1st Gen. Perf. Intake?
#1
1st Gen. Perf. Intake?
Does anyone make an aftermarket intake elbow? I see them for the 94 and up trucks. Will the 94-98.5 fit my 92? at what point do I have to consider upgrading my valve springs, and injectors? I retorqued my head bolts and only one moved a fraction of an inch. So I don't need to go with head studs until later.What about a 4" turbo downpipe for cheap? I would like to go 4" exhaust to let my Cummins breathe
#2
i think most of us just make up our own intake. u need the springs i believe if you go for the 4k rpm spring but ud be plenty happy with the 3200 rpm spring. if you havent done any pump mods do that first before you get injectors and get a perfomance fuel pin, like denny t or something not bully dog. like i said get the 3200 rpm spring. that will keep you happy for a while, until you save up enough money to get injectors and put on a different turbo at the same time too to off set the added fuel.
#6
Build your own intake. It's very easy and you will save alot of money. If I say it's easy, trust me it's easy, because I have very little skillz. Mine is a used AFE Proguard 7, two 45* elbows, some clamps, about 15" of 4" exhaust tubing, and black spray paint.
Or you can buy an ASA modifieds intake with filter for about $200 + shipping.
Or you can buy an ASA modifieds intake with filter for about $200 + shipping.
#7
ya thats tims worlines stuff aint it butt i had a guy tell me that all that air wouldnt help unless i put in a better intake manifold there is a tunnel ram intake manifold made out of billet aluminum for 225 because the stock one wont flow all the air your pushing to it its just gunna create more pressure what do you think?
#8
so-&-so's truck made XXX hp and its all stock.
So how did he do it? What EXACTLY was done to it? Why isnt everyone (including you!) doing the same then?
4 things make a diesel run. Air, Fuel, Compression, & Timing. Compression and timing have a profound affect in minute adjustments. Air & fuel, the more you can pass through the engine the more power it makes.
If you said the stock intake on a small block chevy was restrictive when trying to double its power, no one would argue. Now tell them the same thing about tripling the power in a Cummins and your a fool?
The following 3 users liked this post by Turbolvr:
#9
the intake on a naturally aspirated gas engine is dramatically effected by port size/shape and plenum area and design. a turbo diesel is a whole different ball game. when youre adding "power" to a SBC youre typically doing it by adding more radical parts to gain power in the upper rpm area and looking at the "hp" not the torque.
not saying that decreasing a restriction in your intake path is a bad thing but forced induction diesel engines show less of a change for such an expensive part.
not saying that decreasing a restriction in your intake path is a bad thing but forced induction diesel engines show less of a change for such an expensive part.
#10
I just used the SBC as a common example.
It has been challenged and proven time and again that, the air horn/intake grid/intake plate is not THE most beneficial component to change to see huge power gains BUT it DOES help.
Like any other part of the equation, eliminating restrictions in the flow path speeds/smoothes the air charge to the cylinders making more raw and useable power throughout the entire RPM band, as well as gains in MPGs and lower EGTs.
Again, not stupendous, but there are gains and that fact should not simply be dismissed
because someone made decent numbers without it. He prolly would've done even BETTER with it!
It has been challenged and proven time and again that, the air horn/intake grid/intake plate is not THE most beneficial component to change to see huge power gains BUT it DOES help.
Like any other part of the equation, eliminating restrictions in the flow path speeds/smoothes the air charge to the cylinders making more raw and useable power throughout the entire RPM band, as well as gains in MPGs and lower EGTs.
Again, not stupendous, but there are gains and that fact should not simply be dismissed
because someone made decent numbers without it. He prolly would've done even BETTER with it!
The following users liked this post:
BC847 (10-12-2012)