Become a ltxtech.com member, Click here to register!
CPT

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11

    Default

    Then I need you to do some tuning on mine.

  2. #12
    InActive Member


    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Vehicle
    1997 K1500, SS/SB
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by superspirit View Post
    That would be correct. However all the fuel economy of the LT1 comes from the LT1 fuel injection system, I wouldn't go that route personally but what youre thinking will work.
    shat, just erased 20 min worth of typing!!!!

    Superspirit, I hate to do this, but you are incorrect!! the fuel economy of the LT1 comes from the same place that the performance comes from. Heads, coolant and cam. aluminum heads reverse coolant flow, and a "torque" centered cam. a cam that is aimed at HP "WILL NEVER" get millage. I do know that the LT5 was co-designed in collaboration with Lotus, and I would bet a Franklin on the fact that Lotus consulted on the LT1 / 4. aluminum heads plus reverse water, allow for 13:1 compression on pump gas, if you chose your cam correctly. I do have a simulation that lends to this theory - not saying it will work just that it is very likely.
    So many people claim that the LT1 intake is the key, when the truth is GM did not want to build the LT1 intake, it is a torque killer, but all of the "boat Boys" (the hot market in the early 90's) demanded lower clearance for their powerboats pretty girl decks, and higher revving motors, GM was not going to build "car motors and Boat motors" that kills the mass production model. in stead the long runner "torque enhancing" TPI intake went by the way side after all we can raise the measuring point and show better numbers.

    I put a TPI manifold ON a LT1 and the torque is insane to be kind, with Torque comes millage. reason being is torque is low rpm grunt, horse power is hi rpm fluf, and is actually a mathematical equation of torque. To sum it up LT1 is in the heads and water system, Period!! Just my opinion!!!!


    pardon my gruffness it has not been a good month, and I aint got time to argue over what I have proven in the real world already.
    Last edited by Tinbender59; 06-09-2016 at 05:52 PM.

  3. #13
    InActive Member


    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Vehicle
    1997 K1500, SS/SB
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    199

    Default

    PM sent. everybody that has put a TPI motor in on my advice has liked them so far I believe that I am the only one that has put a TPI on an LT1, and once you do you'll never look back. the reason for the TPI is to get away from the Opti trash, however I am working on a replacement for the opti that will allow for the LT1 to be swapped/tuned/modified and still retain the stock intake. which is getting closer to being top priority as my 95 Camaro has already lost the low resolution signal, and is becoming increasingly hard to keep running down the road.

  4. #14

    Default

    I'm going to disagree, I have used the TPI. still not convinced it was the right move. I believe as GM did back at the time of it's introduction the key to the efficiency of the LT1 was the precise measurement and control that the opti and fuel injection system was able to provide. not the intake design, but the control of all timing and fueling events. The TBI system is not capable of such precise control as a sequential fuel injection system is. Now if you use an intake that has individual injectors, and a processor such as the infamous 0411, then you can achieve the control necessary to achieve superior efficiency! The TPI is a good intake but it aint the end all be all of intake designs!

  5. #15
    Lurker


    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Name
    Corey
    Vehicle
    90 C1500 SCSB
    Posts
    79

    Default

    I agree that the TPI isnt the end-and be-all of intake manifolds. But, for the purpose it was build for, its probably up near the top. It was built to be efficient up to about 4500 RPM and is able to rev to 5000. It was specifically designed to get a 305 enough torque to get out of its own way, and it was discovered that it would move the heavy (at the time) Corvette pretty well too. Because it limited RPMs in its stock form, it enhanced the longevity of the engines it was installed on. Because of the enhanced torque-provided by the design-it also got pretty good mileage for its day.

    The LT1 is still an excellent design, but, because of its shorter runners, leaves a lot of low RPM torque on the table and allows an engine to rev more than a TPI. Yes, sequential firing injectors is a plus also, and with a little gear, a lot of the shortcomings torque wise were mitigated. But what allowed the LT1 to meet and surpass the TPI equipped motors, was the fact that it could run pump gas at a 10.5:1 CR. And the reason it could run that kind CR was because of the reverse cooling. Both motors were available with aluminum heads which helps both, but the LT1 heads flow better.

    Add it all up, and, in my estimation, the only real difference between an LT1 intake and a TPI intake is the RPM range that it is most efficient at. And that most of the difference in power, and power potential between an LT1 and a TPI motor lies in the basic difference in internal architecture. Anything that enhances torque, will, just on its own, give a motor the ability to get better mileage all other things being equal. Thats why my thought was that starting with a motor already known for efficiency, and putting a manifold on it that has been reported to be worth 30 ft.lbs. with a carburetor, should be worth at least the same 30 lbs. with a TBI and have the advantage of superior fuel metering over the carburetor. So basically, I get a better performing intake (for the RPM range I use), and still have the advantage fuel injection brings. Add in the fact that I can run 10.5:1 CR gives me an advantage (mileage and power) over the Vortec headed 5.7 I'm running now. And the icing on the cake is that I get to ditch the Opti. YMMV

  6. #16

    Default

    You're both missing the point, I'm out!

  7. #17
    Lurker


    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Name
    Corey
    Vehicle
    90 C1500 SCSB
    Posts
    79

    Default

    I'm not trying to argue, just having a discussion. If I'm missing the point, I'd like to know where and how. It's one of the ways I learn. I won't promise you that I'll agree with you, but I'm willing to have an open mind.

  8. #18
    InActive Member


    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Vehicle
    1997 K1500, SS/SB
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by superspirit View Post
    You're both missing the point, I'm out!
    sorry to see you go my friend, but you obviously do not know the facts about sequential fuel injection, above 4k they go into batch fire anyway
    Last edited by Tinbender59; 06-14-2016 at 11:55 PM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

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
  •