing the flow numbers for the various manifolds. I would be very interested as the intake is the next piece of the puzzle I need for my current project

 

The owners of the intake manifolds have not posted their actual results. So I will respect that. However it has been posted that they flowed over 300cfm.

IMHO opinion the big problem is not the intake manifold as that can be dealt with by the methods shown in this post. It is the runners where the bottle neck is on a TPI unit.

 

Thanks MikeH... This is one case where a picture is worth more than a 1000 words...

 

It's coming along. All things in time. I'll PM you when I get some new pics or you can follow the link in my sig

 

Yahoo changed servers on me, so here are the pics on Flickr.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/1864480...7602977289102/

My manifold flowed 260 after original porting, and 310 after this welding and porting mod. There is a magazine article on this site that I posted that gives the flow specs of an Accel manifold with runners. See the magazine section from the main page of thirdgen.org.

 

Yeah hard to believe no good conclusions...where are the results track or dyno from all of this effort?

 

Uhm... the whole sticky thread "Our quest for a better flowing TPI" at the top of this TPI forum is our dyno results.

No track time yet with the siamesed runners. I used the long tube runners at Fontana back in May, and I was so out of practice I couldnt launch without bogging. Best time was a 13.23 @ 104 or so.

 

The last post was in 11-07-2008. Im sure that there has been some testing since then. so, are there any results?

 

Yes, the results are in the "Quest for a better flowing TPI" sticky thread at the top of the TPI forum.

 

Aahh damn. DUHH! Thanks Kevin91Z. I forgot that this was a separate thread. Ill check out the thread mentioned.