A local dyno shop here in Ohio, that has an engine dyno performed the following tests, all with the same 23 degree trickflow heads, and the same cam in all motors.

SuperRam 350 ci
Peak Torque=412 ft/lbs at 4050 RPM
Peak HP=402 at 5,400

MiniRam 350 ci
Peak Torque=386 ft/lbs. at 4700 RPM
Peack HP=413 at 5750 RPM

(As you can see, the broader gap in RPM range peaks between the superram and miniram suggest that the SR produces more torque EVERYWHERE in the powerband.)

SuperRam 383
TQ=452 ft/lbs. @ 4250 RPM
HP=437 @ 5600 RPM

MR 383
Tq=439 ft/lbs. @ 4800 RPM
HP=452 @ 5750 RPM
(Interesting, the SR isn't fall far behind on where peak HP developes with more torque everywhere in the graph)

SR 420
TQ= 568 ft/lbs @ 4400 RPM
HP= 544 @ 5800 (WOW!)

MR 420
TQ= 497 ft/lbs at 4600 RPM
HP= 512 at 5950 RPM

(Check that out, the superram pulled out mroe ponies at a lwoer RPM with that extra long stroke!)

I'm not biased to either intake, but I think fo my money, I'm going with the SR.



------------------
86 IROC-Z, Retired for winter, weird oil leak (drains out in about 3 minutes), new 355 other than that, TPI, 700R4, edelbrock headers, removed AC/Air pump, heater plate conversion - no heater (loL). 14.8@90MPH

Next project (think I'm going to scrap the IROC)- mid 80's monte carlo, 383, edelbrock performer RPM intake, cam, holley double pumper carb, sportsman 2 heads, NOS. Hoping mid/high 12's on motor, mid 11's on spray.

 

Now I'd like to see some Dyno numbers with the RamJet on that engine,to help me decide which one to buy.

------------------
Fast as a shark~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SAVE NAPSTER!!!

 

Yes, but what about the cam? The cam has to be matched to the intake.

If the cam was biased to the mid range, then of course the Superram is going to produce more torque and the Miniram won't be able to show its stuff because the cam will run out of breath.

If the cam is a high rpm cam, these results would be totally different.

 

234/234 @.05 inch lift, .515 inch lift on both sides, 112 degrees of lobe seperation - non roller hyd.

 

I'll take the Miniram!! I'd give up the slight amount of TQ for the more RPM's any day!! When you're up above 400 ft lbs (on the 383) then it doesn't really matter if you lose a slight bit, but gaining the extra RPMs and HP is gonna make a difference!!

All that said, I'll probably never be able to afford neither Miniram nor Super Ram so it doesn't make a big difference to me! The numbers are just interesting!!

 

Well, think about this, what makes a car fast? 5,000-6,000 RPM or 3,000-5800RPM? Being that the faser you spin a motor, the less time it is any one speed, meaning the time where the miniram would make power (5,000-6,000 RPM) is very limited, while the superram will make superior power for more time, and as we all basicly know, the more room under the torque cruve, the faster the car.

Somthing to keep in mind-
Which is faster, LS1 cars or LT1/LT4 cars? The LS1 is ALWAYS faster. It's intake has 14 inch runner plenum to port, the super ram has about 11.3 inch runners, plenum to port, and the miniram/LT1/LT4 has 3 inch runners.

Basicly, the superram allows you to make more power through more of the RPM range, while the miniram is somewhat peaky. As proven by the LS1-LT1 example, you see this is true. Now MAYBE if you built a motor to spin 8 grand, with a set or 4:5x gears, and a 5 speed tranny that didn't have overdrive (Richmond), enabling you to keep the motor in it's PEAK power range, you MIGHT have a piont. However, how many of us want to spend 3 grand on a tranny with a last gear ratio of 1.00? Further more, a 8,000 RPM motor won't be seen on the street, the compression required alone would negate the use of pump gas. More of us have automatics than manuals, so being that the 700R4 has a severe RPM drop in the 1-2 shift, it's good to make more power down low AND up high. Notice how far apart the peak number of the superram was compared to the miniram?

However, I suppose it's a personal choice, and opinion of what would work best, but let's also keep in mind, the runner length of the superram dosen't stop good ole' Johny Lingefelter from running 9's and 10's with 700R4 cars....THAT ARE STREETABLE!

Peace

 

Oh forget to add, the superram produced mroe peak horsepower with 420ci's than the miniram...I would guess this is because of the stroke combined with the runner length would make a much larger amount of torque, and being that horsepower is a biproduct of torque and engine speed...well...interesting to say the least. I know that if you extrude hone to runners and base it will flow an additional 20-30 CFM per runner...I think power gains would be VERY substantial then.

 

boy thats funny.....there are more 9 second LT1's out there than there are LS1s running 9s, oh wait that is because there are only 2 and one isn't a real LS1 and the other is a full out drag car. if you want to start comparing intakes...why not include how TPI intakes can produce 9 second ets too? ie preston smith.

more goes into that just pure dyno numbers

 

I'd like to see how a converted carb manifold or pro-ram type manifold would fare. Or, a LTR setup with different siamesing, as per recent posts - ie. siamesing the manifold. $1000+ for cast aluminum just pisses me off.

 

Well since you wanted to make a comment in that tone you don't deserve the level of respect I might normally show.


Hey long has the LS1 been on the market? What is the head and cam selection like for it? THANK YOU. When the LT1 was first introduced, it didn't have a big following for a couple of years. Have you ever been in an LT1 car? I drove one everyday, and below 1700 RPM SUCKED, surging and what not.

Out of the factory, which car is faster? A late C4 (not including the ZR1-LT5), of a late C5? THANK YOU.

Further more, sure, just about any intake setup can bring very low et's, thanks for pionting out the obvious. However, how many people can build their cars on a realistic sum of cash around the 5000-8000RPM range? Think about it, what will be required?

Manual transmition is a must, insanely low gear ratio, unstreetable compression, a cam unable to pass the sniffer test, and and a lifetime supply of motors because your going to be rebuilding it every 3 months if you drive it on the street. Stardard bearings will only last for about 600 hours in a car that commonly see's above 7,000 RPM. Next, can I have a show of hands on people who could afford that? Not the majority, I promise you.

However, a broad torque curve is very streetable. A higher gear ratio, less compression, smaller cam, more reasonably sized heads (220 cc and less), and you can keep the 700R4 if that's what your car has in it!

Sure winning a race is more than dyno numbers, you have to match your tranny ratio's, rear gear ratio, and cross your fingers. Fact is, I can't justify spending 3 grand on a Richmond Five speed that will keep my car in it's powerband, but distroys streetability. if you can, more power to you. But for 3 grand I could buy a very nice, high output supercharger, maybe an aftercooler, and make 150 more horsepower, and more power throughout the entire RPM band.

If you feel like spinning your motor out to rediculous speeds, glad to hear it, but I will be laughing at you at the gas station, wallet, and enjoyment to drive on the street. If you want to build a serious race car, you do that, but for the majority of us, that's not an option.

Besides you only MAY be faster than me, but there is no promise of that just because you can spin your motor to the piont the bearings scream. I think 10's and driveability on the street beats 9's and unstreetableness any day, and any weekend at the red light...

MR=Peak power curve that you MUST be careful to match all peices of the drivetrain together to work for the car, which cost a lot of money.

SR=Broad power curve, most likely similar HP levels on NORMAL street cars, can use existing tranny and rear end (3.23-3.43 stock), but one hell of a pain in the *** to work on.

Your choice, burn a bearing, or burn the tires on the street?

 

Let's not forget that the LS1 and LT1/LT4 engines are two totally different engines! LS1 being a 346 and LT1/LT4 being 350!! Let's also not forget that the runners and the majority of the rest of the LS1 are made of LIGHTER materials! The overall weight of the LS1 is lighter than the LT1/LT4's were!! I'm talkin' 3rd gen firebirds and camaros, corvettes NOT included!! We all know that WEIGHT plays a big part in track times!! Just take a look at the farely small cam that The ODB is using in his car and the track times it runs.... which is largely affected by the reduced weight of his car!!

 

Saying that an ls1 is faster than an lt1 because of the intake design is just plain ignorant. About the only thang the ls1 shares in common with the lt1 is the fact that it is still a pushrod engine. Im sorry you had a dog of an lt1. The fact is ls1's dont have near the bottem end torque that the lt1 has. ls1 cars without gears are dogs at low rpms. This isnt because of the intake design, but because of the design of the whole engine. The ls1 is more of a high rpm engine than the lt1 is.

"Hey long has the LS1 been on the market? What is the head and cam selection like for it? THANK YOU. When the LT1 was first introduced, it didn't have a big following for a couple of years. Have you ever been in an LT1 car? I drove one everyday, and below 1700 RPM SUCKED, surging and what not.

Out of the factory, which car is faster? A late C4 (not including the ZR1-LT5), of a late C5? THANK YOU."



------------------
1989 Irocz
350 T-5

 

Think about this-

he LS1 is aluminum, great. The LT1 is iron, great! Spiffy. They use nearly the exact same intake port design, and if anything, the LT1 should have superior top end power, due to it's bore and stroke ratio compared to the less beneficial ratio of the LS1.

LT1 low end torque peaks low, great, spiffy, glad to hear it. However, the LS1 is making MORE TORQUE at the piont where the LT1 has peaked, and continues to make more torque, which leads to more horsepower. Follow some of that up with the cam specs of the LT1 to the LS1. The LT1 cams (all 6 of them!) were designed to compensate for the intakes short coming, being low end torque. The LT4 wasn't so affected by this because GM gave the LT4 cars 3.43 ratios, I beleive (not sure on that one).

You guys have failed to address the problem...why is it that a middle length runner intake is making more high end horsepower than you beloved 3.5 inch runnered intake? Simply put, it's forcing more air into the engine due to the valve timing events, harmanic waves, and mommentum the air carries to the intake port that it developes in those 14 inch runners. The LT1 intake is not curved, it's straight. The runners are also short. At any given RPM, air volecity will be slow because of this. The only thing those short, untuned runners are good for is providing the engine with the most air it can, but it dosen't push the air into the intake ports like the middle length runnered intake.

Gee, looks like I hit a sensative spot...are you miniram owners getting all defense and pissy?

Anyway, my LT1 was no dog, except in the very low RPM range where the airflow was distrubed due to the intakes design flaws.

Second question, if a 3.5 inch runner is best for making power across the entire RPM band, and up high in peticular, why the hell did GM give the LS1, which you claim to be better suited to high RPM operation, 14 inch runners? Why didn't they give the motor 3 inch runner or 1.5 inch runners? Because that design has MAJOR shortcomings, because of it's de-tuned nature. The LT1 was designed to be tiny, and given shorter runners than the designers would have liked, due to hood clearance issues. What GM really wanted to do with the LT1 intake since day one was make the RamJet intake. The runners are curved and longer providing some tuning benefits. This is why the RamJet has "Been in design" since 87, because it started with what the LT1 intake should have been, but they couldn't fit in in the forth gens. So the hacked an inch off the runner, made them straight to have an low intake level, and took some plenum space out. I would like you to look at the Ramjet Intakes compared to the LT1 intakes...VERY SIMILAR! If your fortunate enough to be able to put your hands on both, you will see how similar the intake design is. However the LT1 intake was built for certain constrant issues, while the RamJet didn't care about hood clearance.

Now then, if both the SR and the RamJet have curved runners, which is the superior intake? That's a very difficult question to answer. The RamJet's runners aren't all that curved, nor are the particularly long to the piont which maximum intake velocities could be achieved, while the SR runner are MUCH more curved, and longer, allowing for valve timing events to cause a great amount of mommentum to develope. The LS1 intake has ever a greater degree of bend in them, and are longer to boot.

So, basically, why were the LT1 cars slower if they have such a superior intake design alone? Forget the fact they have a larger bore and shorter stroke, that doesn't matter, right? True the LS1 has lighter materials, but with the longer runners runners and a smaller bore, it should be an inferior intake if valve event timing and inertia don't matter to power.

So basically, the MR is a great intake, but it has some major flaws, while the SR and LS1 intake designs are superior because of the force they create for a massive intake charge, as opposed to just being holes to draw air from.

So you know, even carberated tunnel ram intakes are designed with curved runners. They could EASILY make them straight, but they are curved for a very important reason...air velocity, something a short straight runner cannot provide well.

Peace.

 

YOU ARE NOT LISTENING TO WHAT I SAID.


"he LS1 is aluminum, great. The LT1 is iron, great! Spiffy. They use nearly the exact same intake port design, and if anything, the LT1 should have superior top end power, due to it's bore and stroke ratio compared to the less beneficial ratio of the LS1. "


Have you ever seen what ls1 itake ports look like. I guess not. They are huge compared to lt1 they dont even remotley look the same. The lt1 ports are just like any other sbc ports while the ls1 has funky looking catherdral shaped intake ports. The power in the ls1 lies in the superior flow characteristics of its heads NOT IN THE INTAKE DESIGN. The ls1 intake is a restriction in the uper rpms. The ls1 engine is an entirely different animal. The lt1 and ls1 couldnt be any different. Why dont you go and check out ls1.com and tell those guys the only difference in an lt1 and ls1 is the intake design. While you are at it go over to camaroz28.com and tell the lt1 guys that all they need to do to keep up with the ls1's is to bolt on a superram intake. The big cube stroker prorted heads and cam ls1's are picking up over 35 rearwheel hp by switching form an ls6 intake manifold to a custom made short runner intake manifold. LTR intake runners work great for low end torque. Thats great for putting around town. But what good is all that torque down low gonna do you at the dragstrip. The higher up in the rpm range you can make peak tourqe the more hp you are going to make. A high hp car is gonna beat a high torque in a race its plane and simple. If I wnat to pull stumps out of my yard I will use a LTR setup, but since a want to go fast I will stick with a shorter runner.



------------------
1989 Irocz
350 T-5

 

Sounds like you were the one who wasn't listening. I never said the LS1 and LT1 were the same motor, in fact, I know that's certainly not true. Everything from their bore to stroke, to design. What they share if a standard bore spacing and a pushrod valvetrain. I would read a little more carefully before I started posting than you are giving me credit for

Lastly, High HP car beating a high torque car???? Ummm, not really. Sure, like I said before, if you completely re-work your drivetrain, which most of us can't afford to do, a high HP car MIGHT be faster....if you don't miss a shift or smoke the clutch, or spin a bearing at 7200 RPM. Since most of us us a 700R4, broad torque is more important than horsepower. It's just that simple jackass. The 1-2 shift of the 700R4 will rip that miniram'ed motor right out of it's power range, while it will put the SR right where it begins to really shine. The reason most high torque cars are beaten is because they can't hook up. However, they more often run lower ET's, and lower speeds as well. That alone suggests that torque is important. Sure, if you were building a nascar engine, go with HP all you want, because you obviously have the money to design your entire car around it. HOWEVER, if you the average individual, working 9-5, 5 days a week - then you aren't going to have the time or money to build a fully optimized race car.

Your comments are ignorant and not very well thought out. I suggest you do more reading

Go find out what John Lingefelter has to say about torque....you know, the guy that builds the fastest street legal production car, the 223 MPH vette. Oh, I'm sure he used some custom sheet metal intake with short runners, and made pathetic torque from 1300-4000 RPM, I'm SURE of it, lol.

Sorry, call me foolish, but I perfer to listen to a guy that builds 300 MPH cars, and 9/10 second street cars that run on 89 octane over someone like you, any day of the week. When you become famous for getting the most out of small block chevy's, let me know when you get that book deal so I can read what you write. Untill then, don't make the assumption that high HP will beat high TQ and moderate HP, because all it is is an assumption, proven wrong by John's SuperRam cars every weekend at the race tracks across the country. Why do you think almost every SR car gets a 218/218 cam? Cecause that is the best timing for wave events to occur in the intake track. I wouldn't call 218 degree od duration exactly HIGH HP material.

Another great example of this can be had in two forms.

Standard VX Beetle Versus the Deisel Bettle. The Deisel car accelerates faster, as proven in multiple tests by car mags, even though it makes less HP.

69 Camaro Z28 with a 302 SBC. Campare that to a 350 SBC. Sure the 302 makes MUCH more HP (I've heard that they were actually like 500HP cars out of the factory), but they ran patheticaly bad at the track, while the 350 LT1 (original -REAL LT1) cars ran MUCH faster in 1970...at lower trap speeds....in a heavier car!

End of story on the high HP always beating High Torque theory, it's been proven wrong too many times to discuss anymore.

I suggest you learn a little bit about fluid dynamics as applied to air flow, then make posts like this....

Peace

 

Comparing 2 TOTALLY different motors basing the difference in power on the intake designs alone???
Give me a break already.

There are LT1s making 800RWHP with LT1 intakes. You dont even have to port them much at all at that h.p. level. Nothing wrong with their design to make great power

As far as the Miniram-Superram is concerned, I have seen tests showing minirams out torqueing and h.p. a Superram, and vise versa. Cam selection plays a major role on the results as someone mentioned earlier, and both like different patterns.
Both work great, and I have seen 9 second cars using both the Superrram, and Minirams(Lt1 style)so bickering over which one is better is a moot point. It all depends onthe application based on parts that will take full advantage of each setup.

[This message has been edited by Kevin G (edited April 09, 2001).]

 

How many bolts does it take to hold each intake down?
How long does it take to remove each intake and put it back on?



Tim

------------------
TRAXION's 1990 IROC-Z
Best Time = 12.244 @ 112.51mph (1.778 60' / 7.819@88.32mph in the 1/8)
All Natural. No Force. No Drugs. Stock Bottom End. Stock Body Panels.
Gunning for NA 11's with bigger cam, bigger stall, and bigger exhaust.
-=ICON Motorsports=-
Moderator: PROM board at thirdgen.org

 

Ill keep my mini ram if the only alternative was a super ram based soley on what TRAX mentioned. Besides, my cam and heads match the mini ram pretty good.

I swapped intake gaskets in 2 hours with the mini ram a month ago.
It takes about two DAYS with a super ram.

------------------
-86 IROC
Vortech Supercharged 406
-=ICON Motorsports=-
"Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?"

 

I'd like to see the same study with the SR and MR tested from 2000 to 6800 RPM, with optimized cams for each application and see what happens. The Miniram was always meant to go over 6000 RPM.

How about identical engines, with the MR using a ZZ409 cam?
--Dan

 

They will pry my mini from my cold dead hands!!!!!!!!!

------------------
87z 383,afr 190's, comp hyd roller(242/248-.540/.562,114 sep),Ported and polished mini ram, 30lb inj, 3.42 gears, tremec 5spd, , 1,3/4" slp headers, speed pro bank to bank-wb02.
"Just remember children, no man can beat you once youv'e found the cliterous." 'chef'

 

one main reason why the LS1 is so fast that no one has yet to address is the COMPLETELY NEW HEAD DESIGN, FACTORY ROLLER ROCKERS, A 15* VALVE ANGLE FROM FACTORY, AND BIG CAM STOCK.

you cant compare a LS1 and LT1 that is like comparing a L98 and a Ford 5.0....completely different

 

As much as I love reading these debates, both of these intakes have different attributes and it cannot be said that one is better than the other flat-out. If a bigger cam was used on the 350 tested then the miniram would probably be the better choice. If you plan on making peak power higher up and using a larger cam, then I'd go with the mini. If your using a milder cam (probably no bigger than 220-230@.50 ) than I would think that the superram would be the best choice. But unless you match all the parts you cant say one is better then the other. Just my opinion.
And Traxion, that whole "how long it takes to put on/take off intake" point is weak. Why would you need to take off your intake once its on. Its only a couple hours of pain and then it should be over with for a long time. By the way have you switched in that new cam and mini yet?

------------------
355 10:1 , AFR 190 heads, LT4 HOT cam w/ 1.6 roller rockers, complete Superram intake, 58mm BBK TB, 24# injectors, screens out of MAF, MAT relocated, March underdrive pulleys, Streetdampner, Crane HI-6 ignition, 160 thermostat, K&Ns, TES headers(Jet hot coated), Mufflex 4' cat back, B&M shift Kit, 2500 converter, and 3.27s. Chip is custom(doing it myself) Just got a 2 1/2 Harwood and soon to be painted.

 

Mike,

I never said to use a MR SIMPLY because its easier to do maintenance on. That is just a HUGE plus in favor of the MiniRam.

You might think that the point is 'weak' but I have already talked to several SR owners who told me face to face they wish they would have bought a MR because of this. I am just relaying what they have said.

I for one have had my MR intake off for many reasons. Cam installs, HydraRev installs, porting, mistakes, etc. I am also looking forward to the fact that when I install 'R' lifters in a few months that I can do it quickly and easily.

As far as performance is concerned ... I agree with what you said.

Tim

------------------
TRAXION's 1990 IROC-Z
Best Time = 12.244 @ 112.51mph (1.778 60' / 7.819@88.32mph in the 1/8)
All Natural. No Force. No Drugs. Stock Bottom End. Stock Body Panels.
Gunning for NA 11's with bigger cam, bigger stall, and bigger exhaust.
-=ICON Motorsports=-
Moderator: PROM board at thirdgen.org

 

I owned a Superram before on my 383, and I would definately switch to a Miniram, and one of the reasons is how crappy the install is for the Superram. Minirams are real easy to work with.

 

So why did GM increase the runner length to 14 inches? To be inferior? I would like an honest answer on this one.

Secondly, I'll see you guys at the end of the track. Sure you may get there at 117 MPH, but I will be there sooner because of TORQUE. The major reason manufacturers increased engine size was to increase torque. Thta's it, it's finished, torque was a proven way to go fast ing the 60's, and is a proven way to go fast now, and is MUCH easier on parts.

SR takes about 45 to tear down, so I don't know what all your bitching is about. Not that I've installed it 3 times and taken it off 3 times...so it's not like I would know.


Peace

Thanks.

 

yeah what is the deal? a superram shouldn't be any harder to work with than a stock TPI is it? you can remove the valve covers with a superram on can't you? i don't know, i don't have one but some day i would like to have one.

------------------
86 IROCZ
T-Tops
700R4
305 TPI
3.23 gears
shift kit, manual TC switch, manual fan switch, flowmaster exhaust with edelbrock TES headers& hollow cat, gutted MAF.

 

ROFLMFAO at Slow Iroc. Bwahahhaa hahaha. Dude - you better do some more research and some more experimentation. Torque is what gets you moving. Horsepower is what keeps you moving.

Tim

------------------
TRAXION's 1990 IROC-Z
Best Time = 12.244 @ 112.51mph (1.778 60' / 7.819@88.32mph in the 1/8)
All Natural. No Force. No Drugs. Stock Bottom End. Stock Body Panels.
Gunning for NA 11's with bigger cam, bigger stall, and bigger exhaust.
-=ICON Motorsports=-
Moderator: PROM board at thirdgen.org

 

LOL

 

Using that logic, if I built a motor with a 31" long intake runner and it made 870RWTQ and only about 350HP Id be running about 8's then right?

Torque is only half the battle.

 

Trax, I was just saying that if you put the right parts on in the first place you wouldnt always be taking off your intake.
So how is the car with the new intake and cam? Are you still tuning it?


------------------
355 10:1 , AFR 190 heads, LT4 HOT cam w/ 1.6 roller rockers, complete Superram intake, 58mm BBK TB, 24# injectors, screens out of MAF, MAT relocated, March underdrive pulleys, Streetdampner, Crane HI-6 ignition, 160 thermostat, K&Ns, TES headers(Jet hot coated), Mufflex 4' cat back, B&M shift Kit, 2500 converter, and 3.27s. Chip is custom(doing it myself) Just got a 2 1/2 Harwood and soon to be painted.

 

Why did GM increase the runner length. Increase from what? The LS1 is a clean sheet of paper design. You can't increase something that never existed before.
I think you meant why didn't they stick with a short runner design for their new engine. Well, maybe in extensive computer modeling, they found they could use a little of a tuned runner effect to make better torque without a serious compromise in HP. Apparently they were right, LS1s run well. If you want t better answer you'll just have to email GM powertrain, i don't think any of us can give you an honest answer since none of us worked on the design team. Please stop the LS1 vs. anything SBC comparisons, the LS1 head design is sufficiently radical and effective enough to make comparing how it makes HP to how a SBC makes power is just silly.

And your second point is just getting silly. Sure they may get there at 117, but you'll be ther first cuz of torque? Bwaaahahahaha. This is just silly. Just cuz you make some extra torque doesn't mean you get there first. Because of your limited rpm range, you're gonna be running taller gears.....(pause for comic effect).....ok, ready to know why that was funny? Cuz you are running less torque multiplication to the rear wheels, in effect reducing your available torque so that it lasts over a larger range of tire speed. In other words, your whole argument is just stupid and i'm not gonna bother tearing into it further unless you really want me to.

And although i can't personally vouch for either, i have been on these message boards for better than 5 years now. I have NEVER heard anyone who was happy about the amount of work it takes to put in a SR. I have heard MANY people praising the MR for it's ease. Even if the SR isn't as bad as it's often painted to be, i don't think anyone can (with a straight face) begin to compare it to the MR in terms of work required. As tim said above, how many bolts are on each? And that # alone doesn't betray that a lot of those SR bolts are in really fun and convenient (lol) places to get a ratchet/wrench on.

So, while i'm sure you were hoping to have posted conclusive dyno results as to which is the superior performing intake, you have to step out of that dream. It's an endless debate, cuz there is no final answer. Either combo can be made to run very well, both intakes have run far faster than i am sure you or i will ever go, so if you like the SR and tim likes the MR, you can both be happy to know that neither is a bad piece.
...ed

btw, besides, the whole argument is dumb anyway, everybody knows CFI is the way to go for a serious street car!

------------------
Ed Maher - Moderator @ The Carb Board
92 Z28 Convertible - Quasar blue / Tan top
LB9 4L60 GU2 G80 - stock, soon to be sleeper
-=ICON Motorsports=-

- Definitely prototypes, high powered mutants of some kind. Too weird to live, too cool to die

 

Obviously someone who doesn't work on their own cars...

------------------
1984 z28 w/ a 357 cu in. monster engine which is looking like the posterchild for Edelbrock with the exception of the Holley 750vac... all the suspension stuff... 9-bolt posi disk is in...

-=ICON Motorsports=-

 

Biochem, I actually installed the motor and then the intake at the dealership that I was working at. Dont talk smack unless you know the whole story. Why would you have to take off the intake. Seeing as how you are running a carb, I wouldnt guess you have much experience with the Superram, so why are you even posting in this forum. I installed the superram myself and I know it is a bitch, believe me, but just because something is hard to do doesnt mean its not worth it. Why put heads on or a cam in a car, that takes a while too! Dont mean to sound like an *** but just think before you type. Thanks


------------------
355 10:1 , AFR 190 heads, LT4 HOT cam w/ 1.6 roller rockers, complete Superram intake, 58mm BBK TB, 24# injectors, screens out of MAF, MAT relocated, March underdrive pulleys, Streetdampner, Crane HI-6 ignition, 160 thermostat, K&Ns, TES headers(Jet hot coated), Mufflex 4' cat back, B&M shift Kit, 2500 converter, and 3.27s. Chip is custom(doing it myself) Just got a 2 1/2 Harwood and soon to be painted.

 

Mike, the reason one has to take off their intake is simple "**** happens".

On this whole SR vs MR debate, the ease of install/uninstall IS a very important point to me. I know someone that has a MR and seen a SR. There is no comparision about the ease of install on the MR. And the guy with the SR had to take his wiper motors off and couldn't use his Strut Tower Brace anymore.

Personally, I perfer the torque characteristics of the Superram for the type of driving I do. But the horrible looking install makes me say "no thank you" and head for the Miniram.

An interesting observation over the years I've been on this board is similar to what a few others have said:

1) Virtually no Superram owner was happy with either the instructions or work involved in the installation. I have never heard any MR owner complain about the install.

2) Virtually all MR owners are very happy with their intake and very happy with the performance they are achieving. A lot of Superram owners are not so happy with it and seem to feel their performance is less than what they expecting.

3) The Miniram owners tend to have better times than Superram cars.

Now, part of the problem may very well be what has already been discussed: the proper choice of cam. The faster Superram cars seem to use single pattern cams (just like this "test" used). Where as Minirams seem to prefer a dual pattern cam. I guarantee you that if this test had been done with a dual pattern cam, the results would have been quite different.

Another problem I think the Superram owners have is lack of a proper eprom. In fact, I don't think there are any Superram owners on the DIY PROM board....which I think there should be a lot of.

Yes, I do believe the Superram can be made to perform very well given the right cam and right eprom. And I think this is probably the reason many Superram owners are not achieving the performance they were expecting.

As I said, I actually do prefer the torque characteristics of the Superram for my style of driving. And I could make an eprom for it to perform optimally. But I will probably not just because of the install.

And YES, **** does happen and I well expect to have the intake off a few time.

 

You idiots! LOL, even the moderators aren't thinking this through. Where does an engine spedd more time in a 1/4 mile.... 3-6k RPM or 5-8k rpm? Well once you realize that the faster the engine spins the less time it will spend in any one RPM range, you will see why torque made in the middle to high part of the RPM band is vastly superior than peaky torque that you have to spin the motor out for.

"Torque gets you moving, HP carries you." Excuse me, who is your crack dealer, I would love to get some of that! I will crush that in two ways...theory and example.

-A broad torque curve suggests a more powerful engine when the RPM ranges are averaged. This is simply because it is high in the begining of the curve, higher in the middle of the curve, and the level of torque production up high can be determained by several things. The Miniram will not provide the braod torque of the SR, plain and simple. LEARN THIS AND SHUT UP!

Example:
As used before - 69Z, 70Z. 69Z much higher peak HP with the 302, nearly 470hp at 6800 RPM! Great! The 70 Z, 370hp at only 5,700 RPM. Which car runs faster times at the tracks? Not the 302's, because the time they spend in the range of 2-5 grand is MUCH longer than the time they spend in 5-7 grand. So the 70 Z is faster because it pulls harder throughout the RPM band as oppossed to having an insanely high peak.

The more room under the torque curve, the more powerful the car in all RPM ranges averaged, the faster the car is at the track...PERIOD!

Don't even true to suggest the MINIRAM will provide a broader torque curve than the SR. Just don't, that has been handled above.

Why are all of you under the impression that the SR can't make high RPM HP? Hell it was designed to resinate up to 6500 RPM. If your going above 6500 RPM, and trying to remain emissions legal...I'll see you at the end of the track when you get there.

It's really simple, so just drop it. If you are too big of a woman to stand to do a little work to remove the intake, then why have you even touched your car with a wrench? Obvious, if work is bad, than doing car work when you don't have to is ever worse! LOL, now that is funny.

BTW, you can extrude hone the SR...can you do the same with the miniram?

 

Hey Slow, what part cant you comprehend.

Both work well, and both make great power. Until you get some 9 second timeslips from one, I wouldnt worry about Superram vs Miniram debate. Because both can get you there.

My LT4 intaked car runs just fine without a Superram.

Hey can you compare some more 60s Muscle cars for me? That was brilliant! LOL

 

Bwaaahahahahaa, you're still doing the same dumb ****....

This is your whole flaw, you keep comparing different engines/applications. This example is so wrong, you're comparing a super high reving low torque 302 to a decent all around engine. In other words, it's like you're comparing some tiny jap motor that can buzz to an LS1. But the saddest part of all is, with the gearing right, it can all work differently.
We're comparing engines that have a few HUNDRED rpms difference in HP peak, not thousands. And overall torque production is very similar. So even assuming a 20% difference in /torque@rpm/ vs /torque@extended rpm range/, if you're running identical trannies, and vaguely similar converters, with 4.00 gears in the MR, and 3.20 gears in the SR (hypothetical to show true deviations), they'd basically run side by side, even shifting at the same points.
Shut up before you look dumber.
...ed

 

What is best in life?

To crush your enemies. To see them driven before you. To hear the lamentation of the women. To have a MiniRam.

I think that says it all.

Tim

------------------
TRAXION's 1990 IROC-Z
Best Time = 12.244 @ 112.51mph (1.778 60' / 7.819@88.32mph in the 1/8)
All Natural. No Force. No Drugs. Stock Bottom End. Stock Body Panels.
Gunning for NA 11's with bigger cam, bigger stall, and bigger exhaust.
-=ICON Motorsports=-
Moderator: PROM board at thirdgen.org

 

Thats vague. Ok, so 3k rpm, your choice of range. What stall converter? What gear? Oh wait, that just blew your idea all to hell, didnt it?

Damn you really are bent on the results you have, arent you? Did you lie about it, and are defending your SR so heavily because its inferior to the miniram?

Who cares. I know someone who doesnt have wipers because of the supperram. He isnt an idiot either, its just not happening on HIS car. Hell, maybe GM put the hole for the wiper motor in a different place on his car, but it dont fit. Neither does any other wiper motor he tried. And yes, the engine is sitting in the right place thank you. For that reason, and the reason that the upper runner bolts are such a PITA to get to, he is switching to... guess what?

You know what I would hate to see? A 4-banger turbo with no torque blow your slow torque infested car right off the track.

BTW, the above is all in fun. Lighten the hell up.

 

Edited due to content was just too funny!!

[This message has been edited by Kevin G (edited April 10, 2001).]

 

hey slow all I know is I get my RPM's up to 4000 in no time at all,and if you shift properly you will stay in the right RPM range for whatever setup you have,so if you ever get a SR you better take me in the first 6o' by about 40'.Just so you know I have tons of low end torque with my setup,no traction till half way thru second most the time with Firehawk 285-40-17's under the ***

------------------
89 FORMULA 350,WS6 SUSPENSION,HOTCHKIS STB,KONI REDS,WONDERBAR,SLP REAR CONTROL ARMS/PANHARD,POLY BUSHINGS,FRESH 355 MOTOR,TCI 12" STREETFIGHTER,TRANSGO SHIFT KIT,3.70 GEARS,FLOWMASTER EXHAUAST,SLP 1 3/4 HEADERS,NO CATS,58 MM BBK,MINIRAM INTAKE,COLD AIR,ALL FREE MODS

 

Somebody please lock this. It's getting old.

 

Do I want to get in this 40+ post battle of the intakes?

Umm, what the hell... the most that can happen is that I'll get the **** flamed out of me.

As far as the LS1:
1- they come with what I see is a throttle body equivilant to a 52mm FROM THE FACTORY.
2- they have a cam about equal to a LT4 Hot Cam.
3- they have basically a "shorty header" from the factory
4- they have WAY BETTER FLOWINH HEADS THAN AN LT1
5- dont they have roller rockers???
6- yeah sure it has a longer runner intake, but with all the other stuff (1-5), no wonder they kick the LT1, LT4, and the L98 in the *** in the 1/4 mile!!!

Now... as far as the LT1 is concerned:
1- more compression than an L98
2- better flowing heads than and L98
3- isnt the cam slightly larger?
4- 6 speed available with the 350 (if there was a 6 speed available with the L98, the Rustangs wouldnt have had such an advantage. Leaving at 4000 rpm and hooking is a lot better than leaving at 2000 rpm and spinning, dont you think?
5- the short runner intake helped the upper rpm breathing of the LT1. The LT1 seem like they never stop revving, until the computer says enough.

As much as a Camaro fan as I am:
1- GM didnt build the 3rd gen cars right IMO. They shouldve looked at the 'Stang and made some changes.
2- Factory TPI was a joke.
3- No 5 speed available for 350. As many times GM has built a car with short comings, they shouldnt have been scared to put a WORLD CLASS behind it. Maybe the 3rd gens wouldve gotten a lil closer to the 'Stangs in the 1/4 mile.


Now... to make things interesting.

Take a 3rd gen, put in a cam, installa better intake (SR or MR), get the fueling right, put on some better heads, blah, blah, blah! The car WILL fly! I know of one CORVETTE that goes 11.90 on a STOCK block, ZZ9 cam (i think) and a SR. I also know of a 89 Z28 that'll blow his doors off! And will go murder a LT1, LT4, and a LS1!!! AND HE HAS A MR!

LT1 cars? The same applies. Put the right combination together and you'll kill a LS1!

LS1 cars? Umm... I dont like aluminum blocks. Those LS1 boys are ARROGANT! They all swear that theyre cars are the best thing since sliced bread. Im waiting to see when theyre gonna reach the HP limit of those aluminum blocks. Lets not even mention the oiling problems....


And to get back on the subject (sorry).
Im not partial to either intakes performance but...

1- While your running out of steam with a TPI or SR, the MR is "the energizer bunny. it keeps going and going and".
2- Theres too many places for a SR to leak, especially under boost!
3- If Im not mistaking, didnt TPIS gain over 100 HP on a stock L98 with just a MR and a chip?
4- The SR IS A ***** TO INSTALL. I've seen one done, even helped out on it! Ummm... I thought pulling Allison transmissions out of transit buses was hard. SHEEESH!!!
5- the SR cant be ported to a Felpro #1206 intake gasket, can it?

I can go on and on. I guess SLOW IROC will respond to this and I'll just have to repost afterwards.

How long will this go on? Hmmm....

 

Don't worry, I've dropped it. It seems that peoples prides here about how intellegent they are, are simply to protect the fact they spent $1250-$1775 on a MR and it's chip, and someone is telling them that a different intake will make a better street/strip performer. Oh well, see you guys at the gas station....whoops, maybe not because I don't have to wait untill 3,000 to start making insane power....which means I don't have to rev as high...which means....it could go on, but it won't.

 

Change your name to clown,Please!There are good examples of engines sporting these 2 intakes,stop your crying already,what intake you have?Nothing most likly,get off the john and stop beating off to those dyno sheets



------------------
Check out my Hompage,or the beginnings of one.355 dynoed at 400HP at 5800RPM & 410LBFT of TQ,on Motorhttp://www.procharged89z.cz28.com/index.html

 

That was intellegent....(By the way, I have my choice of either intake, both of them are at work now just waiting for me, and I am going with the super ram to feed my 420 small block, thank you very much.)

 

$1700?
I dont know what catalog you have been looking in.

I did not buy a chip.

I also do not regret purchasing the mini ram. Its comparable to a super ram.
Hm lets get out trusty JEGS magazine.
How much is super ram base?
$518
How much is super ram runners & plenum?
$760
total
$1278


yeah sounds like I paid more for my intake.

 

Any tech left in this post?

 

WOW, there's al ot to read here. All I know is that tq is AT LEAST half the battle. i kind of agree with him... I mean hell, look at the old musclecar battles. Big block vs. small block. Many guys run 400+hp small blocks with gears, but lose to mild big blocks with about 3.23's. I've seen this alot. Not saying its 100% right, but I have seen it alot.

*IMO, each version of the sbc gets better and screams a little more, but loses a little low end tq, so why are they faster? That kind of negates my theory I just stated, so who knows?


*One thing I know for sure is that a guy I know has a stock LS1 with a lid I think and a 3600 stall w/ 2.73's... no **** and he runs ET streets and can run a 12.27 @ about 112 or so. Now thats hauling a$$. No $hit, but I saw it run and am still amzed that a stock car with a stall and $hitty gears runs that darn fast! Well, I'll shut up now, just my thoughts. As for me, I think I'll build as 406, AFR'd, minirammed for my GTA after college. Saw a GTA convert run 11 flat on motor and 10.2 on bottle. Later

------------------
'91 GTA:
www.fbody.com/members/91WS6GTA

[This message has been edited by GTA91 (edited April 11, 2001).]

 

Posted by Ed Maher
I'll have to disagree with this one. Yes, GM made a new engine, BUT the theories are the same and the LS1 is not from scratch. If the LS1 is as successful as it is today is because of the lessons learned from L98s and LT1s. Ed, I think the statement you made is 100% wrong. It would be foolish for any car company or any engine builder to ignore experiences from the past and just make an intake system from scratch, basically starting all over again. In fact, there is no such thing as starting from scratch, it's just major improvements over previous desings, just like computers, fighter planes and technology in general. Quick example is fighter planes; turbine engines have been around for like 60 years since Gemany first introduce the "Comet" fighter plane. Slow at first, but faster than piston engined planes. Ever since it came out designers and engineers have been improving it. Today we have a plane that can actually go faster than a bullet. The SR-71 travels at 3200 Ft/Sec, an M-16 bullet travels at 3000 Ft/Sec. Again, major improvements.
As for wich is better, torque or horsepower, give me some decent torque and LOTS of power.
Rick

ps: You can say that enginners REALLY started from scratch with the example I mentioned above. The switch from piston engines to turbine engines is REALLY starting from scratch. The 2 engines have absolutely nothing in common. I'm not 100% sure, but I think turbine engines are NOT "Internal Combustion Engines" due to the fact that the combustion chamber is open.

[This message has been edited by F22Raptor (edited April 11, 2001).]