cypher85

Thank you, I thought the same thing when the results came. I have often considered the stealth ram. If one day I decide to ditch the superram I'll be buying a stealth ram.

Awesome thanks for the info!

Vic'89

I think with your 6 speed , 122 MPH sounds like a doable goal.

Vic

cypher85

I will be very happy with that. I'm looking at picking up some ET streets; unsure of the tire width and height.

89L98TPI

Great numbers!! Makes me want to keep my SR almost.

tpi 421 vette

Congrats, nice numbers

Vic'89

I run 26x11.5 ET Streets, they dead hook every time.

Vic

cypher85

Excellent, thank you for the info. 122 mph would be great!

88BlackZ-51

Might not have enough rpm for 122. Either way build looks good!

cardo0

Wish i had a super ram intake. Cant even find a used one for my LT1 camaro. J. Lingenfelter sold off the design to Accel before he got a CARB legal Super Ram for the camaro/firebird LT1's into production. I think its a bolt on improvement for torque. It looked like BBK was making a copy cat Super Ram and sold them for the GEN I sbc engines but nothing for the GEN II motors and now BBK no longer makes them. Dont know what Edelbrock was thinking making a copy of the stock intake.

Oh well congrats on a nice build cypher.

cypher85

Thank you for the congrats

I have heard the LT1 superrams are very rare. Are you unhappy with your LT1?

LSWONGTO

Congrats man, that much torque has to be a blast You should be out pissing off new 5.0 owners now

cypher85

Haha! I will when the opportunity arises. I pissed off a new camaro ss owner pretty good the other day.

The torque is intoxicating to say the least.

383vett

Too bad. I sold my extrude honed SuperRam combination a few months ago that I ran for years with a 383 and a 406. Car ran low 11's with the 383 and 10.50's with the 406.

cardo0

Well I dont race enough to say im unhappy with the LT1 intake. But it dont take much science to realize the LT1 doesnt have a long enough runner to use it for any tuned length within the LT1 7,000rpm limit for its opti. Im used to old school sbc where there are dozens of fairly cheap intakes to match the engines power range and they just bolt on w/o expensive and complicated mods. Im thinking the happist LT1 owners have converted carburetor single plane intakes with an intake elbow. But u lose the smog certificate with the visual inspection let alone the missing EGR function. Hey i'll also i dare say dual plane conversion for a street driven car. But i see any conversion as $1,000 minimum cost and $/hp it somewhat a loser for a budget build.

Only options left are the TPIS mini ram and the Edelbrock intakes which arent much different than the OEM intakes.

Right now i have a very short cam in my LT1 - the 350 RAM cam #14097395 which is more of an experiment for a LT1 cam swap. I have too much wheel spin now but the LT1 intake short runners with large area/diameter never see power peak before the cam stops breathing. My dyno curve is a rounded downhill slope from 3,000 rpm. I expect a long runner intake would pick up the power near 5000-5500rpm. So yea something like a dual plane or the Super Ram would be a better match. Anyways its a work in progress.

cypher85

Have you ever considered the stealth ram? I have heard it pulls well up top while maintaining good torque numbers.

cardo0

To tall, wont fit under hood. Has to be modified to bolt onto LT1 heads. Stealth Ram is pretty bad azz though and would like to be able to run one.

Ya know with all the plastic/composite intakes now i hope to see something better for the LT1. I see plastic intakes for the LS motors that are assembled with swappable trumpets/internal runners. But the reverse cooled LT1 is a step child chevy and even CARB legal headers in large diameters are gone/dropped from production. Not any money to be made in producing an LT1 intake.

Anyways for the 4th gen camaro w/LT1, Lingenfelter had to cut down the SuperRam height to fit under the cowl and they never saw a CARB number unlike the corvette Super Ram for the LT1. The base of course should be the same for vette and camaro as both need the LT1 head bolt pattern also i expect they dont have a t-stat housing but havent verified that myself. Ive just been keeping a watch for a 4th gen SuperRam but not really looking very hard.

dizwiz24

Greeat numbers!

I cant tell you how many threads ive read where someone tries to do a l98 383 and ends up making less power than a hotcam/headered stock bot end 350 lt1.

Yours is a total success!

cv67

Oustanding #s for what you have

Funny how some combinations that are "wrong" on paper actually run pretty strong. Nice job

Masterspykiller

I am building a torque monster for my wife's 1991 C4. Installed the Canton 15-240T pan a few weeks ago. Before installing it, I measured water into it (had to clean it out anyway) and found 7 quarts flush to the bottom of the insert that screws into the pan to hold the crank scraper/windage screen. I would consider that the "FULL" mark for the pan.

I am NOT an expert, but assuming one adds 7 quarts PLUS the volume of the oil filter (whatever size one uses) and is NOT running an oil cooler, I believe there will be enough oil circulating while the engine is running that the pan will not be overfull. However, I haven't run this engine yet (still waiting for final parts, etc.).

My purpose in running the larger pan (and this is the ONLY larger pan I could find that would fit the 1991 C4) was to help cool the engine and avoid oil starvation during auto-X runs. I am not sure yet if I'll add an oil cooler (damn Los Angeles traffic and summer heat!). If so, of course more oil would be needed to keep those hoses and cooler full without starving the engine.

I hope this information helps!

Cheers, M

Masterspykiller

I don't know much about the LT1/LT4 engines, but I do remember the LT1 intake was improved by the very similar looking LT4 intake. I have no idea "how much" of an improvement it was, but we raced a 383 LT1 engine with a ported LT4 intake on it making about 500 rwhp.

It even passed California smog because the LT4 intake is oem, well, until we put headers on it....

I hope that helps!

Cheers,
M