Trust me
MM&FF said:The three components were swapped on the engine dyno with the motor still warm from the previous baseline testing with the stock components. Off came the stock 5.0L heads, cam, and GT-40 intake, and on went the RHS heads, XFI cam and RPM II intake. The Accufab throttle body was carried over, as were the 36-lb/hr injectors, FAST management system, and Hooker headers.
Once tuned to perfection, the 347 pumped out 448 hp and 420 lb-ft of torque. Note that the peak torque value only increased from 401 with the stock components to 420 with the new combo, but the big news was the shift in the torque curve. The 347 produced peak power at 4,700 rpm and peak torque at 3,300 rpm with the stock components, but these numbers jumped to 6,200 rpm and 5,200 rpm with the new heads, cam, and intake.
Nope, I'll go on trusting legitimate numbers and calculations over those sentence composition skills of yours. Here is that "leg work" you let me do on my own. This was the first relevant result I could come up with just by google-ing "EFI 347 MAGAZINE":
Edelbrock RPM II EFI Intake - Muscle Mustang & Fast Fords
And I quote:
448 crank HP would be roughly 390-400 RWHP. Sound familiar?
DMAR, I know this is starting to look like a derail, but I think I've killed two birds with one stone. Check out that article... Looks like they are doing good things with the Eddie RPM II.
dude your a nice guy im not looking to haggle with u .........
all i can say is instead of quoting mag. articles
check 331 and 347 N/A stangs here on this forum i still say u will find the most using 30lbers
If you don't want to "haggle" with me, then why do you keep challenging my statement without actually providing real evidence to support your argument? I usually do try to be a "nice guy", but it really tests my patience when someone tries to debate something I say just because they can, not because they have relevant, factual information to share. So far, I've provided an actual injector size calculator and a real-life N/A 450HP 347. You've provided nothing but an argument.
So, the engine builder(s) and tuning expert(s) that built that engine don't count as a credible source?
Even if you did find an example of this, I would be willing to bet none of them are making "400RWHP and higher" as you stated above. But again, I invite you to come up with real evidence to support your argument.
If you don't want to "haggle" with me, then why do you keep challenging my statement without actually providing real evidence to support your argument? I usually do try to be a "nice guy", but it really tests my patience when someone tries to debate something I say just because they can, not because they have relevant, factual information to share. So far, I've provided an actual injector size calculator and a real-life N/A 450HP 347. You've provided nothing but an argument.
So, the engine builder(s) and tuning expert(s) that built that engine don't count as a credible source?
Even if you did find an example of this, I would be willing to bet none of them are making "400RWHP and higher" as you stated above. But again, I invite you to come up with real evidence to support your argument.
ever consider a performer RPM II?
Not sure if its been said but the RPM II intake should give you some good gains
Nope, I'll go on trusting legitimate numbers and calculations over those sentence composition skills of yours. Here is that "leg work" you let me do on my own. This was the first relevant result I could come up with just by google-ing "EFI 347 MAGAZINE":
Edelbrock RPM II EFI Intake - Muscle Mustang & Fast Fords
And I quote:
448 crank HP would be roughly 390-400 RWHP. Sound familiar?
DMAR, I know this is starting to look like a derail, but I think I've killed two birds with one stone. Check out that article... Looks like they are doing good things with the Eddie RPM II.
The RPM II is a great intake. I had mine flowed with my heads and it flowed well over 260 CFM on the intake side. At a little over 2 hp/CFM that's over 550hp on a normally aspirated 347. The bottleneck in this case is actually the heads (I had them flowed separately), so the intake should flow more.
Injector HP ratings: divide flow rating by .5 and multiply the result by the number of injectors. This uses a 100% duty cycle. These ratings are for naturally aspirated engines.
Example:
19/.5 = 38, 38 x 8 = 304 HP
24/.5 = 48, 48 x 8 = 384 HP
30/.5 = 60, 60 x 8 = 480 HP
The preferred duty cycle is about 85% maximum, so for a safety factor multiply the final figure times .85.
304 HP x .85 = 258 HP
385 HP x .85 = 326 HP
480 HP x .85 = 408 HP
This post dosent help your argument
So with this logic, a 30lb injector is running about 92% duty cycle at 440 hp, the reccomended duty cycle is 80%, so a 36lb injector would be between 75 to 80 percent at 440 hp, which would be perfect
i was on his side in the argument i think my question mark made it sound different lol. i posted that so he would have another article besides a magazine to go with lol.
kind of suprised that this car and article hasn't been brought up. shows different intakes and the gains with the help of a throttle body upgrade.
1993 Ford Cobra Mustang - Project Stolen Goods - Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords Magazine
kind of suprised that this car and article hasn't been brought up. shows different intakes and the gains with the help of a throttle body upgrade.
1993 Ford Cobra Mustang - Project Stolen Goods - Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords Magazine
There is a LARGE difference when choosing injector size and utilizing boost or cubes to get you there. With N/A you need much less. I think maybe what nikwoa was trying to say was you might be at maximum duty cycle on those injectors with 400 rwhp. Never would hurt to go 36's or 39's.
On to other things, I have made what I wouldnt consider "well" over but a pretty decent amount over 400 with a home ported cobra. It can be done and I agree with 89stang1 that the torque and power curves are relatively flat and gorgeous with this intake.
Thanks, 90lxcoupe. Good to see I'm not the only crazy one here.
I was with ya all along buddy!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?