Anyone running the new BBK intake?

JCVERT

Member

Nov 18, 2004

43

0

6

Lynden

Jun 10, 2005

#1

• Jun 10, 2005

• #1

I'll be ordering this intake very soon and I am wondering how its performing. Do you recommend it? etc. fire away

 

stang22

Active Member

Jan 29, 2003

1,318

7

38

Washington, D.C.

Jun 10, 2005

#2

• Jun 10, 2005

• #2

There is a 4 month back order list for that intake.... or so I have heard. A friend of mine tried to order it already. They told him 4 months.

Tim

 

JCVERT

Member

Nov 18, 2004

43

0

6

Lynden

Jun 10, 2005

#3

• Jun 10, 2005

• #3

uh oh, may have to go different route then, what else would u guyz suggest for about the same amount of money?

 

stang22

Active Member

Jan 29, 2003

1,318

7

38

Washington, D.C.

Jun 10, 2005

#4

• Jun 10, 2005

• #4

What are the details of your combo/mod's?

Tim

 

ExplodingGopher

New Member

Jun 11, 2004

517

0

0

The mistake on the lake (Ohio)

Jun 10, 2005

#5

• Jun 10, 2005

• #5

I saw a pic of that intake in the new summit book, it just looks killer and is said to perform very good, it looks to be very promising if you have a 5.0.

 

NosPony

New Member

Apr 2, 2004

278

0

0

Canton, Il

Jun 10, 2005

#6

• Jun 10, 2005

• #6

5.0 and Super Fords did a dyno on it with other intakes. They included trickflow, edelbrock, frpp, and the bbk one. The bbk one didnt do as well as the trickflow and edelbrock. If i remember right the bbk dropped torque really low in the rpm band. I might be wrong though but I do remember that it didnt do as well as the others.

 

88GTCobra

New Member

May 20, 2005

33

0

0

Jun 10, 2005

#7

• Jun 10, 2005

• #7

I have that same issue and I believe that the Edelbrock performed the best of them all.

 

vikingpower

New Member

Dec 6, 2004

656

0

0

CWU Ellensburg, WA

Jun 10, 2005

#8

• Jun 10, 2005

• #8

peak to peak the Edelbrock RPM I was ahead 1hp of the BBK, and at 6000 RPM the BBK was 5hp behind, not much of a difference, but the Edelbrocks cheaper and you dont have to wait several months to get one either.

 

89CopCoupe

Banned

Feb 17, 2004

606

0

0

Post Count City

Jun 10, 2005

#9

• Jun 10, 2005

• #9

First issue they tested intakes on a 302 with AFR165's, a small Comp Cam (roughly 212/.500) and the BBK acted confused as the power curve was eratic ... The GT-40 did the best all around job on this engine.

The following issue they put all the exact same parts on a 347 to make the only variable being the extra stroke cubes. On this engine the BBK shined and built good power up top beyond the cams design (the cam was set up for a 1300-5400 powerband) ... they concluded the BBK intake did better with a good strong vacuum supply which the 347 provided, and this was the reason for the erratic powercurve on the smaller 302 (unless the 302 was built to rev a bit higher to provide the extra vacuum where the BBK lives).

The GT-40 was labeled the best all-around/daily driver intake and the BBK as a good revver alongside the RPM 1.

 

JCVERT

Member

Nov 18, 2004

43

0

6

Lynden

Jun 11, 2005

#10

• Jun 11, 2005

• #10

Details are 306, hyperetectic pistons, crn-444221 cam (part #), 1.6 roller rockers, gt-40 aluminum turbo swirl heads, 24 lb. injectors, bbk chrome shorties, offroad x-pipe, flows, and thats pretty much it, and then the intake yet, and after hearing about the long wait for backorder I might just go with the edelbrock, and by the way which edelbrock intake is the best for my setup? b/c isn't there a few to choose from? thanks alot guyz !

 

JCVERT

Member

Nov 18, 2004

43

0

6

Lynden

Jun 11, 2005

#11

• Jun 11, 2005

• #11

anyone

 

Lemonade

Founding Member

Mar 4, 2000

827

0

16

San Ramon,CA

Jun 12, 2005

#12

• Jun 12, 2005

• #12

If you have a few minutes, here is what is going on with their new intake:
here.

 

B

BaXTeR3221

Member

Jan 12, 2004

917

0

16

Orange County, NY

Jun 12, 2005

#13

• Jun 12, 2005

• #13

I still think its overpriced, which makes sense for a new product since they need to cover their development costs. I'd go with some of the other intakes, and i still think the gt-40 is the best looking.

 

NakedRaygun

New Member

May 8, 2005

93

0

0

Chicago, Illinois

Jun 12, 2005

#14

• Jun 12, 2005

• #14

I'd stick with an eddy. The BBK sure has some nice eye candy though.

 

JCVERT

Member

Nov 18, 2004

43

0

6

Lynden

Jun 13, 2005

#15

• Jun 13, 2005

• #15

NakedRaygun said:

I'd stick with an eddy. The BBK sure has some nice eye candy though.

Click to expand...

Which one do you think would the the best for my setup as posted above? Cuz I think theres three of them, Performer, Performer RPM, and Performer RPM II. thanks

 

T

tjm73

Founding Member

Aug 3, 2000

2,418

2

48

Rush, NY

Jun 13, 2005

#16

• Jun 13, 2005

• #16

89CopCoupe said:

First issue they tested intakes on a 302 with AFR165's, a small Comp Cam (roughly 212/.500) and the BBK acted confused as the power curve was eratic ... The GT-40 did the best all around job on this engine.

The following issue they put all the exact same parts on a 347 to make the only variable being the extra stroke cubes. On this engine the BBK shined and built good power up top beyond the cams design (the cam was set up for a 1300-5400 powerband) ... they concluded the BBK intake did better with a good strong vacuum supply which the 347 provided, and this was the reason for the erratic powercurve on the smaller 302 (unless the 302 was built to rev a bit higher to provide the extra vacuum where the BBK lives).

The GT-40 was labeled the best all-around/daily driver intake and the BBK as a good revver alongside the RPM 1.

Click to expand...

5.0 Mustangs and Super Fords ran two articles on those intakes. one where they ran them on a 302 and the other ona 342. In both articles the GT-40 nearly equaled the rest of the field in hp, coming up short by nomore than 10 hp. But it blew the rest of them away in torque production. It made more peak torque lower in the power AND it made more average lbs-ft through the entire power range. So if you can give up a few hp for a lot more torque all over the place, you'll be quite happy I think.

 

T

tjm73

Founding Member

Aug 3, 2000

2,418

2

48

Rush, NY

Jun 13, 2005

#17

• Jun 13, 2005

• #17

Check this thread out for a more in depth discussion about the 2nd (342) article.

http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=546405