FastTA, and/or others...

[Squat13]

well...how about i tell you the specs on my motor...i hate doing this....

396 with a pretty hugh..no let me rephrase that..a really [EDIT] big solid roller. looking to make about 480 hp

your thinking single plane intake for my motor now right???

The thing about the LT1 Manifold is that it was designed to be used with a 350 CI SBC with a "less than radical cam." I once read about a build up on an LT1 were the goal was 1,000 HP. They ran AFR head, Twin Garrets, I think a off'stroke Callies crank was used to get something like 366CI. they ran a Coil on plug system and a rather large cam (.650+ at the valve). They eventualy broke the 1,000 HP mark but not befor they decided the LT1 intake and TB setup just would not let enough air in, and this was after they had taken the dremal to it.

The Twin TB design just wolnt let enough air in. The went to some type of trick DART high rise single Plane with a Accel 1,000 CFM TB. But really man you put almost 2000$ in to one of the awsomest compters out there, DOnt throw it away for some Cold war era peice of alumanie

[Squat13]

you guys like that spelling. OO YEAH

[Injuneer]

Here's an LT1 that made 1,125HP using (reworked) Canfield LT4 heads and the LT4 intake. When you consider its an S/C engine, that means it was making close to 1,300HP on the crank. No problems at all making that kind of HP with the LT1/LT4 intake. I have first-hand knowledge of all the specifics. The biggest problem with the LT1/LT4 intake is not the runners, they are just too short to present a problem. The problem is plenum volume, and there are off-the-shelf mod'd intake available to cure that problem. The car in the picture did not use anything other than a well ported LT4 intake, though.

[Joe 1320]

you guys like that spelling. OO YEAH

and that means...... what exactly?

[MurphysLaw]

the cams not that bad on gas mileage. the lift is 673 at the valves and my personal opinion is that my lt4 intake manifold will not hold enough volume just like Fred said. But I'm not sure if doing the switch with a single plane would be any better than the dual plane. It was very nice for my 355 that I had to begin with, it was extrude honed with AFR heads. I do understand what Fred is saying and I'm not that great with FI setups (thats force...not fuel), the motor is strictly NA.

I just might bit the bullet on this one and report my findings when the new heads come in.

[Squat13]

the cams not that bad on gas mileage. the lift is 673 at the valves and my personal opinion is that my lt4 intake manifold will not hold enough volume just like Fred said. But I'm not sure if doing the switch with a single plane would be any better than the dual plane. It was very nice for my 355 that I had to begin with, it was extrude honed with AFR heads. I do understand what Fred is saying and I'm not that great with FI setups (thats force...not fuel), the motor is strictly NA.

I just might bit the bullet on this one and report my findings when the new heads come in.

What exactly makes the LT1 intake a dual plane. Its not like an old Quadrjat Intake of a stock 327, or a Edelbrock performer. The thing has one open plentum and 8 runners that flow out of it. In a dual plane there are 2 planes or "plentums" that the motor sucks from, 4 to each.

[MurphysLaw]

hmmm...good question. I think that the LT1/4 aquired this name because of the shorter/smaller runners than a single plane.

I'm getting burnt out on my options...but I'm leaning towards the rmp air gap.