Vararam "velocity stack"

Post by **HenryJ** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 7:24 pm

I know it was asked once before, but anyone try this?

quickbiker · Post by **quickbiker** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 7:49 pm

Wow. That brings back memories of the old days. We used to put velocity stacks on our motorcycles and run no air cleaners.

a2b · Post by **a2b** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 12:02 am

nope, you try it?

Matt · Post by **Matt** » Tue Jan 06, 2004 9:11 pm

Im not sure if that will work with out setting the awful SES light. In your picture there are 2 smaller holes towards the top of the big hole. Those are for computer controlled air flow (can get more detailed if need be) It looks like the black part covers them up. My guess is that the SES light would be on shortly after you put it on. Personally I wouldnt do it. But if you want to, knock your socks off.

adrenalnjunky · Post by **adrenalnjunky** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 7:12 am

Looks like there might be enough of a gap at the bottom for those holes to get some air.

I've had several people tell me that the throttle body spacers that have the spiral grooves in them to "spin" the air as it goes into the throttle body worked pretty well for them -- anyone else?

killian96ss · Post by **killian96ss** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 7:38 am

adrenalnjunky wrote:Looks like there might be enough of a gap at the bottom for those holes to get some air.

I've had several people tell me that the throttle body spacers that have the spiral grooves in them to "spin" the air as it goes into the throttle body worked pretty well for them -- anyone else?

The holes do not need to be all that big for the computer to be able to regulate the idle speed. I was worried about a similar problem on my Impala when I put on an airfoil in the throttle body that almost completely covered the idle air control hole. I would say that the hole was reduced from 1/2" to 1/8" with no problems. I can't say for sure that this will work for the Vortec V-6, but I don't think it would be a problem.
As far as the throttle body spacers with spiral grooves that supposedly make more power and torque, you would be better off using a smooth bore spacer instead because the air can't spin anyway due to the throttle blade being in the way. I have heard from some people that using the spiral grooved spacers will make a whistling noise. Overall a spiral spacer will not make more power than a smooth spacer, and if anything it will create more turbulence, which you don't want!

Warnoffroad · Post by **Warnoffroad** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 5:39 pm

only $30 doesnt seem too bad, if it doesnt work send it back or put it on ebay.

Post by **HenryJ** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 6:41 pm

killian96ss wrote:...Overall a spiral spacer will not make more power than a smooth spacer, and if anything it will create more turbulence, which you don't want!

I realize that this is taken a little out of context, but turbulence in a combustion chamber (and intake on wet manifolds) can be an advantage.
It keeps the fuel better atomized.

Just a thought

I do agree that the "swirling" under the TB may actually effectively reduce the efficiency of the opening, though I have seen no ill effects and since the EGR gasses are introduced at this point, the swirled spacer may actually help to mix them?

adrenalnjunky · Post by **adrenalnjunky** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 6:59 pm

dammit -- where's a fluid dynamics engineer when you need one?

quickbiker · Post by **quickbiker** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 7:12 pm

turbulation is good. There, I settled it.

Warnoffroad · Post by **Warnoffroad** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 7:14 pm

alright, i just got mine in the mail 30 seconds ago, now you get to order yours and tell me how you like it

Post by **HenryJ** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 7:34 pm

Warnoffroad wrote: alright, i just got mine in the mail 30 seconds ago, now you get to order yours and tell me how you like it

Well if you got one that quickly, you must be the exception rather than the rule

Rumor has it that they are in such high demand that it takes better than two weeks before they even ship.
Either that or it is such a small company that they take quite a while to process an order.
Those are the rumors anyway.

quickbiker · Post by **quickbiker** » Wed Jan 07, 2004 8:51 pm

Let's get a group buy.

killian96ss · Post by **killian96ss** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 8:11 am

HenryJ wrote:I realize that this is taken a little out of context, but turbulence in a combustion chamber (and intake on wet manifolds) can be an advantage.It keeps the fuel better atomized.

Just a thought I do agree that the "swirling" under the TB may actually effectively reduce the efficiency of the opening, though I have seen no ill effects and since the EGR gasses are introduced at this point, the swirled spacer may actually help to mix them?

When you say wet manifold are you refering to carbureted engines that mix the fuel and air in the middle of the venturies? I have actually experimented with this on several Chevy V-8's with carburetors. I agree that turbulence in the combustion chamber is good, but turbulence in the intake can cause uneven cylinder distribution. Good atomization will result from a higher velocity through the venturies, and fuel discharge tubes placed more towards the center of the venturies. Velocity stacks and flow smoothing plates on top of a carburetor will atomize the air and fuel better and make more power. I also agree that the swirling of the EGR gases would probably distribute them more evenly. The only way to know for sure about the Vararam TB insert and TB spacer plates would be to test several of them on someones truck with a dyno. This would have to be done on just one truck and one dyno, becuse there can be too many differences between trucks and dynos. IMO the smoother the whole intake process can be the better, and the same goes for the exhaust side.

Post by **HenryJ** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 8:28 am

killian96ss wrote: When you say wet manifold are you refering to carbureted engines that mix the fuel and air in the middle of the venturies?...

Yes and TBI units, any of them where the fuel enters at the top of the intake manifold.
I agree with all you said and would add that surface turbulence in the intake manifold is better than polished for a wet manifold. They used to think that polishing the inside of an intake benifited the velocity, and it does , however the fuel tends to condense on the smooth surface, therefore a dimpled surface, even rough cast had better qualities.
I have seen dimpled combustion chamber designs that were very effective.

This really doesn't apply to this topic, but I find it interesting.

Basically (to get back on topic) velocity to the cylinders...stir it all up good ...and light it

I'm really tempted to try this "Vararam thing" just to see if it makes any difference.
All the "talk" is that it boosts torque, which would be nice with the mods that I have. It seems to me, when trying to think this through, that it would be more effective for WOT, although then it may just serve to reduce the TB bore size and prove a restriction? But then you have to take into consideration the venturi effect creating a low pressure zone behind the opening creating a draw that may very well exceed the stock sized performance. I am no expert and do not have the equipment , or knowledge to test this. I mostly rely on experience of others or, trial and error.

adrenalnjunky · Post by **adrenalnjunky** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 8:31 am

Well, I'm thinking of wiring my leaf blower up to a power inverter and plugging a hose from it into my intake -- think that would help??

(Yes it's a joke.)

Although I have heard of electric superchargers in the past.....

Post by **HenryJ** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 8:41 am

adrenalnjunky wrote:Well, I'm thinking of wiring my leaf blower up to a power inverter and plugging a hose from it into my intake -- think that would help??

What is the CFM your leaf blower moves? How much power does it require (amps) ?
Usually the problem is that it takes more power to run the blower than any boost in performance that is produced.
The higher electrical load takes HP from the engine through alternator drag.
Although, through the use of superconductors and brushless motors, perhaps a perpetual motion machine is possible?

adrenalnjunky · Post by **adrenalnjunky** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 9:11 am

To quote an episode from The Simpsons where Lisa had created a Perpetual Motion machine.....

[homer]"There will be no defying the laws of physics in this house young lady!!"[/homer]

killian96ss · Post by **killian96ss** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 9:46 am

HenryJ wrote:I'm really tempted to try this "Vararam thing" just to see if it makes any difference.
All the "talk" is that it boosts torque, which would be nice with the mods that I have.

When I did this to my Impala ( TB airfoil ) I actually gained 9hp and 13ft. pounds of torque! This was verified on a dyno with before and after numbers. The Vararam should give us something, but how much can only be determined with a dyno. I have also found that manufacturers seem to rate their products a little higher than what they really produce. As an example the airfoil that I installed claimed 12-15hp and 15-20ft. pounds of torque.

AZS10Crew · Post by **AZS10Crew** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 2:07 pm

They may be talking flywheel instead of RWHP also. 9HP at the wheels would be 11-12 at the engine...which is closer to their claim.

marks10cc · Post by **marks10cc** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 2:26 pm

Does anybody have any interest in getting one of these and running a dyno on it? More importantly... does anybody still have an un-modded airbox to do it with?

I'd love to know if this thing works. Because on the outside it looks like a gimmick much similar to the other gimmick's running around (anybody remember the multi-million dollar fine on Slick-50?). I'm usually skeptic, but this looks like it may just have promise.

So has anybody actually purchased one?

killian96ss · Post by **killian96ss** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 2:56 pm

AZS10Crew wrote:They may be talking flywheel instead of RWHP also. 9HP at the wheels would be 11-12 at the engine...which is closer to their claim.

The dyno used was for RWHP, but the numbers were already recalculated for drivetrain loss with my 4L60E and 10 bolt rear. The problem here is that dyno numbers do vary from one to another. I guess it is possible that the manufacturer got their numbers from a different style dyno. This is why we need a truck that is stock to get baseline numbers, and then start adding parts. The dyno used would have to be the same one throughout all the tests to make sure the numbers are correct.

quickbiker · Post by **quickbiker** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:10 pm

Looking at that thang again. I really don't think it causes much turbulance more than it causes higher velocity, hence the name. Just take for example a water hose with water running out of it. Make the end of that water hose smaller and the velocity goes higher, it shoots further. I think that's the whole point of it. The mixture will be intraduced into the intake manifold at higher velocity per volume of gas. I can see where it would produce more power and use less gas. I'm up for one.

Post by **HenryJ** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 3:31 pm

Links to Vararam discussion on other forums:
S-10Planet.com- Someone had to do it- Vararam ! , and Vararam and SES light

S10Fourm.com- Vararam?

S-seriesforum.com- VR Velocity Stacks

Warnoffroad · Post by **Warnoffroad** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 6:28 pm

HenryJ wrote:
Warnoffroad wrote: alright, i just got mine in the mail 30 seconds ago, now you get to order yours and tell me how you like it
Well if you got one that quickly, you must be the exception rather than the rule Rumor has it that they are in such high demand that it takes better than two weeks before they even ship.
Either that or it is such a small company that they take quite a while to process an order.
Those are the rumors anyway.

That I dont know, they must be small because ive never heard of it.

Warnoffroad · Post by **Warnoffroad** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 6:31 pm

quickbiker wrote:Looking at that thang again. I really don't think it causes much turbulance more than it causes higher velocity, hence the name. Just take for example a water hose with water running out of it. Make the end of that water hose smaller and the velocity goes higher, it shoots further. I think that's the whole point of it. The mixture will be intraduced into the intake manifold at higher velocity per volume of gas. I can see where it would produce more power and use less gas. I'm up for one.

Great way to put it, but does our motor suck air fast enough to get that affect?

adrenalnjunky · Post by **adrenalnjunky** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 7:42 pm

Oh yeah it does.....

One day I was washing my Z24's engine bay -- and I had a RS Akimoto Intake system with a big cone-style filter on the end. I had taken a plastic wal-mart bag and wrapped it around the filter instead of taking it off. I finished washing the car and had dropped the hood. Well, it came time to move the car and I had forgotten about the bag. I cranked the motor and I knew instantly it didn't sound right, and I don't think I even let the motor completely crank before I turned the key off.

Pop the hood and that walmart bag had shrink-wrapped itself to my K&N filter and crushed the filter like a beer can around the middle.

That was the 2.4 Twincam, I'm assuming our 4.3's would require at least the same amount of airflow.

Post by **HenryJ** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 8:31 pm

Warnoffroad wrote:...but does our motor suck air fast enough to get that affect?

Near as I can calculate at 1000 rpm the 4.3L will consume 1.1576033 cubic feet of air per second and at 5600 rpm redline 6.4825786 cubic feet of air per second.

Just an FYI by my calculation method the 4.3L should need a maximum of 389 CFM at 5600 rpm. The stock air box not including piping contains approximately .18 cubic feet of airspace. That means that the air in the box is completely changed 36 times per second at redline

quickbiker · Post by **quickbiker** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 8:33 pm

Like a shop vac!

marks10cc · Post by **marks10cc** » Thu Jan 08, 2004 9:57 pm

Well... after reading the reviews, looks like a good deal for $30. Considering 85% of my driving is below 3K RPM's, this should be a really good deal for me.

Group Buy anyone?

killian96ss · Post by **killian96ss** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:48 am

marks10cc wrote:Well... after reading the reviews, looks like a good deal for $30. Considering 85% of my driving is below 3K RPM's, this should be a really good deal for me.

Group Buy anyone?

Has anyone talked to their customer service dept. about a group discount? I want to get one, but I am still curious about the performance increase with this part. Has anyone on the CC forum actually installed one of these. The links on the other S10 forums have mixed opinions on the Vararam. Is anyone willing to test one first?

Post by **HenryJ** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 8:19 am

killian96ss wrote:... Is anyone willing to test one first?

I am willing to try one "first".

I do not have access to a dyno, but can offer an opinion, and mileage results.
One problem is that I am nowhere near stock, and results for others may be different.
Oh, one more thing, it takes me quite a while to get the mileages, since I usually don't fill up more than every 450 miles or so.

Warnoffroad · Post by **Warnoffroad** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:53 pm

for only $30 doesnt seem like a bad mod if our trucks pull that much air that fast. As you can tell i need all the power I can get

, just hope its not another T/B spacer.

Good luck Brule!! let us know when you order it and how long it takes to get

Post by **HenryJ** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:57 pm

So, I guess I open my big mouth and become the "guinea pig" again?
I guess it does have a moneyback guarantee, so I'll only be out the shipping/handling charges

Are you sure no one else wants to test this? It would have to wait until I get a feel for the NGK Irridium plugs that are being tested now.

quickbiker · Post by **quickbiker** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 8:02 pm

HenryJ wrote:I guess it does have a moneyback guarantee, so I'll only be out the shipping/handling charges

Which is about what they cost for itself.

KCustom · Post by **KCustom** » Sat Jan 10, 2004 7:26 am

I wonder if would help or hurt on a motor with a supercharger......

Post by **HenryJ** » Sat Jan 10, 2004 8:40 am

KCustom wrote:I wonder if would help or hurt on a motor with a supercharger......

I've always been under the impression that a pressurized intake needs volume rather than flow characteristics.
However, a good flowing system builds less pressure (that causes heat) and more horsepower.

I would think it would be less effective under boost, but I'm no expert.

I'm still REALLY skeptical that it works at all

KCustom · Post by **KCustom** » Sat Jan 10, 2004 8:47 am

Thanks for the info....I sent you and e-mail asking how to post pics and about your hood...

Warnoffroad · Post by **Warnoffroad** » Sat Jan 10, 2004 6:53 pm

HenryJ wrote:
KCustom wrote:I wonder if would help or hurt on a motor with a supercharger......
I've always been under the impression that a pressurized intake needs volume rather than flow characteristics.
However, a good flowing system builds less pressure (that causes heat) and more horsepower.

I would think it would be less effective under boost, but I'm no expert.

I'm still REALLY skeptical that it works at all

ill bet it really only works at 4000+ rpms if at all

Post by **HenryJ** » Sat Jan 10, 2004 6:58 pm

Warnoffroad wrote:ill bet it really only works at 4000+ rpms if at all

Vararam website wrote:Features:

* Designed to produce power and torque throughout the RPM range
* Increases throttle response
* Increases gas mileage
* Increases acceleration
* Installs in just minutes!
* A patent-pending design!
* Eliminates the need for a ported throttle-body by smoothing and reshaping the throttle-body entrance to increase the incoming air velocity at each given RPM

The website says "throughout"

Warnoffroad · Post by **Warnoffroad** » Sat Jan 10, 2004 7:29 pm

HenryJ wrote:
Warnoffroad wrote:ill bet it really only works at 4000+ rpms if at all
Vararam website wrote:Features:

* Designed to produce power and torque throughout the RPM range
* Increases throttle response
* Increases gas mileage
* Increases acceleration
* Installs in just minutes!
* A patent-pending design!
* Eliminates the need for a ported throttle-body by smoothing and reshaping the throttle-body entrance to increase the incoming air velocity at each given RPM
The website says "throughout"

Poweraid also says there T/B spacer works

Truckin suspension says there s-10 kits are better then TM, so far QBs has WAY out lasted mine. Just a little something to think about

Post by **HenryJ** » Sat Jan 10, 2004 7:32 pm

Ok, you talked me out of it, now who are you going to get to try it?

EDIT:PSYCH! It took three working days to arrive, so service was really good. I ordered on Friday and received it on Tuesday.
I'll install it this weekend and see what it does.

Post by **HenryJ** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:41 pm

It would probably install in less than five minutes for a stock intake tube.
With the FIPK some trimming/grinding was needed to fit inside the K&N TB adapter.
I installed it and opened the throttle to check clearances. There was a slight interference on the right side, so I removed it and filed the bevel slightly.

Sure seems like it is too simple to work, but I can see how it would smooth the flow and perhaps create a low pressure zone behind the throttle blade.

Time will tell, I have yet to start it. I'll fill the fuel tanks , check the new plugs mileage, and see how it works tomorrow:D

marks10cc · Post by **marks10cc** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:20 pm

I read over the webpage and reviews again. It looks like this only works at engine speeds below 3K. After that, the vacuum of the engine can overpower the 'whole' casued by the TB design negating the turbulence caused. So, my question is, do you notice any difference while cruising? I doubt this will add power, or HP, but I'm starting to believe that it could increase MPG's while cruising. 1/2 of my trip is highway, so I'm still interested in this little plastic thingy.

quickbiker · Post by **quickbiker** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 7:40 pm

marks10cc wrote:I read over the webpage and reviews again. It looks like this only works at engine speeds below 3K. After that, the vacuum of the engine can overpower the 'whole' casued by the TB design negating the turbulence caused. So, my question is, do you notice any difference while cruising? I doubt this will add power, or HP, but I'm starting to believe that it could increase MPG's while cruising. 1/2 of my trip is highway, so I'm still interested in this little plastic thingy.

Yea, you're right. Most rpm's are between 1500 - 2500, at least with me it is.

Post by **HenryJ** » Sat Feb 07, 2004 11:16 am

Well even with the winter weather we've been having , I think that this has indeed increased the gas mileage slightly.

This is only the first fill-up (425 mi.) since the install, so results are preliminary, and all the driving was city , with very little highway cruising.

Gas mileage increased .5 mpg over the last tank of fuel, before installing the Vararam.

At $1.78 per gallon for fuel ("plus", mid-grade) it would break even in 7550 miles. So, after a year it should have paid for itself.

As for performance, well...not really helping. It isn't a loss and might be slightly better below 3000 rpm, but nothing that "stands out".

Summary: So far fuel economy looks promising, performance is unchanged.

Post by **HenryJ** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 3:47 pm

Well the gas mileage dropped this last tank of fuel, negating the increases seen in the previous tank of fuel.

After two fill-ups and 835 mi. the average was .25 mpg less than the usual average.

I am now in the last phase of testing. I have removed the Vararam and will be confirming any increase/decrease that occurs.

quickbiker · Post by **quickbiker** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 4:52 pm

HenryJ wrote:Well the gas mileage dropped this last tank of fuel, negating the increases seen in the previous tank of fuel.

After two fill-ups and 835 mi. the average was .25 mpg less than the usual average.

I am now in the last phase of testing. I have removed the Vararam and will be confirming any increase/decrease that occurs.

Have you taken into account the wind direction and the wind velocity in conjuction with your speed and the temperature and the humidity?

Post by **HenryJ** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 4:59 pm

quickbiker wrote:Have you taken into account the wind direction and the wind velocity in conjuction with your speed and the temperature and the humidity?

Well, not individually... no.

As this is not a very scientifically sound test, I just thought I'd give it as much time as possible to average the results and come to some kind of reproduceable conclusion.

Post by **HenryJ** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 8:36 pm

HenryJ wrote:I am now in the last phase of testing. I have removed the Vararam and will be confirming any increase/decrease that occurs.

Mileage is back up

I would NOT recommend the Vararam. The very minor increases in performance that "may" have been felt in the mid to low end, are negated by the loss of mileage.

It will sit on the shelf as a learning experience (cheaper than college tuition

)

When I aquire a better method of testing the effects ( Autotap ) , I may give it another try.

Anyone interested in buying a slightly used Vararam?

2bunik · Post by **2bunik** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 1:20 am

thanx for testing the nifty plastic product out.. It is very unfortunate that it didn't work out. It could have been great..

I think there should be a list of products that are not recomended..

Well on to another plastic thingy..

S-10CREWCAB.NET

Vararam "velocity stack"

Vararam "velocity stack"

Update