Bigger TB, some interesting numbers...

[HotRodKid]

it would probably be easier to hack up the y off a stock intake, cut up some aluminum to make some TB flanges and have them mig welded to the intake

in fact, ill see if i have some aluminum plate thick enough at work to do so.

as long as you keep the flanges parallel to each other, and rotate the TB's so the linkage is on top it shouldnt be a problem. would just have to make a bar that spans between them and put an adjustable pickup for the stock cable on there

 

[St Louis SHO]

Dyno proof please. Kthx.

Its a discussion.... Quit being a douche.

 

[SHOspazz92]

I want ITB's.

-Sam

 

[Toolman]

i gave up trying to make decent power in N/A form because of just this.
IMHO its like trying to squeez OJ from the peels.

to quote the toolman;
its like trying to make a windmill as efficient as possible but keeping it locked up in the basement,when you could simply move the windmill outside where the wind is.

Wow, I say some cool stuff.

 

[K-Dawg]

I want ITB's.

-Sam

We know you want it In The Butt, but this is not the place for that.

 

[somedude_001]

I want ITB's.

-Sam

that would be bad ass... so would that be 6 tb's or 12lol

 

[SeanMc]

Its a discussion.... Quit being a douche.

Your words cut me deep.

 

[jedhead]

I do know that the SHO Shop did back to back dyno testing on a 65MM (stock) throttle body and 67MM (bored out) throttle body. The dynojet showed 1hp improvement with no noticable difference in the tq curve on a N/A cammed tuned 3.0 I believe that our intake even when extrude honed becomes a restriction in around 7600rpm. Some test were done many years ago by Logic Cams, who were the first to regrind SHO cams around 1990. The owner was campaigning a SHO powered dirt track car. The engine had a custom intake manifold, six huge short fat runners with throttle plates on top and ran the engine up to 9000rpms. When I spoke to him at a registry meeting he stated that inorder to get maximum power from the full race profile he needed to ditch the stock intake because his power dropped off at 7600rpm when the engine should have been able to produce more power. The new intake allowed the engine to output power to the redline of 9000rpm.
I think that Ernie also uses a custom intake manifold for the same reasons.
I want to retain the stock intake to have the wide torque band, but the stock intake does restrict maximum power.

Bob

 

[SHOspazz92]

We know you want it In The Butt, but this is not the place for that.

Shit.

Sick Burn.

-Sam

 

[SuperchargedSHOguy]

i'm currently brainstorming how to make the twin throttle bodies work with a flipped intake and a Y off a 73mm MAF and stock airbox...

Honestly it would not be too hard to do...

 

[SHODWN]

I do know that the SHO Shop did back to back dyno testing on a 65MM (stock) throttle body and 67MM (bored out) throttle body. The dynojet showed 1hp improvement with no noticable difference in the tq curve on a N/A cammed tuned 3.0 I believe that our intake even when extrude honed becomes a restriction in around 7600rpm. Some test were done many years ago by Logic Cams, who were the first to regrind SHO cams around 1990. The owner was campaigning a SHO powered dirt track car. The engine had a custom intake manifold, six huge short fat runners with throttle plates on top and ran the engine up to 9000rpms. When I spoke to him at a registry meeting he stated that inorder to get maximum power from the full race profile he needed to ditch the stock intake because his power dropped off at 7600rpm when the engine should have been able to produce more power. The new intake allowed the engine to output power to the redline of 9000rpm.
I think that Ernie also uses a custom intake manifold for the same reasons.
I want to retain the stock intake to have the wide torque band, but the stock intake does restrict maximum power.

Bob

SHOSHOP? HAHAHAHAHA my 3.3 still makes power after 8500 and I dont have ex intake. SHOSHOP is gone for a reason and your very welcome!

Oh yeah 3.0 and 3.2 are a different blocks and the 3.2 will never bolt up to a MTX.

While this topic sounds ******** it might have merit if somone tried it! If the thread originator goes for it KUDOS, anything is worth a try when parts are pennies on the dollar here.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Did someone say Electric Supercharger?

Sorry, couldn't resist... :swing:

 

[jedhead]

SHOSHOP? HAHAHAHAHA my 3.3 still makes power after 8500 and I dont have ex intake. SHOSHOP is gone for a reason and your very welcome!

Oh yeah 3.0 and 3.2 are a different blocks and the 3.2 will never bolt up to a MTX.

While this topic sounds ******** it might have merit if somone tried it! If the thread originator goes for it KUDOS, anything is worth a try when parts are pennies on the dollar here.

I learned something new. I haven't seen any dyno sheets where the hp curve was still going upward after 7500 rpm with a stock intake. I need to review all the dynosheets that I have from the dynojet I may have missed something.

Bob

 

[krednjen]

Factory intakes are designed with pulse resonance within a specific power band in mind. This is the kind of r&d that only a corporation can afford. Any attempt to achieve substantial gains as an individual, will require large amounts of trial and error, and will usually have un-intended consequences somewhere in the power band. Until it was banned, F1 engines used pneumatically activated telescoping intake runners, which would continually tune runner length, and change directions a dozen times throughout the power band. If you rev to over 10k, ITB's pay off. Close to stock redline, and the stock intake is pretty well designed. The y not only splits the air flow, but also "directs" it. Too large a tb changes flow dynamics just inside the y resulting in detrimental turbulance.
Just the opinion of a nobody.

 

[Toolman]

Boost it.

 

[NovaSS]

two words... turbo encabulator

 

[shomethe$$$]

Sorry to hijack but since were on the subject, I don't have a bench flow tester but I did some analysis in a CFD software when I was building my intake, the geometry is not exact because the software will not be able to analyze actual geometry but its close, it gives you an idea of where the velocity and pressure drops are

As you can see the stock intake is a good design but has a good amount of pressure drop which leans out the last cylinders, also the air is pulsating in the intake and the analysis only shows the velocity once its reached a constant flow, like a bench test would. Trial and error will get you in your desired powerband however for me, I copied the Boss 290 Aussie intake, here's a picture I found on the web, shown below on the left, and 2000 Cobra "R" 5.4L 4-valve on the right,

 

[SeanMc]

I do know that the SHO Shop did back to back dyno testing on a 65MM (stock) throttle body and 67MM (bored out) throttle body. The dynojet showed 1hp improvement with no noticable difference in the tq curve on a N/A cammed tuned 3.0 I believe that our intake even when extrude honed becomes a restriction in around 7600rpm. Some test were done many years ago by Logic Cams, who were the first to regrind SHO cams around 1990. The owner was campaigning a SHO powered dirt track car. The engine had a custom intake manifold, six huge short fat runners with throttle plates on top and ran the engine up to 9000rpms. When I spoke to him at a registry meeting he stated that inorder to get maximum power from the full race profile he needed to ditch the stock intake because his power dropped off at 7600rpm when the engine should have been able to produce more power. The new intake allowed the engine to output power to the redline of 9000rpm.
I think that Ernie also uses a custom intake manifold for the same reasons.
I want to retain the stock intake to have the wide torque band, but the stock intake does restrict maximum power.

Bob

Ernie's intake is just a ported stocker with the butterflies removed. I believe the intake being a restriction is a myth.

 

[NovaSS]

I think the intake does a good job what at what it was intended to do, move a heavy car with a small cubic inch engine, it does this by providing a nice broad flat torque curve.

Is it the best design from a max performace stand point ? No, I think everyone agrees if you want to build a max number N/A SHO engine you should scrap the dual runner design and build a nice single runner, short runner intake feed from a large box.

To be honest I would love to see what some draft webers would do , each throat feeding a single cylinder

 

[SHODWN]

Sorry to hijack but since were on the subject, I don't have a bench flow tester but I did some analysis in a CFD software when I was building my intake, the geometry is not exact because the software will not be able to analyze actual geometry but its close, it gives you an idea of where the velocity and pressure drops are

As you can see the stock intake is a good design but has a good amount of pressure drop which leans out the last cylinders, also the air is pulsating in the intake and the analysis only shows the velocity once its reached a constant flow, like a bench test would. Trial and error will get you in your desired powerband however for me, I copied the Boss 290 Aussie intake, here's a picture I found on the web, shown below on the left, and 2000 Cobra "R" 5.4L 4-valve on the right,

Very Very cool! thanks.. Wondering if your model knows about the v in the begining of the intake that forces the air down each side. It looks like the air is bounceing back causeing distortion. On all of my intakes thoughout the years I have always polished and sharpened this area. and always makes a difference.