cross ram intakes

[chev74]

Besides how freakin awesome they look, whats the advantages? low end torque? bragging rights?

[70GMCer]

With todays gas prices....."Bragging Rights"

[hyarbour]

From what I understand they were only good for top end, no torque. They do look cool though.

[ChevLoRay]

Best lookin' set-up was on a Chrysler-family engine, also equipped with their ramcharger exhaust headers.

[chev74]

i have just been looking at them on Ebay and visualising them under my hood.... it was nice.

[dave2953]

Here is an old one that I had a picture of. Forgive my ignorance, but what is so significant about these intakes?

[chev74]

thats what i was wondering....

[Fastfun]

This is the one I like it is from a Z28 302.

[john]

Heres a couple of mopars from way back. I think the 2nd one is called a tunnel ram?

[muddpile]

I've had a couple of them, an edelbrock SY-1 and an X-C8, both small block chevy. The SY-1 is supposed to wake up in a big way around 3000rpm, and the X-C8 closer to 4000rpm. Never actually tried either.

[69halfton]

they look sick.

NBUT DONT BUY ONE

my dad's friend had a 67 chevy nova with a 350 and a cross ram.

my dad had a 350 chevy with a tunnel ram...both manifold had dual carbs.

the cross ram could never be tuned. and it wasn't just them. recently (within the last year) HOTROD magazine did a review, and out of something like 10 manifolds, it performed the worst, simply becasue they are impossible to tune. HOTROD did however mention that for some reason, they could tune them on mopars, and when they were tuned, they ran INSANE.

[1fun71]

Originally Posted by john

Heres a couple of mopars from way back. I think the 2nd one is called a tunnel ram?

I think dodge used to have a engine called the Golden Ram it was a Hemi type motor with a cross ram like the botom picture and it was painted gold I think.

[Gray Ghost]

They are really only good for two things.....racing and looks. Sure do like the old Z28 manifold though. Having seen and driven one back in NM in 1973, I can tell you that the cool factor was the main concern with everyone who saw it or heard the car.

That particular Z28 configuration was said to have over 550 HP at the wheels during one test in 1970. The one I saw run in El Paso musta been it's brother, it ran faster than just about everything out there.

Fun side note.. the crossram manifolds could be ordered with the car, but they came in the trunk....it was up to the owner to install them.

[chev74]

i was pretty sure that they were more for looks than anything. That one on the 2nd mopar pic sure is awesome looking. I saw one on eBay but had no idea that it was that excessive...

so the consensus is: dont buy one unless i have a mopar?

[PanelDeland]

And want to hire a full time carb guy.

[fine69]

I have a Wiend? Cross ram intake for a Small block Chevy if anyone is interested in buying it.

[streetstar]

cross-rams are a road race deal --- made for laying down power at 5000 rpm + for an hour at a time or more

Not practical for most, but you could set one up with twin pro-jections possibly. But from a performance standpoint, single carb technology is better now than in 1969 , so it doesnt make logical sense for a truck guy to run one of these unless its just to be different. (I'm not saying it wouldnt be cool -- it would -- if i had that setup, i would probably never install my hood

[fine69]

Who cares about practical when it looks so cool? My crossram intake was on a 68 Chevy shortbed at one time. With no hood. Wicked.

[chev74]

but if i took my hood off then i would have to dress up my engine bay more than it is- WAY MORE... just a daily driver currently

[fine69]

I took pics of my intake, need to resize them.

[fine69]

OK, i am not a resize professor.

[71Dragtruck]

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

That particular Z28 configuration was said to have over 550 HP at the wheels during one test in 1970. The one I saw run in El Paso musta been it's brother, it ran faster than just about everything out there.

Were talking a Z28 302ci small block cross ram 550hp at the rear wheels? Not trying to start anything here, BUT no way just have to do the math on that one, that motor couldn't pull those #'s at the crank let alone the rear wheels. Even with very high race gas only compression, a 302ci and 1969 technology wouldn't make those #'s, a 1970 LS6 454 Chevelle wouldn't pull 550hp at the rear wheels back then.

I've put the money in into motor's using modern parts, longer strokes and more cubes, stood in the dyno room and watched the pulls. Even in magazine dyno pulls if they are being honest they will at the very least have in fine print of how the #'s are corrected and worked over for the highest reading, that are not real world. And they may even let you know that your results may very.

Sorry if this ruffles any feathers, that's not the reason I hang out on here, but my one weakness is I just can't read unreal HP #'s from unrealistic combinations without chiming in. Every 3rd or 4th post of this type I just can't help myself.

HMMMM now the part where I debate just letting it go and deleting my post so I don't come accross as a know it all jerk. OOOp's too late.

[Gray Ghost]

Chime as you will. I saw the test myself back in the 70's and have heard about that same test from two other sources on the Horsepower TV shows. The Z/28's 302 was the Trans Am series homologation motor and was well known to be more powerful than the specs. It is a well known fact that GM and all other manufacturers lied about HP after 1967 to hold insurance rates down as well as to get hot cars by the fed's new smog regs.....also the two main reasons that manufacturers went to net HP figures in 1971.

That doesn't mean every Z28 from the factory had that much power. That said, not one ever dynoed at less than 350 hp that I ever saw. This one had two 600 cfm Holleys on the crossram manifold, headers and aftermarket mufflers and ran low 13's in the 1/4. The tranny was an M-22 rock crusher IIRC.

Your doubts have me curious as to whether I can find it in print...hopefully I can post a link later.

[Gray Ghost]

Here's two pages with the same story, both state 458hp as the top number. I stand corrected on this one...

http://www.yearone.com/enthusiast/re...amz28/z-28.htm
http://www.camaro-untoldsecrets.com/...s/crossram.htm

Looks like I was thinking of the ZL-1's HP numbers....stated in the second story as 550hp.

[71Dragtruck]

As I also see in the write up that isn't rear wheel HP, so my comments were based on your statement of 550 at the wheels which is around 650 at the crank. That being said you can see why I was in in dissbelief by what I was reading. No hard feelings I hope.