FSC Forum - View Single Post

MSlewis · 05-14-2008, 04:27 PM

After personally anylizing the runners on both the LT1 and RamJet intakes, and seeing GMPP's dyno graph for the RamJet350 put down an almost linear 400 ftlbs of torque with stock vortech heads and a tiny cam, I can't see how the short runner length is considered to be a torque detriment. I think it has more to do with the head port design and flow cahracteristics as to wether low rpm torque can be acheived. IIRC the stock 92'Z28's numbers were no match for the stock 93's with the only major differences being the intake design(ignition & cooling notwithstanding).The newer,shorter,runner lengths and port designs are an excellent blend of both high velocity @ low rpm and high rpm breathability.

This is of course my opionion and we all know what those are worth. Nonetheless I too am contemplating wich intake to run on my 383 wich currently is TBI. Both the RamJet and StealthRam look impressive,however the Ramjet's open plenum section above the 4-5" long port entry is alot narrower,could have something to do with it's torque #'s. The StealthRam has longer runners, but with larger plenum area, could end up being about the same. Price is about the same, give or take a few bucks. Hmmmm....

Even thought about running the StealthRam with the stock twin TB blocked off and machining/modifying the upper plenum to accept my 96's single TB in the center so as not to have to modify cables/brackets/intake snorkels. Would only need to do fuel lines and swap dizzy's.Hmmmm......

05-14-2008, 04:27 PM	#17
MSlewis Supporting Member Status: Offline Join Date: Dec 2007 Member ID: 80192 Pics: My Gallery Location: Jax , Florida Age: 39 Posts: 173	Re: this Intake manifold possibile? After personally anylizing the runners on both the LT1 and RamJet intakes, and seeing GMPP's dyno graph for the RamJet350 put down an almost linear 400 ftlbs of torque with stock vortech heads and a tiny cam, I can't see how the short runner length is considered to be a torque detriment. I think it has more to do with the head port design and flow cahracteristics as to wether low rpm torque can be acheived. IIRC the stock 92'Z28's numbers were no match for the stock 93's with the only major differences being the intake design(ignition & cooling notwithstanding).The newer,shorter,runner lengths and port designs are an excellent blend of both high velocity @ low rpm and high rpm breathability. This is of course my opionion and we all know what those are worth. Nonetheless I too am contemplating wich intake to run on my 383 wich currently is TBI. Both the RamJet and StealthRam look impressive,however the Ramjet's open plenum section above the 4-5" long port entry is alot narrower,could have something to do with it's torque #'s. The StealthRam has longer runners, but with larger plenum area, could end up being about the same. Price is about the same, give or take a few bucks. Hmmmm.... Even thought about running the StealthRam with the stock twin TB blocked off and machining/modifying the upper plenum to accept my 96's single TB in the center so as not to have to modify cables/brackets/intake snorkels. Would only need to do fuel lines and swap dizzy's.Hmmmm......