PontiacBonnevilleClub.com

http://shop.zzperformance.com/store/p/9 ... nsert.aspx
Would something like this work for a northstar GXP? I know that these exact ones wouldn't work but would the concept work?

I have NO idea how the Northstar's intake is setup, but I doubt it highly. The Northstar is already a high-RPM motor as it is, and shortening the runners would just make it lose the little bit of true low-end torque it has...

What about cams from an STS? I can't remember what I read (so I may very possibly be wrong) but are GXP pcm's complete locked? I have an hptuner.

Lol Ohhhhhh ZZP, crack me up with your "numbers".


Actually Ed, shortening the runners makes it have more torque. Lengthening = more high rpm hp. Just think tunnel rams, no power below 4K or so really.

01bonneSC wrote:Lol Ohhhhhh ZZP, crack me up with your "numbers".

WTF?

The HVII and HV3 have been proven over and over again that they work well with the correct supporting mods.

And the testing for the HVII was done by Easy Performance, not ZZP.

Edit- I should have quoted the whole thing. It's all inaccurate

01bonneSC wrote:Actually Ed, shortening the runners makes it have more torque. Lengthening = more high rpm hp. Just think tunnel rams, no power below 4K or so really.

100% Wrong.

Tunnel rams have long runners to take advantage of helmholtz resonance.

95naSTA wrote:

01bonneSC wrote:Lol Ohhhhhh ZZP, crack me up with your "numbers".

WTF?

The HVII and HV3 have been proven over and over again that they work well with the correct supporting mods.

And the testing for the HVII was done by Easy Performance, not ZZP.

So you are telling me that with this insert a stock L36 would be 5-10hp less than a stock L67?

01bonneSC wrote:So you are telling me that with this insert a stock L36 would be 5-10hp less than a stock L67?

Since you quoted me, you must have read where I said correct supporting mods right?

And since you did reasearch on the HV3, you must have read where is says it only adds 9 peak hp right?

95naSTA wrote:
Since you quoted me, you must have read where I said correct supporting mods right?

And since you did reasearch on the HV3, you must have read where is says it only adds 9 peak hp right?

I read both. But zzp makes it sound like is a bolt on 30hp. They should say "bolt on 9 peak whp hp for $200."

That doesn't sell parts Jake.

01bonneSC wrote:

95naSTA wrote:
Since you quoted me, you must have read where I said correct supporting mods right?

And since you did reasearch on the HV3, you must have read where is says it only adds 9 peak hp right?

I read both. But zzp makes it sound like is a bolt on 30hp. They should say "bolt on 9 peak whp hp for $200."

So how does 205+9 = 230?

Not many companies will distinguish between peak and maximum gained hp. They described it accurately.

The easy performance long and detailed write up is no longer available. If it was, you would be able to look at the VE and dyno graphs for yourself.

Its not the whole article but the numbers are posted http://www.grandprixforums.net/hv3-questions-24285.html

Simply remove the upper intake (leaving the throttle body attached), pull out the stock runners, set the HV insert in the intake and bolt it back down! 30HP in 30 minutes!

Basically, $200 for 9hp doesnt do it for me, thats all im getting at.

And they said couple it with rocker and HV TB and you get better numbers, more than a cam. Well couple the cam with the same mod for mods and a cam is better. IDK, personally I wouldnt buy this. Im done with less than 8cyl cars/trucks(even though I still have the Camaro but thats just staying stock)

It's an n/a v6 pushrod motor.. hp/$ is obviously going to suck.

I've never heard of a tunnel ram intake making more torque, at least in the 3k rpm down range, infact edelbrock came out years ago with a manifold called a "Torker" and it wasnt a tunnel ram. Back in the day we made up for the low end loss of power with 4.88 or 5.13 gears and we would launch at 6-7k rpm. You will gain hp and torque with a tunnel in the upper rpm ranges but then of course you have more carb and more cfm and the engine below to support it.

deano55 wrote:I've never heard of a tunnel ram intake making more torque, at least in the 3k rpm down range, infact edelbrock came out years ago with a manifold called a "Torker" and it wasnt a tunnel ram. Back in the day we made up for the low end loss of power with 4.88 or 5.13 gears and we would launch at 6-7k rpm. You will gain hp and torque with a tunnel in the upper rpm ranges but then of course you have more carb and more cfm and the engine below to support it.

Hence why this insert "adds" 30 in the 5800-6k range.

I have mixed emotions with the HV3..... But I will say it does come to life in the upper rev range... You do feel the difference... Instead of falling flat at 5000 the engine just keeps pulling hard...

The problem I have is this HV3 is on a 4000 Lb van.... The van needs all of the torque it can muster low down to get the beast moving, that and the cam is a best of all worlds cam and is not really designed with the HV3 in mind, I am not 100% certain but I think the can I have was designed with the stock runners in mind and made the most of the longer runner set up... The van is rated to be in the high 3700 Lb area - 3900 Lbs.... Now imagine it with 20 gallons and me sitting in it... and I have all the power options except Dual AC... So I am a lot closer to the 3900 Lb side...

I will use the HV3 with the GT1 cam on my 95 Bonneville( 3500 Lbs )... Its worth the power gain on top for this car.... It is hard to get the power out of NA $ for $ as compared to the L67 Supercharged... But it is fun and makes for a much more drivable vehicle....

Is the HV3 worth the $200, I am still on the fence about that..... Also you have to be able to flow all the extra air you take in or the mods will be useless...