If/When you go to siamesed Intakes?

[Hog]

Do we really even require siamesed ports anymore? Just going by tpepmeie's high output427, 638 rwhp(on chassis dyno) and 702hp at the crank 700hp from 6500-7000rpm & 588lb/ft torque(engine dyno) while running short of injector.

[alnukem]

Originally Posted by Hog

Do we really even require siamesed ports anymore? Just going by tpepmeie's high output427, 638 rwhp(on chassis dyno) and 702hp at the crank 700hp from 6500-7000rpm & 588lb/ft torque(engine dyno) while running short of injector.

Thank God!!!!! I knew this siamesing was $$$$$. I'll just get it dynoed, figure out any bugs & if it's not up to snuff, I'll go see my buddy Pete!

[rkreigh]

Originally Posted by Pete

Ron,this is the only picture I can find.
This top plate does not flex.

Pete

like to try that with a 1300 cfm oval mono blade throttle body

I think the stroker "starves" for air running off the tiny little primary port and then all hell brakes lose as the secondaries crack open

for what you pay to modify a stock intake, a hogans would be cheap

I think LPE charged about 4k to do the bifurcation job

welding up a sheet metal intake isn't cheap, but it's not rocket since either

I'm seeing more "billet tubes" that are CNC machined and then welded to the base.

cool stuff. like to do a 3D carbon fiber printed intake someday. it would take a bit to do the CAD, and the 3D printers aren't cheap, but they are getting more affordable all the time.

you could design a much better shaped port with the right taper and plenum volume sized to the displacement for 7500 rpms and my bet is that it would work quite well.

even the "crab style" cross ram would look very cool and as long as the tubes are small enough it should build great port velocity

the LT5 intake has WAY too many turns and pinch points to really flow well up top due to the compromises for the packaging and injector housings

it looks cool, but me thinks we can do better with the modern high tech equipment

the nylon stuff on the LS motors is light, rejects the heat, and flows pretty decent without all the hassle. but the casting process is expensive to tool up and it would be tricky to make

the more I learn about the carbon fiber and 3d printing, the more I get excited about it. it's gone from "prototyping" to "small volume manufacturing" which is exactly what us LT5 guys need for a bunch of the parts no longer made

can you say "group buy" they we digitize and make up whatever we need. the technology is getting cheaper and easier to use every day.

it's the bomb

[LGAFF]

I have seen a few of the "siamese" intakes, seems that they forgot to port them first....my whatever the hell you want to call it has more volume

[Pete]

Originally Posted by LGAFF

I have seen a few of the "siamese" intakes, seems that they forgot to port them first....my whatever the hell you want to call it has more volume

Yeah, your right Lee some of those siamesed plenums were not ported any bigger then stock size ports I think they were relying on the volume of the Siamese.
Some like the Siamese look.

POLO 1

Pete

[Polo-1]

for sure on port size. this is a 36 ball and before it went to Greg for repairs.



Dont do the siamese intake. It's money lost in todays porting out there. buy Pete's cam's instead, you will do better then siamese.

[tpepmeie]

Originally Posted by Polo-1

Both mine and Todd's were at GVD at the same time. Same bench flow machine.

Here is the data I have for mine and Kevin's induction system. These are loss percentages. Higher loss = lower flow. This is a loss compared to each of our cylinder heads with just a clay radius, nothing else.