[Steve C.]

Presumbing the Crosswind is the same or similar height to the Performer RPM intake ?
If so Edelbrock suggests their RPM intake is about 1-1/4" taller than a "stock" intake.



.

[Skip Fix]

Cliff my point was the SS guys are making lots of HP and using an adapter so yes they might not be perfect flow but might not be as bad as we think in flow or mixture distribution. And early Rochester on a SBC and a Victor really looks weird! I remember back when there were lots of 2 BBL classes seeing them on an aftermarket intake looked off too.

Maybe someone with an RPM intake(Crosswind)use a square bore carb with an adapter(since intake has a plenum shaped for both), then the same carb with the same thickness square bore spacer if we want to really see what just the adapter does.

[Region Warrior]

By the graph, doesn't look like the original set up was optimum to begin with.

[harry k]

Originally Posted by 66 Gas Tires Oil

great post thanks for sharing. also, even if the plots were a perfect overlay the aluminum is much lighter and that in itself is a performance gain. just wondering why you mark the horsepower points where you did and not at the peak position. again thanks for sharing.

Jim

Jim & most here
I have lots of other tests similar to this intake test & so many different components(carbs-headers-power spacers, camshafts, ignition boxes msc etc etc) dyno testing performed in my shop and i don't post results here on daily basis due to some critiques coments that i have to rebuttal back at,in anycase anyone is curious about specific item what they would like to know and happens that i have dyno test results,they can always pm me direct and i can give them unbiased direct results,it doesnt matter for me what the concerend persons intent afterwards is & what they want to do cause i am not selling them products nor services as some do here,
but anyways to answer why i marked the cursor in the graph where i marked it is:
in street cars peak hp don't mean didly, you have to look at "area under the curve what it makes oppose to peak numbers". hope you understand what i am saying.

Originally Posted by The Boss

Thanks for sharing the results - the customer must have been happy, that's a noticeable change!

indeed it is ,and i didnt have to say to the customer. wait oh no you have iron intake and spacer (not adaptor), i have to buy you a Q-jet first and install it and if it makes more power you're happy, if it doesnt now oh lets remove it and start all over

Originally Posted by johnta1

In defense of Harry, the customer is using that carb along with the necessary adapter to run it on that intake.

So he would gain HP by the aluminum intake.

He didn't do a test for optimum combos for each?

If all I had was this carb, what would make me the most power?

My 2 cents.

John i like the termenology you have elected to use"In defense of Harry"
cool thing there as you can see somes rebuttal at this as i said above!
i like what youre saying here
"If all I had was this carb, what would make me the most power?"
the results are posted there buddy thanks for making it clear to some.

Originally Posted by David Jones

Thanks for sharing.
This proves that in this case, one combo as installed made more power than the other as it was installed on this car at this time. If somebody is interested in making exactly the same swap....you can possibly expect this result.

Originally Posted by Bruce Meyer

Thanks for sharing Harry. We need more unbiased test results published here. This confirms testing I did decades ago at the dragstrip. The stock UNMODIFIED manifold was not ever the best choice.

David & Bruce Thanks for understanding cause we're on the same page.

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

Thanks for the testing, Harry, and Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Tom Vaught

Mr boost engineer same to you, you mean don't have few cents to throw at this.

[harry k]

Originally Posted by Kenth

Apple to apple would be using a carb that bolt up on both intakes w/o any adapter of any sort.

Today everybody knows an adapter between a squarebore carb and a spreadbore intake kills power.

Originally Posted by Cliff R

Glad you said it Kenth, as I hate to be the one to point out that NOTHING about that test was "apple to apple".

Installing a square bore carb on a factory spread bore intake with an ADAPTER doesn't correct the HUGE miss-match between the two components. The miss-match causes the air to have to make several "bends" to enter the plenum areas, which will kill power.

To be perfectly honest, I'm surprised the numbers are as close as they are......FWIW......Cliff

as i said in my post#8 the black thingee is spacer not an adapter
lets get the controversial smoke blowers to agree that this is not ADAPTER

this is a 3/8"tall spacer that was mounted between the edelbrock carb and iron intake , and also FYI Edelbrock carbs baseplate have dual bolt holes as i am taking extra time to post pic here to demonstrate that there is no ADAPTER used, spacer only with cast iron intake and sealing plate with aluminum intake!

[Cliff R]

Adapter or spacer is a play on words, it plays the same role here. Anyone with half a lick of common sense can see that there is still a terrible miss-match between the bottom of the square flange Edelbrock carburetor and the top of the 4 hole stock intake.

This is NOT present when the same carb is used on an aftermarket dual plane intake, so it will ALWAYS make more power.

I'll post some pics later to show how horrible the miss-match really is between the carb and the intake, and that the "spacer/adapter used only raises the carb up slightly to provide a slightly better shot at the holes in the stock intake.

"Cliff my point was the SS guys are making lots of HP and using an adapter so yes they might not be perfect flow but might not be as bad as we think in flow or mixture distribution."

Skip, completely DIFFERENT deal than what is going on here. They just use an adapter to get the carb bolted to an intake under it that has a FULLY OPEN plenum. There is no "miss-match", or anything close to it. The Super Stockers spend countless hours playing with those "adapters" and find pretty big gains with them. I have witnessed HUGE gains in power between two different ones on back to back dyno pulls, so there is something to gain by playing with those things.......FWIW.....Cliff

[Skip Fix]

Cliff agreed there is a mismatch, but there was also one on my car using the same intake(no plenum divider massaging) different carbs with adapter and it still picked up the car significantly-so the mismatch might not make a big deal is all I'm saying. There is also soem mismatch using an open spacer even with a Qjet as some of the primary flow can use that 1" to try and turn into the secondary hole yet hits the flat factory area between the bores.

And that Q jet had slightly bigger primaries so if we say my motor needed that extra 50 cfm the Demon provided might not be that 50 cfm amount more. And the Qjet had dynoed equal to 850 Holleys on several motors-even a 500 hp Buick.

[paul s.]

Harry,

Thanks for posting your results as this is indeed an apples to apples test if there ever was one. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Keep posting results if and when you have the time because it is appreciated.

Paul

[Tim Corcoran]

We all appreciate you sharing your testing as always we welcome sharing of actual dyno testing and drag strip testing but I don't believe this is an apple to apple comparison at all. The square bore carb on a Q-Jet manifold is a big mis-match. How about repeating the test using a Cliff prepped Q-Jet on the factory manifold and then put the Q-Jet on the square bore manifold with an adapter and see how that works. That would be another apple to coconut test but never the less it would be interesting to see those results.

[Cliff R]

Tim, I started my own thread on the topic....and...if you need any testing of the sort mentioned, I've done a LOT of them, dyno, and at the track, with every intake manifold and type of carb I could fit under the hood. We have a lot of test results with Victor/Dominators, and comparisons to T-II/HP 950's, and the Tomahawk intake with Q-jets and large CFM Holley type carburetors, in addition to scores of comparisons between q-jets, Holley's, Demons, etc on all sorts of intakes, with all types of spacers as well.

This happens since I do build a LOT more engines than I mention on the Boards, and we dyno just about every single one of them. Since much of the testing gives us results that don't sit well with certain "crowds", I put very little of it up here, simply to avoid a bunch of criticism and arguing back and forth, etc, etc.

I even did some of the track testing on another well prepared Pontiac powered vehicle, after taking some criticism right on this Forum that the testing I did was "flawed" being only specific to my own car (which is a bunch of horse crap right to start with)........Cliff

[harry k]

Originally Posted by 242177P

That crossover on the 67 intake has seen some serious temperatures. Is the exhaust flapper stuck in the closed position??
Aluminum intake doesn't have a crossover.
Apples to... coconuts.

there is no exhaust flapper in this installation, with your wise observation to smear my thread,has it done to you that the black paint burnt off ? anyways most of your comments belong in the Clubhouse.

Originally Posted by Tim Corcoran

We all appreciate you sharing your testing as always we welcome sharing of actual dyno testing and drag strip testing but I don't believe this is an apple to apple comparison at all. The square bore carb on a Q-Jet manifold is a big mis-match. How about repeating the test using a Cliff prepped Q-Jet on the factory manifold and then put the Q-Jet on the square bore manifold with an adapter and see how that works. That would be another apple to coconut test but never the less it would be interesting to see those results.

Tim I dont scratch my right ear with my left arm wraped around my head,if you have that kinda suggestion have your friend do that kinda test on his own time(since he's a legend on his own mind) and come back prove the negative results as i did with mine and i have a very happy customer with least amount of time and expense involved.

[69FIREBIRD76MM]

very simple test on how to gain some street horsepower, no need to get into apples to apples thingy here...I am pretty sure q-jet will have fare better on that stock iron intake.
many guys do this kind of adaptations and I am pretty sure they are clueless of the HP losses...Good post Mr. Harry.....

[Ventura455]

Here is something to think about. The stock steel intake weighs 42lbs while the performer RPM weighs 15. You would need to make 27 more hp out of the steel manifold just to compensate for the extra weight.

[ta man]

Originally Posted by Ventura455

Here is something to think about. The stock steel intake weighs 42lbs while the performer RPM weighs 15. You would need to make 27 more hp out of the steel manifold just to compensate for the extra weight.

I think your math is off?

[GOAT WHORE]

Originally Posted by ta man

I think your math is off?

Did not sound right to me, 27hp to over come 28lb

[Firebob]

Well through all the back and forth on this subject it's a bit confusing for me so I'll ask a more specific question.
If I wanted to install a Holley DP on a performer intake, what type of spacer or adapter should work best? Or should one or the other be used at all?

At any rate I am glad for the posted result of the original test. Every little bit of information helps.

[Bruce Meyer]

Originally Posted by Firebob

Well through all the back and forth on this subject it's a bit confusing for me so I'll ask a more specific question.
If I wanted to install a Holley DP on a performer intake, what type of spacer or adapter should work best? Or should one or the other be used at all?

At any rate I am glad for the posted result of the original test. Every little bit of information helps.

What you need is a thin adapter plate such as Summit Racings SUM-G1420. It will not restrict at all. It is used to seal it to the spreadbore flange.

[steve25]

Another thing to keep in mind if this thread starts to compare the power that the straight up Performer makes when put up with a stock manifold is the fact that Edelbrock states very clearly in there catalog when these manifolds first came is that the Performer is DONE BY 5K rpm.

[harry k]

Originally Posted by 69FIREBIRD76MM

very simple test on how to gain some street horsepower, no need to get into apples to apples thingy here...I am pretty sure q-jet will have fare better on that stock iron intake.
many guys do this kind of adaptations and I am pretty sure they are clueless of the HP losses...Good post Mr. Harry.....

"far better & key word here stock UNMODIFIED iron intake"

Originally Posted by Ventura455

Here is something to think about. The stock steel intake weighs 42lbs while the performer RPM weighs 15. You would need to make 27 more hp out of the steel manifold just to compensate for the extra weight.

lets remind here the audience here one more time aproximate 50lbs in the front end of the vehicle has its benifts of using stock cast iron intake manifolds that they cheer for

Originally Posted by Firebob

Well through all the back and forth on this subject it's a bit confusing for me so I'll ask a more specific question.
If I wanted to install a Holley DP on a performer intake, what type of spacer or adapter should work best? Or should one or the other be used at all?
At any rate I am glad for the posted result of the original test. Every little bit of information helps.

here is what you need a sealing plate as i have it installed under the carb in the previous pic.
[IMG][/IMG]
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/edl-2732/overview/

[Skip Fix]

Guys in case you all forgot the earlier post real world testing WITH an adapter

"As far as adapters-track swap-Brad Urban Carb Shop modified 800cfm 73 SD SR Q jet on an HO intake ported E heads 259@ 0.050 solid roller.Swapped on a Demon(yea one of those crappy things) 850 DP WITH spread bore adapter-idled great out of the box and picked up 0.25 seconds and 3-4 mph."