GM Inside - Ford Inside - Ford Ranger - Jeep - American Muscle

Support FSC and see no ads! - Click Here
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

5.3 intake manifold upgrades?

This is a discussion on 5.3 intake manifold upgrades? within the Performance forums, part of the General Discussion category; i know the LS6 is an upgrade from the stock intake on out trucks. but would a regular ls1 intake ...

  1. #1
    Offroad Engineerd Underpowered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    northern KY
    Age
    27
    Posts
    14,058

    5.3 intake manifold upgrades?


    Support FSC and see no ads! - Click Here
    i know the LS6 is an upgrade from the stock intake on out trucks. but would a regular ls1 intake be worth upgrading to?

    i have to replace my intake gaskets, and thought if i could find a decently price intake, i would go ahead and upgrade since it will already be off.

    what would be some good choices to look into for a quick power gain?
    new tow Rig rattles and smokes
    '89 K5 trail rig

  2. #2
    Drinking Sailor Jerry's Pewter-Q's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Louisiana
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,216

    Re: 5.3 intake manifold upgrades?

    From what I've read, the truck intake is the best for making lower-end torque. I don't know about the LS1 intake, but with the LS6 intake, a cam that would bring your torque curve up in the rpm's would be a good compliment to it.

    Built tranny sitting in the bed waiting to go in. Good things to come...

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    14

    Re: 5.3 intake manifold upgrades?

    You probably wont get any big gains going to a ls1 intake. It may make more power, yes it is a gain, but it will only be a number on a graph. Your truck MAY even slow down with a car intake such as the LS1 or LS6 intake. Your intake runner length and volume is matched to the displacement, and operating range. The cars have a bigger displacement for the most part ( 5.7L vs. 4.8L or 5.3L) and they have bigger camshafts as well. The runners are shorter (this moves the power up the rpm scale) as well as a larger volume (same story) The LS1 and LS6 also have approx. 10.5:1 static compression, where as your truck LS engine will be around 9.5:1.

    IF you want to utilize a car intake properly, I would personally, put a cam kit in it.

    I would order a cam kit from Texas Speed and Performance, with the comp 918 springs, and a 220/220 cam. This cam is rated for 1200-6200rpm and would make a great daily driver set up, not to mention a sweet idle too.

    Here is a idle video of a camaro with a 220/220 cam in it...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7EBu4pCvZs
    Last edited by LowSilver; 01-23-2009 at 09:15 PM.

    Weenie Little 4.8L
    4/6 DJM Drop.
    Stroker 6.0L at the drawing board...

  4. #4
    shake & bake 91_bowtie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    KCMO
    Age
    35
    Posts
    6,957

    Re: 5.3 intake manifold upgrades?

    The truck intake actually outflows the LS1 intake up to .600 valve lift.
    08 TBSS
    91 HD 3/4 ton
    03 Z71 Tahoe

  5. #5
    Offroad Engineerd Underpowered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    northern KY
    Age
    27
    Posts
    14,058

    Re: 5.3 intake manifold upgrades?

    do basically leave well enough alone.

    i plan on camming my truck eventually, just not right now.
    new tow Rig rattles and smokes
    '89 K5 trail rig

  6. #6
    - Luke 1989K1500's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Ravenna, Michigan
    Age
    25
    Posts
    5,322

    Re: 5.3 intake manifold upgrades?

    Yea just leave your truck intake.
    2001 rcsb Z71 06 clip, lowered, 6.0 LQ9, p&p 241s, cam, PI3600, LPP long tubes, etc. Tuned by TJ of Baker Engineering Inc - SOLD
    1989 rcsb 4x4, solid axled, HP44/14ff, 4.88s, 35s/20s

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    14

    Re: 5.3 intake manifold upgrades?

    Quote Originally Posted by 91_bowtie
    The truck intake actually outflows the LS1 intake up to .600 valve lift.

    "The 6-liter truck manifold is not a thing of beauty. Many mistakenly believe it to offer a performance gain over the LS1 manifold, but testing has disproved this theory, as these manifolds are designed for low end torque productions."

    -HPBooks - Chevy LS1/LS6 Performance

    BUT I still say stick with it because your truck will be a dog off the line if you do not upgrade the camshaft. And a converter would help too!
    Last edited by LowSilver; 01-24-2009 at 09:42 AM.

    Weenie Little 4.8L
    4/6 DJM Drop.
    Stroker 6.0L at the drawing board...

  8. #8
    shake & bake 91_bowtie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    KCMO
    Age
    35
    Posts
    6,957

    Re: 5.3 intake manifold upgrades?

    Quote Originally Posted by LowSilver
    "The 6-liter truck manifold is not a thing of beauty. Many mistakenly believe it to offer a performance gain over the LS1 manifold, but testing has disproved this theory, as these manifolds are designed for low end torque productions."

    -HPBooks - Chevy LS1/LS6 Performance

    BUT I still say stick with it because your truck will be a dog off the line if you do not upgrade the camshaft. And a converter would help too!
    What tests did they perform to disprove this? Where are the results? Surely, they wouldn't make such a claim, without backing it up. Why did they single out the 6.0 intake, when the 4.8 and 5.3 use the exact same intake? Here is some solid data that proves my side...

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard@WCCH
    With all the discussion about the various Gen 3 intakes, I thought Iíd do some bench testing of some of the different manifolds available. Some results were predictable and others were not. First I tested one of our Stage 2, 6.0l CNC ported intake ports with a radius flow plate to establish a baseline. Next I tested a rectangular radius flow plate that blocked off the triangular intake roof entrance. The rectangular plate approximates the size and location of the manifoldís runner match up at the head. In total I tested 5 intake manifolds. I didnít have a FAST to test, but if I get the opportunity, Iíll test and post the results.

    Lift______.100__.200__.300__.350__.400__.450__.500 __.550__.600__.650
    Port only__71.4_149.5_213.7_233.5_251.7_271.2_286.5_303 .1_280.6_286.5
    Rect.Plate_70.3_149.4_206.5_226.9_244.3_259.2_272. 2_275.7_274.6_278.8
    Truck Int._70.3_143.9_194.4_209.8_220.5_229.2_234.2_237. 7_243.1_248.5
    SSR90mm_70.3_145.0_190.0_205.0_215.9_226.3_238.3_2 48.4_253.0_256.2
    LS1 Int.___70.2_142.6_189.1_203.2_216.5_226.9_235.3_23 8.1_238.1_237.4
    LS6 Int.___70.2_144.4_200.0_215.8_227.6_238.1_244.9_25 0.2_256.0_263.0
    VictorJr.___71.4_147.7_205.7_224.7_240.2_254.7_268 .5_264.2_263.0_275.8

    The test was performed on a JKM600 Flow bench. I tested what would be the number 3 cylinder on each intake (one of the two center ports). There were no throttle bodies used in any of the tests. All ports were capped to force air to flow through the manifolds. My sources tell me that the 5.3l and 6.0l truck intakes are identical. If anyone can confirm this I'd appreciate it.

    Some comments and observationsÖÖ I wasnít too surprised to see the LS6 and Edelbrock intakes do better than the truck and LS1. I was surprised to see the SSR do as well as it did because it looks like a 90mm throttle body flange was grafted onto a standard truck intake. What can we learn from this test? These tests can help us evaluate each intake runners flow capacity. In other words, how restrictive they are. I suppose I should test each and every runner, but I haven't got the time for that. This test cannot tell us how the intake performs in entirety. Thatís up to the dyno or race track. I certainly believe the truck intake becomes a flow restriction in the higher rpm ranges especially on more highly tuned applications. The truckís dual chamber design can produce excellent low end torque similar to a dual plane carb intake, but sacrifice top end performance while the LS6 provides better mid range and top end but not quite like the Victor Jr..

    Please feel free to add any comments or suggestions.

    Richard




    And just the three intakes that the truck guys are generally interested in
    08 TBSS
    91 HD 3/4 ton
    03 Z71 Tahoe

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    14

    Re: 5.3 intake manifold upgrades?

    Flow numbers are flow numbers. The fact that it flows more is not a DIRECT factor of performance. Go ahead a stuff a truck intake on an LS1 and do some track testing, I am sure that would tell the true story.

    We have a flow bench, an engine dyno, and a chassis dyno in our engine shop. They are great TOOLS for testing and tuning, but the only thing that matters is what your time slip says at the end of the day in my mind.

    For example, the heads on my street car flowed 265cfm. Nothing to write home about, should work well on a 12 second car if we are looking at flow numbers. The engine dyno numbers showed the car should run 11.50-11.80's as well as the chassis dyno calculated to around 11.40's. All these calculations are assuming everything is they way it should be, gears, traction, etc. First time out, the gears were way off because I didn't change them from what my old combo was. The engine peaked at 5800rpm, I was turning 7400rpm at the top end, and ran 11.18@118mph. The car WILL run a ten this newxt year, and not one calculation was correct, or all that close for that matter.

    Like I said, flow numbers, hp numbers, etc. they can give you a ball park of what you need to get the job done, but the time slip tells the real story.

    Weenie Little 4.8L
    4/6 DJM Drop.
    Stroker 6.0L at the drawing board...

  10. #10
    Registered User JO1995's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    105

    Re: 5.3 intake manifold upgrades?

    sounds like someone didnt take his meds today
    04 GMC SIERRA Z71 ecsb 5.3L 4.10'S FLOWS TINTED WINDOWS AND TAILS CAI
    T BARS CRANKED AND 285/75/16 COOPER STT'S
    95 CHEVY RCSB 350 2WD.

  11. #11
    Black Beauty 02'Z71ONDUBZ''s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Age
    25
    Posts
    40

    Re: 5.3 intake manifold upgrades?

    Quote Originally Posted by LowSilver

    I would order a cam kit from Texas Speed and Performance, with the comp 918 springs, and a 220/220 cam. This cam is rated for 1200-6200rpm and would make a great daily driver set up, not to mention a sweet idle too.

    Here is a idle video of a camaro with a 220/220 cam in it...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7EBu4pCvZs
    I'm guessing that this is the 112 degrees of lobe separation? What would be the differences in performance from the 112,114,116 lobe separation cams? Any vacuum issues?
    2002 Chevy Z71
    Mazzi-Toyo-Rough Country-Gibson-Diablo-K&N-Kenwood-Infinity

  12. #12
    Offroad Engineerd Underpowered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    northern KY
    Age
    27
    Posts
    14,058

    Re: 5.3 intake manifold upgrades?

    i want a cam with about a 108 LSA. give it one hell of an idle.


    i plan on getting a cam eventually, but probably not a 220/220. something a bit smaller probably. i have heard that a 220 cam would not be the best for towing, which i do my fair share of with my truck
    new tow Rig rattles and smokes
    '89 K5 trail rig

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    14

    Re: 5.3 intake manifold upgrades?

    Quote Originally Posted by JO1995
    sounds like someone didnt take his meds today
    Why would you think that? I am just saying, flow numbers don't always prove that it will make more power.

    When designing an intake manifold, you have to take into consideration what rpm you want the engine to work at. This creates a frequency up the intake port. Your intake port length needs to match your frequency of the ideal operating range. There is more to it than that but that is the basics.


    Quote Originally Posted by 02'Z71ONDUBZ'
    I'm guessing that this is the 112 degrees of lobe separation? What would be the differences in performance from the 112,114,116 lobe separation cams? Any vacuum issues?
    There isn't a whole lot of info on that video, but I would say your not far off on the 112, it may be a 114.


    Quote Originally Posted by Underpowered
    i want a cam with about a 108 LSA. give it one hell of an idle.


    i plan on getting a cam eventually, but probably not a 220/220. something a bit smaller probably. i have heard that a 220 cam would not be the best for towing, which i do my fair share of with my truck

    I would HIGHLY recommend against the 108 lsa. My car I race has 110 lsa, and it gets about 4 mpg.

    The 220/220 isn't a real big cam, if you got it ground on a 114 lsa it would smooth out the idle a bit, and bring the power numbers down the rpm scale a bit.
    Last edited by LowSilver; 01-24-2009 at 09:59 PM.

    Weenie Little 4.8L
    4/6 DJM Drop.
    Stroker 6.0L at the drawing board...

  14. #14
    shake & bake 91_bowtie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    KCMO
    Age
    35
    Posts
    6,957

    Re: 5.3 intake manifold upgrades?

    Quote Originally Posted by LowSilver
    Flow numbers are flow numbers. The fact that it flows more is not a DIRECT factor of performance. Go ahead a stuff a truck intake on an LS1 and do some track testing, I am sure that would tell the true story.

    We have a flow bench, an engine dyno, and a chassis dyno in our engine shop. They are great TOOLS for testing and tuning, but the only thing that matters is what your time slip says at the end of the day in my mind.

    For example, the heads on my street car flowed 265cfm. Nothing to write home about, should work well on a 12 second car if we are looking at flow numbers. The engine dyno numbers showed the car should run 11.50-11.80's as well as the chassis dyno calculated to around 11.40's. All these calculations are assuming everything is they way it should be, gears, traction, etc. First time out, the gears were way off because I didn't change them from what my old combo was. The engine peaked at 5800rpm, I was turning 7400rpm at the top end, and ran 11.18@118mph. The car WILL run a ten this newxt year, and not one calculation was correct, or all that close for that matter.

    Like I said, flow numbers, hp numbers, etc. they can give you a ball park of what you need to get the job done, but the time slip tells the real story.
    How are flow numbers not a direct factor? That couldn't be further from the truth. Have you not heard the analogy of an engine being nothing more than an air pump? More flow means more power.

    The intake won't clear the hood. How can you honestly dispute the results of the flowbench, and say the only number that matters is the one on the slip? There are so many other factors that come into play there. The flowbench ISOLATES the intake, which is what this discussion was about.

    That's a cute story about your car, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'm not sure how your error in guessing what a car would run has to do with flowbench data.

    Did your book show proof in their claim?


    Quote Originally Posted by LowSilver
    Why would you think that? I am just saying, flow numbers don't always prove that it will make more power.

    When designing an intake manifold, you have to take into consideration what rpm you want the engine to work at. This creates a frequency up the intake port. Your intake port length needs to match your frequency of the ideal operating range. There is more to it than that but that is the basics.

    The 220/220 isn't a real big cam, if you got it ground on a 114 lsa it would smooth out the idle a bit, and bring the power numbers down the rpm scale a bit.
    If more flow doesn't equal more power, you're doing something wrong. A mismatched combo is exactly that. He will not gain power by going to the ls1 intake. It's that simple. Where do the heads peak? How much lift does the stock cam have? I'll give you a hint... It's barely over .5

    A 220 is too big for his application. A 212/218 would be much better.

    Do you answer the phone at this shop, or actually work on things?
    08 TBSS
    91 HD 3/4 ton
    03 Z71 Tahoe

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Woodstock Ontario Canada
    Age
    38
    Posts
    8,263

    Re: 5.3 intake manifold upgrades?

    Guys have taken their truck intakes and swapped on LS6 intakes and have been disappointed with their 0.010 of a second gain in the 1/4 mile.

    LS1 to LS6 OK, but truck to LS1, you are going to run slower in the 1/4.

    peace
    PAuly
    97 GMC 2wd RCSB 5.7, s10 2700 footstall, Hooker 24621hkr LT's , 2.5" cats dual 4"pipes exit B4 pass. side tire, custom driveshaft 3.42 G80 FIPK MAF descreen GM/Mercruiser Marine intake manifold 29lb LS2(EV6) injectors Ed Wright PCM(best mod), LT4 KM 14.8@94mph 2.007 4000lbs 122mph

  16. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    14

    Re: 5.3 intake manifold upgrades?

    Quote Originally Posted by 91_bowtie
    If more flow doesn't equal more power, you're doing something wrong. A mismatched combo is exactly that. He will not gain power by going to the ls1 intake. It's that simple. Where do the heads peak? How much lift does the stock cam have? I'll give you a hint... It's barely over .5

    A 220 is too big for his application. A 212/218 would be much better.

    Do you answer the phone at this shop, or actually work on things?

    FYI I am in the mechanical engineering field, and it is our family run performance shop.

    I don't need any hints from you on how to make power, believe me we have no trouble doing that.

    Head or intake flow isn't the total story to a great part. Runner lengths, Port CSA, Port taper, these all play a factor. I suggest you go learn a little more.

    a 220/220 isn't a big cam. For an LSx it will react like a bigger cam than in a conventional set up. One of my buddies is running this cam, in his 5.3L RCSB 2wd, truck intake, a little bit of a stall, and 125 shot of nitrous. The truck was built to tow his LS1 S-10 pick up around from track to track, and the thing cracks off 12.1x @ 114mph on street tires and 20 inch rims.

    Yeah thats a terribly matched combo

    To make things clear, I never told him to put a LS1 intake on, but if he wanted to go to the ls1 intake, he would have to cam up, and run a small stall converter.

    Do you REALLY think the designers at GM would have made the truck manifold accually work BETTER than the car manifolds up to .600" lift? Both the LS1 and the LQ4/LQ9 have cams that are under .600" lift.

    Personally I would pick the LS6 over the truck or ls1 intake, but then again, your still having to put a cam, and converter in it...
    Last edited by LowSilver; 01-25-2009 at 01:43 PM.

    Weenie Little 4.8L
    4/6 DJM Drop.
    Stroker 6.0L at the drawing board...

  17. #17
    shake & bake 91_bowtie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    KCMO
    Age
    35
    Posts
    6,957

    Re: 5.3 intake manifold upgrades?

    Quote Originally Posted by LowSilver
    FYI I am in the mechanical engineering field, and it is our family run performance shop.

    I don't need any hints from you on how to make power, believe me we have no trouble doing that.

    Head or intake flow isn't the total story to a great part. Runner lengths, Port CSA, Port taper, these all play a factor. I suggest you go learn a little more.

    a 220/220 isn't a big cam. For an LSx it will react like a bigger cam than in a conventional set up. One of my buddies is running this cam, in his 5.3L RCSB 2wd, truck intake, a little bit of a stall, and 125 shot of nitrous. The truck was built to tow his LS1 S-10 pick up around from track to track, and the thing cracks off 12.1x @ 114mph on street tires and 20 inch rims.

    Yeah thats a terribly matched combo

    To make things clear, I never told him to put a LS1 intake on, but if he wanted to go to the ls1 intake, he would have to cam up, and run a small stall converter.

    Do you REALLY think the designers at GM would have made the truck manifold accually work BETTER than the car manifolds up to .600" lift? Both the LS1 and the LQ4/LQ9 have cams that are under .600" lift.

    Personally I would pick the LS6 over the truck or ls1 intake, but then again, your still having to put a cam, and converter in it...
    ahh one of those. So you go to school and think you know what you're talking about. You're the one with alot ot learn. It's just a shame that your books can't teach you common sense.

    I never offered you any hints on how to make power. Just how severe is your ADD?

    Bub, you're not going to teach me anything. I can guarantee you that much. You keep bringing up things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Your buddy's truck is nothing close to his. His is a heavy, 4wd x-cab on a big tire. In his case, a 220 is too big. I never said it was a big cam, just too big for his application.

    Yes. The truck manifold works better, for it's application. You keep leaving this out and making stupid comparisons that don't make any sense. The numbers speak for themselves. I've asked you a very simple question, and you keep dodging it... Did your precious book provide proof to backup their claim? Instead of answering this, you do nothing but reply with meaningless bs that has nothing to do with the topic.
    08 TBSS
    91 HD 3/4 ton
    03 Z71 Tahoe

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    14

    Re: 5.3 intake manifold upgrades?

    What ever man, I took a quote from a credible publisher. HPBooks has alot of good performance books.

    I grew up in a performance shop, that is where I have learned majority of what I know. Our shop is sucessful, and has been for years, We must be doing something right...

    Call me stupid all you want, Talk is cheap, where are all of your powerful combinations that YOU have built?

    Weenie Little 4.8L
    4/6 DJM Drop.
    Stroker 6.0L at the drawing board...

  19. #19
    Offroad Engineerd Underpowered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    northern KY
    Age
    27
    Posts
    14,058

    Re: 5.3 intake manifold upgrades?

    Quote Originally Posted by LowSilver
    I would HIGHLY recommend against the 108 lsa. My car I race has 110 lsa, and it gets about 4 mpg.

    The 220/220 isn't a real big cam, if you got it ground on a 114 lsa it would smooth out the idle a bit, and bring the power numbers down the rpm scale a bit.
    as others have said, for what i would want out of a cam, a 220 is to big of a cam for the application. going fast is not necessarily what i am after, power is however.

    i know a 108 is much bigger than i would ever want, espespecially for a DD truck. just using it as an example. i would want an idle that is well notices, and most 114 cams would not provide that idle.
    new tow Rig rattles and smokes
    '89 K5 trail rig

  20. #20
    - Luke 1989K1500's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Ravenna, Michigan
    Age
    25
    Posts
    5,322

    Re: 5.3 intake manifold upgrades?

    Quote Originally Posted by LowSilver
    where are all of your powerful combinations that YOU have built?
    See the two pictures in his sig?

    Quote Originally Posted by Underpowered
    as others have said, for what i would want out of a cam, a 220 is to big of a cam for the application. going fast is not necessarily what i am after, power is however.

    i know a 108 is much bigger than i would ever want, espespecially for a DD truck. just using it as an example. i would want an idle that is well notices, and most 114 cams would not provide that idle.
    A choppy idle and low end power for towing dont go together.
    2001 rcsb Z71 06 clip, lowered, 6.0 LQ9, p&p 241s, cam, PI3600, LPP long tubes, etc. Tuned by TJ of Baker Engineering Inc - SOLD
    1989 rcsb 4x4, solid axled, HP44/14ff, 4.88s, 35s/20s

 

 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •