[69FIREBIRD76MM]

Originally Posted by harry k

WHORE there is another thread cooking on the other side where the math is much apealing for you in there.

"I wanted to stay off Harry K's thread so it doesn't sound like I'm picking on him or being critical of his testing, which I am not"


he cant help himself to see someone in this site to show results
like a broken record,how many times have we seen this being repeated over & over
"The HO intake made 487HP, the RPM made 491HP, the iron intake made 497HP. No spacers of any kind were used during the testing....."

And dont forget about those stock modify stock cast iron intakes--which cost around $500-600 dls after they are modify..lol

[GOAT WHORE]

Originally Posted by 69FIREBIRD76MM

And dont forget about those stock modify stock cast iron intakes--which cost around $500-600 dls after they are modify..lol

What the hell are you talking about? Speack English son
Where are you spending $500-600 for a modified stock intake?

[72LuxuryLeMansLa.]

Originally Posted by GOAT WHORE

What the hell are you talking about? Speack English son
Where are you spending $500-600 for a modified stock intake?

I got my manifold here: http://sdperformance.com/viewProduct.php?productID=1727 it was $375.00

[Bruce Meyer]

Originally Posted by 72LuxuryLeMansLa.

I got my manifold here: http://sdperformance.com/viewProduct.php?productID=1727 it was $375.00

Wow! 375 plus the cost of the manifold (around 75) and you have 450+ in a cast iron manifold. Not to mention shipping to and from SD. Crazy! You can get a new Torker 2 for 250. On a well built 455 I would bet cash that it would outperform the iron one.

[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by Ventura455

I have had similar results with this adapter.

In my opinion, if you take/make a Holley to Q-jet adaptor (same deal as a Q-jet to Holley adaptor) SHOWN ABOVE IN THE QUOTE with the smooth transition from square bore to spread bore and then radius blend the sharp openings in the Q-jet manifold the results should be similar (or possibly better with the higher cfm carburetor.

BUT if you leave the sharp edge openings in the Q-jet manifold (on the Primary side of the intake) you are basically flowing a sharp-edged orifice which will have about 62% of the flow of a radiused opening. If the carb blade has the same basic size as the sharp edged primary manifold opening and the thin gasket is used then the air just passes into the intake without the reduction in flow as the primary throttle blade size/blade controls the flow into the opening.


So you have to look at the whole test and the way that it was run. Lots of times the results will be closer than you think if proper effort /preparation is done before the dyno testing.

Again, Great Job Harry and thanks for the real world comparison on the man's requested combination.

Happy New Year. Hope Santa was good to all of the members.

Tom Vaught

[paul s.]

These threads become funny after awhile because some people just have to be right. We all see the components used on an individual's engine --- a square-bore carb on a spread-bore intake with a spacer--- not the first pairing most would make on this board but they were the components HE HAD to work with.

Then there was a switch to an aftermarket intake.

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Did it show that the aftermarket intake was better? Yes... IN THIS CASE.... WITH THESE PARTS. So don't get your feelings hurt.

Would a Q-jet show a different outcome? Pretty sure it would. So maybe that could be round 3.

How difficult is this?



Just saw Tom's post. Nice post.

[GOAT WHORE]

Originally Posted by Bruce Meyer

Wow! 375 plus the cost of the manifold (around 75) and you have 450+ in a cast iron manifold. Not to mention shipping to and from SD. Crazy! You can get a new Torker 2 for 250. On a well built 455 I would bet cash that it would outperform the iron one.

Bruce, most people already have a stock manifold laying around if not a dozen so minus $75 from your figures. I also believe that SD Performance price is less if you have the heads done at the same time. Some also realise the benefits of running an after market manifold but want to retain the stock apearance for one reason or another.

[Tom Vaught]

Used to be that a Hot-Rodder was told to check for WOT before fire-up of a new carb on an intake. With an adaptor (without sufficient height) obviously that means the carb blades will hit the manifold and you will not get full opening.

There are lots of aftermarket intakes that allow a better design (TRANSITION) to the manifold plenum(s) vs putting a square bore carb on a spread bore intake configuration. The Holley Street Dominator being a good one and the only aftermarket intake in the early days that beat the factory Pontiac intake across the board (3%) when tested on Holley's engine dyno with either the factory Q-jet or the Holley carbs (Square Bore or Spread Bore).

That being said, the customer always gets the final vote.

Tom Vaught

[72LuxuryLeMansLa.]

Originally Posted by Bruce Meyer

Wow! 375 plus the cost of the manifold (around 75) and you have 450+ in a cast iron manifold. Not to mention shipping to and from SD. Crazy! You can get a new Torker 2 for 250. On a well built 455 I would bet cash that it would outperform the iron one.

I paid nothing for the core intake. I forgot about shipping the core, that was $60.00 . I'm fairly certain that the $375.00 included the shipping to me. So, I paid $435.00 for an intake that will look 100% stock but perform very well with the SD ported 6X-4 heads, Stump Puller cam and RARE 2.5" Exhaust Manifolds I am using. On a 100% street application I would bet cash it will out perform the T-2. The stock look is very important for me. I'm building a 4" stroke, .030" over 400 (433ci) that will look like a mid 70's low compression 400 except for the exhaust manifolds. So not "crazy" at all from my perspective.

[paul s.]

Originally Posted by 72LuxuryLeMansLa.

I paid nothing for the core intake. I forgot about shipping the core, that was $60.00 . I'm fairly certain that the $375.00 included the shipping to me. So, I paid $435.00 for an intake that will look 100% stock but perform very well with the SD ported 6X-4 heads, Stump Puller cam and RARE 2.5" Exhaust Manifolds I am using. On a 100% street application I would bet cash it will out perform the T-2. The stock look is very important for me. I'm building a 4" stroke, .030" over 400 (433ci) that will look like a mid 70's low compression 400 except for the exhaust manifolds. So not "crazy" at all from my perspective.

Nice. I like a good sleeper. But I would take that bet on the T2.

[J.C.you]

a test such as this proves one thing for sure. Parts that are miss matched and not designed to work with each other will be less efficient.

[straycat]

JC you hit the nail on the head.

[72LuxuryLeMansLa.]

Originally Posted by paul s.

Nice. I like a good sleeper. But I would take that bet on the T2.

Thanks Paul. All depends on how we define "perform" in this case...... I should have said on my 100% street application........

[paul s.]

I hear you . I assumed you would go WOT at some point LOL!

[68gtoMN]

Great discussion. There are MANY correct responses here. Facts. Theory. Real-world track results, etc. The problem with such a discussion is that so many can be "right" but the original discussion was not about being "right"; rather, about sharing what a particular customer's combination produced, as delivered to shop, and what it produced after.

I don't believe ultimate tuning was the goal, nor was an exhaustive (no pun intended) research project. Clearly, the customer had an intake combination that did not perform as well another. That's what was proved. Customer was happy, we can infer. Results were shared. Remember, many customers who own these cars are not necessarily "mechanics or racers" but enjoy what these cars represent. They pay others to fix/maintain and they drive/enjoy.

There is a LOT of knowledge on this board and it is GREAT to see it offered freely to improve the hobby. Were this an "ultimate efficiency/power dyno challenge" posting, then I believe more of the discussion tangents might apply.

Wrapping up - there appears to be "power left on the table" still were someone to care and wish to spend time/money to extract it. Nothing needs to be rocket science, but understanding the science surely helps.

[72LuxuryLeMansLa.]

Originally Posted by paul s.

I hear you . I assumed you would go WOT at some point LOL!

I'm going to say yes..... But since most of the "performance" I will need is throttle response at low rpm and light throttle highway cruising you see where I'm liking the iron with those heads and cam......

[Tom Vaught]

With Throttle Response and Light Throttle Cruising hard to beat the Rochester Engineers and their thinking on the Q-jet. Most well tuned Q-jets (on the street) were superior to the Holley stuff (when I worked at Holley) in "Brad Pitt" Manners and F.E. vs the "Jesse Ventura" type Holley feel.

Tom Vaught

[harry k]

Originally Posted by 69FIREBIRD76MM

And dont forget about those stock modify stock cast iron intakes--which cost around $500-600 dls after they are modify..lol

69 folllow the reply bttm

Originally Posted by GOAT WHORE

What the hell are you talking about? Speack English son
Where are you spending $500-600 for a modified stock intake?

WHORE i know i told you there is better math appealing thread for you somewhere else!

Originally Posted by 72LuxuryLeMansLa.

I got my manifold here: http://sdperformance.com/viewProduct.php?productID=1727 it was $375.00

the OE poster here

Originally Posted by Bruce Meyer

Wow! 375 plus the cost of the manifold (around 75) and you have 450+ in a cast iron manifold. Not to mention shipping to and from SD. Crazy! You can get a new Torker 2 for 250. On a well built 455 I would bet cash that it would outperform the iron one.

Bruce follow the reply & link

You know how we see the broken record repeats itself over & over & over in another thread
from now on, this cast iron intake subject that comes along that supposently costs only$375
i am going repeat one more time what was all ready discussed over again
http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...5&postcount=37



Originally Posted by 72LuxuryLeMansLa.
http://sdperformance.com/viewProduct.php?productID=1727

Karl



By the time the CAST IRON intake manifold that weighs 50lbs for shipping, back n forth to Canada and the cost of the SD performance mod works, go figure out the math
love this hobby,who said racing or sleeper looks is going to be cheap
and dont forget you still have 50lbs additional in your front end

[paul s.]

Originally Posted by 72LuxuryLeMansLa.

I'm going to say yes..... But since most of the "performance" I will need is throttle response at low rpm and light throttle highway cruising you see where I'm liking the iron with those heads and cam......

Absolutely. Just having some fun!

[harry k]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

Again, Great Job Harry and thanks for the real world comparison on the man's requested combination.

Happy New Year. Hope Santa was good to all of the members.

Tom Vaught

Originally Posted by paul s.

These threads become funny after awhile because some people just have to be right. We all see the components used on an individual's engine --- a square-bore carb on a spread-bore intake with a spacer--- not the first pairing most would make on this board but they were the components HE HAD to work with.

Then there was a switch to an aftermarket intake.

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Did it show that the aftermarket intake was better? Yes... IN THIS CASE.... WITH THESE PARTS. So don't get your feelings hurt.

Would a Q-jet show a different outcome? Pretty sure it would. So maybe that could be round 3.

How difficult is this?



Just saw Tom's post. Nice post.

Cool for the more open minded to understand whats going on here
Here is the end results as well Pontiac in a Chevy that rips
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JvhA...ature=youtu.be