Anyone see the test they did with the intake manifolds??

[crunchie12268]

In this months 5.0, or MM&FF, they tested a few intake manifolds on the 347.... even the BBK SSI. Well, they lost 28 ft/lbs of torque using the Trickflow Street Heat, which is exactly what I got. I don't know if the same principles apply to the 302, just a few more cubic inches. But, I knew I felt a drop off in torque with the Street Heat, and unless somebody pursuades me otherwise, I am going to sell this piece of **** and go back to a stock (maybe intake), until I can get a GT40.

I can't believe they lost that much torque, and on a 302, I would think that the intake would have more of an effect.

 

[86bluecobra]

that magizine was preaching the holley systemax II intake as a great intake a few years ago maybe try that one. I sure do like the look of that new bbk intake was thinking about buying one for my 302 in my F-150.

 

[Loco5.0]

Anything on the Edelbrock Performer?

 

[ALMOSTFINISHED]

It said the street heat was not as good of a performer because of it being a stroked engine, the track heat shines on the stroker according to them. The street heat works great on a 302.

Nick

 

[Nutzy19]

Still havent changed that cam yet....still searching for another answer.....KEEP THE INTAKE !!!

 

[crunchie12268]

yeah, but I have talked to tons of people.... I talked to summit tech about the TFS1 cam and they say that it won't make that much of a difference, they say that it isn't that much of a change from the one I have in there now. I also told them that some people said to advance it 4 degrees to give it a little kick, but he said that it would take away from the top end alot. I just don't really know what to do... if you guys think I should do it then I will get the TFS 1, if you think it will make a worthwild difference, then your the experts, and I will rip it apart.

 

[tjm73]

I started to read it last night, but it was late so I glanced at the dyno results then went to bed. I was kinda supprised by how much torque the others gave up down low when compared to the ol' GT40. THe GT40 gave up a little HP, butit was in the upper RPMs. So, you gotta ask yourself, you want torque or hp with that?

If you go back to the May (Orange '05 on the cover I think) issue on p.48, they tested the same intakes on a 302 cubic inch engine. with the same basic results, just lower numbers due to the smaller engine.

Since you have a TF intake, I wouldn't change it if I where you. It's still a great intake.

One thing those two articles did is make a decision for me. When I buy my intake for my 'vert, it's gonna be the GT40. Gotta have that torque.

 

[darthcual]

I started to read it last night, but it was late so I glanced at the dyno results then went to bed. I was kinda supprised by how much torque the others gave up down low when compared to the ol' GT40. THe GT40 gave up a little HP, butit was in the upper RPMs. So, you gotta ask yourself, you want torque or hp with that?

If you go back to the May (Orange '05 on the cover I think) issue on p.48, they tested the same intakes on a 302 cubic inch engine. with the same basic results, just lower numbers due to the smaller engine.

Since you have a TF intake, I wouldn't change it if I where you. It's still a great intake.

One thing those two articles did is make a decision for me. When I buy my intake for my 'vert, it's gonna be the GT40. Gotta have that torque.

I'm with tjm...its all about the torquezors

 

[tjm73]

I'm with tjm...its all about the torquezors

Sure is all about torque. My plan is plan is a pair of Thumper ported heads (small ports? high flow numbers? can you say wicked port velocity and torque?), and the GT40 Intake with a 65mm throttle body. I have everything else to support it. 24lb injectors, MAF, full exhaust, ignition, B303 cam, etc.....

 

[tjm73]

Was just looking at the article again. Comparing the peak numbers and the rpms they happen at reveals that the GT40, while and old design, really works for an all around car.

The numbers....

Stock 342 hp @ 4900, 421 ft/lbs @ 3500.

GT40 388 hp @ 5200, 437 ft/lbs @ 3700

BBK SSI 395 hp @ 5400, 427 ft/lbs @ 4400

Performer 392 hp @ 5300, 425 ft/lbs @ 3700

Perf RPM 396 hp @ 5500, 426 ft/lbs @ 4300

Trick Flow Street 382 hp @ 5200, 413 ft/lbs @ 3800

 

[tjm73]

I'm a big believer in average power numbers. Peak numbers are fine, but I feel average gives you a better feel for things overall.

Well, I got curious so I plugged all the hp and torque numbers into an Excel spreadsheet and calculated averages with some very interesting results.

I averaged the horsepower and torque from 2500 to 6000 rpm.

Stock 293 hp, 372 ft/lbs
GT40 321 hp, 402 ft/lbs
BBK 322 hp, 400 ft/lbs
Perf 316 hp, 394 ft/lbs
Perf RPM 322 hp, 401 ft/lbs
TF Street 309 hp, 385 ft/lbs

The GT40, the BBK and the Perf RPM are nearly the same when averaged. You want revs you go with the Perf RPM or the BBK. You spend most your time on the street, stop light to stop light, the GT40.

 

[Scott_95GT]

This test really shows once again the versitility of the cobra/gt-40 intake. It's usefull on a near-stock 302, and still a worthy competitor on a 347.

Why didn't use a Track heat instead of a street heat? The track heat is designed for that type of motor. The street heat is a great manifold, it's just not desinged to flow in the 5-6k rpm range. Good article though.

 

[tjm73]

This test really shows once again the versitility of the cobra/gt-40 intake. It's usefull on a near-stock 302, and still a worthy competitor on a 347.

Why didn't use a Track heat instead of a street heat? The track heat is designed for that type of motor. The street heat is a great manifold, it's just not desinged to flow in the 5-6k rpm range. Good article though.

I think they did say the Track Heat probably would be better for this motor than the Street Heat intake.

It also goes to show that sometimes it's pretty hard to match/beat OEM engineering on all fronts.

 

[50bomber]

Hmm.....nice #'s, when I got my Performer on near stock motor, it seems to improve power all across the RPM range all the way from idle to redline . I dunno maybe my monster 160k 5.0 is unusual . I like it . Anyhow, my question is how does GT-40 compare to Cobra/Explorer (unported) since even FRPP rates GT-40 up to 400 hp and Cobra to 350 hp. Is GT-40 smoother inside because of tube construction?
Peace.

 

[jb89coupe]

Hmm.....nice #'s, when I got my Performer on near stock motor, it seems to improve power all across the RPM range all the way from idle to redline . I dunno maybe my monster 160k 5.0 is unusual . I like it . Anyhow, my question is how does GT-40 compare to Cobra/Explorer (unported) since even FRPP rates GT-40 up to 400 hp and Cobra to 350 hp. Is GT-40 smoother inside because of tube construction?
Peace.

I agree, I really like the Performer on a stock motor, I ran one for a year or so before I did the heads. The Cobra gave me a noticable loss of low end (w/ stock heads). As the for GT40, yes it is smooth inside and the runners are slightly larger in diameter than the cobra. It also weights about 10 pounds less.

 

[18mustangs]

This is from MM&SF SEP '96
The Raw Numbers Runner CFM
1K 2K 3K 4K 5K 6K 7K 8K AVG DIFcfm % AVG CFM IN^2
Stock 5.0 123 140 142 145 119 139 133 150 136 31 21 90.7
Saleen/Vortech 157 174 178 161 154 170 174 173 168 24 13.4 56.4
GT-40 186 202 202 204 182 197 198 201 197 22 10.8 93.4
'93 Cobra 187 203 200 200 188 206 207 208 200 21 10.1 102
'94-'95 Cobra 184 200 197 198 186 206 206 207 198 23 11.1 99.5
Edelbrock 206 212 209 209 203 215 215 206 210 12 5.6 108.2
Downs Ford 193 183 215 203 191 219 207 226 205 43 19 97.2
Explorer 169 180 176 180 177 177 183 183 178 14 7.7 84.4

In summary, the out-of-the-box Edelbrock Performer 5.0 intake has the greatest naturally-aspirated runner flow rates, velocities and balance of any manifold in this group. In a tight pack, not far behind, is the Ford staggered-round family. The Saleen/Vortech's performance should leap, once its port exits are massaged, and the Downs Ford, although out of its element here, becomes a brutal piece once a blower is added. Also note our airflow testing was done pulling 25 inches of water at full lift. To convert to a 28 inch value, multiply by 1.06.

And another shootout:
http://musclemustangfastfords.com/tech/173_0101_super/index.html
--Tim

 

[Curse]

I really don't trust the magazine any more, ever since they tried to pass off that first dyno test of the new BBK intake on a "stock cobra" with a stock 5.0 intake and Edelbrock heads. Not ripping on the BBK intake but the magazine itself, did not renew my subscription after that.

 

[tjm73]

I really don't trust the magazine any more, ever since they tried to pass off that first dyno test of the new BBK intake on a "stock cobra" with a stock 5.0 intake and Edelbrock heads. Not ripping on the BBK intake but the magazine itself, did not renew my subscription after that.

So one bad article and you say to hel with the magazine?

That article was, in my opinion, a rush job to try to get to the magazine stand with an exclusive on the BBK intake before MM&FF.

But to discount or dismiss the magazine as a whole over that is a big of an extreme reaction don't you think?

 

[Curse]

So one bad article and you say to hel with the magazine?

That article was, in my opinion, a rush job to try to get to the magazine stand with an exclusive on the BBK intake before MM&FF.

But to discount or dismiss the magazine as a whole over that is a big of an extreme reaction don't you think?

Yup pretty much, plus it was not the first time they pulled something like that. I pay for the magazine so I may read the tech articles and learn more about a particular subject, I find that hard to do when they are printing misleading articles. But hey that’s just me

 

[dstanggt50]

Like most have said, if its daily driven, or more on the st, the gt-40 would be a good choice. I got my gt-40 a while ago, was thinkin maybe a different intake when newer ones came out, since I've got a basic combo and wont get my vortech for a while, decided to just port my intake.