Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#1018520 08/02/04 02:40 AM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,651
H
Harrry Offline OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
OP Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
H
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,651
I was wondering if anyone has ever machined there LIM where it reduced the height of the intake? I know if the lower intake was machined and an amount of maybe, lets say for example 1/2 inch was removed how much more top end would we gain and how much torque would we lose? I tried looking this up but it seems i can't find any previous data or maybe i typed the wrong info in the search.

But this is only up for disscussion and asking for personal opinions, DO you think
1#leave the way it is,
2#Cut LIM,
3#Get a Spacer and increase the LIM height?

Because i do know of people who can build us Phenolic spacers for our cars, He needed a gasket and he said probably the cost of 20.00 per spacer it would range from 3/8 to 1/2 thick?

What does everyone think?


I reject your reality and substitute my own.
#1018521 08/02/04 03:08 AM
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
D
Hard-core CEG'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG'er
D
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
You would not want the UIM to sit closer to the valve covers.

Plus the fuel rail and injectors wouldn't fit if you took off that much LIM height.

How would you mount the UIM if you milled the top down?
Where would the injectors mount if you milled the bottom?

Let's say for argument's sake it did fit and you also welded on new injector bosses.

Your change in rpm range from shortening the runners 1" would be fairly small. Probably make the ideal range a couple hundred rpm higher. The runner length from the common plenums would be about 6% & 10% shorter respectively.

It might make sense for a high compression engine with some custom cams.

However without other considerable changes to the engine the higher powerband would be wasted and your midrange would suffer.
I'd take it for granted you would completely remove the butterflies with an engine like this so we won't comment of the low end.


2000 SVT #674 13.47 @ 102 - All Motor! It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
#1018522 08/02/04 03:46 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
T
CEG\'er
Offline
CEG\'er
T
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
Hot intake manifolds act as radiators for your heads. If you cut off that heat exchange your will increase valve and chamber temperture putting you closer to detonation. Cooler air (marginally cooler) or a cooler valves. Its a trade. However i hardly share the runner length argument. Shorter =better racing performance to about 5 inches in total length. You all have substantially long mid port runners already in the head.

Last edited by Travis; 08/02/04 03:47 AM.

Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
#1018523 08/02/04 05:22 AM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,651
H
Harrry Offline OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
OP Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
H
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,651
I see what your saying but i never got the chance of measuring the distance to see if there will be enough clearence.

Well i don't have the LIM height and i don't know how much clearence is needed but it would be a sweat project to try, only to see what would come out of this.

Everyone knows, shorter the intake the more the rpm range would be lifted, but all i hear is people mentioning that our power starts drifting at 6,800 and after it goes down hill at that point. So i was thinking? maybe this could be a fix, but only the key players on this board will know if this idea would work, and so far it sounds like a no.

I was wondering has anybody heard of anyone else who has tried this?


I reject your reality and substitute my own.
#1018524 08/02/04 07:18 AM
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,779
J
Hard-core CEG\'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
J
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,779
2 of the key players have already spoken...why would you want to raise the powerband on the SVT? It's already high enough, there's about 0 torque in the 2500 range. This project sounds to cause far more problems than benefits, but it's your car.


99 SVTC, T-Red, #652/2760-12.8.1998 Mother#@%@!* did I sound abstract? I hope it sounded more confusin than that!
#1018525 08/02/04 11:50 AM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,145
G
Hard-core CEG\'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
G
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,145
Originally posted by bjjranger:
but all i hear is people mentioning that our power starts drifting at 6,800 and after it goes down hill at that point.




hate to tell you but you dont want to be reving the engine this hight unless you got some better bearings, check out demon's site he has this stuff about redlines and all listed on there, i would take that it consideration more then the power drop off


98.5 Black SE ATX S&B filter, SVT MAF, optimized SVT TB, mesh grille, removed orange reflectors, painted rear reflector, gutted pre-cats, optimized SVT LIM, 19lb injectors, resonator removed cant afford an svt but lookin for 1 in nc
#1018526 08/02/04 04:01 PM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,651
H
Harrry Offline OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
OP Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
H
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,651
Originally posted by JonnySVT:
2 of the key players have already spoken...why would you want to raise the powerband on the SVT? It's already high enough, there's about 0 torque in the 2500 range. This project sounds to cause far more problems than benefits, but it's your car.




Also please like i stated this was only up for disscussion.
I never said it would work or that i was going to do it.
It was what people drew up on a board as an IDEA!!!

I understand now that a spacer maybe isn't a good idea, and also that shortening the LIM hasn't been done, but it's good to hear what different angles there was to this idea, cause now it sounds to me that this is a bad idea, thanks guys

To this man!!!

Originally posted by JonnySVT:
Seriously, it was cool the first few times you brought up hashed stuff because you're a noob and all, but this is getting out of control now. Are you going to discover that the y pipe is a horrible design and ask if anyone has "modified" it, I know you must have done it on another car already....




Buddy, if i can call you that! Layoff, you have judged me since day one, look if you can't add to the conversation please don't, i don't need someone like you being a prick to me or others for them asking questions. ,you havn't added anything on any thread except "Nothing" the last few threads "nothing" except complaining, so do me a favor don't post on my threads unless you can help, cause you are taking up space and i would like to learn from others. Not learn to hear "well it's your car"?? No, i thought is was my wifes car!! I don't need jokes or laughs or ha ha he he i'm not 16 ok, I'm 25

For those who contributed, i give my thanks to them for having patience.



Last edited by bjjranger; 08/02/04 04:04 PM.

I reject your reality and substitute my own.
#1018527 08/02/04 04:19 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,145
G
Hard-core CEG\'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
G
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,145
im 18, and i dont think it is a good idea to go messing with the flow characteristic's of the intake manifolds, there is alot more that it can effect then hp


98.5 Black SE ATX S&B filter, SVT MAF, optimized SVT TB, mesh grille, removed orange reflectors, painted rear reflector, gutted pre-cats, optimized SVT LIM, 19lb injectors, resonator removed cant afford an svt but lookin for 1 in nc
#1018528 08/02/04 04:35 PM
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 449
L
CEG\'er
Offline
CEG\'er
L
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 449
Here's another idea for discussion ... what about milling out the primary ports on the LIM by 1-2 mm all the way down. Currently, they're tapered and I can't find anyone that will taper mill, so would there be any benefits to a straight mill all the way down? The fuel injector seating should still be ok from what I can surmise. The primary ports on the gasket have about 1-2 mm of hard plastic that can be dremelled away to just before the rubber gasket part that does the actual sealing. Might be some head porting I guess??


98.5 SVT now gone ... new wheels = 2005 330i
#1018529 08/02/04 06:00 PM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,651
H
Harrry Offline OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
OP Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
H
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,651
I understand the cfm flow would change, but because i couldn't find any information on this site when i searched i thought i would might as well ask to see if people have tried this.

I know when you order performance intakes of course some intakes are set to flow for more top end which means shorter runners and larger ports. OR vise versa

So I thought after reding the LIM from sho-shop i was thinking is there anything else we could possibly do?

Well i thought hey larger ports how about "MAYBE" if it is possible if we can shorten the runners?

This is how i came to this conclusion , of course i understand flow will change, that is a given, that is why i thought if we needed quicker flow with more air to our heads at those rpms, casue it sounded as the LIM could help.

But sorry for mentioning this cause i don't want to fight over this disscussion, and i'm sorry for attacking Johhnysvt
cause I just don't want [censored] talked, everytime some one posts on here, it seems from all the search and readings that i have done people get atacked on here very quickly, so i was hesitant on posting. I decided to take a chance knowing what might happen.

Gear thanks i did look at demons website and read about bearings i do know that bearings are ideal for drivers who want to rev at high rpms incase we get those blown motor rod knocks.

Other than stabalizing the lower which is a good idea especially in what i'm looking to do, i was thinking of everything possible before i decided to start ordering parts.





I reject your reality and substitute my own.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  GTO Pete 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5