Jump to content

Intake manifold swap?

Meethead

By Meethead
in Engines & Drivetrain

Recommended Posts

MiamiSilverado1500 Enthusiast

MiamiSilverado1500

Posted
Posted

Ported Jet TB's SUCK!!!!! Mamo is the bomb!

 

RT

 

I wasn't going to get a Jet Powr-Flo and port it. I was going to get the LT1 version and put it on the 6.2 manifold.

 

What's the link to this " Mamo TB" ??

  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply
ruby15z71 Enthusiast

ruby15z71

Posted
Posted

First off JET does not make a throttle body for the 6.2 LT1/L86 currently. That's why I only posted the 5.3 L83 link. Remember the 6th Gen Camaro with the Lt1 wasn't released until mid 2015 and was a 2016 model year. The link you posted looks to be a gen 5 camaro 6.2 throttle body based on the reviews.

 

2nd... you can not put an LT1 Throttle Body on an L83 intake manifold they don't work. You have to go to gmpartsdirect.com and butt the intake manifold, the L86 Throttle body, and the throttle body gasket. Currently I do not think there are any other replacements out there. The LT1 fits with the MSD Atomic manifold which flows way better than the Lt1 manifold and will give the L83/L86 much better too end but lose on the low end.

 

 

Adding a 6.2 LT1/L86 cam is a waste of time and money imo. Better off going to a company like LMJS, HHP, Texas Speed, or even Vengeance to get a custom grind cam... majority of shops charge around $4,000 for a cam swap cause of all the bs involved with dod/afm delete plus it needs a phase limiter and you'll need to replace the afm lifters... also when you do a cam your better off swapping the stock fuel system to the lt4 fuel system as well since everything is apart. After all that if you go with a flowmaster please don't post again haha flowmaster is the worst exhaust you can put on these trucks as it's chambered design flows worse than stock. Better off with 3" pipe and a magnaflow or borla muffler.

 

To answer your question the best option is the L86 Intake manifold and LT1/L86 throttle body. The aftermarket intake manifold from MSD is about a grand for a mere 35hp if that plus tune plus you still need the throttle body for the lt1. It also needs a pulley and a new belt to reroute as the lt1 intake manifold and MSD cater to the cars and they angle downward interfering with the trucks current belt configuration. From some of the bigger guys in the industry and the guys I talk to on the Gen V Engine 2014+ trucks fb page no one has yet to port the throttle body from a 6.2 lt1 that I know of. If you feel the need to port the LT1 throttle

Body then go for it. But on a full bolt on 5.3 motor even with bigger cam it's not needed... even on boosted applications I don't believe it's needed as people using stock 5.3 throttle body's making serious power.

MiamiSilverado1500 Enthusiast

MiamiSilverado1500

Posted
Posted

First off JET does not make a throttle body for the 6.2 LT1/L86 currently. That's why I only posted the 5.3 L83 link. Remember the 6th Gen Camaro with the Lt1 wasn't released until mid 2015 and was a 2016 model year. The link you posted looks to be a gen 5 camaro 6.2 throttle body based on the reviews.

 

2nd... you can not put an LT1 Throttle Body on an L83 intake manifold they don't work. You have to go to gmpartsdirect.com and butt the intake manifold, the L86 Throttle body, and the throttle body gasket. Currently I do not think there are any other replacements out there. The LT1 fits with the MSD Atomic manifold which flows way better than the Lt1 manifold and will give the L83/L86 much better too end but lose on the low end.

 

 

Adding a 6.2 LT1/L86 cam is a waste of time and money imo. Better off going to a company like LMJS, HHP, Texas Speed, or even Vengeance to get a custom grind cam... majority of shops charge around $4,000 for a cam swap cause of all the bs involved with dod/afm delete plus it needs a phase limiter and you'll need to replace the afm lifters... also when you do a cam your better off swapping the stock fuel system to the lt4 fuel system as well since everything is apart. After all that if you go with a flowmaster please don't post again haha flowmaster is the worst exhaust you can put on these trucks as it's chambered design flows worse than stock. Better off with 3" pipe and a magnaflow or borla muffler.

 

To answer your question the best option is the L86 Intake manifold and LT1/L86 throttle body. The aftermarket intake manifold from MSD is about a grand for a mere 35hp if that plus tune plus you still need the throttle body for the lt1. It also needs a pulley and a new belt to reroute as the lt1 intake manifold and MSD cater to the cars and they angle downward interfering with the trucks current belt configuration. From some of the bigger guys in the industry and the guys I talk to on the Gen V Engine 2014+ trucks fb page no one has yet to port the throttle body from a 6.2 lt1 that I know of. If you feel the need to port the LT1 throttle

Body then go for it. But on a full bolt on 5.3 motor even with bigger cam it's not needed... even on boosted applications I don't believe it's needed as people using stock 5.3 throttle body's making serious power.

 

1. http://www.jegs.com/i/JET-Performance/561/76106/10002/-1

http://www.jcwhitney.com/jet-performance-products-powr-flo-throttle-bodies/p3090392.jcwx?filterid=d244y2015g323j1

https://www.realtruck.com/jet-powr-flo-throttle-body/R185436P2016Y78MA.html

 

Here are some links for a Jet TB for the 6.2L Chevy engine.

 

2. You mention about putting a LT1 TB on a L83 manifold. I never said that I was planning on doing that. My plan was to put the L86 manifold with the LT1 TB on my L83 engine. I will not buy the MSD manifold for a grand and only get 35hp, less bottom end out of it and have to deal with a downward facing TB and will have to spend more on a new belt and pulley. I want to go with the L86 manifold because it flows better and points the TB in the same direction so a new belt and pulley isn't needed.

 

3. I don't want to go with a custom grind cam and have to spend money to remove the DOD/AFM because I want to keep those. I simply want any easy swap cam that will give me a slight boost in power and not affect my bottom end while keeping my DOD/AFM because I spend the majority of my week on the turnpike going just to and from work. If not, I'll stay with my same cam and simply add the larger TB, L86 manifold, long tube headers, 3inch catless Ypipe, and a straight exhaust. The flowmaster piece I was referring to was the Super 10 which is a high flow unit. Again that specific muffler isn't set in stone. I simply want a high flow piece that's loud because I simply don't like exhaust systems that hide the sound of V8s.

ruby15z71 Enthusiast

ruby15z71

Posted
Posted

My point exactly. The gen 6 camaro is a 2016. That's when the LT1 was put in then and even on Jet Performance website they do not may a throttle body for the LT1 motor yet... your links are for the older ls based motor. Nothing ls based will fit these... the new 6.2 LT1 is a different motor than previous 6.2 motors.

 

I didn't say you were just stating a point. And you're wrong regardless of a flowmaster 10 or 40 or then ew American thunder or w/e ya called, they are not flow through designs. You will want a flow through design when you do an after market exhaust. Gives the best flow vs chambered flowing worse. Trust me I've been there done that and there was a study on it that showed most flowmaster exhausts flowed worse than stock... that's why I said better off with a borla or magnaflow muffler or even getting a corsa exhaust if you want loud.

 

As for the cam swap you'll gain a little power but to go through all that work is pointless for only a minimal gain. Also when you tune the truck for headers and exhaust and all that, just about every tuner turns off the v4 mode which if it's turned off you'll never see v4 and the dod/afm is useless now. That's why I suggested to get a custom grind for your needs with dod/afm delete which will replace the afm lifters and while in there do a fuel system upgrade to the LT4. Before digging into a cam swap the mods to do on the 5.3 L83 is the LT1 TB with the L86 manifold, long tube headers, exhaust, intake and an e85 tune.

Mh167002 Enthusiast

Mh167002

Posted
Posted

Katech, WeaponX and Mamo currently port the 6.2L LT1 throttle body with good results. I have the Katech and it is a great deal for under $250 shipped for a brand new GM TB that they port and send no core necessary. I'd say go that route if you are buying a new factory one anyway, just put the extra $100 into it and get more bang for your buck.

WesternMike Enthusiast

WesternMike

Posted
Posted

Ok guys so I have the 5.3 and looking to upgrade to the 6.2 intake.

 

Does anyone have the required GM part numbers for this upgrade? Info here has me for sure going to do it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Mh167002 Enthusiast

Mh167002

Posted
Posted

Intake Manifold:12639087

TB:12620263

TB Seal:12639086

PCV Tube:12650610 This is needed for stock because the PCV tube is above the throttle body on the 6.2 and mid-way on the driver's side on the 5.3. You could simply use hose or it may not be needed if you have a catch can installed.

WesternMike Enthusiast

WesternMike

Posted
Posted

Thanks buddy!

 

All in including shipping is $434.95 CAD for us up north. Not too bad. Will be adding this to my list of mods now.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Thanks buddy!

 

All in including shipping is $434.95 CAD for us up north. Not too bad. Will be adding this to my list of mods now.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

MiamiSilverado1500 Enthusiast

MiamiSilverado1500

Posted
Posted

My point exactly. The gen 6 camaro is a 2016. That's when the LT1 was put in then and even on Jet Performance website they do not may a throttle body for the LT1 motor yet... your links are for the older ls based motor. Nothing ls based will fit these... the new 6.2 LT1 is a different motor than previous 6.2 motors.

 

I didn't say you were just stating a point. And you're wrong regardless of a flowmaster 10 or 40 or then ew American thunder or w/e ya called, they are not flow through designs. You will want a flow through design when you do an after market exhaust. Gives the best flow vs chambered flowing worse. Trust me I've been there done that and there was a study on it that showed most flowmaster exhausts flowed worse than stock... that's why I said better off with a borla or magnaflow muffler or even getting a corsa exhaust if you want loud.

 

As for the cam swap you'll gain a little power but to go through all that work is pointless for only a minimal gain. Also when you tune the truck for headers and exhaust and all that, just about every tuner turns off the v4 mode which if it's turned off you'll never see v4 and the dod/afm is useless now. That's why I suggested to get a custom grind for your needs with dod/afm delete which will replace the afm lifters and while in there do a fuel system upgrade to the LT4. Before digging into a cam swap the mods to do on the 5.3 L83 is the LT1 TB with the L86 manifold, long tube headers, exhaust, intake and an e85 tune.

 

 

I don't have the E85 feature on my truck. How would I go about that?

ruby15z71 Enthusiast

ruby15z71

Posted
Posted

There's a few people that make conversions for it. Many people have done it but it just will need to be tuned before you run e85

acc412 Enthusiast

acc412

Posted
Posted

Intake Manifold:12639087

TB:12620263

TB Seal:12639086

PCV Tube:12650610 This is needed for stock because the PCV tube is above the throttle body on the 6.2 and mid-way on the driver's side on the 5.3. You could simply use hose or it may not be needed if you have a catch can installed.

Thinking about this. I'm going to see if GM wont mess with my warranty since its OEM parts

Mh167002 Enthusiast

Mh167002

Posted
Posted

I doubt they would ever know. It all looks identical unless you hold the TB's side by side. The 6.2 will fit over the 5.3. I recommend tuning for the added airflow, but it's not going to hurt if you don't and are worried about warranty. I've been driving mine a week without a tune and it runs great.

acc412 Enthusiast

acc412

Posted
Posted

I doubt they would ever know. It all looks identical unless you hold the TB's side by side. The 6.2 will fit over the 5.3. I recommend tuning for the added airflow, but it's not going to hurt if you don't and are worried about warranty. I've been driving mine a week without a tune and it runs great.

I mean worse case is i wait until the warranty expires then do all my performance mods lol

Mh167002 Enthusiast

Mh167002

Posted
Posted

I bought mine with 3500 miles and lowered it front and rear and put a straight pipe on before 4000 miles. Lol

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,759
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    DM22
    Newest Member
    DM22
    Joined

  • Who's Online   4 Members, 0 Anonymous, 2,736 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Chuck FB
      summer road trips in the 2026 2500HD

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I thought I would use your thread and add to it as I just did my first longer drive with my truck in the last couple of days. I drove from the Grande Prairie area of Alberta down to Edmonton and most of where I drove in the city was the ring road so fairly free flowing but a bit of stop and go as well in the city. Stayed the night and returned home and not too many stops along the way each way but every restart and certainly every cold start sets it back for fuel mileage. Why I say that is I see some people will cherry pick a fuel mileage leg after the vehicle had been warmed up driveline wise before hand and its a forgiving ( easy rolling drive leg for example ) and call that their fuel mileage which can give a false perception of reality. I was not heavily loaded at all but never the less the flip bak cover, rubber bed mat, various tools etc and extra jerry cans of fuel all way up to a few hundred pounds of dead weight so its not an empty truck. The cold inflation tire pressures are set more near the freezing point so once they are warmed up driving I was showing 45 front and over 40 rear and realize high inflation pressures would help a little in fuel mileage but certainly not the ride on our crap sections of highway. The weather was good so was not raining as that can really drag mileage down, in fact I had a bit of a tail wind on average driving home. Most people on here would never have driven on that freeway to visualize it but its got a fair bit of rolling type of landscape with numerous river valleys. For the most part I had it on cruise set to 62 although kicking it off if I caught it in time before it started down shifting and self braking going down the grades. Most of the more substantial grades its shifting into 7th I believe as 8th just doesn't have it. Total distance round trip was 643 miles and my overall average and I did refuel three times in all, figured out to 17.65 miles per US gallon. My best fuel mileage section refuel within all of this figured out to 18.46 and these are all hand calculated figures. I find if anything that the trucks computer can be over optimistic, sometimes its pretty close but other times its stretching it. On paper persay in theory the truck would have just about made it on fumes for that whole drive without refueling once.    Which made me think of the topic thread of the wonder if these trucks could do 20 mpg and that is a good question, certainly would have to be on an easy going flat highway, no head wind, the right temperature, not packing around a bunch of dead weight and puttering along even slower than I was I would suspect and going steady and not stopping to smell the flowers or take a piss !. It probably is possible but not without effort to attain that with the wind resistance and weight of these trucks. Of course on my drive most people are passing me if they have the power as per loaded highway tractors, never mind a lot of speedy vehicles but the speed limit is 68 and most are at or well over that. 
    • Aimatdeer
      Ac not keeping up

      By Aimatdeer · Posted

      Monday looks like a good day for the dealer to test an ac issue. Hopefully it all turns out good.
    • CamGTP
      Gas Prices

      By CamGTP · Posted

      Paid $2.72 for E85 today.
    • Atlas
      Gas Prices

      By Atlas · Posted

      Welcome back! No, it definitely doesn't pass the sniff test. Even "ceasefire" needs an alternative definition these days.    $5.29 at Kroger today
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That makes sense, and I think you are describing the real product problem. Capturing data is the easy part. If the owner or technician has to manually dig through five minutes of millisecond-level logs, the product has already failed. The device would be at the ECM harness, not at the OBD port, so I agree that data retrieval and event marking need to be thought through carefully. The way I am thinking about the architecture is: The recorder itself should not depend on a phone, app, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or cloud connection to capture the event. It should always keep a local rolling buffer and lock the event locally. A button, phone app, or small cabin device would only act as an event marker. If the driver feels a stumble and presses the button 10–30 seconds later, the pre-buffer has to already contain the useful data. For data retrieval, the practical options would be a sealed service USB lead, Wi-Fi download, or a phone/cabin companion device. I would not expect the owner to remove the ECM-side module or work with raw files directly. The cloud or AI side would be for interpretation, not for capturing the event. The truck may have no connection when the issue happens, so the evidence has to be saved locally first. After that, cloud processing could help decode the data, compare it against baselines, and generate a readable report. For the first version, I would keep the automatic triggers conservative and objective: driver event marker bus-off error passive voltage drop / brownout device reset FIFO or queue overflow a normally periodic message disappearing side-to-side communication mismatch, if the topology supports that For “learning normal,” I agree with your point, but I would not want to overclaim it as automatic root-cause diagnosis at first. A realistic first step would be learned baseline comparison for that specific vehicle and operating condition. For example, a value would only be compared against similar conditions: RPM range load / MAP throttle position gear / vehicle speed coolant and oil temperature battery voltage AFM/DFM state, if decoded and validated Then the report could flag things like: this periodic message disappeared compared with its normal timing this value deviated from this vehicle’s normal range under similar conditions the same abnormal pattern repeated after the same type of event the anomaly occurred together with voltage, oil-pressure, misfire, or communication changes But I would still call that “abnormal pattern detected,” not “replace this part,” unless there is enough validated repair data behind it. So the intended product would not be “here is a huge log.” It would need to be an event package: what triggered the capture how much pre/post data was preserved what changed before and after the event whether the device itself reset, overflowed, or saw a bus error selected graphs around the event raw data only as supporting evidence From your perspective, what would make this kind of report useful instead of just another datalog? For example: What are the top 5 parameters or events you would want highlighted first? Would you trust a learned baseline for that specific vehicle, or would you prefer fixed thresholds? How much false-positive flagging would be acceptable before you stopped looking at the reports? What would a one-page report need to show for an independent shop to take it seriously? For misfire, AFM/DFM, oil pressure, or U-code complaints, what would you want the tool to flag automatically?

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...