RTz

Yup, it was comical as hell watching the passerby's expressions

Everyone is entitled to thier point of view. The gentleman doing the power-washing understood the 'potentials' and avoided setting himself up. That is the key isn't it... understanding the risks and giving them their due attention?

You mean like this?... I wouldn't hesitate to do it with the suspension under the car. Of course, the usual safety precaution's apply, but I don't see where it would hurt the car. However, I would not do it without the suspension/wheels.

Nobody could be that stupid.

:lmao:

They are not the same, although they are very close. It will not directly bolt in (slightly different bolt pattern), but its close enough that you may be able to 'cheat' it in out of desperation

Wrong again. If you'd engage that enfeebled brain of yours, you'd figure it out The answer is right under your nose

Monzter was able to calculate individual runner CFM. 1. 129 2. 170 3. 156 4. 141 5. 136 6. 138 These correlate well with the pictorial view in the previous post. A runner-runner disparity of nearly 32%. Ouch. Here's the crux... these are static flow numbers and an intake is anything but static. Valve events and acoustics play a significant role in manifold function. For example, a friend of mine was relaying a story of intercooler flow testing, using an inlet 90 degrees to the core such as below.... They found that the air passing by the first row's actually created enough negative to cause backflow through the core. The CFD on my manifold shows a tendency to do this as well. However, a large number of 'successful' manifolds are built with a 90deg. entry, both OE and aftermarket (Ferrari, Porsche, Lingenfelter, etc, etc). That, in itself, isn't definitive proof, but it does build suspicion that static flow is only a small part of the picture... in fact, it may be so skewed as to be nearly useless. Maybe some testing would shed some light...

Have one for me

Let me help you with that...

He did misspell grammar. Just to clarify 'our' position, none of us take issue with mistakes. The problem is usually a lazy attitude or carelessness. That's where I draw the line. All we ask is that people make an effort.

My Hero

Monzter was kind enough to run a CFD analysis on the proposed plenum revision. The goal was to improve three areas... entry into #1, 3 and 4, while reducing the swirling mid-plenum. It seams reducing the swirling was the only item that became 'reality'... it was also of my least concern. Velocity chart at 20psi... Thanks again Monzter!

Where's the periods? Where's the capitols? Where's the effort put forth in a legible post so that we may help you? Please write care-fully in the future.

BOOKS have been written on the differences. In a nutshell, the LT1 is largley based on the original iron small block Chevy, and the LS1 is a cleen-sheet aluminum redesign by GM. There is almost no technical relationship between the two. Do some Googling... It'll keep you busy for a while.

We took the off-season opportunity to repair the warped plenum. Cut the old top off, weld on a new .125" top, and re-coat. Nothing to it Turned out spiffy methinks...

Bobby, I gotta play party-pooper here. The intention of this thread is advanced tuning. Its a good topic and I'd like to see it stay on that track. Grumpy, I'm moving this to Fuel Delivery.

Hugh, I'm not aware of any easy/direct way to do that. Two options are to use an external MAP and either use it for Wolf's load sensor, or correlate the internal to the external.

The best part is... I had nothing to do with it Junior.

Hence Tube80z's sig... "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing So is a lot"

That picture brings back some memories. I first met Braap, '91 or '92, at an autocross at LCC. We chatted, went for a short blast, and the rest is history. That car ran damn good. The moral?... its all about tuning.

Speechless...

http://forums.hybridz.org/showpost.php?p=761805&postcount=7