[Yellow Bird]

Help please... does this peace go between the quadrajet carburetor and my 1977, 400 pontiac engine? Does anyone know if it fits between gaskets or does it sit directly on the engine with a gasket on top of it?

[77 TRASHCAN]

Sits on top of intake. Gasket sits on top of it...

[Yellow Bird]

Do you know what the part is? Is there a gasket or Permatex between it and the engine?

["QUICK-SILVER"]

And it's got to be there if your EGR is functional

It directs the hot exhaust into the primary bores

Keeps exhaust from torching the bottom of the carburetor

Shouldn't need any sealer if everything is smooth

Clay

[Skip Fix]

The later EGR intakes have the EGR dump in under the primaries and that plate directs it. Older ones just dumped in the bottom of the plenums..

[burd]

I’d say it goes on the shelf,along with the heavy intake that has restricted secondaries.
Get an edelbrock, file off name, paint, way better.

[Yellow Bird]

Thank you everyone for helping me. The technical name is a Spread Bore. Respectfully, Paul

[Aus78Formula]

The technical name of what?

["QUICK-SILVER"]

Originally Posted by Yellow Bird

The technical name is a Spread Bore.

What it "looks like" it fits would be a description, not a name.

'Exhaust gas distribution plate' is what it is and does.

No idea of it's real name
Clay

[67Fbird]

paperweight.

[unruhjonny]

I'm surprised to see the assertion that these intakes are garbage still persists.

It was either Rocky or Cliff who did an exhaustive comparison of factory intakes for High Performance Pontiac magazine some time back;
His comparison showed that the "restrictions" were in a dead spot, and had zero negative attributes compared to other earlier "better" intakes.

These OE Pontiac intakes had been proven to all out perform any aftermarket design - with the exception of (I believe it was) the 'performer rpm' - which pretty much matched an OE intake, but had weight savings.

but back to the original question, as previously mentioned, those sit on top of the intake below the carb gasket with no sealer required.

[77 Canamman]

The ONLY advantage to the Edelbrock Performer over OEM is the weight savings. The lousy fitment alone would make me not want to try to use one. Now the Performer RPM is a different story if you don't have a shaker to contend with.

[unruhjonny]

/\ now my memory is far from perfect, but I thought the performer actually LOST power when compared to a stock intake on the bottom end;
I had thought that it was the Performer RPM which pretty much matched an OE intake, but had weight savings.

??

["QUICK-SILVER"]

Originally Posted by unruhjonny

/\ now my memory is far from perfect, but I thought the performer actually LOST power when compared to a stock intake on the bottom end;
I had thought that it was the Performer RPM which pretty much matched an OE intake, but had weight savings.

??

I'd call this testing reliable for most street cars.

https://www.dapa.org/building-a-stro...anifold-tests/

Clay

[unruhjonny]

Originally Posted by Cliff R

PS: Forgot to comment on the Performer manifold. It is probably OK, for smaller cid engines and very "mild" large cid engines. On our particular engine, it wouldn't run well enough to even make track runs with it, so it's full potential is somewhat less than all the other intakes we tested.

PSS: The worst of all the intakes we tested, next to the Performer, was the Torker 1. It made over 50 LESS hp than our iron intake on KRE's dyno.

PSSS: The best intake we've ever tested if you want high peak numbers for "bragging rights" is the Torker II intake. It almost always makes more peak HP, and stronger numbers abover about 4400rpm's. It does however, give up a LOT of power in the low and mid-range rpm's.....and....worst of all, it will NOT accept a q-jet in any configuration without an adapter and serous miss-match at the flange/plenum.......Cliff

and then back to the "restrictive secondaries - I believe this was the second test that disproved this:

https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/hp...take-manifold/