• Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech

Buy performer RPM or stick with plain performer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter streetstang67
  • Start date Start date Jun 9, 2005

streetstang67

Member
Mar 5, 2003
573
0
16
Lexington, SC
www.cardomain.com
Jun 9, 2005
#1
  • Jun 9, 2005
  • #1
Any time I post a question about gaining horsepower, somebody always brings up my performer intake. Overall, people seem to hate it. I have a cam that ranges from 1000-5200 RPMs. The performer is supposed to be good to 5500 rpms. I want everything to match, so that seems perfect. But still people swear by the performer RPM intake. I don't plan on reving to 6500 as it can reach. So what do you think? I was considering buying a chrome RPM air-gap intake, but when I realized my cam quits at 5200, I'm having second thoughts.
 

WantaGT

Member
Jul 13, 2003
336
0
16
39
ohio
Jun 9, 2005
#2
  • Jun 9, 2005
  • #2
in reality the performer isn't good till 5500, mine quit at about 4600-4800. I bought the Stealth intake, haven't ran it yet but it sure looks alot better (plenum, runners and such)
 

67GTCOUPE

Founding Member
Dec 20, 2000
653
0
0
Land of Ice and Snow
Jun 9, 2005
#3
  • Jun 9, 2005
  • #3
The RPM kills the performer sooooo bad!

Get the RPM or a stealth,,,,,,I prefer the QC of edelbrock over holley.....I saw some real shabby work on some stealth intakes.
 

iskwezm

10 Year Member
May 24, 2005
4,159
20
79
54
Rowland Heights,California
Jun 9, 2005
#4
  • Jun 9, 2005
  • #4
WantaGT said:
in reality the performer isn't good till 5500, mine quit at about 4600-4800. I bought the Stealth intake, haven't ran it yet but it sure looks alot better (plenum, runners and such)
Click to expand...
It doesnt mean the manifold was quiting it could have been a bunch of things,heads,springs etc.I HAD the performer and it the engine) would pull to 6k.

You could probably gain some RPM by using a carb spacer????
 
R

Rapid

New Member
Mar 31, 2005
297
1
0
Columbia, SC
Jun 10, 2005
#5
  • Jun 10, 2005
  • #5
There was a strand recently that had a link to an article on intake flow that will help you decide. I thought I had saved the site. Do a search on intakes on this site. My Performer does a good job but I am not looking for high rpm. The tranny shifts at 4500 but the engine is still pulling very well at that point. I have a similar cam to yours from Edelbrock and one of their carbs.
 
M

mustangdave

My rearend needs a stud and two nuts.
Founding Member
Feb 26, 2002
2,976
1
56
62
North Carolina
Jun 10, 2005
#6
  • Jun 10, 2005
  • #6
The performer is basically a stock intake. Other intakes can give you more power throughout the power range even if you don't rev any higher than 5200 r.p.m. Just because an intake canmake power to 6200 r.p.m. doesn't mean it won't make more power at 3.000 r.p.m. I like the air gap intake over the regular rpm because of the design. It cools the air and seems to have better port design. Don't go overboard with a big single plane and you will still have a good match that will work with later upgrades if you choose to do so.
 

WantaGT

Member
Jul 13, 2003
336
0
16
39
ohio
Jun 10, 2005
#7
  • Jun 10, 2005
  • #7
my cam range is 2500-6000, 3.80 gears, ported and polished heads, free flowing headers and the such so i find it hard that it wasn't the intake. and to respond to the quality of the stealth, mine looked as good or better than the performer that i pulled of the motor.
 
S

Soaring1

Banned
Jan 3, 2003
144
1
0
Texas
Jun 10, 2005
#8
  • Jun 10, 2005
  • #8
Yeah, the performer is not anything more than a stock intake made out of aluminum. There are about a zillion other intakes that will be better for a performance engine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Which one of these 3 intakes make the most sense for my 331 combo
  • from6to8
  • Jul 25, 2024
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
Replies
7
Views
2K
1994 - 1995 Specific Tech Jul 26, 2024
AeroCoupe
W
347 EFI Low Power
  • w_jake17
  • Jul 8, 2022
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
10K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jul 20, 2022
TOOLOW91
Fox Build ideas for the 'Hudson Heap' (87 GT)
  • MadSquirrelTech
  • Sep 19, 2023
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
20
Views
4K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Sep 27, 2023
MadSquirrelTech
P
Thoughts on this odd (smog legal) combo?
  • PJV9126
  • Feb 8, 2023
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
22
Views
4K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Feb 16, 2023
91AOD5.0LX
J
Electrical Burnt ECU caused by BAMA Chip?
  • Jlopez95gt
  • Dec 29, 2019
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
Replies
2
Views
1K
1994 - 1995 Specific Tech Dec 30, 2019
Jlopez95gt
J
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?