most super long runner intakes are meant for SUPER HIGH rpm use. think of a tunnel ram on a gasser? does it make any torque or power down low? dont think so...
Have to argue that point, at least as to the causes of crap low rpm performance. Look at the runner diameters sizes on the so-called "tunnel ram" manifolds; they're huge! The low rpm air
velocity through those manifolds is terrible (carbs or f.i.), but they don't run RV cams with them either. Race stuff.
My German Ford 2.9L gasser has short/straight runners & smoothly hits its factory redline @ 5800rpm, sounding like it's ready for much higher revs. The same basic 2.9L in Ford Ranger, Bronco II,et. al. had intake runners at least twice as long, a bit more torque from 800-2200 rpm, and sounded like it was all out of useful power and revs at 4200 rpm... typical small truck motor, before electronically-controlled valves, dual intake tracts, etc.
The same runner length differences were evident in the EFI Mustang 302 V8s vs. the EFI 302 V8s in the trucks.
Superchargers and turbos take away part of the low rpm advantage of the longer intake runners vs. shorties, but only when they start to cook up some pressure.
In the 1980s Oldsmobile did some experimental multiple-runner-lengths manifolding for their V6 version of their horrible 350-inch V8 diesel, in hopes of broadening the rpm range over which the V6 produced usable torque. It worked quite well, but GM did not figure the extra expense was worth it, and they made more profits selling buyers up to the POS V8 diesel engine. (Oddly enough, the
cast-iron head version of the Olds V6 diesel wasn't generally too bad, just never developed & offered to the public in a version with power to match its weight and displacement, only 85hp from 4.3L!)
J.R.
SoCal