Project 3.4 Camaro

I'm going to be putting my 3.4 intake on my car till I go hybrid, since my 2.8 manifolds are cracked, but the 3.4 intake falls flat on its face at a pretty low rpm, so I am contemplating modifying it, I know that there are carbon fiber intakes out there, and can't help but wonder if they could be made out of fiberglass as well, or if one could perhaps be modified with fiberglass, but I have no idea how well the resin would bond to aluminum or how it would hold up to engine temps, or if perhaps PVC or even a section of exhaust pipe could be bonded to it, I basically want to cut the top portions of the intake and add a half tube to give more volume so it doesn't choke on high rpms, but if I can't do it dirt cheap its not worth it to me since I am going to go hybrid once I have everything else in order...just don't want my engine to choke on RPMs in the meanwhile, my peak power is likely above what the 3.4 intake can handle flow wise.
Also considering converting to MAP, but I think I would rather have MAF from what info I have found, but its hard to find a clear answer to which is better, seems to me its more preference than anything, but I would like to hear the pros and cons of each if anyone can lay them out for me... One thing I have noticed is that my iron headed gen 1 seems to have better throttle response than my 3100 or 3.1 aluminum headed GMs had, but my mods probably account for a good chunk of that, but still I have read MAFs have better throttle response...

drdave88

iTrader: (3)

I have no clue how to answer your questions on that, lol. what i can tell you is that by porting the intake at the curves of the runners between the upper and lower intake plenums, you can gain RPMs. I have a thread here a few years back where i bench flowed the intake before and after porting and showed the CFM gains. This wasnt by any means a professional job or done in a timely fashion. I did it for a class and didnt have much shop time. if someone with real porting experience and time, you can actually make some really good increases in this intake i bet.

project89

iTrader: (1)

the 3.4 intake is a much better intake then the 2.8/3.1 intake hands down.
there may be some distibution issues on high hp, and turbocharged cars though,need further testing from pilsbury to confirm this though.

when i was doing the tunning on pilsburys car we had a cyl on each side of the motor that was about 125-175* hotter then the other 4, we found this out using an infared thermometer on the header primary tubes

Project 3.4 Camaro

I agree its better for stock applications to be sure, though it is limited in peak flow it has most of the right characteristics for a good plenum, though GM should've used tubular runners for a manifold aimed at such a low powerband, but it does extend past the last runners a bit, has only one bend in it and isn't a severe angle, and even gets shallower towards the back, only other thing I can pick on is the runners probably don't extend past the plenum floor, and much as I want to pick on the small plenum I can't really because they didn't intend for it to flow for high rpms, but honestly I think it would even be best to keep the plenum small for awesome throttle response and just compensate the lack of high rpm flow by adding a larger, or 2nd throttle body, unfortunately I just don't see a way of doing it without being able to weld, from what info I found bonding aluminum to fiberglass resin doesn't work all that well. Probably just going to see if I can get my 56 mm tbody to work on it with the cables, and open up the mouth a bit, chances are I might have to mess with the cables to use the intake anyways, guess I should ask pilsbry bout that.

project89

iTrader: (1)

the 3.4 plenum is much larger then the 2.8/3.1 p[lemum

micktroup2

Wait until you see what I am working on... pictures by the end of the week, I hope. He, he, he...

90 camaro cj

are you talking FWD 3.4 intake or the RWD 3.4 intake (the one that looks like a toilet seat) lol