mark kibort

Jim, do you need a hug?? why so angry?? why so spiteful?

so stop mindfuxxing me. Ill telll you want i want. you seem to be LOST at mind reading here.

Im tired of having 100less hp than the other guys with an engine that is even bigger! im tired of the car not being as fast as i know it could be. just want some good racing with comparable cars that are 15 + years newer to show off what it can do and members of this marquee proud.

I dont want a high rpm inake, i want an intake that breaths at 4500rpm to 6500rpm. as i showed you and you seem to already forget the AM with its 1mm higher lift cam and 1 point higher compression, makes 50 more hp and does it with a 4.3 liter engine and also keeps more of its hp over the gear ranges of even OUR cars. point is, the intake is the main different.

dont forget , all im looking for is the same family of gains mark and joe got with the CF intake. if we had access to that, i would use it after it was reinforced to not crack like mark had happen (or next gen like Joes)

an intake for our car should cost in the 3k range (when its in limited production). its the price point all the top exotics have. even our friends at AM make the intake for 3k . (and they only make 3000cars a year of the V8version)
if it cost 4-5 k, thats ok too . its all about bang for the buck.

you poke fun at making a intake out of something that is already made, but that might be a way to meet the price points. you metion TB , MAF, fuel rails, plennum, etc.. no, i dont think we need it all. we could possibly use what we have and only need a TB. im just offering the ideas and no one can deny yet that it is possible.

thinks get done by thinking out of the box a little ... what im suggesting is possible and would give big gains.

and jim, you make fun of what i do as far as "tune" but you find anyone else that has run as long as i have , and got the gains ive got, consistently for 20 years. very few have gotten as much as i have with even a high end tune.
EVEN the bench mark of denis who got 380rwhp, was so peaky the average HP in the operating range was only about 20hp more and look at the work he had to do to achieve that.

bottom line: 335rwhp with a GT cam in a stock 5 liter engine
bottom line: 243rwhp with a 4.7 and stock US heads and 170,000mile engine (tired)
all with the turn of a fuel reg.

how many motors have i, or the guys ive built engines for , blown up??? oh, what? none??? Jim, why do you have to be like this?

then, Andewrson and fan, bolt on the intake and do NOTHING else, no tune. stock ecu, fuel and spark.. no changes. only a fuel reg..
100hp gains, 520hp for both cars on top of the 410 to 420 they got before the adding of nothing more than an intake!

Mongo

Wow.. I took a couple of days off to read my intake book and ya'll are Kama sutra-ing the hell out of this argument in a very painful way..

Yeah I'm not posting on this thread anymore..

bureau13

Something is not right here, what am I missing?

Mark Kibbort says:

"then, Andewrson and fan, bolt on the intake and do NOTHING else, no tune. stock ecu, fuel and spark.. no changes. only a fuel reg..
100hp gains, 520hp for both cars on top of the 410 to 420 they got before the adding of nothing more than an intake!"

Last time I checked, stock cars didn't make 410 to 420 hp...

hans14914

Its an intake. Its not hard. The equations exist for tuning the runner length to your cam and displacement configuration. The flanges exist, both Carl and I make versions of them. All of us have a local fabricator that can weld the darn thing... it just not that complicated.

mark kibort

those look great!

but i dont know why we cant use what Carl has made already? sure, its a short runner, but it will make great power and with those crude plenum boxes, why couldnt we just tape into the bottom of it and attach an S4 "u" and TB/MAF/Airbox. seems like this would be the easiest , most cost effective fix for the problem.

Carl? is this possible. mate the entire S4 intake bottom section onto the bottom of one of your plennum boxes ?



that's what i have been trying to say i believe. Thanks!

mark kibort

you missed the point where i downgraded the gains expected for this intake on a stock engine to 50hp gain. i dont think anyone would expect anything less.
so we are clear what i "say"............
1. CF or modified intake that removes the stock intake will be 50hp on the 5 liter GT 5 liter
2. CF of modified intake could be worth as much as 100hp on a 6.5 liter
maybe only 50-75 hp on a car without the cams.

as a note all the gains i got with the stroker motor was 50hp.
sure, there is another 50hp if i get the cam, and use 968 intake valves.
but that is for reference as to what it takes to get 50hp normally.

dont let Jim and his antagonistic put down posts deter from the subject that is actually a good one. ive had to answer all posts that get it basically "wrong". raging from thnking the Aston martin is supercharged , to the intakes on the AM are for car with close ratio gears and are high reving for power gains (and they are not), to you need tuning to make any power on the 928.

my ONLY purpose here is to discuss options. and yes, if something makes sense and doesnt cost an arm and a leg, I'm all about bolt it on my car, dynoing, and race testing it.
we have a beautiful, over square 928 engine block with great heads that is strong. all it needs is an intake to wake it up!

Mark

James Bailey

Again what Anderson and Fan did was build a 600HP engine and put on 350 HP intake manifolds. Stroked, big camshafts, headers exhaust etc,
The LS example posted at the beginning of this was virtually the same exercise all modded up and yes it too made big gains when the intake was the LAST upgrade. What they did not do was bolt the magic intakes on a STOCK LS........because it would have done far, far less. And a much less interesting article or good press for the advertisers The ones who gave them the parts and buy the advertising.
The very "best" intake on a stock 928 is not likely to gain anything like 50 HP..... until you start running headers, no cats, and bigger cams but then it is not "stock" anymore ! Perhaps like most aftermarket products it would need to be described as can add "up to 100 HP" but even 5 or 10 is included in "up to"..... Make it carbon fiber or paint it red and it might even sell.

69gaugeman

Even Mark K is back pedaling on the 100hp claim. Not that it was relevant to begin with.

Porsche did not leave 100hp on the table with this intake. They didn't leave 50 or even 20. If you believe that it's time to start taking your meds again.

Change the cams, valves, exhaust, and well, you've changed things and it's not stock anymore and the comparison is no longer valid.

GregBBRD

This is exactly why I say that I will be testing my new intake on a stock engine, when it is done....I actually have no idea what gains are going to be possible on a stone stock engine....certainly not 100hp or even 50hp!

This would be a great time for Jim Corenman or Rob Edwards to post the dyno results from my prototype intake bolted onto Jim's 5.0 GT engine, with a set of modified Colin cams and a set of Devek headers....just to give everyone a refresher of what that change did.

Yes, the runners were too big, for this engine.

Yes, the plenum was very crude and there were airflow issues at higher rpm.

However, I think this dyno chart shows the potential and that is the reason I have continued the process of making this intake system.

Rob Edwards

Corenman's '90 GT, stock block and heads, Colin's cams, headers, without and with Gregs' prototype intake, 24 hours apart, minimal tuning, same dyno. 39 hp, 24 torques.

James Bailey

Nice gains above 4,500 RPM !!

Sapientoni

I remember seeing an ad for a Shelby 4 bbl. manifold claiming 90 hp gains on a GT350. Turned out this was not based on the stock hp 351 rating of 290, it was based on the stock 2 bbl. rating of 220 or some other ridiculous starting point. So maybe 25 hp over the stock Ford 4 bbl that was already on there.

mark kibort

so, let me sum up what you said above.. ."blah blah blah... its a big motor with a restrictive stock intake and then they bolted on a less restrictive intake and wala,...... 100hp"... Right? is that what you mean jim.

and thats why i said that the gains were 100hp on mark and Joes intake , and would be near 50hp on a stock S4.

yes, i assume that headers and a GT cam is a minimum starting point as well.. so, if i was fudging a little, i admit it, because this is where the numbers were coming from in my mind. 50hp over stock for the intake and another 25 or so for the headers and stock GT or 85 cam. in the end, im guessing stock S4 with a "good " intake of 325rwhp and 350rwhp with the headers and GT cams. ( possibly the 325 might need the GT or 85 cams too.... dont really know .. above my pay grade here.)

really, is that why i could just change the exhaust (that everyone says is great, pull the cats , put on headers , a fuel regulator and remove MAF screeens and get 50hp over the normal GT and 60hp over a stock S4 by optimizing things.

if you dont think that engine with a decent intake can make 20hp, i think its U that needs to start taking some meds!

im sure the intake alone can do this as welll, but you would need the headers and cam to really take advantage of it.

I never back pedaled... re-read my posts. ive always said, 100hp for the big motor with all the goodies and 50hp for a stock S4 . actually, im assuming that there are headers and a GT or 85 cam on it too. sorry for that assumption.

Yes, it shows the potential and the reason i think there is hope as well.

that is also the reason for my enthusiasm

mark kibort

and there you go.. just a first shot at the rough intake, and the gains are 40hp!!!!! only starting with what the Holbert car had. cams and headers and near the same HP . just bolt on the intake and gain 40hp and as greg says, everything was wrong with it. too big of runners, bla bla bla!!!!! it still made 40hp by just bolting it on!!!!!

However, to be fair to the GT dyno at 325 rwhp, was the flappy stuck closed? looks like it migh have been
but this intake did a great job of taking a 325rwhp engine to 360rwhp with nothing more than a bolt on inake. so who needs to take meds???? and pulling the cam and headers off wouldnt have changed much... probably lost 20hp on the baseline and equal as much on the intake modificaition. but we will never know that, will we.

GregBBRD

Regardless of what percentage one uses when converting from rear wheel horsepower to flywheel horsepower (10%-15% depending on who is doing the bragging), clearly this combination made at or near 400 flywheel horsepower, with significant torque increases in the midrange.

This was a very impressive engine combination, with only "bolt-on" changes (if changing the cams is considered to be a "bolt on".)

Since the above experiment was done, we have built a 5.9 liter engine for Jim's car, which made right at 400 rwhp....without the intake system. That translates into 440-460 flywheel horsepower (again, depending on whether one uses 10% or 15% transaxle loss.)

My goal is to make a true 500 flywheel horsepower 5.9 liter engine, using my new intake system, while still improving the midrange torque.

Certainly looks like the potential is there, doing some pretty simple math....

I'm thinking that this will make one very impressive street 928!