Team Chevelle banner
21 - 40 of 55 Posts
So the question remains,if the 163 hi rise intake fit so easily then why did Chevy go with the 569 lo rise intake ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pete 67
It was used for the Corvette's lower hood clearance issues,which never happened in 1970.
In my way of thinking, that is the best and most likely answer.
I have always understood that the LS6 (much less, the also planned LS7) did not clear Fed emissions requirements in time for 70 Corvette production; BUT, if that is correct, why did 70 Chevelles meet emissions requirements for 70 production?
NOT that I care, just curious.
 
In my way of thinking, that is the best and most likely answer.
I have always understood that the LS6 (much less, the also planned LS7) did not clear Fed emissions requirements in time for 70 Corvette production; BUT, if that is correct, why did 70 Chevelles meet emissions requirements for 70 production?
NOT that I care, just curious.
I wonder if it was the late release of the "new" Corvette and Camaro for 1970?
 
I wonder if it was the late release of the "new" Corvette and Camaro for 1970?
I don't believe the factory offered the 454 in the Camaros. You could get a 454 in one from Baldwin-Motion and possibly Yenko but I don't think the factory offered it.
 
I don't believe the factory offered the 454 in the Camaros. You could get a 454 in one from Baldwin-Motion and possibly Yenko but I don't think the factory offered it.
That has also been my understanding since day one in 1970.
 
Now, let's go back to "will it fit"?
All manifolds with rectangular ports (some people prefer square ports) will fit all stock type BB heads with either oval or rect ports.
BUT, a manifold with oval ports will not work on a head with rect ports. There would be a big air gap between the manifold and the head port (GIGONDA vacuum leak).
If a rect port manifold is used on an oval port head, MANY, MANY people claim there will be a reversion of flow as a result of the difference in intake/head port sizes. BUUUUUUUUUUT, there have been members here that have run that combination with no noticeable issues.
 
I think the most noticeable difference was the better dragstrip times with the square port intake on an oval port motor. Most people reported lower elapsed times with that combo so the reversion theory was shot down.
 
I’m putting the L-88 intake on a set of 69 dump truck heads now ! Some used the rectangle intakes for more fuel ! This combo was given to me 20 years ago ! This seems like a restriction so I now have over 20 hrs of clean up work on these heads ! The big ovals don’t have enough meat to fully match the intake but it’s a lot closer and should run way better ! Will find out ! Of course I straightened the ports a little bit and added the vortex ditches ! The little 396 with the 505 lift crane should be sporty with 3:73’s and 4 speed in the 69 Camaro !
 
Discussion starter · #38 · (Edited)
Here's the intake I purchased off eBay for $200. Kinda upset that it was painted black 'cause the paint around the exhaust crossover ports was baked on and it took 3 days to get it off with my blast cabinet. All the holes are in remarkable condition and have been chased with a Tap.

Image


Here's after 4 days of blasting and thread chasing. This is the same intake as above. Had to sit my L88 carb on top.
Image


I dont reconize the logo on the runner. It's not a Winters Snowflake. Let me know what you think.

Image

Image
 

Attachments

21 - 40 of 55 Posts