Intake ideas? MAF Questions too. (again) - Page 3 - North East F-Body Association

ILuvPizzaTimes10 · #21 02-07-2011, 01:16 AM

stick a 3000 cfm intake on your car see if it really makes That much more power. flow numbers mean shit. i dunno why your researching this so much. the 102 is terrible from all the reviews ive seen on moderatly modded cars such as yours. like the PPI with FI or HUGE CUBES the extra CFM will be a waste if not completely rob your car of drive-ability and low end Anything. But it will make a few more peak MAYBE! i dunno man get what you can at a decent price. or what you can afford. my buddy installed a FAST 92 FAST TB and he gained ZERO miles an hour and ZERO ET over the LS6 he had. similar power levels to you. just food for thought.

Bayer-Z28 · #22 02-07-2011, 01:48 AM

^ What heads was he running? What cam/lobes? Engine? All of this comes into play.
-And if flow numbers don't mean shit, then how do YOU buy a set of heads?? By looks?
-Like Mamo said, the head is what depicts what intake you should be running. And seeing as I was spec'd a set of AFR 205's, a good intake will be needed in the future.

I've always said that the 102 is too big, It's just that the deeper I look, the more conflicting evidence I find. I think a 92 and adding cats to my setup will help me keep my bottom end. I don't want to lose any because that's what this cam is for.

And I take flow #'s seriously. It's evidence that something is "different." I bought some cheap parts back then and didn't research them and I am royally kicking myself for it now. Hard to explain, but I DO research things to death before I buy them.

With these "quick" lobes (XE-R, IIRC) that I'm running, if the head can get to a higher flow earlier in the lift (Degrees of rotation = time also), the cam doesn't have to reach max lift (LOST time in rotation) in order to achieve a solid amount of airflow. = more cyl filling, more air earlier and quicker. The intake can obviously add a bit of a bottle neck to this. I don't want to say "restriction" because that's not the word. I also understand that if the runners are too big, it will lose port velocity. And yes, an engine can only injest soo much air.

I am looking to extract EVERYTHING this cam has to offer. I am damned to PROVE that it will perform AS GOOD if not BETTER than the other huge cams and that mine has much better driveability. I ran a 12.14 for my second time ever at the track, so this has something.

Yes, I'm stubborn. I'll get either the 92 or the 102. Not sure yet. I researched my cam for two years before I bought it and I'm only on about 6 months to a year researching the intake. It's fascinating to me. I want to know why it is as good as it is.(or is not) I started looking into things and as soon as I opened a can of worms, I just kept wanting to know more. This is a hobby of mine, I guess. Research.

Slowhawk · #23 02-07-2011, 03:03 AM

Cam is the cheapest.

I like Mamo but don't listen to him much anymore. Never seen one of his custom Mamo H/C setups make more then 430rwhp even though it is a 460-470rwhp package.

XER Cams are just valvetrain killers. Stopped ussing them years ago,much better cams out there now.

Batman · #24 02-07-2011, 03:43 AM

I was gonna say, if you can't use that much air it is useless to you. A 346 is never gonna push that kind of volume. I mean realistically cam only an LS6 intake is probably one of your best options

Batman · #25 02-07-2011, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bayer-Z28

^ What heads was he running? What cam/lobes? Engine? All of this comes into play.
-And if flow numbers don't mean shit, then how do YOU buy a set of heads?? By looks?
-Like Mamo said, the head is what depicts what intake you should be running. And seeing as I was spec'd a set of AFR 205's, a good intake will be needed in the future.

I've always said that the 102 is too big, It's just that the deeper I look, the more conflicting evidence I find. I think a 92 and adding cats to my setup will help me keep my bottom end. I don't want to lose any because that's what this cam is for.

And I take flow #'s seriously. It's evidence that something is "different." I bought some cheap parts back then and didn't research them and I am royally kicking myself for it now. Hard to explain, but I DO research things to death before I buy them.

With these "quick" lobes (XE-R, IIRC) that I'm running, if the head can get to a higher flow earlier in the lift (Degrees of rotation = time also), the cam doesn't have to reach max lift (LOST time in rotation) in order to achieve a solid amount of airflow. = more cyl filling, more air earlier and quicker. The intake can obviously add a bit of a bottle neck to this. I don't want to say "restriction" because that's not the word. I also understand that if the runners are too big, it will lose port velocity. And yes, an engine can only injest soo much air. FOr the cam you have you will never make the HP numbers of bigger cams, it is not a possibility. But staright HP numbers are about as worthless as CFM numbers. Build the car to run the way you like it and forget about the numbers. Talk to Pros like Don to help you get the exact set-up you are looking for and don't be blinded by numbers that in the scheme of things don't determine how a car runs

I am looking to extract EVERYTHING this cam has to offer. I am damned to PROVE that it will perform AS GOOD if not BETTER than the other huge cams and that mine has much better driveability. I ran a 12.14 for my second time ever at the track, so this has something.

Yes, I'm stubborn. I'll get either the 92 or the 102. Not sure yet. I researched my cam for two years before I bought it and I'm only on about 6 months to a year researching the intake. It's fascinating to me. I want to know why it is as good as it is.(or is not) I started looking into things and as soon as I opened a can of worms, I just kept wanting to know more. This is a hobby of mine, I guess. Research.

Flow numbers are only part of the story, Knowing how much CFM your engine can actually push and matching the heads to the cam, intake, fuel etc. You can bolt a set of 300+CFM heads to your 346 and if you can only push 215CFM then you are wasting your time and most likely causing the engine to run poorly. Also where are these huge CFM numbers? if it is over .600" lift you probably aren't going to like what you get. You need to find the correct CFM for your set-up and your best bet with that is to talk to someone like Don or buy a complete package. You also need to consider combustion chamber size, shape, etc. Buying heads just by CFM doesn't make much sense.

Bayer-Z28 · #26 02-07-2011, 01:58 PM

^ I have found that the TFS heads flow more at the mid lift numbers. The exhaust flow is up there also compared to the AFR heads. Mid and low lift #'s are where the money is. Such as a set of stock heads that flow maybe 160 cfm at .300" and top out at .600" at 220cfm. If you can get that head to flow more, sooner, you won't have to run a HUGE lift cam. My .640" cam was a bit much for me, but I had to compromise on something. I wanted under 230 duration and around .600", but the reviews on this cam were pretty good. .600" lift, initially, scared me off, then I warmed up to the idea. The MS cams never caught my eye. But the Torquer V2 and 3 were an option when I was buying mine.

And from what I've read, these heads will always outflow the plastic intakes.

I was wanting a set of the TFS heads for a while and asked what heads were recommended and they actually spec'd me a set of AFR 205's. I'll do those eventually and save the TFS idea for an L92/LS3/LS9 clone idea I've been tossing around. And the guy who spec'd my cam has had a setup push 550rw with NA h/c. -Not with my cam, but still. I have an idea how to extract what I'm looking for.

84ta406 · #27 02-07-2011, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILuvPizzaTimes10

stick a 3000 cfm intake on your car see if it really makes That much more power. flow numbers mean shit. i dunno why your researching this so much. thought.

Agreed flow #'s do mean shit, Anyone can port a intake or head to push out CFM, now to retain velocity is a different ball game. If theres too much volume the air speed slows down. Buy me a Super Victor and watch my car fall on its face.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bayer-Z28

^ What heads was he running? What cam/lobes? Engine? All of this comes into play.
-And if flow numbers don't mean shit, then how do YOU buy a set of heads?? By looks?

Like Nick said, flow #'s are only part of it. Whats the use of so much flow if the heads cant handle it? Now you turned your intake into a bottle neck.

I look at heads based off chamber design, intake/exhaust port sizes, Min/Max CSA, etc. Theres a lot more to it IMO. You also have to look into how big the motor is, compression, cam profile and crap. Some heads and intakes work better with different cams.

Batman · #28 02-07-2011, 10:03 PM

IMO TFS > AFR for a street/strip application. The AFR's make more peak but the TFS's seem to carry a wider, broader power badn

ILuvPizzaTimes10 · #29 02-08-2011, 12:00 AM

ive seen more cars make power with AFR then TFS lately. the fast as cast is a joke and id take AFR over an out of the box TFS head.

Bayer-Z28 · #30 02-08-2011, 12:02 AM

^ I've ALWAYS wanted the TFS heads just because of the mid-lift numbers. They don't need a HUGE cam for them to flow crazy. I've always had my eye on the Torquer V2 or 3. I like those cams and the sound, but TSP seems to only be into higher RPM power and TR seems to do their research in power under the curve.

I think the 215's would still work, but the 205's may have a better velocity. And I'm looking into clarification on "these heads will always outflow the plastic intake" claims. A 102 unported may just be a match. Ported it flows over 280cfm at around .500". My heads peak out at around .280".

And from what I've gathered, the 102 design isn't an increased overall intake VOLUME, it's just a better runner design. And the gurus are saying that the throat has little effect on this, actually. Claims are that they almost needed a radius on the TB during testing of the 92 and the 102 did not need one. The air was slightly obstructed entering the 92mm TB right at the edges of the TB, while on the 102 it was not. Now, I'm wondering if that is from a decrease in air speed entering the TB. Same volume with a larger "hole" would mean slower.... Right? 0_o

And I've got LSK lobes on my cam. Asked the guy who designed it. I can't find my cam card.. :-\