which intake do you recommend?

[dmc919]

doing a hci on my mustang, going with tfw fac 190 heads, tfs stage 2 cam, not sure what intake i want to run, here's what i'm looking at. I would just go with the biggest but not sure how much a big intake will effect drivablity. this is going on a stock bottom 302 with future plans of a 351w.

tfs track heat 1,500-6,500
tfs r series 2,500-7,250
holley 2,000-6,500
edelbrock performer 1,500-6,500
edelbrock victor 4,000-7,500

 

[90stang5speed]

If you plan to up grade to a 351, keep in mind that a 302 intake wont fit the 351. Its not the biggest and badest but, If you want to do a 351 later, I would just throw an explorer intake on there from a salvage yard for now. it would be cheap as you would be bying another intake when you do the 351 and, from what I hear, they can flow enough air to support 350 crank HP.

 

[srtthis]

system max... when you go 351 get a 351 truck lower and gasket match it to the system max...

 

[dmc919]

system max... when you go 351 get a 351 truck lower and gasket match it to the system max...

I already got a truck lower for the 351 so that would be nice, think it will flow enough tho?

 

[srtthis]

should be fine... for that head combo on a 351

 

[NIKwoaC]

302 parts make 302 power. Remember this if you plan on putting these parts on a 351 based engine down the road.

Doesn't the Trick Flow R use the same upper on the 302 and 351 models? That might be something to consider, then you'd only have to change the lower when going to 351. I think the Victor may be the same way, not sure though.

 

[clement]

w/ that cam, heads and displacement put a tfs track heat on it. if you dont youll be bitching about the lack of low end power. if you change the cam to a custom grind you can go ahead and put like a tfs r or spyder or whatever on it.

 

[FastDriver]

you will not run out of air with a TFS-R whether you put it on a 302 or a 408. It's going to hurt low-end on the 302, though.

 

[clement]

It's going to hurt low-end on the 302, though.

not if the valve events are right. but the valve events on a tfs stage 2 are not right unless you want the 302 t0 turns around 7500 with that large cross section head and intake.

 

[FastDriver]

Agree to disagree then clement. I don't believe you can make up for tuned runners with cam timing.

 

[clement]

you can create more velocity in the port by making the intake valve opening point happen later. like ATDC. but if you do this a good set of heads is a must. "tuned runner", thats a good one.

 

[FastDriver]

it wasn't a joke, and as already stated, I'd prefer not to get into a drawn out discussion on this because I can see that I would lose interest in the argument fairly quickly. You're pretty set in your opinion and I'm not going to change that. Thanks for the valve timing lesson, though. Now, look up Helmholtz tuning and then get back to me on how your intake valve timing event is going to make up for the resonance waves supercharging effect.

The fact of the matter is that a short-runner intake like the TFS-R is "tuned" - yup, there's that word again - to take advantage of the resonance waves at high RPM whereas a long-runner intake like the GT-40 is "tuned" to take advantage of the same effect at lower RPM. Since neither the valve timing nor the length of the runners adjusts with RPM, there's no getting around the fact that a short runner intake is going to hurt low RPM torque. I'd love to see any evidence you actually have to the contrary such as the same 302 combo with a comparison of a short-runner vs. long-runner with their own custom cams specifically aimed at maximizing low-end torque.

 

[clement]

nevermind. it not worth arguing over like you said. im gonna go work on my car.