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

Edelbrock 2121 intake manifold missing rear water ports?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lottawork
  • Start date Start date Aug 17, 2008
L

Lottawork

New Member
Jan 20, 2008
9
0
0
Aug 17, 2008
#1
  • Aug 17, 2008
  • #1
What gives? I bought an Edelbrock 2121 (289 performer) intake manifold under guidance of Edelbrock techs. This is for my 260 engine. Just getting ready to install it and see that it does not have water ports matching the heads on my engine. It has front and mids correct, but rear ones on the intake don't exist, just metal. I also bought suggested Edelbrock gaskets, and those do have the holes for the water ports. Ugh, what gives? I'm not supposed to block off the water ports am I?
 

mustangmike6996

5 Year Member
Nov 10, 2005
483
6
29
clinton twp, MI
Aug 17, 2008
#2
  • Aug 17, 2008
  • #2
i dont believe that you can block water ports like that.. you will get hot spots and ultimately detonation..... i know most 289 intakes specify that they are NOT compatible.... did you say that the tech line said you can install that???
 

Fast63

New Member
Sep 20, 2007
717
0
0
Aug 18, 2008
#3
  • Aug 18, 2008
  • #3
You don't need the rear water ports and it's perfectly fine to block them off. Intakes only ever have the rear crossover if you want more places to put gauges or temp switches into the coolant flow. Most aftermarket intakes do not have them, in fact very few do have the rear water crossover. Of course I am speaking about 289/302's, there may be something about a 260 I don't know about.
 

CraigMBA

New Member
Mar 24, 2007
783
1
0
Orange, CA
Aug 18, 2008
#4
  • Aug 18, 2008
  • #4
The rear crossover is unnecessary and totally redundant. The car will run fine without it.
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Aug 18, 2008
#5
  • Aug 18, 2008
  • #5
Don't sweat it, your stock intake doesn't have it either. The only reason the heads have ports at either end is to make them interchangable side to side. You can block the middle ports too, that's an exhaust crossover, it'll end up rotting thru the aluminum in time. It's there to add heat to the carb on cold starts. Good for that, bad for performance.
 

rbohm

Founding Member
Apr 12, 2002
6,698
550
204
tucson,az
Aug 18, 2008
#6
  • Aug 18, 2008
  • #6
mustangmike6996 said:
i dont believe that you can block water ports like that.. you will get hot spots and ultimately detonation..... i know most 289 intakes specify that they are NOT compatible.... did you say that the tech line said you can install that???
Click to expand...

this is quite wrong information. read on.

Fast63 said:
You don't need the rear water ports and it's perfectly fine to block them off. Intakes only ever have the rear crossover if you want more places to put gauges or temp switches into the coolant flow. Most aftermarket intakes do not have them, in fact very few do have the rear water crossover. Of course I am speaking about 289/302's, there may be something about a 260 I don't know about.
Click to expand...

CraigMBA said:
The rear crossover is unnecessary and totally redundant. The car will run fine without it.
Click to expand...

D.Hearne said:
Don't sweat it, your stock intake doesn't have it either. The only reason the heads have ports at either end is to make them interchangable side to side. You can block the middle ports too, that's an exhaust crossover, it'll end up rotting thru the aluminum in time. It's there to add heat to the carb on cold starts. Good for that, bad for performance.
Click to expand...

like these guys stated you dont need the rear coolant crossover passage. it was there to provide a heater outlet closer to the engine so ford could save money on heater hoses.
 
L

Lottawork

New Member
Jan 20, 2008
9
0
0
Aug 18, 2008
#7
  • Aug 18, 2008
  • #7
Well call me a monkey's uncle, there isn't ports on the rear of the old manifold either. It just has indentitions that match the ports on the heads, but no hole/access. I guess that explains the extra gunk in that port on the head, it doesn't get washed through, just sticks there.

Thanks for all the info. Whew, that's a worry off my shoulders.
 
H

htwheelz67

Member
May 18, 2007
444
0
16
mission viejo ca.
Aug 18, 2008
#8
  • Aug 18, 2008
  • #8
some sbf mani's have them like professional products and some edelbrocks, I like it because you can add a secondary temp gauge/sensor.
 

Rusty67

20+ Year Stangneter
Dec 3, 2002
3,749
37
109
LA, CA
Aug 18, 2008
#9
  • Aug 18, 2008
  • #9
The regular performer isn't much of an upgrade from stock according to what I've heard. As I understand it, the performer RPM is the model to get if you are going to upgrade. Any ready you didn't want the RPM ?
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Aug 18, 2008
#10
  • Aug 18, 2008
  • #10
In his case with a 260, he might be better off with the Performer. The RPM would probably only improve his topend. Course, Shelby used his "Cobra" intake with the 260's too. The RPM could be considered the modern day equivalent as it's neck and neck there with the old F4B, A321, & the C9OX.
 

Rusty67

20+ Year Stangneter
Dec 3, 2002
3,749
37
109
LA, CA
Aug 18, 2008
#11
  • Aug 18, 2008
  • #11
I guess it would depend on his heads/cam and type of driving he enjoys then =)
 
L

Lottawork

New Member
Jan 20, 2008
9
0
0
Sep 1, 2008
#12
  • Sep 1, 2008
  • #12
I ended up with the performer mostly because the Edel tech recommended it. Since I have a 260 instead of a 289 I couldn't find much advice on it. I figured the 260 was small enough not to push it to hard. And too, I'm building it for my wife, so hopefully she doesn't need more top end. We got it running last weekend and it sounds and runs great though.
 

HDTony

Member
Oct 15, 2010
134
2
19
Plainfield IL
Feb 29, 2012
#13
  • Feb 29, 2012
  • #13
Glad I found this thread!! I was just fuming when I found my new edelbrock didn't have rear ports. LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

6
Hey all,I’m putting together a 302 for my 1968 Mustang and wanted to post the combo + some questions to make sure I’m not missing crucial
  • 68_Disgustang
  • Feb 22, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
910
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jun 20, 2026
gray owl
G
T
  • Locked
1990 2.3L automatic - real bad engine sputtering
  • the_steve_randolph
  • Jun 13, 2024
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
10
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jun 14, 2024
the_steve_randolph
T
4
I don't own a Mustang!
  • '46Ford
  • Sep 17, 2020
  • The Welcome Wagon
Replies
9
Views
1K
The Welcome Wagon Sep 18, 2020
'46Ford
4
E
For Sale 1989 LX Notch 410ci 85mm turbo 8 pt cage 9" rear end
  • EightyNineFive
  • Aug 22, 2021
  • Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93)
Replies
1
Views
4K
Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93) Jun 18, 2022
Freakinstang
F
R
For Sale 2000 Mustang Turbo 6 speed
  • rdwyellowguy
  • May 28, 2020
  • SN95 Mustangs For Sale (1994-04)
Replies
1
Views
3K
SN95 Mustangs For Sale (1994-04) Jun 5, 2020
rdwyellowguy
R
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?