How would an aftermarket LT1 intake with long runners effect the performance?! - Page 3 - CorvetteForum - Chevrolet Corvette Forum Discussion


C4 General Discussion
General C4 Corvette Discussion not covered in Tech

How would an aftermarket LT1 intake with long runners effect the performance?!

Reply
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-12-2017, 01:09 PM   #41
cuisinartvette
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Oct 2004
Location: Valencia Ca.
Posts: 62,893
Thanked 660 Times in 606 Posts
Default

The post about the extra stroke will give you what you want, 383, 396 take your pick;dont need expensive stuff to run up to 5500 either

you can run a small HR cam that will act stock (even a GM hotcam will do), little bit of headwork youre there. Id get the idea of a high $ intake out of the program and you definitely do not need a custom cam plenty of off the shelf stuff out there that works just fine.
The piston going up/down a little more doesnt sound like much but it pulls harder on the intake tract pulling more air in/out.

Doubt your mileage will change much at all if you keep it mild, you can daily drive it forver with good manners. Torque never gets old and is cheap..rpm is what costs $

Yrs ago when I was still naieve about strokers got a ride in someones 93 ruby that did exactly what you wanted. mild 383...but sounded stock...it would have made mince meat out of my overcammed 350 at the time he drove it 60 mi round trip to work

Last edited by cuisinartvette; 10-12-2017 at 01:33 PM.
cuisinartvette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2017, 01:18 PM   #42
pologreen1
CF Senior Member
 
pologreen1's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2007
Posts: 14,755
Thanked 101 Times in 98 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix'97 View Post
I have owned my car now for 10-solid years.
Rear Gear Ratio: 3.42:1 stock
Transmission: 6 speed manual
Coupe

First off, how is it not healthy to produce power from idle to 5000 RPM? This is well below the computer RPM limit and furthermore lower RPM won't wear down the valve-train with constant high rev driving.

Second, I don't have the money to oblige the notion of racing in my car with a 20 year old transmission that is showing signs that it needs to be replaced along with a recent replacement of my stock rear gears. My girl is a daily driver and if I do take her to the track in the future, she is going to run nearly stock with the modifications I have outlined.

My goal? I care not for horsepower because I don't do a lot of high rev driving which is where HP numbers are produced. Since my daily driving is within the operating range of idle to 5000 RPM, I best focus on the torque production of my car at this power band.

Modifications? Again, I have a nagging feeling that I should keep persistent in the long runner intake because it is optimized for the power band that I am focused on, and per my research, long runners on an intake improve torque production despite suffering from lack of air flow at higher RPM usually beyond 4500 RPM but if I limit myself to 5000 RPM anyways for my daily driving, this is no major loss! So, I am focused on the intake, I need a custom grind camshaft emphasizing torque production from idle to 5000 RPM, and in some respects this would also qualify as a "fuel economy cam" which is all the more better for my notion of "street performance". If the heads could benefit from mild porting, then sure, lets tack that on! All that is left is the exhaust which my motor is currently using aftermarket short tube hooker headers with emissions hook-ups. The short headers are supposed to be good for low end torque production and while I do notice a slight umpf after their install, I want more torque umpf to get me going from a stop.

I have no intention of selling my car, I am too in love with the styling and frankly, I can improve upon her with all around LED lighting both exterior and interior.
1996 6spd Lt1????

It's bad my car makes 525rwt at 1800rpm?

Your hung up on this TQ thing. You need both to make power. do you make more torque by choking it out? Sure, is it effective or efficient. No. The L98 is a perfect example of that if you stick it on a large Ci engine.

Your car your build, clearly you know the car and what you want.

you have been told a 383 wll help with torque, and BTW 6spd 4.11 are the answer as well in this case which is why I asked miles back about your car specs.
pologreen1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2017, 01:28 PM   #43
pologreen1
CF Senior Member
 
pologreen1's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2007
Posts: 14,755
Thanked 101 Times in 98 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom400CFI View Post
He's mentioned the FIRST, and he's mentioned "mid length" runner intakes.

Although I don't advocate going this route (I advocate a stroker), HERE is a cheapy mid-length runner intake.


None of those were ground breaking even back then. Custom is the only way to make something really work. off the shelf means anybody has a chance with almost any cam and heads selection with in reason.

He also mentioned he has a 96 Lt 6pd. Probably LT4 right?

He mentioned all l98 intakes for an lt platform. None of them on a 350 make so much more torque than the lt intake is my point. On a chart with a proper dyno guy tuning sure it will show. On a track or in driving experience I doubt it.

The difference I feel between and lt1 and l98 is it keeps pulling steady. The l98 first stuff is not pulling that much harder.

If anything and lt1 intake opened up with a larger plenum would make more sense to me, especially if he went with lower gears to feed it.

My whole point to all this is none of it makes sense, and no intake is like slapping on 100ft of tq and not losing a bunch somewhere else. A 350 is also not a tq monster no matter what nonsense people want to feel or believe.

So i agree with you there. I think this is trolling and I have enjoyed it so far, but I'm out if others are supporting this.

LOL yep keep a stock 3.42 with a 6spd and talk custom intake but no gears.

This can't be real.
pologreen1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2017, 01:47 PM   #44
6SpeedTA95
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Apr 2006
Posts: 182
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

If you're making more midrange power and using that power your mileage will go down, it takes fuel and air to make power. So if you produce more of it when being utilized mileage will drop off. Again things point to a cam as solving the problem not an LTR intake.
6SpeedTA95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2017, 01:49 PM   #45
6SpeedTA95
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Apr 2006
Posts: 182
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pologreen1 View Post
None of those were ground breaking even back then. Custom is the only way to make something really work. off the shelf means anybody has a chance with almost any cam and heads selection with in reason.

He also mentioned he has a 96 Lt 6pd. Probably LT4 right?

He mentioned all l98 intakes for an lt platform. None of them on a 350 make so much more torque than the lt intake is my point. On a chart with a proper dyno guy tuning sure it will show. On a track or in driving experience I doubt it.

The difference I feel between and lt1 and l98 is it keeps pulling steady. The l98 first stuff is not pulling that much harder.

If anything and lt1 intake opened up with a larger plenum would make more sense to me, especially if he went with lower gears to feed it.

My whole point to all this is none of it makes sense, and no intake is like slapping on 100ft of tq and not losing a bunch somewhere else. A 350 is also not a tq monster no matter what nonsense people want to feel or believe.

So i agree with you there. I think this is trolling and I have enjoyed it so far, but I'm out if others are supporting this.

LOL yep keep a stock 3.42 with a 6spd and talk custom intake but no gears.

This can't be real.
He said it was a 97, has he changed it to 96? If it's a 96 and a 6MT it's an LT4 not an LT1 but he insists on an LT1 but refuses to post pics so that we can help or further validate. I'm thinking perhaps we have a troll who's just trying to have a bit of fun.
6SpeedTA95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2017, 02:49 PM   #46
Phoenix'97
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Member Since: Oct 2017
Posts: 49
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 View Post
If you're making more midrange power and using that power your mileage will go down, it takes fuel and air to make power. So if you produce more of it when being utilized mileage will drop off. Again things point to a cam as solving the problem not an LTR intake.
There is a factor not being considered here, lower RPM to produce this power as opposed to higher RPM to produce this power! More torque at a lower RPM means better fuel efficiency! Also, there is more going to my motor than just the intake. The intake is a means to optimize the motor for torque production versus the short runner factory LT1.
Phoenix'97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2017, 02:50 PM   #47
Paul Workman
CF Senior Member
 
Paul Workman's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2004
Location: "Below I-80" Illinois
Posts: 4,808
Thanked 112 Times in 106 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 View Post
He said it was a 97, has he changed it to 96? If it's a 96 and a 6MT it's an LT4 not an LT1 but he insists on an LT1 but refuses to post pics so that we can help or further validate. I'm thinking perhaps we have a troll who's just trying to have a bit of fun.
Paul Workman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2017, 02:54 PM   #48
Phoenix'97
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Member Since: Oct 2017
Posts: 49
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom400CFI View Post
This concern is not legitimate. With proper basic maintenance, your valve train should go right on by 300,000 miles...even with "constant high rev driving".



I's suggest that you should put your $$$ into some basic maintenance then, rather than some big dollar intake.



Are you aware that the stock LT1 already focuses tq production at that power band? Did you look at the tq curves I posted? LT1 makes 300 tq at 1000 RPM, and peak hp at 5000....that is literally, directly aligned with your criteria! Let's just look at that graph one more time...






Short headers give away low end tq, for high RPM tq (HP). You've got that part backward. Long tube headers benefit lower RPM (mid range, actually).



It really sounds to ME, like you're not really looking for advice....you're looking for validation. It seems like your mind is made up on the LTR intake.

The chart you are citing is torque production contrast between the L98 and the LT1. These are two different motors, naturally, and the LT1 has higher compression than the L98 and a slightly better fuel injection system. So, this probably explains why the torque numbers are higher for the LT1 with it's short runner intake. However, what projected torque curve of this graph would represent this same LT1 with a TPI style intake?! The torque curve, in theory, should shift and peak higher in the mid-RPM range. This is why I am inquiring about this intake for my build, to intentionally optimize the LT1 motor for low to mid-range torque production.

As far as maintenance is concerned, the car gets me from point A to point B right now while I attend college. The transmission works but it will need replacement down the road which I am saving that for the day I have the car torn down and restored-modified to like new. This is years away and after I pay off my college loan with double payments. This is why I am researching what I need to do for the motor work.

Lastly, I was told short headers are for low RPM torque while long headers are for high RPM torque, the source was Summit Racing, so who is telling the truth?

Last edited by Phoenix'97; 10-12-2017 at 02:57 PM.
Phoenix'97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2017, 02:58 PM   #49
Phoenix'97
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Member Since: Oct 2017
Posts: 49
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Workman View Post
Does anyone not understand what it means when someone says they don't own a C5 and their car does indeed have an LT1? Some people stated what cars had LT1 motors in the year 1997. Look at my profile name. It doesn't get anymore evident!

Last edited by Phoenix'97; 10-12-2017 at 02:59 PM.
Phoenix'97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2017, 03:04 PM   #50
Phoenix'97
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Member Since: Oct 2017
Posts: 49
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cuisinartvette View Post
The post about the extra stroke will give you what you want, 383, 396 take your pick;dont need expensive stuff to run up to 5500 either

you can run a small HR cam that will act stock (even a GM hotcam will do), little bit of headwork youre there. Id get the idea of a high $ intake out of the program and you definitely do not need a custom cam plenty of off the shelf stuff out there that works just fine.
The piston going up/down a little more doesnt sound like much but it pulls harder on the intake tract pulling more air in/out.

Doubt your mileage will change much at all if you keep it mild, you can daily drive it forver with good manners. Torque never gets old and is cheap..rpm is what costs $

Yrs ago when I was still naieve about strokers got a ride in someones 93 ruby that did exactly what you wanted. mild 383...but sounded stock...it would have made mince meat out of my overcammed 350 at the time he drove it 60 mi round trip to work
Well, you have me interested in the mild stroker. I just need verification that it won't kill fuel economy much. I can have the shop reprogram and dynotune my car with the built motor to adjust it as necessary.
Phoenix'97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2017, 03:13 PM   #51
6SpeedTA95
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Apr 2006
Posts: 182
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix'97 View Post
There is a factor not being considered here, lower RPM to produce this power as opposed to higher RPM to produce this power! More torque at a lower RPM means better fuel efficiency! Also, there is more going to my motor than just the intake. The intake is a means to optimize the motor for torque production versus the short runner factory LT1.
All things being equal if power goes up at a given RPM so does fuel consumption. You make power by burning fuel, whether thats at 2000rpm or 10000rpm. Does fuel burn change based on RPM sure...but you make 200ft lbs at 2000 rpm vs 250 you'll burn more gas at 250
6SpeedTA95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2017, 03:40 PM   #52
Phoenix'97
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Member Since: Oct 2017
Posts: 49
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 View Post
All things being equal if power goes up at a given RPM so does fuel consumption. You make power by burning fuel, whether thats at 2000rpm or 10000rpm. Does fuel burn change based on RPM sure...but you make 200ft lbs at 2000 rpm vs 250 you'll burn more gas at 250
So, lets look at it this way, which is more fuel efficient? 250 ft lbs at 2000 rpm or 250 ft lbs at 4000 rpm? The way I see it, more squirts of fuel are entering the combustion chamber at 4000 rpm when the same power can be had at 2000 rpm. Then, lets not factor out a professional tune to ensure fuel economy. This build is intended to strike the best possible balance. I want more torque but the car needs to get the same mileage around town and that is not highway but city! Can a stroker set-up meet this criteria and pass emissions? Otherwise the camshaft will be a custom grind, mild, but emphasizing torque from idle up to 5000 RPM. The intake is still a matter I am trying to figure out but for optimization and it's sake, long runners are meant for torque production, not short runners. GM built the LT1 with short runners but for my needs as a daily driver, it should have a TPI version for itself.

Last edited by Phoenix'97; 10-12-2017 at 03:55 PM.
Phoenix'97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2017, 04:03 PM   #53
6SpeedTA95
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Apr 2006
Posts: 182
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix'97 View Post
Does anyone not understand what it means when someone says they don't own a C5 and their car does indeed have an LT1? Some people stated what cars had LT1 motors in the year 1997. Look at my profile name. It doesn't get anymore evident!
So if you have a firebird/trans am why not just say that?
6SpeedTA95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2017, 04:04 PM   #54
6SpeedTA95
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Apr 2006
Posts: 182
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix'97 View Post
So, lets look at it this way, which is more fuel efficient? 250 ft lbs at 2000 rpm or 250 ft lbs at 4000 rpm? The way I see it, more squirts of fuel are entering the combustion chamber at 4000 rpm when the same power can be had at 2000 rpm. Then, lets not factor out a professional tune to ensure fuel economy. This build is intended to strike the best possible balance. I want more torque but the car needs to get the same mileage around town and that is not highway but city! Can a stroker set-up meet this criteria and pass emissions? Otherwise the camshaft will be a custom grind, mild, but emphasizing torque from idle up to 5000 RPM. The intake is still a matter I am trying to figure out but for optimization and it's sake, long runners are meant for torque production, not short runners. GM built the LT1 with short runners but for my needs as a daily driver, it should have a TPI version for itself.
I give up.
6SpeedTA95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2017, 04:30 PM   #55
Tom400CFI
CF Senior Member
 
Tom400CFI's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2004
Location: Park City Utah
Posts: 11,300
Thanked 341 Times in 307 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 View Post
All things being equal if power goes up at a given RPM so does fuel consumption. You make power by burning fuel, whether thats at 2000rpm or 10000rpm. Does fuel burn change based on RPM sure...but you make 200ft lbs at 2000 rpm vs 250 you'll burn more gas at 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix'97 View Post
So, lets look at it this way, which is more fuel efficient? 250 ft lbs at 2000 rpm or 250 ft lbs at 4000 rpm?
Guys both of the posts are irrelevant. ^Speed TA, you're right that making more power requires more fuel...but the car doesn't require more power to go a given speed down the highway, b/c of upgrades. It takes about 20 hp to push a 'Vette down the road at 70 mph no matter what engine is in it.

Now, it's more efficient to get those 20hp at the lowest RPM possible, and/or the smallest engine possible -which ever can do it with the most efficient combustion and least friction.

And now we're into the realm of splitting hairs. In the real world, gas mileage probably won't change by a meaningful amount.

OP. I posted earlier about my gas mileage going from a 305 to a 400. I was also the first to talk about stroker cranks. Are you even reading any of my posts?
Tom400CFI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2017, 04:54 PM   #56
Phoenix'97
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Member Since: Oct 2017
Posts: 49
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom400CFI View Post
Guys both of the posts are irrelevant. ^Speed TA, you're right that making more power requires more fuel...but the car doesn't require more power to go a given speed down the highway, b/c of upgrades. It takes about 20 hp to push a 'Vette down the road at 70 mph no matter what engine is in it.

Now, it's more efficient to get those 20hp at the lowest RPM possible, and/or the smallest engine possible -which ever can do it with the most efficient combustion and least friction.

And now we're into the realm of splitting hairs. In the real world, gas mileage probably won't change by a meaningful amount.

OP. I posted earlier about my gas mileage going from a 305 to a 400. I was also the first to talk about stroker cranks. Are you even reading any of my posts?
I am reading every post and digesting the information as best as I can with some degree of criticism here and there. This is an educational experience so forgive where I am clearly naive. I have a clear goal for this build with the amount of understanding and previous knowledge that I have thus far. With this said, would a stroker crank set-up suffer from poor city mileage and falling out of emissions compliance. From information I have looked it, depending upon the owner's set-up, the stroker cranks hardly seem to meet my build criteria. Am I missing something?
Phoenix'97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2017, 05:51 PM   #57
Tom400CFI
CF Senior Member
 
Tom400CFI's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2004
Location: Park City Utah
Posts: 11,300
Thanked 341 Times in 307 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix'97 View Post
I am reading every post and digesting the information as best as I can with some degree of criticism here and there. This is an educational experience so forgive where I am clearly naive. I have a clear goal for this build with the amount of understanding and previous knowledge that I have thus far. With this said, would a stroker crank set-up suffer from poor city mileage and falling out of emissions compliance. From information I have looked it, depending upon the owner's set-up, the stroker cranks hardly seem to meet my build criteria. Am I missing something?
Yes.
1. a stroker MOST DIRECTLY meets your criteria. I already typed it above, so I'll just cop and paste rather than typing it again:
Quote:
I'm recommending a stoker crank (and nothing else) as it will accomplish exactly what you're looking for. It will slightly lower your power band or "tq curve", and it will increase tq at all RPM from 0- ~4500 or so
2. The stroker crank increases displacement so you should get more air/fuel in each combustion cycle (for a given throttle angle) and it increases the lever arm of the crank. Longer arm=more torque.

3. City mileage is 99% based on how you drive it. If you drive it like grandma and short shift every gear, you could get better mileage than you do now (what ever that is). If you exploit the fun that it can provide at every stop light...well...it's making more power, so it's going to use more fuel. You're not going to avoid that regardless of engine mod choices. Only way to make the car more FUN in city driving and maintain economy is to reduce weight.

I don't think "city mileage" is a criteria that you should weigh very heavily. If you do, get a Prius and save the 'Vette/fun driving for the weekends.
Tom400CFI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2017, 06:06 PM   #58
Tom400CFI
CF Senior Member
 
Tom400CFI's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2004
Location: Park City Utah
Posts: 11,300
Thanked 341 Times in 307 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix'97 View Post
The chart you are citing is torque production contrast between the L98 and the LT1. These are two different motors, naturally, and the LT1 has higher compression than the L98 and a slightly better fuel injection system.
You're right about compression and low end tq. My take away from those charts is that equal compression, they'd both make equal low RPM tq. The LTR intake isn't helping the low rpm tq... -it works at and around one RPM; 3200. Fuel injection system on the LT1 is not meaningfully better. They're both batch fired, speed density systems with junky multec injectors for each port. The LT1 does have better timing control and cooling though I feel that the benefits of those things are for the OEM (emissions certs) and not so much the user.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix'97 View Post
However, what projected torque curve of this graph would represent this same LT1 with a TPI style intake?! The torque curve, in theory, should shift and peak higher in the mid-RPM range. This is why I am inquiring about this intake for my build, to intentionally optimize the LT1 motor for low to mid-range torque production.
Then get a stroker crank. Why would putting a TPI intake on an LT1 "shift and peak higher"?? It would peak at the same RPM is does on a TPI motor. It would likely peak ~10 ft-lb higher than an LT1 intake...but then plummet like a rock above 3500, just like it does on the L98 engine.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix'97 View Post
Lastly, I was told short headers are for low RPM torque while long headers are for high RPM torque, the source was Summit Racing, so who is telling the truth?
Not Summit. Longer primary exhaust tubes function similarly to longer intake tubes; they move their contribution to tq, DOWN the RPM range. Shorter primary exhaust tubes function similarly to shorter intake tubes; they move their contribution to tq, UP the RPM range.

There are tons of dyne test, articles and expert experience on this topic. I'd submit that you misunderstood Summit...or they simply made a typo. HERE IS SOME READING for you. Scroll down to the section labelled "What Primary Pipes Do".

For your goals, you want LONG tube headers and LONG collector (mid pipe) before expanding into any chamber (cats, muffs, X or H pipes, etc.).


Last edited by Tom400CFI; 10-12-2017 at 08:03 PM.
Tom400CFI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2017, 08:00 PM   #59
Kevova
CF Senior Member
 
Kevova's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2013
Location: near the thumb in the mitten
Posts: 1,567
Thanked 140 Times in 133 Posts
Default

There's a accell lt1 super ram base that maybe available in the parts wtd/ fs section. There is no mention if it sold 6sspd is seller. The runners and plenum are more easily found. Search it.
Kevova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2017, 08:29 PM   #60
cuisinartvette
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Oct 2004
Location: Valencia Ca.
Posts: 62,893
Thanked 660 Times in 606 Posts
Default

Theres also a brand new never used superram for sale on LA craiglist maybe david frederick here on the forum can make it work for you hes good with them.

OP check your pm box

Last edited by cuisinartvette; 10-12-2017 at 08:29 PM.
cuisinartvette is offline   Reply With Quote
Go Back   CorvetteForum - Chevrolet Corvette Forum Discussion >
Reload this Page
  • How would an aftermarket LT1 intake with long runners effect the performance?!
  •  
     
    Reply

    Related Topics
    Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
    Looking for advice on putting Tuned Port Injection on my 79 L82 Priya C4 Tech/Performance 41 10-10-2016 03:48 PM
    L98 LT1 Intake swap C4 Monster C4 Tech/Performance 11 06-16-2016 12:46 PM
    Twin Turbo L98 C4 - looking for advice TurboJ81 C4 Tech/Performance 1 03-28-2016 07:34 PM
    1st Vette: Stall Converter as 1st mod?? DrRaySomeDay C5 General 7 12-30-2015 10:33 AM
    BBC Edelbrock Hyd Performer-Plus Camshaft & Kit #2162 dsagers C3 Parts for Sale/Wanted 5 11-12-2015 09:55 AM


    Thread Tools Search this Thread
    Search this Thread:

    Click for Advanced Search

    Posting Rules
    You may not post new threads
    You may not post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are Off
    Pingbacks are Off
    Refbacks are Off

    Forum Jump

    Sponsored Ads
    Vendor Directory

    All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:36 PM.


     
    • Ask a Question
      Get answers from community experts
    Question Title:
    Description:
    Your question will be posted in: