Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
#1038810 09/01/04 06:34 AM
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 609
G
Veteran CEG\'er
Offline
Veteran CEG\'er
G
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 609
Originally posted by Bike2112:
... The interesting thing is the size of the lowers. They measure much closer to the larger returnless size...




I posted a month or so ago about the same thing. I checked my LIM after cleaning and got the following measurements:

Upper LIM Hole
Primary: 33.45mm
Secondary: 34.95mm
Difference: 1.50mm

Lower LIM Hole
Primary: 32.64mm
Secondary: 34.05mm
Difference: 1.41mm

*Measuring procedure: Two measurements that agreed per hole, at ~90 degree intervals. Averaged all six of each type of hole to arrive at the above numbers. Measured with digital calipers.

So yeah, I'm still curious about the existence -- or not -- of the larger LIM, as the replies I received from my previous post were inconclusive, IMHO. (No offense to anyone who replied to it. ) Does anyone else have actual measured data from their larger LIM to compare with these numbers?

Originally posted by Bike2112:
...First, I have an 98 EO SVT #580 something I think...
...Is it possible My car was assembled right when they were switching over to the 98.5 spec...




My car was built in May of 1997, so it was a very early model. If your car is #580, then it was built before mine, as mine is build #786. That would put it well before the 98.5 model year changeover.

Originally posted by Bike2112:
...I noticed the uppers were all about 2-3 mm smaller than the lowers on both the short and long runner ports...




Yeah, mine had an ugly difference in port size between the UIM/LIM as well. The LIM-to-head-port interface was pretty mismatched as well. Almost looked like the heads were skewed a degree or two from the centerline of the engine. Some port matching is definately in order there.

Marty


98 SVT, Black, No. 786, May 7, 1997. K&N, MSDS, Xcal2, Tint, Antennas, Big Gulp(R)-Sized Cupholder, Rear Dome Lt., Koni/Eibach, DMD, Pre-98 Sails, Brake Cooling Deflectors, Sidemarkers, Etc. 147K+ Miles "Get the Door - It's GrooveNerd!"
#1038811 09/02/04 01:22 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975
G
Hard-core CEG'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG'er
G
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,975
Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:
SVTPETE, I think I want to have sex with your car.



Damn, I thought I loved my car...nver thought to have sex with it!

Thanks though. It's coming along slowly...


Capitol CEG Classifieds Make an offer! 2005 GTO IBM - 337hp/336tq
#1038812 09/03/04 05:17 AM
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,359
L
Webmaster
Offline
Webmaster
L
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,359
Originally posted by SVT PETE:
Originally posted by Lance Kinley:
One reason might be that the E0's were only single-pass extrude honed. The second pass done on E1's and later does open up the runners a fair bit.



Incorrect!

Discussed thoroughly when the Extrude Hone Group Buy came about.

To summarize, all SVT UIMs were passed the same number of times - same flow for 98, 99 and 00.

Confirmed by Extrude Hone and Terry Haines. I also took measurements of all runners between a 98 UIM and a 00 UIM and there was almost no difference between the two in the measurements.




Ok, so the whole 'dual hone' bit a while back was a crock?

-Lance


Lance Kinley CEG Webmaster 95 SE, "Cassandra" 10 years!
#1038813 09/03/04 10:29 AM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,145
G
Hard-core CEG\'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
G
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,145
i think it means that both primaries and secondary ports go done, maybe??


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
#1038814 09/03/04 04:58 PM
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 618
B
Veteran CEG\'er
OP Offline
Veteran CEG\'er
B
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 618
I memory serves correctly, I believe the dual extrude honing on the later SVT's took place in the heads instead of the UIM. Someone step in here if I am incorrect.

My main inquiry is the fact that my LIM is closer to the later SVT LIM in port size and I have an EO 98. I just thought it was interesting to have such a difference between the port size of the UIM vs. LIM. A little time with the dremmel will take care of this.

On another note, when I had the UIM off, there was no evidence of EH at all as there were several small casting bumps inside the intake. It was not very smooth at all from the factory.


E0 SVT Kids, yeah, I have kids. How many do you want?
#1038815 09/03/04 06:23 PM
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
D
Hard-core CEG'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG'er
D
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Well the "literature" says more extrude honing on the UIM and more aggressive extrude honing on both the primary and secondary head ports. (verses just "normal" EH on the secondary ports)


2000 SVT #674 13.47 @ 102 - All Motor! It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
#1038816 09/03/04 06:24 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,145
G
Hard-core CEG\'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
G
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,145
bet it was smoother then mine, i can take some pics later to prove it, mine looks like concrete almost, very bump inside


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
#1038817 09/03/04 07:37 PM
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 618
B
Veteran CEG\'er
OP Offline
Veteran CEG\'er
B
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 618
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
Well the "literature" says more extrude honing on the UIM and more aggressive extrude honing on both the primary and secondary head ports. (verses just "normal" EH on the secondary ports)




That is what I thought too. I wish I knew the answer. But judging from the look of the inner walls on the UIM, it does not "appear" to have been EH. Operative word here is definately appear. This could be very misleading due to the amount of buildup inside the runners.

The plan: take it off again (ran out of daylight to do a thorough cleaning) and really spend some time on smoothing and port matching the UIM to the LIM as best as possible.

On another note, does it seem odd to have such large openings on the LIM. It's a nice problem to have of course, but I wonder how much turbulence is actually being generated by the difference of the UIM vs. LIM.

Thoughts?

Just realized something, could the literature referring to dual EH on the primary and secondary head ports be where the confusion is? Cold some of us be confusing dual EH of the UIM and LIM with DH of the primary and secondary head ports? They are different as the UIM and LIM are not actually part of the heads but the intake itself.


Last edited by Bike2112; 09/03/04 07:42 PM.

E0 SVT Kids, yeah, I have kids. How many do you want?
#1038818 09/03/04 07:38 PM
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 618
B
Veteran CEG\'er
OP Offline
Veteran CEG\'er
B
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 618
Originally posted by gearhead98:
bet it was smoother then mine, i can take some pics later to prove it, mine looks like concrete almost, very bump inside




Sounds just like mine.


E0 SVT Kids, yeah, I have kids. How many do you want?
#1038819 09/03/04 08:48 PM
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 432
E
CEG\'er
Offline
CEG\'er
E
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 432
My SVT UIM was a LOT smoother than the SE UIM that I had on the car during the recent group buy. How to describe it. Say the SE UIM is like concrete, very bumpy. The SVT UIM would be like concrete in your basement or garage floor. Still not perfect but MUCH smoother. Hope that helps a little.

I'm not sure if there were any pictures taken of the differences inside the passages, the only ones I can recall were of the different diameters.


Bill '00 SVT Black/Tan
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  GTO Pete 

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