Every time I think about 'upgrading' my Performer RPM, I see another reason not to. Looking forward to seeing how the mods work out , thanks for a great video!
The only intake I've seen beat it was the AFR plastic intake that they don't even make anymore and even when they did it was like $800. performer RPM is the only intake I'd use to replace the stock one on my 327.
The Performer RPM has ALWAYS tested on top of all dual planes on every test I've seen. It is THE intake to run on a street car with torque and hood clearance concerns. Excellent video and info Eric, definitely looking forward to the retest of the AFR and Edel ! Why TF do manufacturers keep putting that damn vac port there !?!? They gotta stop. You can sink it flush if you tap the hole more.
You would think Edelbrock has gotten enough complaints over the last 40 years of making the Performer series intakes that they would have remedied this. Before Vic passed away Edelbrock had competitive prices. After he passed EVERYTHING basically DOUBLED in price. Whoever is in charge now is running the place into the ground.
@@Patrick-xd8jv Id be curious to hear feedback from guys running them back in the day. Kick ass looking piece. Id run one just cause its different...polished up nice conversation piece at cruise night. Dont think intakes make that much difference unless a real poor one was used in the first place. Used to hear Joe Sherman preach about that often.
The Edelbrock has a true split plenum, so it acts 100 % like a dual plane, can use a bigger carb, and cylinders don't cross-communicate like a single plane or a dual plane with a cut down divider.
@@v8packard Well said. I fell for the cut the divider bit, ran worse than if Id left it alone Use a dual or a single cant have them both. Well unless a tunnel rams involved.
Eric please don’t take this the wrong way as I absolutely love your videos and watch every one I can and I always give you a thumbs up. But, it’s pronounced “EDelbrock” not ELdebrock. I used to work with one of the Edelbrock boys in the service. Please take it the way it was meant not in a bad way what so ever. Thanks
I've never known a dual plane to like a 4 hole. Generally the Edelbrock RPM air gap outruns the regular Edelbrock RPM in about everything I've seen, I would have expected the same from the AFR air gap so I'm curious to see that retested with the open spacer. Excellent video and great data.
It sounds like you need a patreon. That way you can add a lot more testing to your Channel. I would have bought that first intake manifold just looking at it but I'm glad you told me it's a pile of crap. You save me a lot of money there
I am a novice DIY guy. I am not sure I my $$$ money will ever allow me to take advantage of Eric's porting skills but hey. I have watched his videos, I think I understand what he talks about, and now he has a book of dual plane intake tests. What ever I build in the future will most likely be home made. So the book is a good starting point...I'm in.
Great info!! I have a 434 small block Chevy with afr 220 heads and a self- ported Performer rpm qjet manfold.. 1 inch open hole spacer. Worked great!! I would love to see you port a dual plane for a maximum effort small block...sleeper... Keep testing!!!
Back in the day.I had a stock 350 flat top with 882 heads.I took off the factory pre EGR valve intake and bolted on a performer .Night and day difference.Woke that engine up.
Knew a guy years ago that swore by the non-airgap performer rpm qjet manifold with an open spacer. Ran that manifold even with square bore carbs. Always seemed to work for him and this makes it look like he may be right.
the spacer is better than the cut down divider, but the reason the spacer and divider gap make more power on a dual plane is because only 1/2 the carb feeds each cylinder. By having that gap it allows air from all 4 barrels to go to both sides. So you could see probably a better increase by simply running a much bigger carb that would allow enough air and fuel at high rpm, but would keep more low end torque.
@Born_Stellar , you run the cfm carb for the power you make. A 350 hp engine only needs xx amount of flow. So a 350 hp 350 needs the same cfm as a 350 hp 400. The open spacer on a dual plane helps with top end without sacrificing as much low speed driveability as going to a larger carb.
@ ok, say you have a 400cfm carb on a single plane, each cylinder gets access to 400cfm. now on a dual plane, you only have access to half the carb. if you cut the carb in half and have 2 instead of 4 barrels, its now a 200cfm carb for each side. this my not SEEM like it matters, but the air does move fast enough that it does. now you know WHY the cut down divider or a spacer make more high end power on a dual plane? because now each cylinder now has access to 400cfm instead of 200. when running a dual plane, you need a BIGGER carb than a single plane, and since most people don't, the spacer or divider makes up for the lack of CFM, which is only noticeable at the top end where its needed. as to the 'run the cfm for the engine' thats a myth. you will get more power from a bigger carb, to a point. Even a 350hp motor will make more power up to like a 1250cfm carb. now the REASON people say to stick with a smaller carb is drivability. when you have a bigger carb you have bigger barrels, and a bigger barrel means less velocity. this just means you can't just floor it, you need to modulate the throttle to get good velocity or it will bog. however manufacturers know that you have to make a carb that works in ALL CONDITIONS. heavy load, in hot weather, in traffic and up a hill it has to just 'work' so factories don't offer huge carbs, even though they make more power. case in point, the tri-power triple carb setup on some ford's and chevy's was a dealer installed add on, and those 3 carbs were like 350CFM each, meaning they can flow like 1100cfm, AND it made more power than the 500cfm 4 barrel stock carb.
@Born_Stellar , go watch the Richard Holdener video of the 400 pontiac that makes the exact same power with a 750 quadrajet no spacer vs a 750 quick fuel with an open spacer. The dyno charts lay over each other within a hp. And than is within margin of error. A given hp only needs a given cfm. If you need an open spacer to gain 15hp you need a different manifold not a bigger carb. And since there aren't as many variations of manifolds as carbs, spacers and cut dividers were invented.
@@AndyR1982 that can be true and also not prove that a bigger carb wont make more power. engines have so many parameters and thats why we actually need to test each combo on a dyno. David Vizard proved he gained hp all the way up to a 1250 cfm carb, and then finally no or minimal gains with a 1300. don't remember the ci but his entire point was that the engine was 'over carbureted', way more cfm than would be needed by usual calculations.
Thanks for posting Eric! For me, more interested in the dual plane tests for my 383 since it will be replacing the anemic 305 in my 91 vert. Camaro for the street. I kept my Weiand Team G high DP which I got back in the 80's, it has most of the divider removed, but was considering buying the Edelbrock air gap for it's benefits instead. Recently found a funky Offenhauser split runner dual plane too. Whichever I use, will need full divider removal since I am switching out the stock EFI for MSD Atomic.
Performer RPM When they first came out in the early 1990’s I had one on a 302 HO 351 Windsor Heads Solid flat tappet 306 dur. 530 lift cam It was a beast 3500 to 7000 rpm beast 600cfm Holley vac sec carb
The dual plane with the 1" open spacer (WITH the cut out) is a very popular internet discussion test. Plenty of this and that. Personally, I'm looking forward to THAT test. Please do it and post the results,.
Engine masters did this...wasnt worth the effort. Dynos only measure full throttle max power...driveability is the biggie on the st. I never run spacers on dual planes. Maybe Holleys heat shield which is only 3/8 in
a dual plane requires a bigger carb than a single plane, because only 1/2 the carb feeds each cylinder. most people don't run a big enough carb for max top end power, so it can seem like a spacer or cut down divider makes more power, because it allows for all 4 barrels to feed each cylinder, but really its only making up for a lack of carburation. hence guys with big carbs see no difference or even a loss, and some people claim +20hp. its true for both, but not BECAUSE of the divider. its a lack of carburation.
Can't wait for the results when you rerun it. I think the 4 hole probably helped the afr. You know more than I do about this stuff though. Open might make more peak, but 4 hole is probably better overall
@@musclebone7875 Same...any more torque with a dual plane Id just spin...and have no top end. Use a small single plane well ported does both pretty good
@@gordocarbo I'm using a dart single plane intake on my 496. I love it, I'm no drag racer, but on the highway my '68 impala pulls hard up top. On the bottom at WOT first gear is useless with my 3.36 rear gears.
@@musclebone7875 Running enough stall? World products came out with a low rise dual plane which moves a crapton of air. One of the owners designed it for his own car. 496...I wish I had one lol
What is blowing me away is, the Edel. RPM is making more average horsepower and torque than the Edel. Victor 2892!! I may have to rethink my induction setup! I guess the real test will be at the track using each manifold and see how it turns out.
Hey Eric, Dan from ny. I think when you remove the center divider in the manifolds you might want to stagger the jets like on the L88s, to straighten fuel distribution, check the a/f ratio at each cylinder. Might give you a false reading on manifold modification
I want to see a rpm air gap and a victor jr on a graft together. I know one is single plane and one is duel, but I want to see their differences side by side.
I just swapped my air gap to a ported Vic Jr with a 1" open spacer about 7 months ago. It was advised by custom cam builder, Mike Jones. 383 roller pulls like a missle and lights the tires instantly anywhere in the RPMs.
I just read the test in an old magazine. Chevy High Performance, December 2006 page 20. Article name is Big Power For Little Cash. They ran an air gap on test 1 followed by a Victor Jr. on test 2. Mule was a 383 with 195 eliminators and an XE274H
Seems the edlebrock had a cleaner signal to the carburetor sometimes leaving the metal we’re it is from the manufacturer is a good thing for stock to lightly modified
I've got to admit I do love dimples especially when she's got a back bumper like a Cadillac. "Dimples who now lives in Temple's Got the law looking for me." 🤠
I just watched some dyno video and they didn’t see a bit of difference with a spacer in the numbers. Wish I could remember now what channel it was. Spacers have always been to get the carb away from the heat some more I’ve always thought.
the spacer on a dual plane allows for air to go to both sides, as opposed to only half the carb feeding each cylinder. If you have a big enough carb you won't see advantage from the spacer/air gap because half the carb is able to supply each cylinder at high rpm. I'm guessing in these tests the carb doesn't get hot enough to make the spacer have a difference, but it probably would if you ran the thing to max temp for a while, like oval racing.
On dual plane is there any area a spacer would be better for torque cure up like 55 mph . I see a dibble polymer adapter is available from Canada ,they say works well on open plane manifold .
Have to watch when theres more time. Forgot all about that tork link? Intake. Know appearance isnt that important but wouldnt mind one just to be different Any info on Edelbrock EPS vs their performer rpm? Really interested in A Holley Strip Dominator high rise Z28 intake 300-36? Vs the Edelbrock RPM or comparable Weiand offering. 300-36 I had was loaned to a friend...who sold the car right after he installed it. Cant find a clean one reasonable since Best high rise I used...certainly had that tall Z28 look also.
Did you make sure that all three intakes were port matched to the heads I have a big bore stroker Yamaha Banshee four wheeler and that's one thing with two strokes you got to make sure that all the port matching is done from the block to the cylinder
The old SP2P was the opposite of a performance manifold. Intended for low RPM torque on mid/late 70's Chevy 350 truck engines putting out about 160HP. My father installed one on his 1978 K10 but didn't seem to gain any power or gas mileage over the factory spreadbore.
I've seen that Torklink one in your videos on the shelf and was expecting something really sweet from it surprised it wasn't better, looks so cool though i'd love to see a dual plane intake test with ones that have the spreadbore pattern, and then compared it to without the spreadbore pattern Edelbrock has many like that or what about a spacer testing that has the divider in it? would like to see how the torque patterns are with a spacer with the divider were these manifolds ported or just port matched? great video
Eric, have you had any experience with GMPP Fast Burn heads? I know it’s off topic and they aren’t anything super special, but growing up around circle track I’ve always had a sentimental attachment to them. Can’t seem to find any solid information about their capabilities.
Most carbs have a large manifold-vacuum port dead-center out the back of the throttle plate, which is what I use for power brakes and PCV if needed. The port plug can be recessed flush and does not usually affect the carburetor installation. I almost never use the thin paper base-plate gaskets anyways due to heat transfer. I always use the 1/4" thick gasket or a 1" open phenolic spacer anyways which is the best seen in my testing.
Agree....They musta overlooked that detail, how many are running spreadbores these days? Brainfart! I dont want a spacer on a good dual plane using a holley.
Is there any airflow difference in the rpm air gap, and performer rpm? And at what point does the rpm become a major restriction in power? And can a single plane be modified to get down to the 2000-2500 range and up, I had a similar to torquer intake on 350, 11:1, lunati cam.507" lift 285° total dur, it was a straight up pig below 3500, the heads were not ideal, small valves, 5.0H.O. heads ported, it's all I had, it really came alive about 4400- but the sad part it was done by 5k the total combination was way off, it would done great if it ran a sustained 4500-4800 rpm, I wanted a 3k stall, and a decent aluminum head, and was hoping to get a performer RPM, something that would spin to 6500-6800+/-, and not be anemic below 3k, I was young and dumb, and broke, had to use the parts I had, for other projects, because it was my only ride, I did eventually swap it all to a trick flow head, twisted wedge, Holley street dominator, 10.5-10.7:1 with a 465/485 mild hyd. Roller cam it was on fire then, Chevy would sold tons of trucks if they ran like that!
performer rpm will out perform the old LT1 intake LT1 isnt bad, works great it depends if a few ponies is worth spending 400 bux plus. Id keep what you have
@gordocarbo i saw his test. Kinda inspired me to possibly make it work even though i have no way of testing it. Another thing i think about is maybe the higher the throttle boddy sits, the more it draws the fuel across that first turn on roof the intake. I tried to lay that back a bit too. Not much meat there though.
in a dual plane only half the carb feeds each cylinder. the gap/spacer allows air from all 4 barrels to go to either side. however this is only a benefit if you are running too small a carb. Because dual planes only have access to half the barrels, you need a bigger carb than whats on a single plane. Most people don't know this so it seems to make the spacer/gap make more power. but if you ran a big enough carb you'd have the same top end or better, and keep the good low end and torque.
Ya know you could retap the pipe plug to clear the carb deck. Have had to do that myself it’s a quick fix. Yes email that extra sheet And do you have any old information of BBC oval port intakes?
@@WeingartnerRacing can't wait... i know some folks who used to do this on the Pontiac performer and rpm intakes, and saw mixed results. i think there will be variables such as cams/heads/weight/temps/altitude/etc?????? the pontiac edelbrock intakes are dual bolt pattern, so perhaps that's a reason, and as you mentioned how clean is the cut and how deep, along with what size spacers were used. Jim Hand did some of the testing back in the 90s (it think) on his Pontiac setups.... but... he was GOOD with tuning stock type stuff Wasn't that Offy's big deal back in the day, thought they offered a cut down and claimed it gained some upstairs??????
Prasifically…..???😂😂, love what you do, and thank you for putting the time and effort into sharing with us, but the word your looking for is “spesifically” , now im going to get some dinner now, we’re having pasketty.
A dual plane divides the carb in Half, my 406 runs 850dp which is 424cfm can you explain how much cfm port needs if flowed 260intake ? I know it's sounds like dumb question ❓ 👍
the problem with adding a huge carb is you get really bad low end throttle response. You would probably see top end increases up to a 1200-1250 carb, iirc from a David Vizard video which I think was a 383, but the low end might bog without proper throttle application.
Engine Masters did that and it makes more power. I believe they said it always does. The question is, can you live with the hole in your hood? It's always a compromise with a street car.
I would love to do one but then I need other carbs and more time to get everything hooked up. A good tunnel ram like the one from alky digger would be the one to run.
@@BEANS-O-MATICtransmissions while i have always loved the look of a T-Ram setup, i've never said one in a street car that outperformed a good single setup i dont know of anyone that ran a low profile dual quad, but single or dual carb tunnels i've never seen or heard of them do well i'm sure some super fine tuning maybe they might have, but the basic street type stuff i was around, single was always the king this was in the late 70s to mid 90s/early 2ks i've personally never had one, so going by feedback and what i had seen at the time again... i LOVE the look i do recall some folks mentioning about icing issues with dual quad tunnels, especially a few of the guys with T bucket/kit cars now.. the big boy blowers.... that's a different story
I always wanted one of those what are they,pro link?but everyone always bad mouthed them.ok I was partly right,tork link.still have a small catalog from hi tech
I know this was a year ago. With that said, has there ever been a test of the performer rpm with a 2" super sucker spacer installed upside-down?? Anyone? I heard cats saying they pulled up to +20 hp by flipping it.
Figured so, that's why I was channel surfing to see if anyone has put it to the test on a dyno or not. some cats cut the divider on dual planes why not just throw in a open spacer? Would it change how the air/fuel atomized by being pulled through that different directions?
@@drt6680 they may have got 20hp at high rpm if they had a carb that was too small to feed the dual plane. by adding the gap, spacer is better, but cutting down the divider is the same idea, it allows all 4 barrels of the carb to feed each cylinder. in a fully divided dual plane only half the carb feeds each cylinder so can suffer at high rpm. by going for a much bigger carb you wouldn't see a benefit to running the gap because there is already adequate air and fuel. so you COULD see 20+ hp, but you'd get that power by adding a bigger carb and probably keep better low end and torque curve.
The sad thing about these videos Is I'm trying to find information for the best combo under 4000 rpm for my fully loaded F250. Unfortunately the data all starts far above 4000 rpm so none of this is useful to me because I'll almost never be winding my truck out that far but the power I make at highway RPM is critical because it dictates how much incline I can handle without losing speed.
@@WeingartnerRacingI think you've misunderstood. The TLDR version is if you don't have the required power available at WOT then you simply can't maintain a speed at load up an incline no matter how much you push the pedal down. Moving a load up an incline is a function of power. To move a 3300kg truck up a 20% incline at 62mph would require somewhere between 275hp and 290hp depending on the drag coefficient of the truck. But it would only require somewhere between 35 and 60hp on a flat road. So yes on the flat road you would only be using a part throttle application because obviously at the working rpm of the truck will have enough power available to maintain that speed. But as the incline increases, throttle application will need to increase because HP demand also increases. If that power is not available even at WOT then the speed will begin to decline as you climb that incline which may require a change of gear to get the truck into an rpm range where that amount of power is available. In my case, my truck doesn't currently have enough power at any rpm to maintain that speed up a 20% incline fully loaded but that incline at that speed would be very rare. However let's assume I only need to go 37 MPH up that same incline then I would require somewhere between 150hp and 165hp which my truck does have but at what rpm? Because that will dictate the gearing I need to maintain my speed. Now there is another way of looking at this. Lets say the rpm of my final drive ratio at 62mph puts my engine at point where it has 140hp available at WOT. I can then work out that I do not have enough power to maintain speed up an incline of somewhere between 7-8% at that rpm so that is the incline that would require me to change down to a lower gear. So my options are to change my final drive ratio which will increase rpm to give me more power at that speed but that comes at increased fuel consumption under normal conditions. Or I can increase the power output of my motor at the current rpm of my engine at that speed.Ultimately however my goal is to make the most amount of power in the rpm range of my final drive ratio because that will allow me to maintain my speed in the maximum amount of situations without constantly changing down gears. I'm never going to make enough power at that rpm in a NA 5l small block to maintain speed fully loaded up any incline I will face but at the moment my almost stock small block is struggling even up fairly mild inclines. The obvious answer would be to fit a much bigger engine or add a turbo or do what most people do and install a turbo diesel but in my case all of those options will be very expensive and complicated so I'm just looking for options that can increase available hp in the working range of my original motor. I might point out that my truck already struggles at just 2500kg of load and because I know I'm going to be doing a lot of travelling at up to 3300kg in future I'm looking to increase the power output of my motor at lower rpm.
@@Civic. Adhere to the four basic hotrodding rules: 1) intake; 2) ignition; 3) weight; 4) exhaust. Eliminate the cat[s] if possible, use a freer flowing muffler like a Dynomax Ultraflow (get one with offset/offset in/out to keep the noise close to stock). Install a torque oriented spacer under the carb or throttle body, and whatever K&N air intake kit appropriate. Retune the ECM if possible, and upgrade the coil. 18:10 E 18:10 liminate deadweight components! If all fails, lower gears.
@WeingartnerRacing I meant to say comparing the AFR dual plane 4910 to the Eddy Performer RPM air gap? I saw you did the SB comparison and the Edelbrock did better but I know you mentioned the spacer wasn't ideal for the AFR. I was curious about the BB because it comes port matched.
Testing was done at higher rpm’s. Over 4200 rpm. Long runners make low end torque well below 4200. I think this engine was also setup with cam that likes rpms. That intake is not designed for that.
Application isnt for higher rpm peak power. On a mild st engine I bet it works pretty well. I dig it if anything just for the looks Id run a well setup spreadbore carb with those long runners.
@@WeingartnerRacing I realize that now. I somehow missed the single plane vid with the higher numbers. Only saw the more recent vid with the holly 300-110
Thats weird the Performer RPM did better than the Air Gap this is the first time ive ever seen that happen because usually the Air Gap does better at high and low rpm
Cannot believe mfrs esp AFR would put that vacuum fitting on top of the runner like that!Makes no sense unless someone wants a spreadbore Wonder how close the rpm airgap and afr would be...bet its splitting hairs.
We found the same results when we tested the Torq Link years ago when it first came out. It never performed well on the dyno, no matter what we tried, but some drivers thought it "came off the corners better." I don't see how that could possibly happen though. Wishful thinking. Or maybe because their wallets were lighter.
You got so many variables happening here that makes this weird. And the fact companies donate whole intakes to you for "A intake test" and you cant even get the data matching, spacers prepared before hand... what the hell bro... 😂😂😂
Uh. You clearly didn’t watch the whole video. They were tested with the same spacer except one. In this video the one wasn’t but the next dyno session it was. The only variable ever changed was one thing. Only one company gave an intake to test the rest came from viewers. If you want all the results go to my online store and buy the pdf of all the tests. There were over 200
@@WeingartnerRacing I don't agree, they make good midrange horsepower but that's it. That terrable combustion chamber doesn't push the piston down right, side thrusting the piston, I can hear it as well. Don't you think chev,s mislead the market confusing the mark for long enought. Now everything else makes more power with parts available. I think they have had their day.
@@michaelgiglio1571 yeah that’s not true at all. Maybe you can supply some examples. Because this engine makes more power and torque than many modern engines.
@@michaelgiglio1571 That makes no sense at all Since when does an engine know what brand it is? What terrible chamber are you talking about? 60s era like everything else back then?
@@gordocarbo look at where the chamber is, on one side, thrusting the piston uneven, and the area for the flame to travel. Not to mention the lack of port flow recovery and the washing out the rings. I can't believe people can't see it. Just a bad design.
If the afr enforcer heads are the same as an assault heads, the intake ports are raised .100". Which intake gasket did you use and did you notice if the ports on these lined up with the intake runners? I have assault heads and used a 1205, but the gaskets had to have the bolt holes notched to raise the gaskets to line up with the ports.
Every time I think about 'upgrading' my Performer RPM, I see another reason not to. Looking forward to seeing how the mods work out , thanks for a great video!
The only intake I've seen beat it was the AFR plastic intake that they don't even make anymore and even when they did it was like $800. performer RPM is the only intake I'd use to replace the stock one on my 327.
The Performer RPM has ALWAYS tested on top of all dual planes on every test I've seen. It is THE intake to run on a street car with torque and hood clearance concerns.
Excellent video and info Eric, definitely looking forward to the retest of the AFR and Edel !
Why TF do manufacturers keep putting that damn vac port there !?!? They gotta stop. You can sink it flush if you tap the hole more.
I could but I was in a time rush so spacer it was.
Yep still the king of dual planes for probably every engine they make them for.
@Eric Weingartner totally understandable, thanks for all you do !
You would think Edelbrock has gotten enough complaints over the last 40 years of making the Performer series intakes that they would have remedied this. Before Vic passed away Edelbrock had competitive prices. After he passed EVERYTHING basically DOUBLED in price. Whoever is in charge now is running the place into the ground.
@@robertwest3093 edelbrock is owned by a private equity firm. The owners are looking to make more profits not satisfy customers.
I'm not even a Chevy guy but I want that book of data! Thank you Eric for putting this together.
You are the man.. once again giving yr time and knowledge that most wouldn't share.
The McFarland torklink was once considered the hot setup for 2bbl 9:1 compression circle track motors...but none of us used dynos back then...
That’s what I remember also. I though it was used a lot on the 2bbl class
@@Patrick-xd8jv Id be curious to hear feedback from guys running them back in the day.
Kick ass looking piece. Id run one just cause its different...polished up nice conversation piece at cruise night.
Dont think intakes make that much difference unless a real poor one was used in the first place. Used to hear Joe Sherman preach about that often.
Dynos dont tell everything esp on a circle track car. I like the intake no matter the dyno results.
The design suggests it is for a flat plane cranshaft.
Never would of believed the performer would of beat the air gap afr!!
The Edelbrock has a true split plenum, so it acts 100 % like a dual plane, can use a bigger carb, and cylinders don't cross-communicate like a single plane or a dual plane with a cut down divider.
@@v8packard He used an open spacer so your theory isn’t correct.
@@supersportimpalass after he finishes the edelbrock mods, we’ll know better. Too bad it didn’t fit without the spacer.
@@v8packard I’m running a 600 CFM now, thinking about the 800 AVS2 on a BBF.
@@v8packard Well said. I fell for the cut the divider bit, ran worse than if Id left it alone
Use a dual or a single cant have them both. Well unless a tunnel rams involved.
Hell yeah! Thanks for taking the time. I need a pair of SBC heads soon. I've had intakes on my mind
Eric please don’t take this the wrong way as I absolutely love your videos and watch every one I can and I always give you a thumbs up. But, it’s pronounced “EDelbrock” not ELdebrock. I used to work with one of the Edelbrock boys in the service. Please take it the way it was meant not in a bad way what so ever. Thanks
Hey Brother
I also live in Oklahoma.
I watch all your videos 📹
Awesome comparison, thanks for sharing, all the best to you and your loved ones, all the best to your son aswell
I've never known a dual plane to like a 4 hole. Generally the Edelbrock RPM air gap outruns the regular Edelbrock RPM in about everything I've seen, I would have expected the same from the AFR air gap so I'm curious to see that retested with the open spacer. Excellent video and great data.
It sounds like you need a patreon. That way you can add a lot more testing to your Channel. I would have bought that first intake manifold just looking at it but I'm glad you told me it's a pile of crap. You save me a lot of money there
Just a FYI they make "short projection " pipe plugs, they will go flush, also they make short projection pipe taps so you can tap the thread's deaper.
The RPM was my go to intake!
I am a novice DIY guy. I am not sure I my $$$ money will ever allow me to take advantage of Eric's porting skills but hey. I have watched his videos, I think I understand what he talks about, and now he has a book of dual plane intake tests. What ever I build in the future will most likely be home made. So the book is a good starting point...I'm in.
Great info!! I have a 434 small block Chevy with afr 220 heads and a self- ported Performer rpm qjet manfold.. 1 inch open hole spacer. Worked great!! I would love to see you port a dual plane for a maximum effort small block...sleeper...
Keep testing!!!
*And test it!
Thank you for taking the time to share this kind of interesting knowledge. It is appreciated.
Back in the day.I had a stock 350 flat top with 882 heads.I took off the factory pre EGR valve intake and bolted on a performer .Night and day difference.Woke that engine up.
Was the original factory 2 or 4 barrel ??👍
The performer EPS is even better.
Knew a guy years ago that swore by the non-airgap performer rpm qjet manifold with an open spacer. Ran that manifold even with square bore carbs. Always seemed to work for him and this makes it look like he may be right.
the spacer is better than the cut down divider, but the reason the spacer and divider gap make more power on a dual plane is because only 1/2 the carb feeds each cylinder. By having that gap it allows air from all 4 barrels to go to both sides. So you could see probably a better increase by simply running a much bigger carb that would allow enough air and fuel at high rpm, but would keep more low end torque.
@Born_Stellar , you run the cfm carb for the power you make. A 350 hp engine only needs xx amount of flow. So a 350 hp 350 needs the same cfm as a 350 hp 400. The open spacer on a dual plane helps with top end without sacrificing as much low speed driveability as going to a larger carb.
@ ok, say you have a 400cfm carb on a single plane, each cylinder gets access to 400cfm. now on a dual plane, you only have access to half the carb. if you cut the carb in half and have 2 instead of 4 barrels, its now a 200cfm carb for each side. this my not SEEM like it matters, but the air does move fast enough that it does.
now you know WHY the cut down divider or a spacer make more high end power on a dual plane? because now each cylinder now has access to 400cfm instead of 200. when running a dual plane, you need a BIGGER carb than a single plane, and since most people don't, the spacer or divider makes up for the lack of CFM, which is only noticeable at the top end where its needed.
as to the 'run the cfm for the engine' thats a myth. you will get more power from a bigger carb, to a point. Even a 350hp motor will make more power up to like a 1250cfm carb. now the REASON people say to stick with a smaller carb is drivability. when you have a bigger carb you have bigger barrels, and a bigger barrel means less velocity. this just means you can't just floor it, you need to modulate the throttle to get good velocity or it will bog. however manufacturers know that you have to make a carb that works in ALL CONDITIONS. heavy load, in hot weather, in traffic and up a hill it has to just 'work' so factories don't offer huge carbs, even though they make more power.
case in point, the tri-power triple carb setup on some ford's and chevy's was a dealer installed add on, and those 3 carbs were like 350CFM each, meaning they can flow like 1100cfm, AND it made more power than the 500cfm 4 barrel stock carb.
@Born_Stellar , go watch the Richard Holdener video of the 400 pontiac that makes the exact same power with a 750 quadrajet no spacer vs a 750 quick fuel with an open spacer. The dyno charts lay over each other within a hp. And than is within margin of error. A given hp only needs a given cfm. If you need an open spacer to gain 15hp you need a different manifold not a bigger carb. And since there aren't as many variations of manifolds as carbs, spacers and cut dividers were invented.
@@AndyR1982 that can be true and also not prove that a bigger carb wont make more power. engines have so many parameters and thats why we actually need to test each combo on a dyno. David Vizard proved he gained hp all the way up to a 1250 cfm carb, and then finally no or minimal gains with a 1300. don't remember the ci but his entire point was that the engine was 'over carbureted', way more cfm than would be needed by usual calculations.
Thanks for posting Eric! For me, more interested in the dual plane tests for my 383 since it will be replacing the anemic 305 in my 91 vert. Camaro for the street. I kept my Weiand Team G high DP which I got back in the 80's, it has most of the divider removed, but was considering buying the Edelbrock air gap for it's benefits instead. Recently found a funky Offenhauser split runner dual plane too. Whichever I use, will need full divider removal since I am switching out the stock EFI for MSD Atomic.
Performer RPM
When they first came out in the early 1990’s
I had one on a 302 HO
351 Windsor Heads
Solid flat tappet 306 dur. 530 lift cam
It was a beast
3500 to 7000 rpm beast
600cfm Holley vac sec carb
The dual plane with the 1" open spacer (WITH the cut out) is a very popular internet discussion test. Plenty of this and that. Personally, I'm looking forward to THAT test. Please do it and post the results,.
Engine masters did this...wasnt worth the effort.
Dynos only measure full throttle max power...driveability is the biggie on the st. I never run spacers on dual planes.
Maybe Holleys heat shield which is only 3/8 in
a dual plane requires a bigger carb than a single plane, because only 1/2 the carb feeds each cylinder. most people don't run a big enough carb for max top end power, so it can seem like a spacer or cut down divider makes more power, because it allows for all 4 barrels to feed each cylinder, but really its only making up for a lack of carburation. hence guys with big carbs see no difference or even a loss, and some people claim +20hp. its true for both, but not BECAUSE of the divider. its a lack of carburation.
Can't wait for the results when you rerun it. I think the 4 hole probably helped the afr. You know more than I do about this stuff though. Open might make more peak, but 4 hole is probably better overall
Not all engines like the air gap intake manifold. Depends on the engine combination.
Too bad everyone wants to build via an internet dyno sheet. Thats not real life in car results
@@gordocarbo exactly 💯 my setup on my car doesn't like dual plane intakes. It's faster with a single plane intake.
@@musclebone7875 Same...any more torque with a dual plane Id just spin...and have no top end. Use a small single plane well ported does both pretty good
@@gordocarbo I'm using a dart single plane intake on my 496. I love it, I'm no drag racer, but on the highway my '68 impala pulls hard up top. On the bottom at WOT first gear is useless with my 3.36 rear gears.
@@musclebone7875 Running enough stall?
World products came out with a low rise dual plane which moves a crapton of air. One of the owners designed it for his own car. 496...I wish I had one lol
I think maybe the hightech intake would work much better with a flat plane crank, because it seems to be a divided single plane basically,
Thanks for the video. I wonder if the TorKLink has odd fuel distribution through the manifold, affecting output.
What is blowing me away is, the Edel. RPM is making more average horsepower and torque than the Edel. Victor 2892!! I may have to rethink my induction setup! I guess the real test will be at the track using each manifold and see how it turns out.
Edelbrock designed a wonderful intake manifold.
Hey Eric, Dan from ny. I think when you remove the center divider in the manifolds you might want to stagger the jets like on the L88s, to straighten fuel distribution, check the a/f ratio at each cylinder. Might give you a false reading on manifold modification
Thank you for your knowledge 💪🏽 🙏 USA 🇺🇸 USA 🇺🇸
how about doing a test with out the spacer
I want to see a rpm air gap and a victor jr on a graft together. I know one is single plane and one is duel, but I want to see their differences side by side.
I just swapped my air gap to a ported Vic Jr with a 1" open spacer about 7 months ago. It was advised by custom cam builder, Mike Jones. 383 roller pulls like a missle and lights the tires instantly anywhere in the RPMs.
I just read the test in an old magazine. Chevy High Performance, December 2006 page 20. Article name is Big Power For Little Cash. They ran an air gap on test 1 followed by a Victor Jr. on test 2. Mule was a 383 with 195 eliminators and an XE274H
Depends on the combo, gearing etc.
On a street car Id run a good dual plane long before I messed wtih a Vic Jr. Not really a fan of them anyways
Would love to see what would happen to Wieand's 3x2 Holley carb setup
It would lose a ton of horsepower
Seems the edlebrock had a cleaner signal to the carburetor sometimes leaving the metal we’re it is from the manufacturer is a good thing for stock to lightly modified
Amazing
Actually Data
Torque link worked with 2bbl but had to have wider LSA on camshafts.
The TorkLink probably was great in 1997 or whenever.
I've got to admit I do love dimples especially when she's got a back bumper like a Cadillac. "Dimples who now lives in Temple's
Got the law looking for me."
🤠
I know you can’t have em all but I would have been curious to see a professional products dual plane.
Those suck. Most of those chinese intakes have runners with less volume in the runners than most any US piece
Thank you for the video!!
Can the performer RPM be used for street driving? The specs show an rpm range of 1500-6500 but for street you need power off of idle.
Mine had the rods lightened.
Flat top pistons
Balanced rotating assembly
It was a best Eric
1985 Mustang GT
I just watched some dyno video and they didn’t see a bit of difference with a spacer in the numbers. Wish I could remember now what channel it was. Spacers have always been to get the carb away from the heat some more I’ve always thought.
the spacer on a dual plane allows for air to go to both sides, as opposed to only half the carb feeding each cylinder. If you have a big enough carb you won't see advantage from the spacer/air gap because half the carb is able to supply each cylinder at high rpm. I'm guessing in these tests the carb doesn't get hot enough to make the spacer have a difference, but it probably would if you ran the thing to max temp for a while, like oval racing.
On dual plane is there any area a spacer would be better for torque cure up like 55 mph . I see a dibble polymer adapter is available from Canada ,they say works well on open plane manifold .
Have to watch when theres more time.
Forgot all about that tork link? Intake. Know appearance isnt that important but wouldnt mind one just to be different
Any info on Edelbrock EPS vs their performer rpm?
Really interested in A Holley Strip Dominator high rise Z28 intake 300-36? Vs the Edelbrock RPM or comparable Weiand offering.
300-36 I had was loaned to a friend...who sold the car right after he installed it. Cant find a clean one reasonable since
Best high rise I used...certainly had that tall Z28 look also.
The only thing the TQ link has going for it looks, it kinda looks cool, it would be ok if you are not racing!
Did you make sure that all three intakes were port matched to the heads I have a big bore stroker Yamaha Banshee four wheeler and that's one thing with two strokes you got to make sure that all the port matching is done from the block to the cylinder
The torque Link design looks to be for a flat plane crankshaft engine.
Well if u re run afr with open spacer you might also try tork link with open spacer as well.
Now, lets see how an old Edelbrock SP2P and a Chevrolet Qjet intake compare to these results. Any guesses? 🤔
Was that the torker sp2p with the carb on a angle, sorry that was a big block 😳
@@fasteddy I'm not positive but I think the big block intake with the crooked carb pad was the Tarantula?
The old SP2P was the opposite of a performance manifold. Intended for low RPM torque on mid/late 70's Chevy 350 truck engines putting out about 160HP. My father installed one on his 1978 K10 but didn't seem to gain any power or gas mileage over the factory spreadbore.
I've seen that Torklink one in your videos on the shelf and was expecting something really sweet from it
surprised it wasn't better, looks so cool though
i'd love to see a dual plane intake test with ones that have the spreadbore pattern, and then compared it to without the spreadbore pattern
Edelbrock has many like that
or what about a spacer testing that has the divider in it?
would like to see how the torque patterns are with a spacer with the divider
were these manifolds ported or just port matched?
great video
Eric, have you had any experience with GMPP Fast Burn heads? I know it’s off topic and they aren’t anything super special, but growing up around circle track I’ve always had a sentimental attachment to them. Can’t seem to find any solid information about their capabilities.
Iirc, those are 80s corvette copies paired with the L98 intake made fantastic idle to midrange power
That vacuum port , under the carburetor is stupid. Did AFR think you would NEVER install a Carburetor???
I have an old Weiand and it is the same, probably meant for a Quadrajet, not a Holley.
Most carbs have a large manifold-vacuum port dead-center out the back of the throttle plate, which is what I use for power brakes and PCV if needed. The port plug can be recessed flush and does not usually affect the carburetor installation. I almost never use the thin paper base-plate gaskets anyways due to heat transfer. I always use the 1/4" thick gasket or a 1" open phenolic spacer anyways which is the best seen in my testing.
Agree....They musta overlooked that detail, how many are running spreadbores these days?
Brainfart! I dont want a spacer on a good dual plane using a holley.
I know Gary Dunsworth, I lived in Enid for quite awhile.
Correction. The Torque Link intake is not a dual plane, or a 180* intake manifold.
It is a dual plane you can clearly see it
Great work.Thank you !
Is there any airflow difference in the rpm air gap, and performer rpm?
And at what point does the rpm become a major restriction in power?
And can a single plane be modified to get down to the 2000-2500 range and up, I had a similar to torquer intake on 350, 11:1, lunati cam.507" lift 285° total dur, it was a straight up pig below 3500, the heads were not ideal, small valves, 5.0H.O. heads ported, it's all I had, it really came alive about 4400- but the sad part it was done by 5k the total combination was way off, it would done great if it ran a sustained 4500-4800 rpm, I wanted a 3k stall, and a decent aluminum head, and was hoping to get a performer RPM, something that would spin to 6500-6800+/-, and not be anemic below 3k,
I was young and dumb, and broke, had to use the parts I had, for other projects, because it was my only ride,
I did eventually swap it all to a trick flow head, twisted wedge, Holley street dominator, 10.5-10.7:1 with a 465/485 mild hyd. Roller cam it was on fire then, Chevy would sold tons of trucks if they ran like that!
just add a 1/4-1/2 open spacer on most dual planes with a solid divider to make more power
I would tend to believe that the story could change with different cams ? Or do you think the Performer would always be on top ?
The open space it's more power then the one with the four holes
?? Is the Edelbrock Performer RPM, just like the 1970 Corvette 350 LT-1 manifold ????
Is that way it's so good???
No not close to the same.
@@WeingartnerRacing What is the difference in performance between the Performer RPM and the GM 14044836 70LT1 manifold?
performer rpm will out perform the old LT1 intake
LT1 isnt bad, works great it depends if a few ponies is worth spending 400 bux plus. Id keep what you have
@@WeingartnerRacing
Thanks for the help
14:14 Edelbrock designed a wonderful intake manifold
Cfm difference caused by plenum volume?
would the torquelink work better with a 4-7 cam swap ?
Ive always read that dual planes like open spacers. Ive always wonder if the distrabution is off based on one side looking like it has more volume.
Prefer no spacer on a dual plane no cut divider either.
A peak # from WOT on a dyno isnt same as driving PT on the street
@gordocarbo i saw his test. Kinda inspired me to possibly make it work even though i have no way of testing it. Another thing i think about is maybe the higher the throttle boddy sits, the more it draws the fuel across that first turn on roof the intake. I tried to lay that back a bit too. Not much meat there though.
in a dual plane only half the carb feeds each cylinder. the gap/spacer allows air from all 4 barrels to go to either side. however this is only a benefit if you are running too small a carb. Because dual planes only have access to half the barrels, you need a bigger carb than whats on a single plane. Most people don't know this so it seems to make the spacer/gap make more power. but if you ran a big enough carb you'd have the same top end or better, and keep the good low end and torque.
Ya know you could retap the pipe plug to clear the carb deck. Have had to do that myself it’s a quick fix.
Yes email that extra sheet
And do you have any old information of BBC oval port intakes?
I may be wrong but I would think cutting the performer rpm center down more will hurt output.
We will see.
@@WeingartnerRacing can't wait... i know some folks who used to do this on the Pontiac performer and rpm intakes, and saw mixed results. i think there will be variables such as cams/heads/weight/temps/altitude/etc?????? the pontiac edelbrock intakes are dual bolt pattern, so perhaps that's a reason, and as you mentioned how clean is the cut and how deep, along with what size spacers were used. Jim Hand did some of the testing back in the 90s (it think) on his Pontiac setups.... but... he was GOOD with tuning stock type stuff
Wasn't that Offy's big deal back in the day, thought they offered a cut down and claimed it gained some upstairs??????
Prasifically…..???😂😂, love what you do, and thank you for putting the time and effort into sharing with us, but the word your looking for is “spesifically” , now im going to get some dinner now, we’re having pasketty.
I think I say it pacifically. As I get older the brain moves faster than my mouth.
@@WeingartnerRacing me too brother!
I have a rare set of heads, I would love for you to do a valve job and minor port work, if your interested. I sent an email a couple weeks ago.
I get so many emails some get overlooked.
I’ll resend it, thanks
Able to test a cast iron bowtie?
I'd like to see that too.
Thank you Sir! Liked and sunscribed
I thought the performer rpm had a lower divider
Good work good content , Its got me f*#Ked why they haven;t moved that bung hole to the side of the plenum
A dual plane divides the carb in Half, my 406 runs 850dp which is 424cfm can you explain how much cfm port needs if flowed 260intake ? I know it's sounds like dumb question ❓ 👍
the problem with adding a huge carb is you get really bad low end throttle response. You would probably see top end increases up to a 1200-1250 carb, iirc from a David Vizard video which I think was a 383, but the low end might bog without proper throttle application.
You know I kind of wish you had tested a 40 year old tunnel ram along side these just to show how well the old tech worked at every RPM range.
Engine Masters did that and it makes more power. I believe they said it always does. The question is, can you live with the hole in your hood? It's always a compromise with a street car.
I would love to do one but then I need other carbs and more time to get everything hooked up. A good tunnel ram like the one from alky digger would be the one to run.
@@BEANS-O-MATICtransmissions while i have always loved the look of a T-Ram setup, i've never said one in a street car that outperformed a good single setup
i dont know of anyone that ran a low profile dual quad, but single or dual carb tunnels i've never seen or heard of them do well
i'm sure some super fine tuning maybe they might have, but the basic street type stuff i was around, single was always the king
this was in the late 70s to mid 90s/early 2ks
i've personally never had one, so going by feedback and what i had seen at the time
again... i LOVE the look
i do recall some folks mentioning about icing issues with dual quad tunnels, especially a few of the guys with T bucket/kit cars
now.. the big boy blowers.... that's a different story
@@DDDD-of3hv Edelbrock makes a low rise dual plane.
Sure they work fine just not a fan of the runner length. Nice eye candy though
I always wanted one of those what are they,pro link?but everyone always bad mouthed them.ok I was partly right,tork link.still have a small catalog from hi tech
I know this was a year ago. With that said, has there ever been a test of the performer rpm with a 2" super sucker spacer installed upside-down?? Anyone? I heard cats saying they pulled up to +20 hp by flipping it.
Am I missing sarcasm or humor?
if serious that person is full of beans.
Figured so, that's why I was channel surfing to see if anyone has put it to the test on a dyno or not. some cats cut the divider on dual planes why not just throw in a open spacer? Would it change how the air/fuel atomized by being pulled through that different directions?
@@drt6680 they may have got 20hp at high rpm if they had a carb that was too small to feed the dual plane. by adding the gap, spacer is better, but cutting down the divider is the same idea, it allows all 4 barrels of the carb to feed each cylinder. in a fully divided dual plane only half the carb feeds each cylinder so can suffer at high rpm. by going for a much bigger carb you wouldn't see a benefit to running the gap because there is already adequate air and fuel. so you COULD see 20+ hp, but you'd get that power by adding a bigger carb and probably keep better low end and torque curve.
The sad thing about these videos Is I'm trying to find information for the best combo under 4000 rpm for my fully loaded F250. Unfortunately the data all starts far above 4000 rpm so none of this is useful to me because I'll almost never be winding my truck out that far but the power I make at highway RPM is critical because it dictates how much incline I can handle without losing speed.
You are concerned more with part throttle driving than wide open throttle. Dyno no matter rpm is for wide open throttle.
@@WeingartnerRacingI think you've misunderstood. The TLDR version is if you don't have the required power available at WOT then you simply can't maintain a speed at load up an incline no matter how much you push the pedal down.
Moving a load up an incline is a function of power. To move a 3300kg truck up a 20% incline at 62mph would require somewhere between 275hp and 290hp depending on the drag coefficient of the truck. But it would only require somewhere between 35 and 60hp on a flat road. So yes on the flat road you would only be using a part throttle application because obviously at the working rpm of the truck will have enough power available to maintain that speed. But as the incline increases, throttle application will need to increase because HP demand also increases. If that power is not available even at WOT then the speed will begin to decline as you climb that incline which may require a change of gear to get the truck into an rpm range where that amount of power is available. In my case, my truck doesn't currently have enough power at any rpm to maintain that speed up a 20% incline fully loaded but that incline at that speed would be very rare. However let's assume I only need to go 37 MPH up that same incline then I would require somewhere between 150hp and 165hp which my truck does have but at what rpm? Because that will dictate the gearing I need to maintain my speed. Now there is another way of looking at this. Lets say the rpm of my final drive ratio at 62mph puts my engine at point where it has 140hp available at WOT. I can then work out that I do not have enough power to maintain speed up an incline of somewhere between 7-8% at that rpm so that is the incline that would require me to change down to a lower gear. So my options are to change my final drive ratio which will increase rpm to give me more power at that speed but that comes at increased fuel consumption under normal conditions. Or I can increase the power output of my motor at the current rpm of my engine at that speed.Ultimately however my goal is to make the most amount of power in the rpm range of my final drive ratio because that will allow me to maintain my speed in the maximum amount of situations without constantly changing down gears. I'm never going to make enough power at that rpm in a NA 5l small block to maintain speed fully loaded up any incline I will face but at the moment my almost stock small block is struggling even up fairly mild inclines. The obvious answer would be to fit a much bigger engine or add a turbo or do what most people do and install a turbo diesel but in my case all of those options will be very expensive and complicated so I'm just looking for options that can increase available hp in the working range of my original motor. I might point out that my truck already struggles at just 2500kg of load and because I know I'm going to be doing a lot of travelling at up to 3300kg in future I'm looking to increase the power output of my motor at lower rpm.
@@Civic. Adhere to the four basic hotrodding rules: 1) intake; 2) ignition; 3) weight; 4) exhaust. Eliminate the cat[s] if possible, use a freer flowing muffler like a Dynomax Ultraflow (get one with offset/offset in/out to keep the noise close to stock). Install a torque oriented spacer under the carb or throttle body, and whatever K&N air intake kit appropriate. Retune the ECM if possible, and upgrade the coil. 18:10 E 18:10 liminate deadweight components! If all fails, lower gears.
Do you plan on comparing the BBC AFR to Performer RPM?
Already did to performer rpm air gap on 496
@WeingartnerRacing I meant to say comparing the AFR dual plane 4910 to the Eddy Performer RPM air gap? I saw you did the SB comparison and the Edelbrock did better but I know you mentioned the spacer wasn't ideal for the AFR. I was curious about the BB because it comes port matched.
I am surprised that the Hi Tech did so poorly. Possibly the plenum is too large? Thoughts?
Testing was done at higher rpm’s. Over 4200 rpm. Long runners make low end torque well below 4200. I think this engine was also setup with cam that likes rpms. That intake is not designed for that.
Application isnt for higher rpm peak power.
On a mild st engine I bet it works pretty well. I dig it if anything just for the looks
Id run a well setup spreadbore carb with those long runners.
Performer RPM looks better than the single planes on this engine. Which is surprising to me considering the cam specs.
It wasn’t.
@@WeingartnerRacing I realize that now. I somehow missed the single plane vid with the higher numbers. Only saw the more recent vid with the holly 300-110
That makes me think,. Can you test a single plane with and without divider?
Maybe
So is there any truth in the therory that the air gap makes no differnce.to a std type manifold becouse the air is not in the manifold long enoghe
It’s hard to see a difference on the dyno because the air is not moving the same as in the car.
Beast 7,000rpm little beast
Thats weird the Performer RPM did better than the Air Gap this is the first time ive ever seen that happen because usually the Air Gap does better at high and low rpm
This is not the air gap manifold. Its AFRs version of the air gap.
@@WeingartnerRacing yes I seen that but usually AFR flows better than any Edelbrock so I figured AFR's Air Gap would do even better than Edelbrocks
thank you
What size carb, ? Did you use ?
1000cfm
Cannot believe mfrs esp AFR would put that vacuum fitting on top of the runner like that!Makes no sense unless someone wants a spreadbore
Wonder how close the rpm airgap and afr would be...bet its splitting hairs.
Eric do you think the torklink looks like it's designed for a flat plain crank engine
I think on paper it looked like a winner but just didn’t happen.
@@WeingartnerRacing have you ever tested the EDELBROCK performer eps.
We found the same results when we tested the Torq Link years ago when it first came out. It never performed well on the dyno, no matter what we tried, but some drivers thought it "came off the corners better." I don't see how that could possibly happen though. Wishful thinking. Or maybe because their wallets were lighter.
@@dannobee Bet it has something to do with runner length and position. Id think it would have good torque off the corners.
Did you flow test all the manifolds too?
I did several of them in another video flowing dual planes.
Data from 1500 to 5500 RPM please and thanks.
Pointless on a dyno at 1500-2500rpm. Your vehicle will never be wot and full load at that rpm and that is what a dyno does.
Right on
Awesome, no need do buy a new dual plane sticking w the edelbrock
You got so many variables happening here that makes this weird. And the fact companies donate whole intakes to you for "A intake test" and you cant even get the data matching, spacers prepared before hand... what the hell bro... 😂😂😂
Uh. You clearly didn’t watch the whole video. They were tested with the same spacer except one. In this video the one wasn’t but the next dyno session it was. The only variable ever changed was one thing. Only one company gave an intake to test the rest came from viewers. If you want all the results go to my online store and buy the pdf of all the tests. There were over 200
Why test with a cheep slow burning chev stuff. Go with the times man.
Why not? It makes more power than most people have now.
@@WeingartnerRacing I don't agree, they make good midrange horsepower but that's it. That terrable combustion chamber doesn't push the piston down right, side thrusting the piston, I can hear it as well. Don't you think chev,s mislead the market confusing the mark for long enought. Now everything else makes more power with parts available. I think they have had their day.
@@michaelgiglio1571 yeah that’s not true at all. Maybe you can supply some examples. Because this engine makes more power and torque than many modern engines.
@@michaelgiglio1571 That makes no sense at all
Since when does an engine know what brand it is? What terrible chamber are you talking about? 60s era like everything else back then?
@@gordocarbo look at where the chamber is, on one side, thrusting the piston uneven, and the area for the flame to travel. Not to mention the lack of port flow recovery and the washing out the rings. I can't believe people can't see it. Just a bad design.
If the afr enforcer heads are the same as an assault heads, the intake ports are raised .100". Which intake gasket did you use and did you notice if the ports on these lined up with the intake runners?
I have assault heads and used a 1205, but the gaskets had to have the bolt holes notched to raise the gaskets to line up with the ports.
1206. The torklink was closest match. The others were smaller.
Those are the dart copies sold by a bazillion places. Castings at least
I'm using mpfi still would you recommend the same parameters for a throttle body?