I would have expected the hp to peak at a higher rpm with the short runners of that intake. I wonder how that intake compares a ported Mach intake in power production.
Im no expert, but why in the world would you have less timing in one cylinder as opposed to all the rest.
We were talking about that last night.
My guess is one of two things:
- there's too much plenum volume for the power level we're at right now
- I've got 4psi springs in the WGs, could be enough back pressure in the exhaust to make them leak a little, causing the turbo speeds to be a little high. Although theres only an air temp difference of about 25degF from the start of the pull to the end.
Im no expert, but why in the world would you have less timing in one cylinder as opposed to all the rest.
Hot or not, that just aint right.
Looks great I might add!
The cams are much better suited for supercharger applications but they should still make peak at a higher rpm that what is on the graph, even stock cobra cams will peak at 6200 with a stock intake. We just put a ported stock ported intake (replaced a Sullivan) on a twin GT35 04 which also had GT cams. It peaked at a higher RPM than the yours and with the Sullivan the peak was even higher. The stock intake provided boost much quicker and a had better power curve since RPMs were kept to a max of 6500. Those short runner intakes look cool but don't really work too well for sub 7k combos.
QUOTE]
What kind of dyno? Inertia or like a Mustang - just out of curiosity.
What is the limiting factor on these motors as far as rpm's go? Is it the cam followers, or lifters or? I was uncertain as to how high we could rev the motor.