[SloCal]

Wondering if anyone has run lt2 manifold on a bone stock car on track without a tune?

I know some people do it but road course duty necessitates a lot more time in upper rpm range where I’ve heard it may run lean?

Love this car my biggest gripe is the lack of top end power on track. Would be perfect if I can fix it with this and keep warranty

[weemus]

+1 very interested as well

[pbsinternet1le]

If you want it to pull hard up top cam it..

[SloCal]

Originally Posted by pbsinternet1le

If you want it to pull hard up top cam it..

Just interested in lt2 manifold facts. Too many trade offs for me on cam including losing track warranty and seat time $$

[pbsinternet1le]

Originally Posted by SloCal

Just interested in lt2 manifold facts. Too many trade offs for me on cam including losing track warranty and seat time $$

Intake alone isn't going to be your answer ..

[SloCal]

Originally Posted by pbsinternet1le

Intake alone isn't going to be your answer ..

Mate I’m just asking about the lt2 manifold...

[appleman22]

i wouldn't run it on the track with that manifold and no tune, id be worried about running lean and burning up a piston or valve

[SloCal]

Originally Posted by appleman22

i wouldn't run it on the track with that manifold and no tune, id be worried about running lean and burning up a piston or valve

My initial thoughts as well jsut wondering if anyone has done it and monitored AFRs and seen if MAF auto-corrects without tune

[Alpha1BC]

I'm planning to do it on mine. If keeping all the same OE parts aside from the manifold (i.e. MAF sensor housing, throttle body, exhaust), the tune should automatically add more fuel since the MAF is reading more air to achieve the correct AFR. I'd be very surprised if anything got leaned out from just swapping manifolds like that. A tune would help to optimize yes, but wouldn't think it'd damage anything without one.

[kropscamaro16]

ive been looking at getting one also but ill be tuned for it

[weemus]

Yeah I’m curious about AFRs up top as well. There always seems to be widespread speculation but little actual evidence in the other sub forums.
I bet you can squeeze some info out of Gwatney Performance if you buy from them. The did the dyno comparison

[Mountain]

Originally Posted by Alpha1BC

I'm planning to do it on mine. If keeping all the same OE parts aside from the manifold (i.e. MAF sensor housing, throttle body, exhaust), the tune should automatically add more fuel since the MAF is reading more air to achieve the correct AFR. I'd be very surprised if anything got leaned out from just swapping manifolds like that. A tune would help to optimize yes, but wouldn't think it'd damage anything without one.

This is my thought, too.

Same bottle-neck up-stream and down-stream of the manifold, so the amount of air coming in should be within the design limits of the engine system and calibration. The manifold is altering how efficient that OE-bottle-necked-air is getting into the cylinders. The runner lengths aren't too different from the OE LT1 intake (considering the LT1 uneven runners as well; 185/225mm vs. 210mm). I believe the cross-section is a bit different, but pretty damn close. The prior are likely finer adjustments incorporated to the +3.0L plenum size (more un-shrouding of the runner entrance and stronger resonance tuning). The factory tune, I would think, should be able to adjust for that. It has to understand something like -40 IAT conditions through various engine loads.

I mean, how many people are running ported intake and TB's by someone like Pray with no tune. Even running a Roto-Fab. No issues. There was a guy who ran a MSD on an otherwise stock car, and closely monitored data before and after, with no issues.

How many people that have noted lean AFR or had CEL's were on applications where there was more than just the LT2 intake in play? All of them? Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

[SloCal]

Originally Posted by Mountain

This is my thought, too.

Same bottle-neck up-stream and down-stream of the manifold, so the amount of air coming in should be within the design limits of the engine system and calibration. The manifold is altering how efficient that OE-bottle-necked-air is getting into the cylinders. The runner lengths aren't too different from the OE LT1 intake (considering the LT1 uneven runners as well; 185/225mm vs. 210mm). I believe the cross-section is a bit different, but pretty damn close. The prior are likely finer adjustments incorporated to the +3.0L plenum size (more un-shrouding of the runner entrance and stronger resonance tuning). The factory tune, I would think, should be able to adjust for that. It has to understand something like -40 IAT conditions through various engine loads.

I mean, how many people are running ported intake and TB's by someone like Pray with no tune. Even running a Roto-Fab. No issues. There was a guy who ran a MSD on an otherwise stock car, and closely monitored data before and after, with no issues.

How many people that have noted lean AFR or had CEL's were on applications where there was more than just the LT2 intake in play? All of them? Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

my exact thoughts and questions

[6spdhyperblue]

The issue in my mind is the actually location of the intake throttle body placement. It’s changing the bends in the intake bends/accordions and that will lead to potentially changing the way it draws air across the maf. The lt2 is considerably taller than the msd even. If your heating the motor to that extent throw a wideband on it

That being said the stock tune on a stock cai or gmpp with cal is on the rich side...