TB to IM port matching mod. who has tried this?

keeders08 · Post by **keeders08** » Sat May 24, 2008 1:03 pm

invujerry wrote:
keeders08 wrote:
Wenuden wrote:it's an r/t acr... Rated for 150@ the crank.
Thats wat i thought u were measuring... crank 135.5 thats more than an SXT and less than R/T ACR... confused me lol
150 at the crank on an ACR is 135 at the wheels.

I think my 98 would dyno at 125 lol.

I think mine would have more torque now and less HP..

INVUJerry · Post by **INVUJerry** » Sat May 24, 2008 1:10 pm

Probably not. You'd probably still be somewhere near stock. 120whp and 130wtq would be a good bet.

keeders08 · Post by **keeders08** » Sat May 24, 2008 1:13 pm

well, with a cold air, port matched IM and TB, shortened up as much as it could be.... that all equals torque... not much, but thats all it is. and throttle response. I'm workin on shortening the intake runnners... but uhm..yea I think I need one made of metalish.. lol

INVUJerry · Post by **INVUJerry** » Sat May 24, 2008 4:07 pm

Either metal, or a plastic intake off a 1gn. They keep the same runner length, so you can easily make a ghetto blaster with one.

Post by **occasional demons** » Sat May 24, 2008 6:09 pm

keeders08 wrote:well, with a cold air, port matched IM and TB, shortened up as much as it could be.... that all equals torque... not much, but thats all it is. and throttle response. I'm workin on shortening the intake runnners... but uhm..yea I think I need one made of metalish.. lol

Actually by removing your bellows tube you are reducing plenum volume which reduces torque. Example: All those overpriced TB spacers. Spacer=more volume. The bellows tube = about 6 of those spacers.

You'll need a 1gn intake mani to experiment with runner length. Plastic is easier. Search "ghetto intake"

keeders08 · Post by **keeders08** » Sun May 25, 2008 1:37 pm

occasional demons wrote:
keeders08 wrote:well, with a cold air, port matched IM and TB, shortened up as much as it could be.... that all equals torque... not much, but thats all it is. and throttle response. I'm workin on shortening the intake runnners... but uhm..yea I think I need one made of metalish.. lol
Actually by removing your bellows tube you are reducing plenum volume which reduces torque. Example: All those overpriced TB spacers. Spacer=more volume. The bellows tube = about 6 of those spacers. You'll need a 1gn intake mani to experiment with runner length. Plastic is easier. Search "ghetto intake"

not that im calling you a liar, but wheres ur proof about this bellows tube?

NickKo · Post by **NickKo** » Sun May 25, 2008 9:31 pm

occasional demons wrote:Actually by removing your bellows tube you are reducing plenum volume which reduces torque. Example: All those overpriced TB spacers. Spacer=more volume. The bellows tube = about 6 of those spacers. You'll need a 1gn intake mani to experiment with runner length. Plastic is easier. Search "ghetto intake"

I noticed that the Iceman Intake kit replaces the bellows tube with a straight piece about the same length.

I imagine that they did it this way, to smooth out the intake flow, without having the turbulence-inducing bellows tube to hinder flow.

-Nick

keeders08 · Post by **keeders08** » Mon May 26, 2008 1:43 am

NickKo wrote:
occasional demons wrote:Actually by removing your bellows tube you are reducing plenum volume which reduces torque. Example: All those overpriced TB spacers. Spacer=more volume. The bellows tube = about 6 of those spacers. You'll need a 1gn intake mani to experiment with runner length. Plastic is easier. Search "ghetto intake"
I noticed that the Iceman Intake kit replaces the bellows tube with a straight piece about the same length.

I imagine that they did it this way, to smooth out the intake flow, without having the turbulence-inducing bellows tube to hinder flow.

-Nick

somehow i dont beleive pulling the TB away from the manifold produces ne more HP and/or TQ tho... personally.. id need proof to beleive it and if it does.. well then i have all the shit to hard pipe it further away... lol its just the fact I dont see how it'd be better....?

Post by **occasional demons** » Mon May 26, 2008 10:09 am

It's your car do it both ways, see what works best for you. Nothing beats hands on experience, and you may gain something from it. This is how inventions/discoveries are made. Prove it to yourself, don't take other ppl's word for it. Search the 'net for manifold designs. You have the best source at your finger tips! Get a few 1gn plastic mani's and do different runner lengths, plenum designs, etc. It may cost some $ but education isn't always cheap.

NickKo · Post by **NickKo** » Mon May 26, 2008 12:32 pm

keeders08 wrote: somehow i dont beleive pulling the TB away from the manifold produces ne more HP and/or TQ tho... personally.. id need proof to beleive it and if it does.. well then i have all the shit to hard pipe it further away... lol its just the fact I dont see how it'd be better....?

occasional demons wrote: Search the 'net for manifold designs. You have the best source at your finger tips!

It's true, Brennan.....

Chrysler experimented with, and used, long-tube intakes many years ago.

http://www.labrecqueautocraft.com/1961_ ... c/pic2.jpg

Why did they go through all the trouble, of mounting the carburator which feeds the cylinder head, to the opposite side over the valve cover ??
They did it for tons of Low-End TORQUE ..... The cross ram 413 V-8 engines generated OVER 500 FT./LBS. of torque at just 3500 RPM !!

Likewise, a shorter runner is better-tuned for higher RPM, generally speaking.

So it depends on the engine, and what you want to use it for.
If you're towing a trailer, you'll want low-end torque.
If you're building a racing engine, and have a motor with a longer-duration camshaft, etc., you'll probably want shorter runners (at the loss of low-rpm grunt or torque.)

So Intake runner design is usually a compromise.
You might want to experiment, and try both a longer and shorter tube.... find out which works best on your car. ( I bet the longer one will be better.)

More information on the Mopar long-ram Intakes & history here:
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/sonoramic.html

-Nick

keeders08 · Post by **keeders08** » Mon May 26, 2008 1:23 pm

NickKo wrote:
keeders08 wrote: somehow i dont beleive pulling the TB away from the manifold produces ne more HP and/or TQ tho... personally.. id need proof to beleive it and if it does.. well then i have all the shit to hard pipe it further away... lol its just the fact I dont see how it'd be better....?

occasional demons wrote: Search the 'net for manifold designs. You have the best source at your finger tips!

It's true, Brennan.....

Chrysler experimented with, and used, long-tube intakes many years ago.

http://www.labrecqueautocraft.com/1961_ ... c/pic2.jpg

Why did they go through all the trouble, of mounting the carburator which feeds the cylinder head, to the opposite side over the valve cover ??
They did it for tons of Low-End TORQUE ..... The cross ram 413 V-8 engines generated OVER 500 FT./LBS. of torque at just 3500 RPM !!

Likewise, a shorter runner is better-tuned for higher RPM, generally speaking.

So it depends on the engine, and what you want to use it for.
If you're towing a trailer, you'll want low-end torque.
If you're building a racing engine, and have a motor with a longer-duration camshaft, etc., you'll probably want shorter runners (at the loss of low-rpm grunt or torque.)

So Intake runner design is usually a compromise.
You might want to experiment, and try both a longer and shorter tube.... find out which works best on your car. ( I bet the longer one will be better.)

More information on the Mopar long-ram Intakes & history here:
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/sonoramic.html

-Nick

Well for autoX id assume longer is better... assuming that that whole idea works the same on smaller engines.. which i do assume it does lol. but for drag... i'm thinkin short for high rpms

NickKo · Post by **NickKo** » Tue May 27, 2008 12:57 pm

keeders08 wrote: Well for autoX id assume longer is better... assuming that that whole idea works the same on smaller engines.. which i do assume it does lol. but for drag... i'm thinkin short for high rpms

You pretty much have that right.

-Nick

keeders08 · Post by **keeders08** » Tue May 27, 2008 1:14 pm

NickKo wrote:
keeders08 wrote: Well for autoX id assume longer is better... assuming that that whole idea works the same on smaller engines.. which i do assume it does lol. but for drag... i'm thinkin short for high rpms
You pretty much have that right.

-Nick

yea mines basically set up for autoX so now i gotta go make me a set up FOR autoX, and see how the longer tube between manifold and TB works....

I'm bout to get me a crane 14 and some Valve spriiings. Anybody have some suggestions?