Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
That you are in trouble.
Yes.
Hopefully some improvements will be made with legal porting but gee-whiz Chevy!!!
That you are in trouble.
At some point common sense has to be used.
Interestingly enough, this isn't unlike my Mustang build. 1998 Mustang, 150hp. 1999 Mustang, 190hp with the only apparent change being the intake. However, digging deep into it things are not as they seem. And I suspect the situation is the same for the 205hp C4 Vette.
Or at some point actual research has to be done instead of guessing based on other completely different motors.
Ben,
submit dyno data and a build sheet and it will be considered. find more examples and it adds to the case. we really can't make a case from one example.
I've done a little research on the C4 and I think it has a lot of potential.
...
I feel that common sense indicates it should weigh more similarly powered Camaros and Mustangs that have poorer suspensions, but that is just my opinion and realize it has no foundation in IT-land.
This is why I support a DW adder - it's not much, but it's something. vs the pony cars it adds up to 100 lbs which is in the range of 3%, or a half step in the process gain.
and keep in mind that the CRB hasn't made a decision on the vette as recommended. they could just as easily come back and say "no way" or "add weight". at which point, hopefully, we'll have this eval done and, with more data from interested parties (hint hint: crbscca.com), be able to reply with "yeah we looked deeper and think X about the vette" or "no, the rest of ITR needs the following adjustments:...". or maybe "we researched it, it's all good, that thing's a sheep in wolf's clothes, stop thinking with your eyes." (likely a hybrid of all of these)
Can you link those pictures??? That is very interestingBeen looking for flow numbers on this manifold. Found a 572 cfm number for the two throttle bodies.
For the intake found 178 CFM at 28". Is that 28" a manifold pressure number? Or is it at a certain valve lift?
I have flow at various valve lifts as well and it is GOOD but hard to tell if that was done with the intake on it or not.
I've also seen pictures of the ports and it LOOKS LIKE the restriction that GM clearly just fill welded in stops less than 1" in. You may get some good gains with an IT legal gasket match/port job.
215 @ 30% with a 50lb torque adder is right on.
225 @ 30% with 100lb torque adder is right on.
230 @ 30% with 100lb torque adder is right on.
IIRC, and I'm pretty sure I do, they all have a 100lb torque adder. The 50lb difference on the one line is due to lousy brakes.
jeff - 28"(of Hg/Mercury, about 1atm or of water/H2)/wc, about 1psi or ~0.07atm) is a barometric pressure reading, indicating the test pressure differential applied to the measured item (i.e. head or manifold) which induces the flow of air. kinda like voltage for amps, temperature for heat, etc...
the "numbers" page you found shows 182/137 cfm in/ex at 28"Hg and 0.400" lift, which is close to the max valve lift also shown on that page. based on the pictures you supplied, I'd say you're right about the potential for significant flow gains.
Andy, my admittedly limited experience with the CRB has been one of good cooperation and support. I know you have had bad experiences. I hope that maybe you got them to see the light, so to speak, but no matter, I appreciate your efforts, help, and jaundice.
Let not one person on this forum complain again that the ITAC works behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms...
There's a reason you don't want to watch sausage being made.
the spreadsheet shows -50 for brakes, -50 solid axle, and +150 torque on the 89-93/94-95 mustangs, same without brake adjust on the 87-92 camarobirds. they all use a 30% gain and all match the GCR. mustang weight difference is the result of 10hp: (10*1.3*11.25=146.3)
the only +100 tq adder in there is for the V6 94-98 'stang
this is the doc from Kirk Knestis, created march 2008 (thanks to KK for this)
IIRC, and I'm pretty sure I do, they all have a 100lb torque adder. The 50lb difference on the one line is due to lousy brakes.
Numbers here:
http://members.shaw.ca/corvette.84/crossfire.html
Pictures here:
http://users.swko.net/~lionsden/crossfire.htm
About halfway in is a comparison of the manifold "blocked" (on the right) and "unblocked" (on the left). Look at the unblocked one. The runner drops away quickly from the port. Appears that block really couldn't extend much into the manifold given the sharp taper down.
it's an IT sheet. just making a point.V6 94-98 Mustangs are in ITS. They shouldn't appear on a ITR sheet.
yes. the spreadsheet has a -50 in the brakes column, ops manual calls out the same (+ or - depending). I suppose that they were seen as small or ineffective - we'll have to keep digging for that justification.94/95 V8 Mustangs have good brakes in Pony car land, four wheel discs. They shouldn't get a deduct for poor brakes. Was the ITAC giving deducts for poor brakes?