View Single Post
Old 09-05-2006, 05:28 PM   #5
NJSPEEDER
NJFBOA Co-Founder
 
NJSPEEDER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: All up in your kool aid!
Posts: 12,235
iTrader: (10)
it would prolly be easier and more pratical to use just the flange, floor, and water passages from the original.
think of it more a a dual tube design, some thing like the banks high power intakes and the viper use. a long tube with down leads into the ports.
i would also suggest you rotate the throttle bodies 90degrees so that the bell cranks are at the top. it will greatly reduce teh compexity of the linkage needed.
are you looking for an all out power set up or more of a progressive control for economy and power?
with a pair of smaller tb's you could see a major increase in flow, using a progressive linkage on an open plenum intake, like you suggested in the pictures, could allow you to program the engine a bit leaner at cruising loads and add a boat load of economy.
with a twin tube set up you can take advantage of the increased volume of only feeding one bank at a time and still maintain high air velocity with a properly sized TB. if you go with a seoperate tube for each bank you would definately need some sort of balance port between the two.
the open plenum design woudl have a turbulance issue to some degree. at higher air velocities(higher rpm), you would get a major pulse draw in that huge open area. a cam with more overlap would help as it sort of fades out the draw pulse instead of having spikes in draw from cyl to cyl. that would however cost you a lot of drivability and any chance at fuel economy.

[/A.D.D. nerd ramblings]
__________________
Tim - NJSPEEDER
Currently F-bodyless

New Jersey F-Body Owners Association
NJSPEEDER is offline   Reply With Quote