Let'* just say Chemistry was really boring me today... So what do I do when I'm bored? Daydream about my car.... And I had an idea. An idea that I don't think anyone has thought about, and if someone has, I'd like some input as to why you didn't do it (or you did, and I'm just too stupid to do a thorough search ). Anyways, I was doing some browsing last night, and I came upon the Stattama website, dreaming of a turbo setup, when something caught my eye...
http://www.stattama.com/index.cfm?fu...111&product=52

Now, I didn't think any of it at the time, but I realized that this may be an awesome option for us L36 guys as a UIM replacement... Now, my question is if it'd flow better... I'd assume it would be the same type of flow as the L67 (just without the boost), but is the volume too large? Will that be a problem? Before you say it, I know what needs to be done... L67 LIM, L67 heads, bladda bladda bladda, but I think it might be worth it for some of us looking for an extreme setup... Which, who knows, might be me in a few years?
Anyways, is this just a dream, or could this be a reality? Would there be any gains? I'd like some input... Positives and Negatives

Personally, I would rather run a rear mounted turbo leading up to my UIM.

But for probably less money, you could do a L67 swap...

Sorry, I should have mentioned this will be purely naturally aspirated...

so you want to do all that work just to stop a UIM failure?

So far, I've found the aluminum gaskets and a good UIM (most would say a Bob Dillion UIM *I think*) is the best fix for the UIM problem.

Nooooooo, I'm looking for better flow, Cody. If I wanted a replacement UIM, I'd get an APN. This is down the road. Consider it a possible alternative to the HV3. That'* why it'* in Performance & Brainstorming

TheDude did a good project, that'* essentially free, it just involves cutting holes in the insert in the UIM, just have to cut certain runners a bit smaller...

It looks to me like that UIM replacement on the Stattama website completely removes the UIM runners (cuts them down to "zero length"). I'd be concerned that would kill the low end on an n/a application.

The runners would be wayy too short and plenum volume would be down.

Doesn't seem like an n/a application would benefit.

Even after something like a stage 2 cam? Or N2O?

Yep, your far past the point of deminishing returns when it comes to shortening runner length.
There is only so much gain to be had with each individual aspect of engine flow.
A super short runner may gain max flow numbers but you'll loose port velocity and cylinder charging will suffer.
Even an HVII with a stock L36 LIM is too short for most applications.

So, if you can only have a fixed length intake runner, a HV3+L36 LIM sized length is about as short as you would want to go.

More useable flow would have to be picked up elsewhere. Heads, TB, etc.