Hi everyone. I was curious what you guys think of these two. Which one do you all recommend? The Superram is cheaper, must be because you dont get a lower intake with it. The thing I have going for me is that I already have the Superram base, so should I go with the Superram, or is the Miniram that much better? If you have thoughts, please respond. Thanks

 

Go with the super ram.It will give you more useable torue unlike the mini ram wich only gives you unusable horse power.

------------------
www.geocities.com/camaro1j/myz28.html


406
accel supper ram
6000 rpm Hyd roller cam
afr heads
spohn torque arm and crossmember
t-56 trans, [wier racing bellhousing and hydrolic throwout bearing]
9" ME rearend 3.91 Gears

 

Oh god please don't start this again.

 

Start what? I used the "search" and didnt come up with much as far as clear answers go. I dont want flaming or anything like that, just honest opinions of what people think I should buy. There are pros and cons for everything, and I would like to know them. Any responses will be greatly appreciated. Thanks

[This message has been edited by TPI79MC (edited June 22, 2001).]

 

It might help to post what all your going to do to the motor and what all you have done so far. What are you planing to do, a lot of racing or an every day driver? This could make a big difference in what some one would recommend.

I do not think one is better than the other, they just work best in a differant power band.

 

The motor is an 88 4 bolt 350 bored 30 over. The motor got a rebuilt stock bottom end. It has a Comp roller cam with .510 lift and a 114 Lobe seperation. This cam has part number
CS-266HR-14. It is a recommended cam in the TPI fuel injection swappers guide. The description says "Highly modified TPI with stock converter." The rest of the motor consists of Accel superram base, Accel 22# injectors, SLP siamesed runners, TPIS 52 MM throttle body, TPIS AFPR set at 48# with the car idling. I hand ported the plenum, took the screens out of the MAF and cut the fins out. I am using the stock heads off the 88 IROC motor until money provides for some AFR's or Trick Flows. The motor came from an 88 Iroc which had the external coil, so I got an HEI from an 85 IROC and put a bronze gear on it and am using that. I am using Accel header plugs and Accel 8.8 wires. I have a Hypertech Thermomaster chip in the stock ECM. I have the timing set at 10 degrees with the timing connector unhooked. I used a Painless harness with all of the EGR stuff blocked off. The car has Ceramic coated dynomax headers with a mandrel bent 2.5 inch exhaust with 3 chamber flowmasters. The tranny is a rebuilt 2004-R with a 2600 11" non lockup stall, and I have a 3.73 posi rear from 84 Hurst Olds. All this is in a 79 Monte just so there wont be any confusion. This will be a street/strip kind of car. Meaning it will be used primarily on the street but dont want to lose too much on the strip. Your thoughts will be appreciated. Thanks

 

iin my opinion if your runners are true siamesed where the divider was completely cut out and smoothed you wont see much difference since you accomplished pretty much the same thing shortening the runner length to where it just has to flow through the base which if i remember correctly is about 6 3/4 inches since the runners are siamesed all you did was make them act as part of the plenum giving you increased volume same as the superram

------------------
87 trans am 350 L98 aluminum heads,LT4 hot cam,slp runners,headers,y-pipe,edelbrock base,hi flo cat,air foil,ported plenum,t-5 tranny w/centerforce clutch and a 3.27 9bolt,ads strip chip,relocated iat sensor,hollowed maf

14.10@97mph w/2.01 60' LOOKING TO TRADE?ANYONE

 

I don't think completely siamesing the runners is going to make them act as if they were part of the plenum. The closing of the intake valve is still going to set up a reflected pulse. And when that pulse reaches the plenum, it should still create a return pulse. Long tube runners fill the cylinder most efficiently on the second return pulse and MiniRams and SuperRams tend to optimize on the third return pulse. Fully siamesed runners should still work on the second return pulse, but due to the greater cross-sectional area will resonate at a higher frequency(rpm).

'course this is all theorizing on my part, until someone takes their SLP's and reams them from stem to stern(it won't be me bucky).

 

what i'm saying is the whole concept of the tuned port design is to act as sort of a supercharger after the first combustion event that valve closing causing what's called reversion this air is pushed back through the runners to the plenum when the valve opens again it's a ramming effect forcing the air at a higher velocity on the second pulse.the only thing limiting rpms in a tpi is that the air has to flow a long way through individual runners now if you siamese the runners and open the plenum(removing all the dividers in both)all you are doing is taking that out of the equation effectivly increasing the volume of the plenum or the other way is when the intake valve opens on the intake stroke it pulls the air into the chamber for that runner only. theoretically the other runner shouldnt have any air in it,now by having them siamesed the air is already there when the next intake event happens which means a shorter path for the air to travel giving the ability to rev higher and fill the cylinder quicker at a higher rpm.same as the superram larger plenum area with shorter runners.

------------------
87 trans am 350 L98 aluminum heads,LT4 hot cam,slp runners,headers,y-pipe,edelbrock base,hi flo cat,air foil,ported plenum,t-5 tranny w/centerforce clutch and a 3.27 9bolt,ads strip chip,relocated iat sensor,hollowed maf

14.10@97mph w/2.01 60' LOOKING TO TRADE?ANYONE

 

what i'm saying is the whole concept of the tuned port design is to act as sort of a supercharger after the first combustion event that valve closing causing what's called reversion this air is pushed back through the runners to the plenum when the valve opens again it's a ramming effect forcing the air at a higher velocity on the second pulse.the only thing limiting rpms in a tpi is that the air has to flow a long way through individual runners now if you siamese the runners and open the plenum(removing all the dividers in both)all you are doing is taking that out of the equation effectivly increasing the volume of the plenum or the other way is when the intake valve opens on the intake stroke it pulls the air into the chamber for that runner only. theoretically the other runner shouldnt have any air in it,now by having them siamesed the air is already there when the next intake event happens which means a shorter path for the air to travel giving the ability to rev higher and fill the cylinder quicker at a higher rpm.same as the superram larger plenum area with shorter runners.

------------------
87 trans am 350 L98 aluminum heads,LT4 hot cam,slp runners,headers,y-pipe,edelbrock base,hi flo cat,air foil,ported plenum,t-5 tranny w/centerforce clutch and a 3.27 9bolt,ads strip chip,relocated iat sensor,hollowed maf

14.10@97mph w/2.01 60' LOOKING TO TRADE?ANYONE

 

Well all intake manifolds take advantage of the reflected/returned pulse phenomena. The column of air is always moving. Siamesing the runners completely will not relieve the column of air from having to travel the full-length of the runner, but when the column enters the siamesed portion it will lose some of it's energy(and velocity). On the plus side, a cylinder can draw some portion of air from the column of an adjacent cylinder. But as each of the columns will have less energy than if they were kept seperate, it will take higher rpms to achieve maximum cylinder filling.

The great advantage of tuned and seperate runners is: each runner can achieve high energy in the air column at relatively low speeds. The big disadvantge is the relatively small volume of air each runner contains, limits the air that can be fed to the cylinder at higher speeds. One method to overcome the limitation is to increase the volume of the runner(large-tube runners), however this will decrease the energy of the column. The next method of overcoming this limitation is to allow the cylinder to borrow some air from an adjacent cylinder without making a large change in the runner volume(siamesing). The third method to overcoming this limitation is to use an intake that has more than one runner per cylinder, and have these runners of different length's(ala the ZR1's LT5). This will allow the column of air to achieve max energy at two different speeds. The difficulty with this last system is that the runners need to be kept separate(except during transition) to prevent the column from being split between two runners(which would dilute the amount of energy that the column can achieve). This means you need to completely separate the intake tracts(including the intake runners in the cylinder heads and the intake valves). It worked very well in the LT5 engine, but due to the complexity and cost involved, you're not likely to see it as a retrofit for our engines.

[This message has been edited by 88IROCs (edited June 23, 2001).]

 

79,

Since your bore/stroke ratio is a whole lot like the LT1/4, and the cam profile sounds a whole lot like the LT1/4, you might as well get an intake that is a whole lot like the LT1/4. We all know how well those do to feed a 350 at various RPMs.

The Mini-Ram is very much like a clone of the LT1 intake plenum (or was it the other way around?)

------------------
Later,
Vader
------------------
"Let the bodies hit the floor!"
Adobe Acrobat Reader