Phoenix'97

Not interested. Furthermore the intake won't clear the cowl portion of the engine bay, even if it could be specially modified for a slight reduction in height. The FIRST TPI intake has more promise to fit, but it can't be more than eight inches tall so either the runners are shortened or the runners are compressed more, which it may hurt performance.

Phoenix'97

This is the video I referenced:

The chart you provided, where did it come from? It looks like it is home made.

I am still not so sure about the stroker kit. If the displacement is increased then surely it is burning more fuel, even at idle. Yes, I want more torque, but I am willing to live with myself if it must lie with a mild "RV" camshaft.

Then there is the intake issue... I need more graphs and more personal experience. If long runners are intended for more low to mid-range torque and the limit is usually 4500 RPM, it won't be a problem for me as I have no desire to rev past 5000, it makes my shifting easier.

Tom400CFI

That video is bunk. He's wrong. His attempt to compare the shorty to as stock exhaust manifold as a reason why it makes more low end tq is wrong.


Came from the article that is linked in the same post I made, as the graph. Did you read it? There's tons more like them.



They're not. They're intended for MID RANGE tq. That is obvious as hell if you look at the tq graph that I provided for you.


*I* think you want from this thread is your LTR idea validated. I'm not going to do that for you. You're message is very conflicting -like you have no idea what you really want (or you want everything, which you can't have), or you're just here to argue. For example:
Ya tell us that you're happy to sacrifice power/performance for low and mid tq...but then you tell cuisinartvette that you're concerned about "hurt performance" with the FIRST from shortened runners?? Which is it?
And that was after you said that the Superram won't fit under the hood or cooler or whatever.... The Superram will fit. It was designed specifically FOR F-bodies and Y-bodies (Corvette).

Ya want more tq...but you're afraid of gas mileage (even after I gave you an example of a 100 CID increase where there was no increase in fuel consumption). But seriously, here...if you're going to increase acceleration...you're gonna burn more fuel! Intake or stroker...how ever you accomplish it, if you exploit whatever change you make, THAT is going to burn fuel. If you're concerned about fuel, you might have the wrong car/hobby.

Let me ask you this: What intake do YOU want on your car?

383vett

Wrong. A SuperRam will work under the stock hood of a Corvette. I ran one for years. It's by far the best street/performance manifold around in my opinion. Huge flat torque curve from just off idle and mine pulled to 6200 rpm. I launched at 1900 rpm, shifted at 6200 and ran low elevens. I'm not sure why you place such an emphasis in fuel mileage. If you're willing to spend a thousand or two to upgrade your motor or intake, what difference does a mile or two mpg make? Less than a hundred dollars a year.

6SpeedTA95

I agree with everything you've stated here.

Phoenix'97

From searching the internet I am getting two very conflicting statements on which is better. The first opinion states that the shorty header is ideal for low RPM torque, it sure as heck can not be used for high RPM torque, which the long header is better for. The other statement claims the long tube header outperforms the shorty even at low RPM, which I find hard to believe if the exhaust system has too much scavenging going on. Again, this is where I need more information on how to build my set-up.

I left a different forum because they were getting too hostile and not respecting my curiosity on how to produce better low end torque. I understand if you are frustrated by my challenging your knowledge, however, I am frustrated that no one seems to understand what my goal is when I state DAILY DRIVER performance. The car spends most of it's time at 1000 to 3000 RPM which is where she cruises and shifts. My complaint is high way cruising when I enter a steep incline, the car starts slowing down indicating to me that it requires more low end torque. I don't need mid-range torque as in a stroker because I am not driving most of my time beyond 3000 RPM, where it would make a difference! I have to be mindful of fuel economy, I can't take a loss on the bottom end to gain mid-range power when really I need to bump up the bottom end torque, understand? This car is going to remain pretty much stock with the exception of building the motor to have low end torque and sputter out around 5000 RPM with a necessary "RV" camshaft which this only lends more credibility to having a TPI style intake on my car, to force the torque curve of the LT1 to behave like the L98. As I said, I am trying to squeeze out as much low end torque as I possibly can and this is the best way to do it, in my mind.

Phoenix'97

I have a 1997 WS6 Trans Am 6-speed with the LT1 motor, I do not have a corvette. The SuperRam WILL NOT clear the overhead cowl of the engine bay in my F-body. The most I can fit is an eight inch tall intake modeled after the TPI intake that I am likely going to ask FFI to custom fabricate for me. The runners will likely be a tad smaller than those for the L98 but it should translate into a slight increase in RPM airflow. With the necessary research and development, maybe the LT1 will require slightly shorter long runners anyways.

rocco16

FWHP? What kind of car did you do all this to?

To the OP: for the results you say you want, I'd go to 4.11 gears. Cheaper. Fewer headaches. Immediate, noticeable performance.

cv67

the bigger motor will give you more torque everywhere period

drcook

67 posts later, what a bunch of folks have been saying regarding an LT1 in a '97

while there are probably corvette owners on here that have had the same platform you do AND motor building is motor building, here is another forum that can help you do research as regarding the LT1 motor in a non-Corvette

http://www.ls1lt1.com/

Phoenix'97

Hence why I refrained from admitting what car I have until I had to. Even so, the comments are more polite on this forum than the previous LS site I was on. If I am not considered a troll of some sort I would like to remain for the duration of this post while I gather necessary opinions and information.

Phoenix'97

Yes, I understand, lower rear gear ratio and I have a more peppy motor. The downside though, I lose highway mileage and now I am accelerating too fast in city traffic and spending more time in higher RPM ranges. This all equates to less fuel mileage from the average I am now getting. Increased low end torque would offer some more acceleration but hardly that offered by a lower rear gear. For my build, and with my experience daily driving, my stock gear ratio strikes a perfect balance between fuel economy and acceleration. I just need more low end torque. Yes, I realize my proposed mods to the LT1 will be pricey but again, this paves the way for a new product for the LT1 market and adds a new dynamic for those who can try to strike their own balance if trying out a TPI style intake for the LT1.


Yes but if I have to trade off some lost low end torque and a loss in city fuel mileage, I should probably avoid trying to increase the displacement of my motor, despite how tempting it is. Seriously, with a stroker kit, I would find myself then trying to limit airflow in an attempt to make up for the loss of fuel economy, which would encourage me to keep the LT1 intake simply because of this in terms of low rpm airflow. Forget any notions of mild porting my heads and then I would bug the tuning shop to set my air-fuel ratio as lean as could safely be done. I have carefully considered what I would have to do if I decide to go the stroked route. With a mild RV camshaft and a TPI style intake paired with my shorty headers and a true dual exhaust linked by an H pipe and using my stock rear gear ratio, I stand to gain some slight acceleration with more low end torque, better highway passing power, and I can now remain in sixth gear for the minor inclines I encounter that force me to keep downshifting currently. I can probably achieve the same result with a stroker kit, but I really don't want to drastically alter my car's idle and drive ability with a lopping stroker kit.

cv67

the stroker wont make it lope at all in fact it will tame what would be a lopey cam for a 350. You want the best flowing head possible that way you can run a small cam so its efficient...with a poor head youll need more cam for the same power result. No free lunch..once it strays from stock youre going to lose something somewhere
noone really makes aftermarket intakes for C4s the market isnt there. As the cars get cheaper the owners are less likely to spend $500 or more for an intake

edit the larger motor will have you opening the throttle less to get up to the same speed

Tom400CFI

That is why I posted a link to a decent article...which you obviously didn't read. If you HAD read it, you'd have clarity on the header issue, and you wouldn't say things like the bold, above.




That's not true at all. The vast majority in this thread have heard and acknowledged and accepted your (unusual) criteria!....and then have gone on to give you the best advice they can. And mostly, it's damned good advice. As good as you'll get. The REAL problem here is that...




Say...WHAT!??? Who said that? When? Where? I don't believe that has been said at all. IN FACT, that was said, about your pipe-dream (and the TPI) intakes. I even posted a tq graph that literally highlights that ~3000 RPM tq bump that the intake creates.

No, No one said that the stroker crank works at 3000 RPM. No one said a stroker crank works in the "mid range". IN FACT, here is what *I* said about stroker cranks...



*I* understand. Stroker.



Then why have you wasted good people's time seeking there valuable knowledge...when you already know what is the "best way to do it"??? You've already got it all figured out...why waste our time? Just go do it. Spend 1000's on an intake and gain 10 ft lbs at 3000 rpm! Do it!

I believe that I even suggested what is REALLY going on in post #40:
..and post #63
There are WAY too many inconsistencies, things you say that don't "jibe"...yep. I'm smelling something. It smells a lot like another new member, Ian.g who also registered the same day you did, asked for help...then didn't listen. Very similar.




THAT is how you get the label, "", on this forum and others. Sorry, but it's true.

Tom400CFI

Also...I can't help myself....is this **** FOR REAL???
Yikes.

FYI, there is no market for the product that you're proposing. You are the only guy who wants to spend $$$ to decrease hp.

Kevova

You drive a m6 if you feel engine bogging down you down shift. If you had an automatic transmission the pcm would sense the load and turn off converter clutch. If load was still too high, pcm would command downshift to 3rd. You somewhat Trolled this forum. You could have started this thread in the F body or other car sections. Worrying about fuel economy and driving a WS6 Trans Am is somewhat of a oxymoron. For the LT1 Corvette shorty headers biggest benefit is there lighter than cast iron. The f body exhaust is completely different than the Corvette. Intake wise you are very limited because most of the engine is under the windshield. If you were straight up about what you had; you likely still would have replies that more applied to your car. The Super Ram might fit, but you would have to drop the engine out of the car to install it. Then raise it back in.
93 -02 f bodies is not designed for engine to be removed through hood opening.

Phoenix'97

I was an 18-wheeler truck driver, I know something about downshifting when I feel the motor losing power. The problem is, I am not driving a rig hauling 80,000 lbs of freight, I have a sports car that slows down on minor inclines on the throughway. The car should stay in 6th gear and cruise ahead without speed loss. If my car is doing this, it is also struggling driving around uneven city roads at low RPM. I want more low end torque and I aim to fix it.

Well, I wouldn't say I "trolled", I just don't have a corvette and frankly speaking I was betting on the corvette guys being more informative and polite versus the F-body and LS1/LT1 crowd who literally gave me a lashing for posting this topic. Apparently I am headed into another one judging from your comment. Oh well!

Trying to make a sports car more fuel efficient is not as much an "oxymoron" as you think. Some of us guys want powerful cars to take to the track, and others want to show off on the street for questionable reasons, I am trying to salvage my motor by giving it more power down below. This is not only great for fuel efficiency but it is something I can feel during hard acceleration, for fun. I don't aim to race anyone, but I do want to be pushed back into my seat. Now, am I going about this the right way with wanting a TPI intake? Well, if I imagine the L98 having the same starting torque as an LT1 while keeping it's torque curve, so you shift it up 40 lbs ft, I start thinking the TPI intake is a smart move. I am not the only guy who has asked about a TPI intake on the LT1 and to have been shot down by those who care only for high RPM performance. My gift will be the option for daily drivers of LT1s to have a bolt-on TPI style intake that will fit under the tight engine bay of our F-bodies, and FFI will be the place to get it from. Yes, it's a lot of money but so too is a brand new car, especially a brand new top of the line Corvette.

Tom400CFI

Damn good looking car.

I find it odd that your car can't climb hills on the highway. My car will climb all/any highway hills around here in 6th gear, same rear gear, same 6th gear, and similar weight. But here's the catch; I'm at 4500-8000' elevation in the rocky mtns; my daily commute requires me to climb ~3000' over 13 miles...6th gear easy. Going the other direction, I climb ~3000' over 6 miles. That's not a highway and I use 5th for that. Anyway, like you, I would expect that car to be able to go on any interstate highway and stay in 6th gear. LT1 intake or otherwise, it ought to be able to do it -especially at lower elevations. So my big question is: why won't your car do it? Have you ever dyne'ed or drag tracked it to see if it's..."all there"?

Phoenix'97

Well, the car is using the stock camshaft and parts of the car are 20 years old, like the transmission. She isn't a garage queen and I DO drive her in the winter. So, I really, REALLY, need to be careful with which modifications I do!

You guys can joke all you want and insult me with crazy emojis, but I do appreciate the ideas thus far and I will be considering them from the long tube headers which must have emissions hook-ups and those for the oxygen sensors, and California catalytic converters right behind them, to the stroker proposal. There is always someone who is made fun of, might as well be me. This is why we are having this discussion for others like me to find this post.

rocco16

You don't want to give up fuel mileage (because of increased costs, I presume), yet you'd pay a professional to fabricate a one-off, custom intake? Illogical, Spock.

Also, you can keep from "accelerating too fast" by modulating the throttle with, like, your right foot...and can avoid "spending more time in the higher RPM ranges" by the simple expedience of upshifting.

I fail to follow your line of reasoning. After all, your search for more low-end torque is to provide faster acceleration (which would put you in a state of higher rpm sooner, usually)....is it not??