This is true. Removing the "zip" (where the upper hose passes through the air-box) will reduce the lower intake tuning peak. There are two tuning peaks, on the 87 intake system and that part is an important part to the lower resonant tuning. BUT the trade off will be higher flow at higher RPM's. This will gain some power.

Also if I put a K&N cone filter right on the turbo is it going to melt the rubber on the filter???

There should be no melting rubber issues if this is done. Placing a K&N on the vehicle (even in the stock air box) will yield better performance. Although, consider fabricating a tube that will allow the cone filter to bring in cold air. The cone on the turbo will gain some power but gains will be higher if fresh/cold air is obtained, rather than the under hood heated air. This will also reduced the intake temps. As a result, your charge temperature sensor will detect this and the engine controller will compensate by adding more fuel, for the increased air density.

And for my last question, what is the deal with BOV's...it keeps the turbo spooled up between shifts... Right??

Correct. If one is to be installed, place it on the bottom hose. Placing it on the upper hose/tube will reduce the benefits, that it offers. This is because the air will be required to go through the intercooler (back pressure) before it can be blown off.

Gary Donovan made back to back runs with & without a smooth hose with no increase or decrease in ET or MPH.  So, no sense spending money where it's not needed. (this pertains to the upper intercooler hose)

This all pertains to the power being made and at what RPM. I referred to high rpm gains. You will find that the higher the RPM range goes the more this mod will produce. It has also been said if that a larger throttle body has no gain. If the intake isn't properly modified and/or the demand isn't there (not much power/boost being made) to begin with then YES. Start making good power (without extremely high boost) and running higher RPM, etc.. The gain can be realized. The boost level can have a "masking effect" on these types of mods.

Doesn't matter where it is, but every one I see with one puts it after the IC, only one person I know has put it on the bottom hose, & that was because he didn't "fabricate" something to mount his BOV.  He cut into the bottom hose & installed the BOV & pipe assy directly into the hose. Matter of fact, inside the airbox, where the factory put some of them, is part of the top hose assy, not the bottom hose.

The early vehicles used the upper for the BOV. This was easier and cheaper because the hose connected to the air box. This later changed to the lower, for production vehicles, along with the elimination of ribbed hoses. This was done for reasons previously mentioned.

Example: 1990 VNT
On the VNT, a unique lower metal pipe was utilized in production. This pipe had a hole cut and a welded nipple attached, for the B.O.V. hose connection. This was all at additional production cost. A lower one-piece rubber hose could have been used, a nipple could have been placed on the upper rubber hose, etc.. Only in cases where there is a gain or a justified reason, will additional money be put into the cost of building a vehicle.

Upper hose B.O.V.'s...  It is easier to put a pipe in place of the upper and attach a B.O.V. there.
Sometimes the better things are more difficult to achieve. It would not be desired to place a restriction on something that needs to breath. Why have this scenario with the intercooler, at the cost of a 2,3,4, or higher psi drop??

Does anyone know what that thing on the driver's side of the fuel rail (TII) is??  That black round thing that is a BOSCH part..

This is a pulse/surge damper. Its intent is to reduce the pulses in the fuel rail. Its primary function, other than to reduce pulses, was to quiet the injectors during cold starts. The damper helped lower the "clicking" noise generated by the injector. This "clicking" is more pronounced when the fuel, rail, and engine are cold.

Anyway, it unscrews from the rail, if you take it off you can see the little rail inside.

Removing it (damper) will not generate any problem. It was later removed from production for lack of benefit and cost.

I have thought about removing this little rail for possibly more volume at the rail...  Anyone on here done this?
 Good idea, bad idea??

See Below

Why did they put this small rail in there??  It looks as if the fuel flows through the little rail, turns around in the black round thingy and then goes to the injectors....  ??

That is absolutely correct. As you know the fuel supply and regulator are located on the same end of the fuel rail. Without the "transfer-tube" the pressure is regulated at the source. This can cause additional fuel surges, which may/can contribute to un-equal distribution, at the injectors.

To better visualize what this hardware does.. The transfer tube basically makes the fuel rail "think" that the fuel is supplied at one end and regulated at the other. This provides a more EVEN and stable pressure, across the entire rail. Supplying and regulating at the same end will/can produce a pressure change at one end before the entire rail begins to equalize.

Gus wrote in about 52 pph injectors: They support 12.2's in a big 4 door with a power-robbing loose converter... that means they'll support 11's in any Omni or Charger... That's at stock fuel pressure,

At .5 lb per HP, and 100% duty cycle, 4 x 52 x 2 = enough fuel for 416 HP. I doubt seriously that a Super 60 setup with 29 psi would make 416 HP. So you would not be at 100% duty cycle.

        This could easily turn into a very deep/detailed discussion. The above equation does not include the necessary fuel enrichment necessary, to keep the engine at a set EGT level. As boost increases, it takes an exponential increase of fuel, to maintain an EGT level. This is happening because of increased heat generation (Power = Heat). If a fuel curve was plotted to determine the necessary fuel flow, in a boost range- You would effectively end up with a straight line, as boost increases. BUT the "fuel cooling" requirements will skew the line upwards exponentially. For example, a 416HP number was given. For demonstration purposes only, lets say 10% of your calibrated fuel is used for keeping the EGT numbers under control. Our peak HP just dropped 41.6HP. Why? That 10% is not required/consumed for power; It is used for combustion chamber/EGT control ("Power Loss Rich"). A naturally aspirated engine can run a WOT F/A of .080 and as low as .076. Turbos can also run at this level and they will make GREAT power. Unfortunately they will be very short lived!!!! A turbo must run this richer mixture as a cooling agent. Power loss rich sounds like a bad thing, but it is what keeps our
engines together.

(416 x .1 = 41.6) OR ( 52 x .1 = 5.2 ),( 52 - 5.2 = 46.8 ), THEN 4 x 46.8 x 2= 374HP

This increased fuel requirement is amplified, with forced induction applications!!

"I doubt seriously that a Super 60 setup with 29 psi would make 416HP."

This statement is 100% correct !
Our "conversation #" just became 374HP. With turbo charged vehicles, this causes some issues:

1.) Over estimated engine output based on calculated fuel consumption.
2.) If excluded, this can easily cause problems when determining fuel flow requirements.
I used 10% for conversation ONLY. At 29psi, this number may/will be higher.

Since I'm using the stock Acclaim computer, it's probably not at 100% duty cycle in my car, either.

The computer does not know/care (at WOT) what injectors are being used. The stock calibrations (T-I to T-IV) are "full-on" at 5200-5600 @13-14psi.

And with 10 lights lit; that's over 1-volt out of the O2 sensor- Plenty of fuel and then some.

The stock box will deliver that PW regardless of the injector being used (unless PROPERLY bled from the MAP). If the box sees 13-14psi.. then (regardless of +8%, +20%, or +40% inj's) the system will go FULL ON at approx. 5500. When this happens, "... and then some!!!" is achieved!!

How much power will 52 pph injectors support?

Depends who you talk to!! Quite some time back, I tried to explain the issue of the fuel "cooling" requirements.

KNOWN = The higher the boost - The higher the fuel demand.

IGNORED = The higher the boost - The higher the fuel demand PLUS the needed fuel for maintaining an EGT level AND keeping the engine alive. If an engine were 100% efficient and generated no heat, the fuel would only be needed for HP. This is NOT the case.

The other concern is duty cycle. Will the injectors be run full on? If not, what DC will be utilized? 75%, 85%, ... An injector's cooling system (for the coil) is the fuel that flows through it. 100%DC over a long term can destroy the coil/injector. Why? At approx. 2 ohms, the current delivered to these injectors is pretty high. How do you like your burger?? Well done??

Last but not least, fuel pressure... Need more fuel -- Crank up the fuel pressure.
As pressure goes up, available volume supply goes down, at the pump. Thought.. It is much better to run a low pressure and large inj., than it is to run high pressure and a smaller injector.

With all this jibber-jabber out of the way, my own personal experience has indicated that at a 80-85%DC/standard line pressure/18psi boost; 340HP is possible. Raising the boost will exponentially put a higher demand on the injector. It's that cooling thing!! Remember this is all based on the engine. The injector is interrupt driven and as the RPM climbs the available time between interrupts becomes shorter. At 6000RPM there is 20ms between interrupts. Why mention this? If the injector is open longer than 20ms, at 6000RPM, then this is full ON. The other reason I mention this is that you are using a 16V system. This is a heavy breather up-stairs. You need LOTS of injector to keep you out of the full-on scenario.

Can improper cam timing cause you to run lean?

The answer is YES.

Lets use high RPM for an example. A cam shaft is typically retarded when higher RPM operation is desired. Why?  Leaving the valve closed longer, during the intake stroke, allows a higher level of vacuum to be generated, before the valve opens. At high RPM, events happen faster which gives them less time to complete their cycle. If a higher amount of vacuum is generated, then more air will be drawn in, in that short period. Because the system is "open-loop", at Wide Open Throttle, and we are dealing with speed-density systems; There will be no additional fuel added to compensate for the increase in air flow OR air consumption. Now at high RPM the engine is running leaner in this mode of operation.
 
With all this in mind, the low RPM A/F will become richer because of the retarding of the cam.

Advancing the cam will produce the complete opposite of everything previously listed.

Additional thought:
Turbo vehicles will realize the effects of cam timing just as much as Naturally aspirated vehicles. Why? The cylinder still has a high level of responsibility for drawing the air in. Boost or pressurizing the intake is an assistance to this process BUT the drawing/vacuum effect generated by the cylinder is still in use.

If the air were TRULY pushed into the cylinder - More and more gains would be found by advancing the cam farther and farther. Why? Open the valve as early as possible so that the boost could begin the "filling" process earlier.  Since this isn't the case - It is not recommended.

2 Piece vs 1 piece intake manifold

Two piece...

Even though the 2-piece has many flaws, it is still superior to the one piece manifold. The entrance, to the runner, on a 1-piece is terrible and the neck has far less flow capability.

The 2-piece should generate stronger low end intake pulses while the better flow capabilities will improve the power above 5200. This is why the ratings on the T-II were rated at 5200RPM. After 5200 with the 1-piece...  All is down hill.

Go for it! You should be rewarded.

Caution:
DO NOT OPEN THE MATING RUNNER HOLES (where the upper and lower bolt together) TO THE GASKET!!!!! When this is done a "bulb" or aneurysm is generated in the runner. This can cancel the tuning process of that effective area. This will effectively make the runner appear shorter. Also the short side turn will have a high turbulent area and flow will suffer.

I'm going to comment here since I asked this question- Mr. 5digits and myself have different philosophies regarding boost on our engine- His is to run moderate amounts of boost and make sure everything else in the induction/exhaust system flows as well as possible (hence you will need less boost to go fast). My way is to run the boost as high as needed to get the job done! The 1 piece intake is a good piece for the average joe with average parts plus injector access is a piece of cake.

The k-car has run 11.4 with a 1 piece intake using what I call the "brute force/turn the boost up" approach of making power with a turbocharger. So don't loose any sleep if your running a 1 piece intake- You would be better off getting a new turbo that wasn't based on a design penned back in 1971!!

Steve Menegon wrote in: I had a conversation with Mr. Mysterious himself (5DIGITS) about making an intake that had more balance. My idea was to make a different two-piece intake that came over the top of the valve cover and center the throttle body. In essence, equal length intake runners. I thought it could be done and guess what? Ma Mopar had already done it. Here is the info 5DIGITS sent to me:

This will work!!  There were several functional versions PRIOR to production release, in '84 and in '85. It worked excellent. Why didn't it make it? You're gonna LOVE this!?!

1.) Service access to the valve train.
2.) Crash test issues. The electronics were not as sophisticated, as they are now. If the throttle body was broken off, in a crash, the vehicle would essentially go to WOT. That's a problem, for production vehicles. Now there are "safe-guards" in the code that protect against this. If the throttle is closed, BUT airflow is at maximum, the engine goes into a fuel shut-off routine. Ta-Dah!!

3.) Basic over-all under hood packaging. It was VERY close to the hood.

I keep looking at my T2 intake and wonder how cylinder #4 manages to get any air at all under high boost.

It does better than you think. There are alot of compounding events taking place here and they do somewhat work together.

1.) BREATHING:
#1 gets most BUT runs the coolest (coolant). It should be richer!
#4 gets the least BUT runs the hottest (coolant). It should be leaner!
#2&3 Well... Their trade-offs are well proportioned. Except that the #3 runner is on the "griddle" (turbo) and receives much thinner air. So the fact that it falls 3rd in the "air food chain" is a good thing.

I still may try to fabricate an intake like this, if I could only find the time....