Steve Bryant

iTrader: (1)

This is a question for Richard@WCCH,
I've read your thread with interest over at LS1Tech.com https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthrea...ght=L92+intake that relates to this thread and another similar thread here at performancetrucks.net. Now that you've had a chance to do the excellent testing that you did with the L92 heads/L92 Intake/L76 Intake I want to pose the question again on whether or not someone with a truck with an LQ4 who needs to use a tall truck manifold (either the LQ4 or the L92 style) would really benefit by going to an L92 Head/Intake. This would be in comparison to having a decent set of CNC ported cathedral-style heads and the LQ4 intake (see posts 19 & 20 in this thread).

What do you think about this now.

Thanks,

Steve

Richard@WCCH

iTrader: (3)

Great question Steve. The L92 heads have definitely raised the bar in cylinder head technology. Add the affordable price tag and you've got an instant winner. As of yet I have not worked with the L92 heads in a truck application. To respond to your question directly, the truck intake (L92) will make a generous amount of torque based on the manifold layout. Horsepower as defined by observed torque times rpm divided by 5252 dictates that the engine must hold torque at higher rpms. Unfortunately that's not what any of the truck intakes do. Therefore rwhp will always be less than the car intakes given the same setup. However, for guys looking at upgrading to the L92 heads on their 6.0l truck engines and wish to retain the L92 intake, I suggest building the combination to make maximum low end and mid range torque (small cams). Buzzing the engine to high rpms (above 5000) will be met with a flat power curve much like the cathedral truck intakes. In a nutshell (this is speculation on my part), most instances of the ported cathedral heads with a truck intake will make similar low end power to a box stock L92 setup. Ported L92's should yield a little bit better results. Now take into account the cost difference between an aftermarket CNC'd cathedral heads and the L92's and the L92 heads look like a bargain. Remember, GM chose to introduce these large valve high flowing heads on a big truck.
Time will tell on this subject. So few guys are willing to try the L92 truck intake on anything as of yet.

Richard

OnyxSilveradoSS

iTrader: (4)

good post! I want L92 heads, but dont want to swap my water pump and fans, too much $$, But I have been thinking about L92 Heads and Truck intake, my trailblazer stall, and a cam to match. WHat are guesses on 1/4 times?? POwer #'s?? OR is this route worth it?? BTW I only would want to spin to maybe 6500 and it is a daily driver.

the numbers in the other post really show how the two intakes differ in flow rates.

Has anyone tried modding a nylon intake?? Increasing the size? changeing the Throttle body placement?? This was my last crazy thought, could you run the intake backwards??
happy eaSTER

Steve Bryant

iTrader: (1)

Richard,
Thanks for your response and for the research that you've done to date and for putting the effort to publish your data and take pictures and publish those too.

You're a good guy in my book.

All my best,

Steve

Richard@WCCH

iTrader: (3)

Thanks for the kind words Steve. The internet has made it infinitely easier to pass on this info. If it was up to me to publish a book I doubt this stuff would see the light of day.
One of the tools I really wish I had in my shop is an engine dyno. I would really like to test and develop a number of ideas but buying enough dyno time is cost prohibitive. None the less I'll continue to share this data as I go. So stay tuned for more info as it unfolds.

Richard