I have searched a number of time to learn what these do.

I bought a set a decade ago at a yard sale..and figured they would not work a for my low RPM torque engine BUT I have seen a eBay sale where they posted what seemed to great torque and HP curves which show bottom end torque as stock ratings and higher in the higher RPMs.

BUT these are for the second style which has shared twin tubes, I have the first style with four closed not shared tubes.

Mine are like these: https://www.ebay.com/itm/SLP-TPI-RUN...p2047675.l2557

SO Can someone point me towards reviews and testing of TPI SLP RUNNERS??

Thanks.

Rich

 

FWIW - hopefully, someone else has a lot more detailed/reliable info.

I looked through a handful of TPI articles I collected from around 1988-1989 and the only references I have that may show a distinction between styles/design of SLP runnersare an early B&W SLP catalog (I call it, Catalog No. 1) and a later color catalog (Catalog No. 2).

I ordered my runners and tri-y headers out of Catalog No. 1, about the same time in May 1989. It's been nine years since I had the upper manifold apart; I pretty sure my runners have the wall a few inches down each runner pairs from the plenum end, like the ones shown in your link.

Catalog No. 1 states on Page 3, "Our runners will increase power by 10 to 18 horse power depending on engine and application....."
Catalog No. 2 on Page 4, in the Technical Advisory sidebar, "....a tuned length divider in only one leg of each pair of runners...." and claim "18 ft-lb of torque and 18 horsepower).

So if my memory serves (questionable), it appears that either style/design runner nets about the same thing.

I never really paid any attention to early/late runners (I always thought it meant with/without CSI), but looking at the manifold end, each runner pairs have to have some kind of divider wall in them. Now I'm curious, I may have to stick my fiber optic camera down the throttle body and take a look.

 

Thanks. WOW they did it all.

For my plans I am concerned that they do not shift the RPM curve upward. I am still digging into this.

Here why and what I thing will be a great MPG engine:The choice of a Cam has become a nightmare obsession. The cam is THE MOST IMPORTANT part of a engine. The cam controls what kind of an engine you building. Cam grinders and makers’ 90% of the time give more power by shifting the power band up. So a mild stock engine can run from 1500 to 5000. Move that to 2000 and 5500 more power, move it to 2500 and 6500 MUCH more power.

BUT to get that power costs fuel, more is needed with each power shift.

To get better Miles per Gallon, the idea is to keep the low RPMs power by not shifting the power curve upward, and setting the whole car/truck up to cruse near your engines torque peak.

I have been working on getting an engine set up to run at a torque peek of 2000RPMs. Sadly it seems this will limit other factors as passing and mountain climbing.

Here is what I think will give me the best set up:

I found this article: How to build a budget 383:

From https://itstillruns.com/build-chevy-low-end-torque-7988109.…

I combined the notes to what I am doing.

A 383 is good for an instant 10 percent increase in horsepower and torque from idle to redline.

Use L31 GM Vortec cylinder heads. (I believed these are known as 193 swirl port heads) These first-generation Vortec heads flow about 239/147 cubic feet per minute of air at 0.50 inch lift, (which is about their max lift) which will support about 490 horsepower in completely stock form, and are a direct bolt-on for any small-block. You can find L31 heads in 1996-1999 GM full-sized trucks.

I learned I have L05 heads, which have only slightly less flow…

With these 64CC heads and my pistons I will have 9.3/9.5 Compression.

Original they suggested: Using a stock 1988 to 1989 Corvette L98 camshaft designed for the tuned-port injected (TPI) 350. They say that this cam is actually far too tame for a 383, but installing a set of 1.7-to-one roller-tipped rocker arms will open the valves about 6.5 percent further. This will almost compensate for the 9.5 percent increase in engine displacement.

They suggested two cams, this was the mild one. It gave me a base line.

Instead: I matched their specs to orcam@pacifier.com # 806 cam, nearly this same as called for with 1.7 Rockers:

The L98 specs: 207/213 @.050 114 .442/458 with 1.7 rockers

#806 cam’s Specs; 207/214 @.050 117 440/454 lift with 1.6 Rockers (milder rockers)

Then with a 4 degree cam advance to lower torque peak to 2800 RPMS, assuming that their spec of max torque at 3000 RPM.

I will be running Rhoads V-Max roller lifters, and with Rhoads Lifters running at 10% reduction cam will be at:

180/192 114 .396/408 at low RPMs yet at 3000/ 3500 will be running the full cam.

This will give me a variable cam, mild at low RPMS and HOT at higher RPMs.

I think such a set up should lower the torque peak near 2000RPMs at low RPMs and open up the cam around 3000 RPMs which will give me a big power boost.

An engine built to this spec (minus the Rhoads Lifters) should produce about 300 to 340 horsepower at a usable 4,800 rpm and an Earth-moving 425 to 450 ft-lb of torque at around 3,000 rpm.

As I am not doing the porting work called for, because everything I read about ports has said for MPG leave the intake stock, porting is needed only for MAX HP, so I figure a small lost say 10% BUT I WILL be running a TPI system that is reported to add 20/30% more torque, HP and MPG…perhaps then 408HP and 510 Torque (20%)

Now I am thinking I really lucked out with these SLP runners and now will be feeding and replacing that lost power right at the point the cam comes alive…

They say that this fairly mild engine's fat power-band, efficient combustion, glass-smooth idle make it a perfect fit for a daily-driven muscle-car or truck.

 

After typing a super long winded response I deleted all of it.

I'll sum it up, do not install L05 heads. Ditch them, trash them, melt them into slag, use them as a boat anchor. They aren't worth the iron used to cast them.

L31 Vortec heads? If you already have them, keep them, and get them modified so they can accept a higher lift cam. Good head for the money.

If you haven't purchased them yet, do not purchase them. Instead look at a set of budget iron heads. Why? The cost of buying the L31's + the cost of modification to accept a higher lift cam is about the same as set of straight out budget heads that will not need modifications to accept a higher lift cam. And the budget heads will flow slightly better.

Cam specs. If you want stock or near stock power band, look at the LPE211, or the LPE216 cams, or similar spec cams from other MFGs. Better yet, call up Advanced Induction, Lloyd Elliot, or Tick Performance. They KNOW cams and can either steer you towards the right off the shelf cam, or get you a custom ground cam. Their knowledge and experience will help you get what you want. Be honest with your combo and parts, and they'll steer you right.

With TPI, the biggest restriction is actually the intake base. The upper stuff is nothing. The SLP stuff is good if you want to assemble a 'period' car. Aka, a car that would have been around in the late 80's and early 90's from magazines. At this point in time, OEM type aftermarket TPI parts are for that nostalgic feeling you get reading over old magazines. The do perform, but they don't equal what you get with today's TPI stuff like the First Intake.

There are only three intakes I'd spend money on. The First Intake, the Holley Stealth Ram, or the Mini-ram. Forget everything else when it comes to cast intakes. These 3 intakes offer all of the flow potential you could want, but in 3 different power band flavors. For what you describe as wanting, First TPI is what you want. The cost of a First is similar to spending money on ALL of the OEM type aftermarket parts. But with more flow than all of them. The only difference is its not OEM compatible. You can't buy some parts to mix-match while you upgrade. You are all in, from the get-go.


A 383 with a First TPI, budget heads, and the right cam is exactly like an OEM 5.7L TPI. Its just lots MORE of everything you like with zero draw backs.

I'm not a big fan of TPI power curves, I like the high revving stuff. But I can understand why people do like that fat torque curve, it makes the car effortlessly accelerate on the street. Sometimes I miss that, but only in traffic. The I downshift and put my foot to the floor its like someone lit a rocket behind my seat that never runs out of fuel.

 

While I understand your point of view, I am not tuned into it.

Every car I have owned has had an engine that the limit has been 5000 RPMs.

My lesions in Torque vs RPMs and Horse power began when I was 14 to 16. My first motorcycle was a Honda 50. In the 60s in Nev. And AZ a 14 year old could get a scooter permit.

The Honda 50Cc was a four cycle rated at 5 HP, the 5 HP was the legal limit for a 14 year old on a scooter.

It was all it could do to get to 50 MPH.

My next scooter was Lambratti 125CC, it was a two cycle, it also was rated for 5HP it had sheet metal covering everything, a front leg guard, a windshield, and carried a spare tire.

Yet it could run at 50MPH all day long and even with my Sister aboard.

My next car was a 1956 Studebaker Golden Hawk which I swapped in a Studebaker 289CI with a three speed with overdrive. Studebaker got its 289 with a long stroke and smaller piston that the 64 Ford Mustang’s 289CI.

It was also heavy gauge steel body, with a full frame, unlike the unit body light weight Mustang.

I most of the time beat the Mustangs off the line and across the intersection where they would catch me and leave me behind. I could not win a long race but I beat then off the line. Torque can work.

My current car is a 2004 Ford Crown Vic. P71, with a 4.6 281CI, and its top RPMs are 5500RPMs if pushed, and it is running a Ford version of a TPI. It makes 250HP and 297FtLb of torque, and it too has a full frame.

It is so fast off the line I see NO need for any power improvements.

My 1993 Chevy Van with its 350, 4L60e and 346 rear end has plenty of power and is fast enough to surprise many.

But it only gets 14MPG, which is bad enough I feel bad driving it anywhere.

Sadly after some 15 years of limited use an oil line failed and I lost the engine.

I feel for hot rodders, I say that because like gun fighters of the old west there is always a faster gun, and now a days that faster gun is Tesla model “S” and it kicks so much *** to be totally embarrassing to nearly all ICEs. Even the Super Cars are adding Electric motors to their cars.

So it is a race I and so many cannot win. I never tried, after doing all the silly Hot Rod stuff to a 67 Cougar 289, I then just swapped in a 352 Cleveland and got LOTs of more power cheaply.

So the Van needs an engine save it. I decided to build the best ICE I think will give me the best MPG engine. As a road trip van it beats the Tesla in range and speed of refueling, add in its cargo carrying and ride plus it is a RV with a bed an bathroom FAR out weights any Tesla or other great MPG car.

I just want ample power to do long road trips and to be able on level ground with no head wind to get over 20MPG.

 

OK I compared SLP runners chart to Car Crafts TPI shoot out and I feel the Car Craft's testing to be the hands down honest reporting.

The SLP do not even bet the stock runners until 5000RPMs and ONLY in HP, they run behind or lower by far in torque.

I will stick to the stock runners and sell off these runners.

Rich

 

You missed my point.

For given money you can build a more efficient engine that makes more torque and more power with similar money. Because its more efficient, you get better fuel economy as well. Its Win, Win, Win. I'm saying that for your chosen power band there are better parts that create a better performing engine at the same price that runs in he same power band.

I'm not saying you should build a 7000rpm small block that cams like an earthquake. They suck for what you want out of it. But I WANTED that kind of an engine. But if I was building a street engine that was TPI, It would be a First TPI 383 setup with my head of choice as budget allows.

 

OK it was not clear. Please outline what you would build for MAX torque, broad power curve starting at say 1500RPMs.

Here is what I based my use of 193 heads on:OK did more research into the heads: I believe I got the best heads:

L05s were used primarily with casting number 14102193 (64cc combustion chambers) cylinder heads with swirled intake ports - the intake ports were designed for fuel economy (the design was also shared with the 103 heads used on the 4.3L with TBI). The swirl ports (known to GM as a vortex chamber) along with the irregular shape of the combustion chambers limit the airflow and horsepower output where they did not provide a fast burn, later phased in with the 1996+ Vortec heads. A majority of the L05s used with the truck/vans had conventional flat tappet camshafts while the Caprice 9C1 (1989–93) had a roller cam. L05 usage was replaced by the LT1 after 1993 in GM B-Bodies until production ceased in 1996. In mid-1996 the L05 was equipped with Vortec heads used in the 1996 G30.

From It Still Runs article: Acquire a set of new or used, fully assembled L31 GM Vortec cylinder heads. These fist-generation Vortec heads flow about 239/147 cubic feet per minute of air at 0.50 inch lift, which will support about 490 horsepower in completely stock form, and are a direct bolt-on for any small-block. You can find L31 heads in 1996-1999 GM full-sized trucks, 1996-2003 Chevrolet Expresses and Tahoes, 1996-2003 GMC Savannas and Yukons and the 1999-2000 Cadillac Escalade.

I mistakenly thought this was talking about the first swirl port heads known as 193, L05 heads. Flow rate for 193 iron LO5 head: 178 intake; 146 exh (Dyno Don)

The 193/L05 heads are known as TBI head will actually do better than the vortec up through about 3,500 rpm and the Vortec will really only pull ahead above 4,500 enough to be noticeable. As for low-end torque the TBI head has it all over the vortec.

The 193's would be considered a standard small block type head set up. You could do no machining, toss a good set of standard diameter springs (that could handle the lift and avoid float) and be done with it and handle all kinds of lift into the 500-600 range. Simple.

THe vortecs are a different story. The way they are produced, there is a clearance issue between the retainer and the top of the valve guide seal - so when you get above the mid 400's in lift you run the risk of that retainer smacking into the top of the seal/guide. The older sbc heads dont have this problem. ALso, the stock vortec springs are a smaller diameter than a standard older sbc valve spring. So, you can just take a valve spring for ex off of another head that has a 1.43 diameter and toss it on a vortec head with a 1.29 diameter unless they machine the seat so that the larger spring will fit correctly.

One option for alot of the older standard heads was to just leave the springs alone and run a big cam, or toss a set of aftermarket or z28 springs with a higher pressure/or different installed height to handle to higher lift - just swap springs, no machine work.
For the vortecs, you have only a few options - you can have the guides machined down so that the clearance becomes larger between the retainer and guide. You can have the seat opened up to accomodate a larger, stiffer old style spring. You can use a stock diameter vortec spring (beehive type) and a lower profile retainer that will allow you the increase lift (no machining) because they eliminate that clearance problem.

In my case, I opted for the beehive type spring/retainer combo only because if I decided to go another route with heads, I could take them off, swap the stock springs and retainers right back on and sell them as stock, or if I ended up where I had a problem and had to swap a head for some reason, I don't have to have any machining done to the new head.

NOTE It is very common and popular to have them machined to accept earlier, standard type springs because then it opens up a larger selection of springs/combos you can choose from because you would be able to swap almost any spring/combo onto them that you choose. Either way the bottom line is that if you go about either of these choices, you will gain the ability to run the increased lift without a problem if done correctly.

One more note - the vortecs run a self aligning rocker arm. If you are going to run anything bigger than a 1.5 arm, I would suggest machining the push rod holes on the heads. It is suggested to have them drilled to a 1 inch opening to avoid interference with pushrods if you are running a larger rocker.

And if you decide to swap to a standard non-aligning rocker then you have to also change to guideplates. Trust me, I tried it without guideplates or machining the pushrod holes - not a good idea

 

The SLP runners have never been good for anything except looking cool and porting out for a higher RPM range.

 

That I figured out as well. Two reports show they do not do well.

Rich

 

Re: the 193's, the "swirl" is done by a vane in the intake, does it work? Dunno, restriction plus forced swirl? I still have a set of them, one is in the scrap out back, the other I used to prop open a door going into the shop out back.

You seem like a person that is looking for someone to agree with your opinions/thoughts.

So I'l ask you this, the L98 TPI engine make decent torque, if the 193 heads were all "that", wouldn't GM have used them on the L98?

 

In 25 years on the forum, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they wanted more low RPM torque from a TPI 350. Usually the problem is too much torque and no traction.

 

What I have been looking for is someone whom REALLY knows about these things.

"So I'l ask you this, the L98 TPI engine make decent torque, if the 193 heads were all "that", wouldn't GM have used them on the L98?"

Well it seems the general public are all wrapped up in the Horse Power Race. I too once had that fervor, a 67 Ford 289 was not powerful enough so I swapped in a 352. My current hot rod is a 03 Ford Crown Vic P71 ex-cop car, it makes 250HP out of a 4.6 281CI V8, and is very fast. Fast enough to I feel no real need for more.

I have a friend with a late model Camaro with 500Horses, and it is super fast. But two main things, it gets very poor gas mileage, and like the 79 Camaro I once has has no trunk space and the two back seats only really fit children. (most pony cars are like that)

Any thing with great MPGs are tiny tinny cars, and even then the best MPG barely breaks 50 MPG.

Yet in Europe a few years ago they could BUY a VW Called The Blue Motion rated at 75MPG Stock, and there were cars that got 50MPG etc. Most of these cars cannot even be imported into the US.

American Cars are made for flash, for big horse power, not for MPG.

We seemed to get close to that in the mid 80s and 90s and it was shown possible right here on this site in the mid to late 90s with the Camaros being able to get a reported 30 to 35 MPG with Lean Cruse.

Here is what it seems to be: Here we get low cost gas, and get poor MPG, overseas, they get good MPG but pay much more at the pump. The fix is in.

I think I might have figured out how to get better MPG.

I will hope to find out soon if I have put together all the facts correctly.

I have been testing my ideas on paper on many face book and web sites. So far no one has really shot my ideas down.

The 193 heads were dropped as was the TPI as not being able to make over 300 Horses and not being able to run over 5000RPMs, and for seemly to be able to make GOOD low to mid range RPM torque and good MPG.

Rich

 

I agree....here as in most car web sites and facebook pages Power and performance is king. Jocks win...

There are a few web site where the interest is MPG, they are rare and I only really know of one: https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthre...9-a-38162.html

There MPG is king. Nerds win there.

Rich

 

This is an interesting thread.

So to open up the higher RPM power on a stock, healthy L98 with a Crane 2032 I just need upgrade the intake manifold? I can reuse all my other stock stuff? I'm not looking for outrageous power, just something that will keep breathing up to about 5500 RPM instead of the stock lower choke point.

 

Engines are not volumetrically efficient at low throttle angles. They are sucking through a tiny hole with a throttle blade that's barely cracked. Volumetric efficiency increases with increased throttle opening. That's one reason EGR is good for fuel economy - it forces the driver to increase the throttle opening to maintain cruise and that reduces losses due to pumping efficiency.

Why do you think aircraft engines are run at 75% power for cruise? Trust me the piston engine airplane guys know all about economy.

Low RPM and low throttle angle is NOT what you want for economy.

And to really dial in a lean burn scenario you need a stand-alone ECU that has wideband closed loop capabilities. And you definitely want EGR.

GD

 

As I am NOT a performance person, I cannot say what would work in your case. I have found that a factory stuff is best. If I normally want more power I just swap in a bigger engine.

IF there was a engine that matched my plan I would buy it.

IF your running a stock TPI then IF all you care about is reaching 5500 RPMs those special SLP TPI runner are suppose to help the top end but they rob the lower end as does most performance "Improvements".

Rich

 

The 165 ECM has Lean Cruse hidden in it, once switched on it can run a lean setting around 16.5. It fades in and out as needed. I learned about that right here back in the late 90s.

I had a 2000 Mercury Grand Marques that got 30 MPG at 65MPH on the highway. Using a Zentronic Air Fuel monitor which has the side effect of being able to adjust the cars A/F ratios I was able to get 35MPG at 65MPH.

This car got its great MPG only under 2000RPMs.

On a run from Phoenix AZ to Riverside CA, running at 85MPH she got 24MPG at 2500RPMs, once inside CA with its lower speed limit of 70MPH I ran 75/80 MPH and it got 26MPG.

This was stock Ford 4.6 automatic into a 3:27 rear end.

I now have a 03 Crown Vic that makes 50 More horses, is faster etc. that so far seems to get 25MPG at 65MPH....the price for those 50 more Horses...

Funny as for the past 50 years we were told to use a vacuum gauge and that the best MPG would happen when you cruse at the HIGHEST vacuum reading. Also every can I have put a scan gauge on shows the highest MPG at a speed where the engine is running UNDER 2000 RPMs.

Rich

Check out: https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthre...eage-7358.html

 

Yes but the factory ECU has most of the logic for the lean burn hard coded. With a stand-alone like a LINK ECU you can target whatever you want under any conditions and you can base it on EGR temps for example.

GD

 

I have been told by a number of tuners that the lean cruse can be adjusted, and if you want more control check out: https://www.dynamicefi.com/

Rich

 

I already own an EBL system. Tuned it and ran it for 2 years. Pulled it off.

I own a shop with a $125k chassis dyno (AWD DynoJet) and I have all the equipment to burn chips, etc.......


There's a host of reasons I run mostly LINK ECU's including on my Trans Am. That video is of said Trans Am while I was tuning on my dyno.

GD

 

So what were your numbers?? A video of a car on a dyno tells me nothing. Show my the torque and HP Curves.

And what is your MPG on the highway??

I do not have a budget for a $1000.00 ECM.

I am only trying for good MPG and Fair Torque and HP at 1500 to 4500RPMs.

I feel the OEM ECMs can do the job I want, at a much lower cost.

Thanks.

Rich

 

AZ Speed was THE place for TPI Parts back in the day. The results shown, prove this.

I do like the look of the SLP Runners though. Perhaps more than others.

The JL-1/SuperRam is the most aggressive of all though. That's what I ended up with back in the 90s.

 

The thing that blows my mind is how much it costed even then for so LITTLE improvement.

I kind of think that is true for almost all hot rod hop ups.

Rich

PS They managed to GAIN 274-253=OMG 21 Horses….for only $2495.00 that is $119.00 PER Horse, and 353-328=25 FtLb of torque.

I gained 50 horses by just buying a 03 Crown Vic to replace my dead 2000 Mercury…and it only cost me $1000.00 and I got the whole car thrown in with the deal. Granted I only went from 200HP to 250...

 

186 RWHP.

I can post the curves if you really want them but it's basically a stock LB9 305 with headers and 1.6 rockers. I pulled that engine and am about to drop in the new 350 Vortec with a nitrous/blower cam (this weekend will likely be start-up). Will be much more impressive.

I was running about 26 MPG doing 85 on long freeway trips. I wasn't doing any lean burn stuff though. Never got around to that with the pathetic 305. The car is a daily and I live 10 minutes from my shop so I don't really care all that much about economy. But I understand the lean burn concepts and it's obvious how much better at doing that job a stand-alone with an LSU 4.9 and an EGT probe would be.

OEM ECM's are designed for emissions. With tons of obscure settings that are counter-intuitive and poorly documented. They are also 30 years old and do fail. Leaking capacitors, cracked solder joints/circuit boards, and so forth. The stock ECM from my '86 (7165) died of just such a failure.

Sure a stand-alone costs more. But it saves on learning curve, has proper documentation, isn't old as f***, and is designed to handle situations well beyond the capabilities of stock hardware. Trust me they pay for themselves in ease of use. If you have as-yet not done any chip burning or even EBL programming, you know-not what you're in for.

GD

 

Price, performance, or reliability. Pick 2.

A 2003 Crown Victoria is anything but a performance platform. That's a heavy slug of a car. An old-man slug. And UGLY to boot. And frankly a Camry would be more reliable and get better MPG.

GD

 

I have this article from May 1989 Car Craft.

The baseline was a totally stock TPI unit with a stock chip set at 6 degrees

The AS&M set up is a hand ported stock base with their AS&M runners and ported plenum using a stock chip at 6 degrees

SLP brought a prototype intake called the ShortRam that never made it to production. It looks VERY much like the Holley StealthRam and they brought a custom chip to use for testing.

TPiS used the "Big Mouth" intake, their Semi-Siamesed runners, an air foil, and a modified MAF sensor, stock chip,,, set at 6 degrees.

Air Sensors, FIRST used it's single mono blade throttle body,,, which should flow around 800 cfm,, it's own fueling electronics, and 4" MAF sensor with a mecahnical advanced distributor set at 6 degrees.

This was basically a stock L98 with the old Edelbrock 1.5" / 1.625" headers running through an F-body dual cat exhaust system. I doubt very seriously any of the systems were nuts on tuned but I doubt they were way off either. The FIRST unit might have had an advantage of user tuning,,,, that might be good,,, it might be bad. It definitely had an advantage with a larger MAF sensor and throttle body than the rest,,, but it's not like this stock engine actually needed it.

So you can't compare the SLP runners you have to the SLP intake in that chart. If you're not planning on porting them, they'll only give a few extra HP over the stock units.

 

Just re-reading a few of the OP's first post's in the thread.

1.7 rockers? Ok,,,have fun with that.

So let's restart since I guess I missed it, what vehicle are you planning this engine set up for?

 

Based on the pictures from the link you posted, you have the later designed runners. The earlier design didn't have a divider in two of the 4 paired runners and looked like these:


The info from the SLP catalog posted was referencing the original design, like above.

 

Thanks for posting this chart. I chose my AS&M runners for their "stock look" and it is nice to see they do perform overall the best from the bunch.

 

There's a reason SLP runners were about $200 new, and the AS&M/TPIS runners were $400.

 

I remember going to AZS&M back in there day and seeing their jig, as they welded these runners up. Cool bunch. Last I spoke with them, probably a couple years ago, they said no money in 3rd Gen parts. (anymore)

 

And now for $1000 you can get a FIRST manifold in your choice of cylinder head porting that's 30% larger in every dimension. Kinda makes the runners and what folks want for them a little silly IMO.

GD

 

It's true. The thirdgen market in general is still full of people that don't care, and if they do they're usually of the "my Rustoleum Roller paint job looks fine" variety. Of course the flip side of that is the thirdgen aftermarket that thinks they need to charge double what the same parts for a 5.0 Fox body would cost. It's a two way street, if you price stuff too high it won't sell and the demand will be low. As soon as the Stealth Ram came out, stock style TPI setups went out the window because they were too expensive for the minimal performance gains. Before the Stealth Ram, it was typical for people to bolt on a 4bbl and go faster, then they'd dump all their TPI parts on the classifieds. Those days are gone now, but for awhile you could find base manifolds for under $100, runners for $150, someone literally gave me a 52mm Holley throttlebody that looks practically new. The prices people are paying now are just crazy.

 

First time I've noticed someone mention LINK ECU's. What model are you running, I don't see anything for GM on their website?

 

They don't offer a plug-and-play circuit board. The line of wire-in ECU's covers all other situations like the 7165 where the market is small. We have several people that work closely with LINK to produce adapter harnesses for such applications. I am currently running a G4-X Xtreme. I have previously run a G4+ Storm. Both have the same pinout and work with our adaptor harness.




With the adapter harness the only wiring change is to wire in the MAP instead of the MAF (3 wires), and bypass the knock module (2 wires) as the LINK handles the knock sensor directly. No other changes to the 7165 wiring are required.

GD

 

So you remove the factory ECM, connect your wire harness to where to the factory ECM connectors, and then plug in the LINK to the other end of your wire harness? (and then run 3 other wires for MAP, and Knock)

 

Hmmm, maybe look into these to replace my LT1 PCM. I really would like to move to a ECM that can deal with WB O2 inputs. I dislike NB with a passion. I was looking at Megasquirts, but maybe investigate these.

 

Correct. You don't need to "run" wires per-se. You just use the wiring that was already going to the MAF and steal 5v from the TPS. The knock wires are both at the knock module - you just merge them.

Megasquirt is mega garbage. Old, slow, and open source with no significant support system. It is cheaper, but you get what you pay for. The new LINK G4X can do AMAZING wideband control with or without dithering for a cat. It can hone in on the desired AFR with amazing speed and accuracy.

GD