LT1, Crossfire, etc.., Intake runner lengths and other rambling

[Clarence L.Snyder]

Gwyn Reedy wrote:
> 
> I'm curious about the Crossfire setup also.
> 
> My interest is in mid-range torque and driveability. I have an Impala with
> LT1 (or is it LT-1?) and it runs strong, is very smooth, and will pull over
> 20 mpg. Also have a number of 60's and 70's vehicles with small and big
> block Chevy V8 engines and carburetion. They start hard, stumble when you
> lug them, and get awful gas mileage (but they run fine at WOT). I don't want
> roller cams, 8500 RPM, etc., and none of them will ever earn a time slip.
> Just want to make them as enjoyable to drive as the electronic engines.
> 
> I'm really curious about the runner lengths on the Crossfire as well as the
> TPI. Hope someone will be able to come up with that information. And we need
> to compare apples to apples - are you measuring from the intake valve or
> from the port on the manifold?
> 
> Tunnel Ram manifolds for carbs (usually sticking through the hood) are a way
> to have a ram intake with carbs. (Of course there was the cross ram 2 x 4bbl
> on small block and on Chrysler 426 Hemi, and do you remember the Dodge 383
> back in 1960 that had the carbs outboard of the valve covers to get longer
> intake ram passages?) I wonder if anyone ever put a 4 bbl on a right angle
> adapter mounted in place of the throttle body on a TPI. (If you needed to
> run a carburetor because of racing rules or something.) You'd get the RAM
> effect without such a large hole in the hood...

Don't forget the not so lazy slant six from chrysler - good low end due
to semi-tuned long intake runners necessitated by laying the engine
down.As for the carb on right-angle adapter on EFI'd engine - it should
work - have basically the same setup on marine and industrial
engines.And airplanes put the carb under the engine.