Bill Dedman said

turbofreek said

Dual plane would work but limit rpms before its rated rpm window n/a. It would also work up to a certain power output before restricting the air and heating it even more. The reasoning for the single plane is equaling pulses to a center point in the intake. It does not create a restriction under pressure due to its open plenum. This alone stops power losses for the majority of the people using forced induction. Also in a boosted application the single plane does not adversely affect low rpm driving as it would in n/a form. Due in large part the comp wheel adding air to the intake charge even not under pressure conditions. Now not all engines are created equal even when using identical parts side by side. So there are those who have better power out of a dual plane intake when used under boost. However if its for a great amount of power and rpms a dual plane is simply stupid to use. as it has distributing problems that are equal(vacumn) in n/a form, but unequal when pressurized do to directional flow in the runners that are inconsistent per cylinder. It will cause tunning inconsistency and possible damages to a pressurized engine. My suggestion is <500hp either will work fine. >500hp don't take the chance on it. If there was not any difference. i think a dual plane would be most used due to the additional broad torque curve it could provide to make a turbo car even more dominating.QUOTE]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am a newbie at supercharging, and know practically nothing about this subject, but I charged ahead anyway, building a home-brew, low-boost (10 psi) Vortech blow thru system for my almost stock 360 Magnum (in a 3,400-pound (no driver) '72 Valiant 4-door. I have a 214/218 @ .050" lift cam from Hughes that lifts .525." It has 116 degrees of lobe separation.

I bought a Chinese "Air Gap"-type intake manifold when Edelbrock was advertisisng the REAL Air Gap, but nobody had one for sale. That went on for months and I needed a manifold... so, I gritted my teeth and bought the almost-a-copy.

Anyway, it's a dual-plane forced induction system with a Vortech V-1, S-trim blower that makes 10 pounds of boost. It went from 260 RWHP to 445, by adding the blower, the intake (N-A, it had a M-P dual plane) and going to TTI headers from the N-A engine's early 340 cast manifolds. Drag strip ET's went from 13.35 to mid 11's, while the MPH went from 102 to 116... a different car.

I have access to a M-P single plane manifold, now. So, I'm considering trying it. Do you think it will improve this package? I'm thinking that the flywheel HP may be around 520 with the current setup.

Here's the chassis dyno test and picture of the motor.... So far, no one's been electrocuted...

Click to expand...

Bill,

With the wide LSA I was wondering if you could hear the cam at all or if it sounds stockish.

The cam I am getting for mine is a Solid Roller 240@50 on a 111-112 LSA with .634 Lift. I really want to hear the cam in it at least some without killing the power. I called Bullet Cams and they gave me a recommendation of a 114 LSA installed 3* advanced with the same duration at 50 and the same lift. I called Brian at IMM Engines to pick his Brain and he came up with the exact same specs as Bullet did but in about 3 minutes and I never told Brian about the Bullet conversation. I was on the phone with Bullet for over 40 minutes. I then explained to him that I wanted to at least hear the cam some and we decided to tighten up the LSA a little to achieve that goal.

This is kind of like making Soup, you don't know exactly how it will turn out until it is done!

Click to expand...