Well if I could understand french it might be useful. Other than that it's just a few pictures of a T-ram. More likely just another SLP advertisement. Advertisements always gonna be biassed. I like the Richard Holdener dyno video where the SR and even a carbureted dual plane put the T-ram in its place while the HSR split the difference.

 

On a stock or mild 350 the T-ram is probably the better choice. You're just not taking advantage of a super ram or mini or anything like that. That T-ram is the wrong choice for that 383 and I'd imagine everyone agrees. The SR following it seems like the best balance for that engine imo. (I know, not the discussion but just a thought experiment. It's almost as bad as me putting my stock intake on my build lol.)

 

Certainly one built to the extent that one in the 10x the torque article. I agree. In the summit racing graphs, with a milder 383, the T-Ram appears to do better than the Super Ram. But I agree that on a stockish 350, it would shine. That makes sense, since a 350 is what they were designing the intake for and trying to maximize output with. T-Ram, Super Ram...both fantastic and really cool intakes from the era. I dig 'em both!

Card-O appears to have some issue w/the T-Ram. IDK what it is or why, but he don't seem to like it. OR...he don't like that I have one and that I do like it. IDK. The cool thing though is....Card-O don't have to buy or have a T-Ram! He can happily, not have one and we'll all be in good shape.

 

I don't have any issue with the T-ram but I do think it's somewhat over rated. It does look like it's gonna make the power of a supercharger - but again I think it's over-glorified. Not trying to bash it's design either but it does have a weakness in all the turns the airflow has to make. In fact I would like to see the T-ram and the super ram still in production as it's a struggle to find an equivalent replacement for the TPI. It looked like the Extrude Hone stock intake in that Richard Holdener dyno comparison was extending the RPM range of the TPI nicely while producing a huge torque curve. But who knows how much the Extrude Hone process costs.
I would like to see a dyno comparison of the Mercury dual plane EFI with multiport injection but thats just a dream unless someone spends the money to make it happen.

Don't take it personal just because someone else has a different view and thoughts.

 

I think it would probably look like a scaled back LT1. Flat torque and not peaky. (Every performance based merc curve I've seen)

 

Last time I checked back in 2006 it was 1k. You send them your intake , runners and heads. I had a super ram with the Accel intake and some Dart heads I think. I did not go through with it

 

I don't. But that's not the entire scope of your T-Ram posting history. I probably take it a little personal when you post stiff like this:

I mean....WTF is that? Is that your best contribution to this place? Is that you just having "different view and thoughts."? I'm going to go ahead and say that was a bit more than just having a "different view and thoughts". At the very least it's irritating and not helpful in any way.



I don't take it personal, but it's annoying and hurts the forum when you post bad information and do so as though it's fact, and you're some authority, like this (and other gems)....
^That wasn't true then, or now.
....or that turns in the plenum hurt performance. You have no idea. I have no idea. Until either of us throws a T-Ram on a dyno and run it with the plenum caps removed....we don't know. So why would you post stuff like that as though it's fact?
Post a link where a test was run showing whatever. Otherwise, it's just WAG'ing and speculation, which is fairly useless.


In the end, none of that matters. I have an over rated, over glorified intake manifold -according to one man's views and thoughts, I'm stoked that I have it and I'm looking forward to putting it on and getting more usable RPM along with some dyno result with the thing. It'll be fun. Best of all, Card-O doesn't have to buy one...OR post in threads about 'em.

 

Okay, dig up the mud! Those posts from over 2 years ago only verify your still butt hurt. So your attempt to re-post me from another thread 2 years ago is just more of your general harassment trash. Since you can't see my contribution from my thoughts and ideas then you should use the ignore list. Your self-appointed enforcer actions only create fights. I don't need to quote you 3 times for others to see what your doing.

Well it's true, turning air reduces the total energy of the moving fluid - it's some serious math. Here's one link: http://www.thermopedia.com/content/577/
Here's another: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jr...21n1p1_A1b.pdf
And a US government handbook of hydraulic resistance (start on section 6, page 195): https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1220/ML12209A041.pdf

Problem is the math required to understand the pressure losses from bends is really too tough to tackle though there maybe some engineering types here that can understand it.

And it's true the T-ram did flop. There was less than something like 500 ever made. What really killed it only SLP knows. Maybe not performance but it did die an early death. The SR finally died also though it took much longer.

In the end I glad your happy with your T-ram intake. And I hope others can understand it better before they spend their hard earned $$ on one - or any other TPI replacement intake.

 

I could be misinformed, but I thought the reason the T-ram is so rare was a fire in the early 1990's destroyed all the SLP, equipment, info and tooling related to the T-ram and since the OEM's had just moved onto the LT1 platform SLP deemed it not worth reinventing the T-ram just for enthusists to purchase, but had it not been for the fire many more might have been sold to enthusists.

 

The T Ram arrived in 91 extremely late to the party. It was an.improvement over TPI and emission legal. I found information, which of course i can't find now, discribing it's development was somewhat based on the Ford 5.0 MPFI intake. Different form of equal length runners with a larger plenum. If the T Ram came in the middle and not the end maybe it would have had more development at a manufacturer level. The lt1 in 92 sealed it's fate. GM wasn't going to install TPI on trucks. They really should have it's characteristics were low end grunt and towing. IMO it has potential but were are talking about and engine designed in the early 50's.

 

I'm still waiting for the BBK Turtle Ram prototype to show up someplace

 

Ha ha ha...IDK that the Turtle ram is going to come to fruition.


It was representative, and on topic. I'm not sorry I did that: you said it..."sharing your thoughts". Who was "harassing"? Who is in this thread? You've contributed **** to my thread.



Of course a turn disrupts flow compared to no turns. The question is (as it pertains to your "contribution" to this thread and the T-Ram), is it enough disruption at the velocities in the plenum, to be meaningful? In the plenum, probably not, but in reality, you don't know. I don't know. We don't know. You're guessing. I'm guessing. Is the plenum layout what causes the shortfall to the Super Ram on a more radical 383? I doubt it and by my position: The T-Ram is limited compared to the SR on a bigger motor b/c of the runner cross sectional area. Not the plenum layout. That is a guess though. Measuring the runners' cross sections could answer that for us and would be more constructive than making **** up.



Yeah? How sure are you about that?
I recall that as well, now that you mentioned it.
SOME T-RAM HISTORY

Car-0, I invite you to take your WAG's, misinformation and exit this thread, since it is about an intake that you clearly don't like. Please go troll the SR threads.

 

Yes the BBK Turtle Ram was quite a teaser. Had pretty much forgotten about it but when it was first advertised I had high hopes for it.

 

Hello Tom,

Any chance you would like to sell that T-Ram?

 

I am interested in knowing how to get the fuel injectors in if the rails are embedded. I love the idea.

That is an epic find Tom.

 

The manifold splits in 1/2 horizontally. So you stuff the injectors into one part; the top or the bottom, then line up all 8 of the other end as you lower the top down onto the base, and the upper and lower "pinch" the injectors into their respective orifices.

 

I posted the paragraphs (below) in Aug 2020. Guessing I did it just after a site upgrade...the one that made it (too) easy to scroll to another thread. After rereading this today, it scrolled to an intake thread in the C6 forum -- where I found this post! LOL (BTW...I find the resistance to this intake ironic after Yak's recent thread on TPI's. I have to agree it SEEMS counter-intuitive to have such an odd air pathway -- but the results speak for themselves!) I dunno why but I was thinking you resold this? Did you find two and sell one? Anyway...

Here's my mis-placed post from Aug-2020:
Cool stuff, Tom. I have always been a big fan of the 10 TPI test. I am surprised to FINALLY see a vid (live?) version of the article posted. The one that's always been missing is the FIRST intake. That said, seeing the performance of the T-ram (in dyno form), I have to wonder about port size. Seems like they must be (and LOOK) pretty darn big....maybe near the FIRST?

Also have to think the 90-deg bend "argument" might be a lower issue circumvented by runner length...meaning runner length might be a "restriction" before the bends. (This means I agree bends can't be "good" for an intake...just like they aren't good for an exhaust. Here, the runner size might negate any losses from bends? More importantly, I have to think the plenum "proper" includes the removable sides...meaning the intake is really drawing air from those...Because their inlets from the primary plenum are so big.

One other thing I like about this config is, compared to a semi-siamesed setup, runner inlets are opposed -- and more "shielded" from other cylinder reversion.

Like other said....nice find!

 

Your thinking is spot on. I sold it. Why? It performed SO well, it's different, and looks cool. $3500 is why. I did love the thing, but it's just worth WAY too much for a guy like me and my interest level. Also, it truly belongs on a Firehawk car or a well done Firehawk clone....and that is where it went. It's a waste on a 'Vette Kart. IMO. I got to have one and I've always wanted one. I got to compare it and see what it could do....then I turned it into cash which will make a lot more power with other parts.
IDK if you saw this stuff from the other thread, so I'll add it here too.


Runners aren't that big, honestly. I think that they're sized just about right for a 350 CID engine making peak power below 6000 RPM....and that is what it does. Runners are:
The mouth of the runner, at the plenum. 1.88 x 1.18 = 2.21" sq
The top of the lower intake. 2.09" x 1.14 = 2.38"sq
The intake to head flange size; 1.84 x 1.14 = 2.09. So there is a little bit of taper. Not much.
Runner's are approximately 11.5" in length.


That is exactly right. The plenum is everything down the middle, behind the TB. And everything between the runners running out to the sides...and also, the volume of the side "tanks" as well. It's a big plenum and I don't think be a meaningful "restriction" due to the velocity through that space.



That is true. Also, the runners bend slightly away from each other, such that the mouths are not right next to each other; a great idea that I wonder why is not used on most SBC single plane intakes?