04sleeper
Founding Member
BBK SSI intake
- Thread starter Turpin5.0
- Start date
I seem to recall BBK having a fancy intake on the market around 10 yrs ago which looked cool but didnt sell to well? any of you long time stang guys remember this..I think I still have some mags from back then with it advertised.I also seem to recall it had some type of weird "dual runner" design..
04sleeper
Founding Member
04sleeper
Founding Member
5.0_Gil_89
Founding Member
This intake is more along the lines of a street torquey type intake...hince the long runners. I'd like to think that folks on this forum know, that horse power is a bi-product of torque. Torque moves you horsepower maintains that movement. But if the industry would sell things by torque numbers and not horsepower, no one would hardly buy their products. I drive a street stang not a race car. If this thing has the torque curve I need Im all for it. Compare a stock 302cid 5.0 to a DZ 302 67-69 chevy...Ford has done a lot with the fuelie 5.0 to take advange of torque..long runner int. camshaft, 5.09 rods. Also the torquey truck heads (E7). That DZ 302 is more or less a stick shift type motor...5.7 rods, it has a hell of a rod ratio if you want rpms. Street cars should be based on torque. Srry JMO! No flame or lesson jus a soapbox reply.
88CougarMan
Founding Member
Ok maybe I've gone retarded and can't see it, but I don't see were the EGR hooks into the "built in" TB spacer. Is this thing going to be emissions friendly?
PhLoBuS
New Member
giddyup306
Founding Member
- Oct 22, 2002
- 3,041
- 2
- 59
onefastlx said:
You are correct. I'll try and dig up a pic of one.
As far as the BBK intake making noticible amount of power over the Holley or Edelbrock intakes I dout it. True BBK does only fulie stuff but look at how long holley and edelbrock have been doing 5.0 intakes. Also I'm willing to bet that they spent much more money on R&D than BBK did. Look at how big those companies are. I'm looking for some unbias reviews of the intake and actual numbers rather than rumors. Also remember that horsepower and torque is inversly proportional. It might have a significant gain on horsepower but how much torque will you lose?
giddyup306 said:
No. Horsepower is a function of torque, not its inverse.
If you're trying to say there's sometimes a tradeoff when going for higher peak power, that you will lose torque, then that's true.
HP = (torque * RPM)/5252
For more exciting reading go here:
http://speedoptions.com/articles/3519/?SpeedOptions=1a0e518999bc3ed5767f6b...
patdow1
New Member
For those that have read the DECEMBER 2004 issue of 5.0 write up on the "NEW" BBK intake what are your opinions? I know that the numbers are more than likely padded since all test were conducted by Brothers Performance on their own Dynojet chassis dyno. I'm just looking for some advise from those that have more experience than myself in reading graphs and comparing numbers in relevance to engine performance.
Legendary
Founding Member
