Looks nicely done!
I had one of those (SLP?) "Claw" intakes on my 95 LT1 car. Intuitively speaking, it looked to have some potential over stock, but never dyno'ed it to actually see if function = form.
The stock intake on the LT5s is an area worth exploring, far as improvements go. Case in point: The vacuum is so great that often the accorion tube will collapse at WOT, in spite of an open lid box (I discovered).
1) The collapsing screams "impedance" at the opening of the tube; enough so that there is a pressure drop within the snorkel sufficient for outside air pressure to collapse the unsupported tube. And, when applying principles of "laminar flow", it would be difficult to find a surface with greater impedance than that accordion style tube bridging between the filter and the intake horn. (This was addressed on the C5 and C6 with the smooth carbon fiber bridge instead.) Installing hoops keeps the tube from collapsing, but does nothing for (theoretical**) surface impedance/internal pressure drop.
2) The "Coplan" sleeve insert does provide a bridge over the accordion surface, which has to be an improvement to flow (I'd bet a ham sandwich on it!).
**Note: I have to leave it at "theoretical" based on observation and basic flow principles. But, w/o actual quanitative measurements of air pressure or velocity to prove it, quantification is stll "at large".
So, from a flow dynamics point of view, the "Claw" appeals to my sense of flow, compared to stock. Sure would be interesting to see some "before and after and back again" dyno comparison of that system and stock.
I'm just sayin. This is a topic I'm studyin' up on at present, in conjunction with increases in TB area, is why all the elaboration. (Don't mean to steel the thread
)
P.