BBK SSI intake

04sleeper · Sep 10, 2004

Legendary said:
Waiting for some proven dyno numbers!

I still won't buy one though.

onefastlx · Sep 10, 2004

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 · Sep 10, 2004

onefastlx said:
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..

I think you might be thinking of the BXR intake.

Or the Roush intake like this.

WhiteLX · Sep 11, 2004

http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=500322

WhiteLX · Sep 11, 2004

89sleeper said:
I think you might be thinking of the BXR intake.

Or the Roush intake like this.

Or the TFS horseshoe intake.

NightStalkersSO · Sep 11, 2004

Yeah, that roush intake is only for us 94-95 guys. Problem with is though, only a 100 were made that went on the market, there's one on e-bay now, with 10 hours left it's already 900+ dollars, the price people pay for fancy!

04sleeper · Sep 11, 2004

WhiteLX said:
Or the TFS horseshoe intake.

Oh yeah almost forgot about that one!

onefastlx · Sep 12, 2004

It def wasnt the Roush and I remember the horse shoe TFS piece as well...I just looked it up in MM&FF Dec 1991 pg 26. "dual stage" intake they called it,Damn that was a long time ago!!!

5.0_Gil_89 · Sep 12, 2004

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.

Daggar · Sep 12, 2004

5.0_Gil_89 said:
Torque moves you horsepower maintains that movement.

Almost, but I know what you're saying. HP is actually the amount torque an engine is able to produce at a given RPM.

88CougarMan · Oct 4, 2004

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 · Oct 4, 2004

will that fit on a fox body 5.0?

WhiteLX · Oct 4, 2004

88CougarMan said:
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?

yes

PhLoBuS said:
will that fit on a fox body 5.0?

That is what it is designed for. It will not fit a 94-95 unless a cowl hood is used. It clears the stock 87-93 hood. It will probably clear the 79-86 as well, but has not been tested.

giddyup306 · Oct 4, 2004

onefastlx said:
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..

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?

Mr Black · Oct 5, 2004

giddyup306 said:
Also remember that horsepower and torque is inversly proportional.

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 · Oct 15, 2004

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 · Oct 15, 2004

patdow1 said:
For those that have read the DECEMBER 2004 issue of 5.0 write up on the "NEW" BBK intake what are your opinions?

It isn't good:

http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=508788

BBK SSI intake

04sleeper

onefastlx

New Member

04sleeper

WhiteLX

Member

WhiteLX

Member

NightStalkersSO

New Member

04sleeper

onefastlx

New Member

5.0_Gil_89

Daggar

New Member

88CougarMan

PhLoBuS

New Member

WhiteLX

Member

giddyup306

Mr Black

New Member

patdow1

New Member

Legendary

Similar threads

BBK SSI intake

New Member

Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency