Head Games

[Streetbu]

COOL. Thanks!!! Be right back

Ann-nd, I'm ba-ack.

Check me on this StreetBu, from that link you provided, what I was able to harvest was that there were 3 numbers for the LS-6 manifold that collectively, spanned a time frame from 1998-2004. This much jibes with what I was able to discover elsewhere.

The oldest, offered between 1998-2000, came on the Camaro, p/n 12573572 and had no provision for an Exhaust Gas Recirculation port (EGR)

The next one, offered between 2001-2002, came on the Camaro again, p/n 12561184, no mention of EGR capability

The last one,. also offered between 2001-2002, is p/n 12561182, and no mention of the application or EGR.

The only way to distinguish an LS-6 from any of the other manifolds is to flip it over and check the bottom. The LS-6 is FLAT. The rest, apparently, aren't.

There was also an dual application intake designated LS-1/LS-6 that appeared from2001-2004 but no part number for this was provided or mentioned.

It looks like either of the 01-02 intakes, 12561182, or 12561184 would be correct and work for me. The EGR port,if present, would just get a plug as the exhaust manifolds have no provision for an EGR valve. The boss is there but it was never drilled or tapped for the application.

How'm I doing so far???



Nick

Yes basically right. Check that the bottom is flat and it has no egr port and you're good to go.

 

[CopperNick]

Thanks, StreetBu, supposed to be couple of garage project floating around the area that have LS mills involved. My buddy runs the local indie speed shop and hears things from time to time so at this point patience is going to play a large role in what happens next.

 

[Texas82GP]

Thanks, StreetBu, supposed to be couple of garage project floating around the area that have LS mills involved. My buddy runs the local indie speed shop and hears things from time to time so at this point patience is going to play a large role in what happens next.

Since this isn't a max effort build and LS6 intakes are more rare than I thought, I'm sure an LS1 intake would work fine.

 

[CopperNick]

Did consider that but was more concerned about the generational aspect and the LS-1's seem to be applicable to pre 2001 LS motors. So I am trying to stay within the borders year wise to come up with an intake that fits as easily and properly as possible. E-Bay returns, if that is where it ends up coming from, are miserable at best and absolutely lousy if an international border and an epidemic are involved.

 

[Jakefromstatefarm]

What about shaving and using a truck intake? That way my plan at least... Before I drop dollars on an A/M intake

 

[Texas82GP]

Did consider that but was more concerned about the generational aspect and the LS-1's seem to be applicable to pre 2001 LS motors. So I am trying to stay within the borders year wise to come up with an intake that fits as easily and properly as possible. E-Bay returns, if that is where it ends up coming from, are miserable at best and absolutely lousy if an international border and an epidemic are involved.

I don't think they are that different, but ok.

 

[Streetbu]

Cathedral = Old technology
Rectangular = New technology

Meh, I disagree. GM changed the design to improve power and efficiency. Rectangular ports also allow you to run a factory supercharger. Everyone has an opinion (you know the saying) Most of them are not backed up by data that makes any sense. With VVT The alleged loss of torque on the low end is not an issue. As I stated previously, cathedral port heads perform well on smaller displacement engines.

So LSA superchargers are for which port? Oh that's right....

 

[L92 OLDS]

So LSA superchargers are for which port? Oh that's right....

Rectangular port…

 

[CopperNick]

Hey, Jake, it is a truck intake that is on this motor at present. Great for torque to move an elephant; or a truck, but not so hot at the too end or in terms of horsepower. And shaving off all the protruding nerds and bosses and fiddly bits really isn't an option because some of them get used to attach other more important parts.

The other possibility, shaving the bottom to make it flat, is also on the no-go list because these, intakes, being made of poly-plastic alloy, are injection molded to exact specs and tolerances. Shaving the bottom on an LS-1 might easily cause you to cut through the floor of the intake in which case you now have an interesting parts can. The existence of the dish or flat bottom is all to due with air flow and velocity. After that you need an engineer to accurately describe the wherefore and the why.



Nick

 

[L92 OLDS]

What about shaving and using a truck intake? That way my plan at least... Before I drop dollars on an A/M intake

The truck intakes flow very well and produce more power than the car intakes do up to around 5500 RPM. If you’re planning on spinning your LS out to 8,000 then get a FAST intake. Otherwise they are a waste of money.
I shaved the truck intake on my ride and painted it with “texturized” paint. I like the look. There are plenty of tutorials on YouTube. Check it out.