Nice. For what its worth, the new AFR 210 and 215 ls1 heads have a cross sectional area of 2.57 and 2.64" squ. respectively. I didnt expect them to be so large. The shape and valve angle probably are the reasons why they make such good power with relatively small cams. Not sure how you can duplicate the intake runner to a similar shape yet merge it back into a 23 deg sbc head port

 

"Not sure how you can duplicate the intake runner to a similar shape yet merge it back into a 23 deg sbc head port."

My thought on a runner is to find one suitable in plastic and then make the necessary changes. One could build it up or shape it in needed areas and then use it for a mold. Then have it sand casted in aluminum.

A relatively straight port would not be to hard. You would come up just under the fuel rail on one side and over the fuel rail on the opposite side. No problem doing one 10 inches long as there is enough room. The problem would be how would you install the factory fuel rails with the injectors? Maybe a two piece runner?

One could do a shorter one and have it stop just short of the far fuel rail and pick up the forth harmonic wave along with the right taper. That would be easier to do. Either way I would plan on using the Super Ram plenum.

 

Update. I took the intake base back to the welder as I had to have more weld added plus some repairs in certain areas. Let's say we are pushing the envelope on the TPI base. I have broken through in areas I did not expect. A couple of places into the end of the bolt holes where the runners attach. No biggie there. As of now I have the last port roughed out and finishing up. I will go back and re-visit the other ports for a final clean up and dimension check. Then blend in the outside welds.

Orr was kind enough to let me have his old LS1 base to cut up and play with and get some ideas. The straight runners will not work like those pictured below and still retain the EGR valve. Just not enough room. However if one did not have to have the EGR valve then it might work.

I have ordered a pair of F.A.S.T. curved LS3 runners for experimentation as pictured below. These might work. They are supposed to be a really good design so no reason to reinvent the wheel.

Update: Pretty much finished with the inside of the runners. I will give that part a rest for a day or so and revisit them. I am working on the outside of the manifold cleaning up the welded areas to make it look like it came from the factory that way. Should be done with that part on Sunday.

 

Update: Pretty much done with version 2 of the long tube runner project. For a re-cap there were 4 goals I wanted to reach versus the 1st version. Hard to tell in the pictures but the roof of the 8 ports past the injector area was raised about .400". There was some serious hogging out of the aluminum. The ports are about 1.35" wide and 2.1" tall in that area and the CSA is maintained to the runner opening.

1. Shorten the runners so that the peak wave tuning comes in at 6500 rpm to match my exhaust tuning and camshaft. Version one came in around 6100rpm.
2. Increase the plenum volume.
3. Increase the cross sectional area at the pushrod pinch.
4. Have a better radius entrance from the plenum to the runners. This should increase the strength of the wave pulse for more power.

Three small items to be taken care of. I need a 1/4" and a 3/8" pipe thread installed in the bottom of the plenum for the IAT sensor and vacuum for the break booster. Then one spot to be welded.

Then off to be sandblasted with a ceramic temperature barrier coating installed on all the interior surfaces. The outside surfaces will get a black thermal heat dispersant. Depending on Dyno Don's schedule maybe installed sometime in the middle of March then on to the dyno. Here are 3 progress pictures.

 

You still have a smaller 52-58mm dual TB you can try as well as that monoblade? Curious to see if that has any effect on the power/powerband as mentioned by John@BMP in the one thread on speedtalk.

 

That is some truely impressive work right there. I like it!!!!

 

He always had been using the monoblade even on the other set up when the car dynoed 420whp.

 

Yeah, I questioned him about his statement but never got a direct reply. He was refering to the throttle body affecting the wave tuning. I still do not understand that part. I have on the car a factory 48mm one that I put on for the smog test and can probably borrow a 52 or 58mm one for a dyno tryout. The reason for the factory one was for the visual portion of the smog check. I wanted to keep everything looking as stock as posible and not raise any suspicions. By the way I prefer the monoblade over the factory throttle body for everyday driving. I like that quicker tip-in of the power.

 

While I regularly tell kids not to waste their money putting a 58mm throttle body on an otherwise stock motor, I have not seen a case where a larger throttle body cost power at any point in the power band. This isn't carburetion. There is no advantage to producing a depression at the throttle. It can only restrict flow. I would need to see real evidence to think otherwise.

What ever became of your 1st prototype large tube runners? Do you plan to continue testing on the original design?

 

Version one is on the car. By the way it passed California smog with flying colors last month. We may do another club dyno session before I put on version 2 and if so dial it in some more. I was out at the machine shop today putting on some finishing touches to version 2 and it is now complete and ready to be sent off to be coated with a thermal ceramic coating. I feel real good about it. So maybe in a month or so for dyno results.

Just in the last couple of days I have finally figured out a way to do a true TPI Cross Ram. This would utilize the 3rd harmonic wave with a total runner length from the intake valve to the plenum of 14.75". Talking to the machinist today we have figured out on how to make the runners. They will have a perfect taper and shape. The runners might have a few degrees of bend right behind the injector boss but not much. So one should be able to look right down the runner and see the intake valve or what you can of it with a 23 degree head.

This cross ram project will be taking off in a couple of weeks. I am meeting with a gentleman this Saturday to go over the taper and CSA needed. I know what it is at the point where the intake meets the head as that is fixed by the AFR heads but not sure what it will be at the opening. Hopefully this will turn out to be the ultimate TPI intake manifold.

 

This is soooo nice to see. I'm hoping to see the results of 2 and now 3 soon!!!

 

Straight shot of air is best! This will work nicely. Its sorta like a miniram or HSR, straight shot to the head but with a much longer runner for a strong reflection.

 

1989GTA... May I ask what are your toughs on valve design and how it affects the strength of the waves?... I've been trying to educate myself more on this and need an opinion from someone that is into this sort of things,..

My current belief is that a valve that has a more conical stem towards the back of the valve is more beneficial for flow/velocity

And one that has a somewhat flat back (here is were I go into deep lurky waters) will create a stronger pulse but increase turbulence.

 

I really don't know. Your question is the first have heard of it. I have tried to do quite a bit of research on the subject but I have not ran across the shape of backside of the valve as having an effect on the strength of the wave pulse. Sorry, I just don't have an answer.

 

Maybe I got confused I will look for that book tonight tough..

 

Well the back of the valve can change flow and that may indirectly affect wave tuning, but not sure. I havent seen a discussion on valve shape/etc and wave tuning.

 

The cross ram should produce a very long flat torque curve, providing very drivable low/mid range torque and supporting excellent top end power. The key seems to be a long enough runner to produce velocity without creating a depression as flow increases. The tapered runner acts to accelerate velocity into the intake valve while reducing relative velocity at the runner entry. It seems like the ideal solution.

While version 1 used the long TPI runner, I really think the large CSA should support more power than was shown in your first dyno run. Given the chance, I would like to experiment with larger cam profiles on your current engine combination. Of course, again, I don't have the limitations of CARB to deal with.

 

I'd also be curious on cam swap change with no consideration for smog, just to see how much is left on the table with the wider LSA. I know shorter runners like tighter LSA cams but they also have produced good power with the wider LSA's. Curious what these long runners but larger CSA would like as far as overlap requirements go.

 

No doubt a different camshaft would improve the horsepower results. Going to drop off version 2 at the ceramic coaters tomorrow. There were a couple of things I wanted to do with it before I dropped it off.

Playing out in the garage this afternoon and I think I have all the details worked out on the TPI Cross Ram. Basically it will look like a Super Ram and passed off as such for the smog techs. I was going to use the Edelbrock TPI base that I have but I have decided to use the factory TPI base. Less work involved as I have to pretty well rip it apart. I have a nice used one on hand to work with.

 

factory base gonna be large enough?

 

Yes, because I have to add weld in the area by the injector no matter which intake I use in order for a 1206 intake manifold gasket to fit. Virtually all the runner portion will be gone anyways except the last inch to inch and a half. All new runners will be installed. Interesting that the floor of the head is at a 23 degree angle to the face of the intake manifold. I was doing some measuring in order to try and get as straight a shot into the head as I can. As least within a couple of degrees.

I have to rework the fuel rail system so I am going to move out the injectors some to better match the new heads with the much larger opening compared to the stockers. I might change the injector angle a little for the best shot at the back of the intake valve. I will have to wait and see on that one.

 

Update: I dropped off Version 2 of the TPI long tube runner project to be coated inside and out. Should have it back in 2-3 weeks. After that it will be ready for the install whenever Dyno Don is ready for me. Starting on the TPI Cross Ram today by machining out some of the stock TPI base.

 

question, with the work you'll be doing on the base, would it be better to start with a base from a 5.7 Vortec truck motor?
it does start with taller ports at the heads and its pretty much wide open in the middle where the the TPI base has the ports going from the heads to the runners.

 

One of the objects if possible is to make the base look somewhat stock by retaining some of the visible features such as the front with the thermostat area and water jacket area with the 3/8" pipe threads. One of the goals is to get this by the smog tech so that is one reason for going with the factory base. This work is not hard at all and goes pretty quick. So it will not be bad at all to hog it out.

I will attach a picture of the little work I have done this afternoon on the base. I still have more work to do in this area but the new runners will slip into the slot shown in the picture and be welded in place from the inside and outside. They will rise up right under the fuel rail and go over the top of the fuel rail on the opposite side. I will start a separate thread on the TPI Cross Ram intake manifold.

 

i forgot your out on the far left coast.
even though it is pretty nice weather wise, with CARB & BAR, and the ground moving around, i don't think i could stand living out there. i could probably get used to the ground moving.

i am looking forward to the results from your latest work.
if you can pull this one off, which i have no doubt you can, it should work really good.

i haven't noticed you posting it and its something i've been wondering about, what kind of gas mileage do you knock down with that motor?
the reason im wondering is i have plans to build a 383 with Vortec heads and a FIRST intake and for me fuel mileage is a bit of a concern.

 

"what kind of gas mileage do you knock down with that motor?"

When we do our club cruises I can get 21mpg out on the highway driving nicely and keeping my foot out of it. This is with a 3.70:1 rear end. Dyno Don with a T6 and a bigger overdrive gets 25+mpg out on the highway.

 

You sure aren't afraid of work. Would it be easier, and more effective, to use something like the First Injections base with its larger CSA runners? At any rate, good luck and I'll be following your progress.

 

To make things easier I found the attached aluminum extrusion to use for my runners. They are slightly to tall and will have to be cut down. I have been doing a lot of mock up work over the last couple of days and found some problems but also solutions with the extrusion being one of them. Here is the attached drawing. This should not be that bad to construct.

 

thanks for the fuel mileage info.

21 with your gear and at the power level your at is not bad.
but i would guess it can be kind of hard to stay out of the throttle, i know it would be for me

 

Yeah, the gear ratio that is hurting the gas mileage on this car. Around 70mph the motor is turning about 2400rpms. With a numerically lower gear ratio number I bet I could get 25mpg on the highway.

 

I have decided to start another thread on the TPI Cross Ram now that it is a go and hopefully all the hurdles have been crossed. The link is here for those that are interested.

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/tpi/...ml#post5197993

Version 2 of the long tube runner project is waiting for the ceramic coater to be done so nothing happening with me on that front for the moment. When it is back I will have to schedule it in with Dyno Don's shop for the install. Then on to the dyno for results.

 

I saw this statement before regarding wave tuning but I just ran across it again. This is another reason why I wanted to shorten the runners and have the peak come in at a higher rpm. Here is the quote.

"Wave energy increases with RPM, so all being equal, a length tuned to 7000 RPM will gain more at
its sweet spot than one tuned for 5000."

So in my case the 2nd harmonic wave will be stronger the higher in the RPM range I can bring it in. The same for the 3rd harmonic wave with the TPI Cross Ram. Gotta get those rpms up.

 

I had to pick up the base from the ceramic coater as a small hole developed on port 1 near the thermostat housing. So back to the welder for the repair. Anyways I like how the base has turned out after the sand blasting. It looks like it came that way from the factory, never mind the 1/2 inch of additional weld in spots above the runners I had to add. Here is a picture of it before I take it over to the welder for the repair.

 

That looks very good.

 

Update: Picked up the Long Tube Runner Version 2 today from the ceramic coater. I have a couple of things to do before it is ready for installation. One is the final fitting of the gaskets. I should be able to post pictures of the completed unit this weekend. Going out to the machine shop tomorrow to work on the TPI Cross Ram project. So I have two projects going at once. This long tube runner project should be ready to install sometime next week depending on Dyno Don's schedule. Then off to the dyno and find out the results.

 

SLEEPER! That looks totally stock - love it! Once it's installed, no one would know the difference.

 

Here are some pictures of the coated parts. The interior parts got coated with a ceramic thermal barrier. The exterior got coated with a black thermal dispersent.

 

Here are some pictures assembled with rear cover on and ready to go on the car.

 

awesome work dude!!! wow! can't wait to know what that monster flows!! any idea!?

 

I sure like that. I'm not so sure I'd do the black (my car is black) but that sure is sexy. Good work, I can't wait for the numbers!

 

Id love to do something like that on an ls1. Just out of curiosity.

 

Thanks guys. Version one flowed 336cfm with the base, runners and plenum attached. Version 2 as shown in the above picture might flow a little bit more. The ports in the base are larger in key areas. Version 2 should be better "tuned" to the components of my motor. I am waiting on Dyno Don to find time for my car in his shop.

 

Do you know what version 2 flows as in cfm?

 

No. I could flow it but I believe it would flow somewhat over 340cfm per port.

 

Would be very interesting to see the difference especially because the runner length was shortened. Hhhmmmm.

 

What are you gonna do with version 1?

 

It will be in the hands of my friend Pat. It will work very well on a car with peak horsepower in the 6000-6100rpm range. It might go in his 1991 C4 Corvette with a 383 motor.

 

...I still think you ought to look into getting it cast...

 

I'd say you should have it build in series if the results a good!!

 

There is a local company that has connections to the China casting facilities. I don't know if BBK would be interested for the made in USA version.