Ok, I have been looking, and there really doesnt seem to be a good intake for both top end power but still supply good low end torque. So I'm on a mission to prove to SLP that it is worth their while to reproduce the T-Ram that they decided to abandon. So I will be e-mailing them to show them that there is a market for this intake and would in be a good business decision to reproduce this intake. All the support from you guys would be of great help.

Thanks,
Jeremy

 

If it's smog legal and priced below the super ram, it would probably sell fairly well. Not well enough to create new molds/machines, though. I don't see it ever coming back. It's too late now. If you want both of those things, modify your existing intake.

 

If there was a significant demand for it they would have created a new mold for it after the old one was destroyed in their fire. The people who run these major coporations know how to make money and how to lose it.

 

If they still had the molds that got lost in the fire then maybe they would make a short run but there is NO way in HELL they are going to start from scratch to produce it.

Besides, you can buy a Miniram for what you would be able to buy a "New" T-Ram for...

 

The SLP T-ram manifold is a very cool design but it wasn't anything special. The air distribution was a little better than stock but it's complexity was it's problem. Design of a manifold is all about compromize. The SLP was a lot harder to make and package for profit vs the simple accel super-ram and single piece manifolds like the Lt1, mini-ram, and ramjet intakes.
The idea behind longer tube runners is to take better advantage of the pulse waves inside the runners. You don't want to wait 3 or 4 times when as the waves reverb back and forth they loose their effect (less pressure at the valve). The T-ram is just like a mustang 5.0 intake but with slightly better air distribution.
If you want the best intake manifold it usually comes with the highest price. For an independant study's program I'm designing not only a dual resonance intake manifold (like a dual plane but with a shared plenum valve) but a dual length runner design. It's going to be hard enough to fabricate one intake. The idea of "tuned port" is exactly as it sounds, tuned being the most important. GM designed stock TPI for the 305's displacement. Putting it on a 350 lowered the powerband and is obvious when you compare the hp of a 305 vs a 350 TPI. The biggest and most overlooked issue with tuned port EFI is the cam duration. So many people think that the runner length and diameter are displacement matched, advertised cam duration is it.
With the way v8's are dropping in production as fast as they are I find it highly unlikely that any good aftermarket intake will come onto the market.
Does anybody know the specifics of the T-ram manifold? I know the OEM TPI but what are the runner lengths of the T-ram and the plenum volume? What about the tapper of the runners (if any) and how about it's cross sectional area?

 

Here are some pictures to better illustrate the T-Ram for you:














Also I know it flows 1,050cfm. That's all I know at this point.

 

That base looks just like a holley stealth ram except it's got the correct offset for the ports. All that means is they're offset because the heads are shifted over by half the thickness of the rod journals on the crank. I like a LOT. The T-ram seems to have a very long runner which is great, so long as the runners have a large enough volume.

 

From a design standpoint, the beauty of the T-ram versus many of the other tuned designs is the air entry angle to the heads. If you will notice, the T-ram makes no sharp bend at the transition from the intake manifold to the head. Air doesnt like to make sharp bends when flowing and it will hurt top end HP. In comparing the T-ram to a stock longtube or even the Superram setup, the t-ram allows the same tuned resonance effects, but will have better top end power due to lower air restriction at the intake-head interface. The new Holley stealth ram does a great job in this area,(as do all tunnelram designs) but due to the short runners, the wave tuning is not present (atleast it doesnt occur in the engines rpm range) and thus you lose the midrange torque boost. The idea of using tuned resonance in the intake systems is obviously a very beneficial way of improving performance as almost every car built today makes use of this.

 

I hate to say it but its flow pattern is similar to a 5.0 mustangs....

 

I do agree with the sharp turns but that isn't as much of an effect if any if the sharp bends are far enough away from the valve. I really don't understand what you're saying about the sharp bends. None of the manifolds except for the old single planes had those kinds of problems. I think SLP did a better job of tappering the runners and air distribution in general was improved but I wouldn't say it's got better flow in the runners vs accel or stock TPI because of the bends. If anything the SLP is worse for flow. You don't want an S bend when you can have a simple C. One commong radius is the best and if you extend the head port in it's general direction you would see that neither of them are all that good. The winner would be some of the old x-ram style intakes. Those runners flowed VERY well wet or dry. LS1's did it right by having the plenum below the runners and the runners have 1 radius path to the valve.

I already said that, lol.

 

I don't believe SLP designed or produced the T-Ram, they just sold it. It was designed and engineered by Ryan Falconer. I believe he had them cast as well. Has anyone spoken with someone at SLP about this?

 

Hi JPrevost:
The sharp bend I am refering to is the turn the air makes going from the last section of the intake manifold into the head. The ideal entry would be perpendicular to the gasket surface. If you look at the stock TPI base manifold it is running in a completely horizontal direction as it comes across from the other side of the manifold. Next it has to turn down to enter the head...... this is the sharp bend I am talking about. The designers had to do it this way to achieve the length they wanted and still fit under the hood. The T-ram and Stealth ram are completely different as their runners are heading straight into the heads intake tract. Hope this clears up what I meant. When you refer to an S-bend in the T-ram, I dont see it. The addition of the two side plenums creates an air "reservoir" to feed the individual runners. I do see how in the picture it "looks" like an S-bend, but I believe the side plenums give the air a fresh start if you will. The entire tuned length is contained below the side plenums. This to me is like a gradual "C" bend, that then has a straight shot at the head. I agree with you the LS-1 is close to ideal, and to me the T-ram is much closer to this than the L98 design.

 

The S I'm refering to is as if you started at the plenum and ended at the valve, not the head port. The head port can't be ignored when designing an intake runner path. It should continue on a similar path with as few redirections as possible (minimized distance between radii of the runners).

 

JPrevost,

What do you do that you get to design intakes? I'd love to work on things like that. If only I had the tools and programs here to do it, I'd play with stuff like that just to pass the time.

 

I think that Ryan Falconer DID make the T-ram, but I could be wrong. Ever see that ZR-12 vette that had that Falconer V-12? It had a medium length intake, with an injector in each runner, to make a kind of wet/dry system.

The best of both world would be to have an intake that was TUNED with a long tube set-up. Of course since this premise sacrifices top-end, youd almost have to have a secondary runner that would only open at high rpm's. Yeah, 2 runners per cylinder.
A primary to capitalize on the "boost" provided by a long tube tuned port set-up, and a secondary runner to feed the engine at high RPM's. We could call it a LT-..........uh,.......maybe an LT-5. We could put in top of a dual overhead cam V8. That would be sweet.

Too bad chevy would never build it, even if they had to team up with some german car company.

 

SLP abandoned 3rd gens a long time ago. We didn't give them enough of our money to keep them interested in our market.

SCREW SLP.

 

i thought lotus was british... oh well

 

They are.

 

hehe, I was gonna say Lotus, but then it just sounded wrong, so I figured it was probably some German co.

thanks for the correction.

 

its ok... DONT LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN!!! hehehehe.. that LT5 is a killer lookin engine.. when i first saw it one, i thought that chevy made a different TPI set up for the vette..but then i saw the DOHC markings.. i didnt know what to think of it till someone told me the story.. the LT5 topic gets brought up here around here every once and a while.