2nd Gen Ram Tech 1994-2001 Rams: This section is for TECHNICAL discussions only, that involve the 1994 through 2001 Rams. For any non-tech discussions, please direct your attention to the "General discussion/NON-tech" sub sections.

Mopar M1 Intake

Old Aug 24, 2010 | 11:14 AM
  #1  
mjonesjr's Avatar
mjonesjr
Thread Starter
|
Professional
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
From: Salem, IN
Default Mopar M1 Intake

Is there a reason no one uses the Mopar M1 intake? Seems like everyone here praises the Edelbrock intake.

Anybody ever run the M1 (Part #: P5007398AB)?

I am looking at putting the M1 on my 5.9 and would like some input.


Mopar M1 Intake: ($640.00)


Hughes AirGap manifold: ($599.99)
 
Reply
Old Aug 24, 2010 | 11:55 AM
  #2  
Annihilator_X9's Avatar
Annihilator_X9
Captain
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 609
Likes: 1
From: Grand Rapids, MI
Default

I think it's used for a higher power band which would reduce your ability to tow.
 
Reply
Old Aug 24, 2010 | 12:21 PM
  #3  
mjonesjr's Avatar
mjonesjr
Thread Starter
|
Professional
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
From: Salem, IN
Default

All the reading I have read says even the Hughes raises the power band. Unless I am not understanding what I am reading.
 
Reply
Old Aug 24, 2010 | 12:30 PM
  #4  
Hahns5.2's Avatar
Hahns5.2
Record Breaker
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 3
From: Battle Ground WA
Default

There will be low end loss with either, I'm tired of hearing otherwise. You need a few supporting mods to bring that low end back (and then some), the Mopar PCM was the ticket with my truck.
 
Reply
Old Aug 24, 2010 | 12:33 PM
  #5  
mjonesjr's Avatar
mjonesjr
Thread Starter
|
Professional
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
From: Salem, IN
Default

Originally Posted by Hahns5.2
There will be low end loss with either, I'm tired of hearing otherwise. You need a few supporting mods to bring that low end back (and then some), the Mopar PCM was the ticket with my truck.
Guess I will probably stick with my kegger intake until I decide what else to do with my engine. I don't want to explode with a bunch of money right now, just a little at a time.
 
Reply
Old Aug 24, 2010 | 01:04 PM
  #6  
talon6's Avatar
talon6
Record Breaker
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,899
Likes: 2
From: ohio
Default

Originally Posted by Hahns5.2
There will be low end loss with either, I'm tired of hearing otherwise. You need a few supporting mods to bring that low end back (and then some), the Mopar PCM was the ticket with my truck.
have you even tried the airgap? i have it on my truck. and there was no low end loss. there was also no low end gain. and a small improvement from the 2k rpms and up. and no mpg improvement. my plenum was not blown when i switched out.

and there is a loss for sure on the low end with the m1. the m1 seems to work alot better in dakotas. alot less weight to get moving.
 

Last edited by talon6; Aug 24, 2010 at 01:21 PM.
Reply
Old Aug 24, 2010 | 01:13 PM
  #7  
Salex007's Avatar
Salex007
Captain
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Default

yes there is a low end loss on both intakes but with supporting mods brings it all back, depends on supporting mods
 
Reply
Old Aug 24, 2010 | 01:19 PM
  #8  
mjonesjr's Avatar
mjonesjr
Thread Starter
|
Professional
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
From: Salem, IN
Default

Originally Posted by Salex007
depends on supporting mods
Care to share?
 
Reply
Old Aug 24, 2010 | 01:23 PM
  #9  
talon6's Avatar
talon6
Record Breaker
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,899
Likes: 2
From: ohio
Default

everyone keeps saying there is a low end loss all i can do is tell you my personal experience by my butt dyno installed.
 
Reply
Old Aug 24, 2010 | 01:23 PM
  #10  
talon6's Avatar
talon6
Record Breaker
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,899
Likes: 2
From: ohio
Default

Originally Posted by mjonesjr
Care to share?
different cam, tuner, maybe 1.7 rockers.
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:44 PM.