Edelbrock performer vs Gt 40 intakes

S

Silentst2000

New Member

Sep 28, 2003

145

0

0

Dec 13, 2003

#1

• Dec 13, 2003

• #1

Edelbrock performer vs Gt 40 intake manifolds

I plan on getting afr 165's down the road or twisted wedge but what would be a better match for the stock heads? I've seen recommendations for gt 40's over edel's why? I thought they flowed the best? (In terms of efficiency)

 

red94fiveo

New Member

Apr 12, 2003

1,269

0

0

Wichita, KS

Dec 13, 2003

#2

• Dec 13, 2003

• #2

Silentst2000 said:

I plan on getting afr 165's down the road or twisted wedge but what would be a better match for the stocks? I've seen recommendations for gt 40's over edel's why? I thought they flowed the best? (In terms of efficiency)

Click to expand...

What do you mean by 'stocks'? And when you says edelbrocks or gt40 I assume your talking about heads, not intakes. A little more and clearer info would be useful.

 

S

Silentst2000

New Member

Sep 28, 2003

145

0

0

Dec 13, 2003

#3

• Dec 13, 2003

• #3

Sorry, I ment stock heads. Who needs useful information anyways. sorry

 

Joes95GT

New Member

Jan 23, 2003

3,132

1

0

Delaware

Dec 13, 2003

#4

• Dec 13, 2003

• #4

For out of the box performance, the Edelbrock Performer is going to be the best. It flows slightly better than the GT40 and is much cheaper. What you get with the GT40 series is low end torque. The Performer lacks a little bit of low end torque but makes up for it on the top end. A ported GT40 will outflow an Edelbrock Performer, thus making it better for aftermarket heads, but that is assuming you want to pay to have it ported. Now, which 'GT40' are you talking about? There are 3 different types of 'GT40' intakes. There is the true GT40, then there is the Cobra/Explorer intake. The true GT40 is what I have been using as a comparison. The Cobra/Explorer intakes are the same design and do not flow as well as the GT40. The only difference is the upper intakes; all 3 have the same lowers, the GT40 has a different upper than the other two. Your best bet for bolt on performance is a Performer, but if you want to keep modifying and changing, a GT40 would probably be best.

 

GTJake

Founding Member

Oct 28, 2002

3,049

0

56

Ann Arbor, MI

Dec 13, 2003

#5

• Dec 13, 2003

• #5

Another thing to think about is that the Performer can be easily ported also. The upper plenum cover is removable for porting also. I have one and the gain on stock heads is really nice! Joe (VibrantRedGT) dyno'd his performer to a 22rwhp gain with stock heads, cam, TB and MAF.


Jake

 

S

Silentst2000

New Member

Sep 28, 2003

145

0

0

Dec 13, 2003

#6

• Dec 13, 2003

• #6

Is it just me or does this look like a cheap knock off of edelbrock intakes?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=36474&item=2448388836

And yes I was talking about true gt 40 intakes.

Thank you.

 

1105

I AM the random post master...bow down

May 3, 2003

3,841

0

0

Daytona Bch, FL

Dec 13, 2003

#7

• Dec 13, 2003

• #7

thoes are supposed to be like the edelbrock performers but i heard they had really bad casting issues

 

mustangdaren

Founding Member

Apr 21, 2002

605

0

0

Hildebran, North Carolina

Dec 13, 2003

#8

• Dec 13, 2003

• #8

nice thing about the gt40 is they make a lot of custom intakes that will work on the lower. I just got a cartech for mine. Holcomb motorsports sells a really nice upper for the gt40, reminds me of a hogan intake but a lot, lot cheaper

 

VibrantRedGT

"STANGNET'S PENGUIN SMACKER"

15 Year Member

Nov 29, 1999

14,679

424

154

Boca Raton, Florida

Dec 13, 2003

#9

• Dec 13, 2003

• #9

1105 said:

thoes are supposed to be like the edelbrock performers but i heard they had really bad casting issues

Click to expand...

Actually it's a knock off of the Edelbrock RPM. I wouldn't recommend that for stock heads and cam.

I agree with Joe the Performer is cheaper and gets the job done. Jake remembers the numbers I got with the Performer on stock heads and cam. It actually got me my first 13 second pass (13.98 at 100 MPH). I would recommend the Performer over and over again.

 

Y

yellow1995Cobra

New Member

Dec 23, 2002

2,959

2

0

Massachusetts

Dec 13, 2003

#10

• Dec 13, 2003

• #10

Go with the edelbrock performer. When you have boost, or higher revving cam you can switch out the upper to the RPM.

Another option is the trickflow street heat. Its well priced and makes very similar power as the edelbrock. These work the same as the edelbrock- you can switch out the upper to a trickflow track heat in the future if need be.

 

ponyboy19

Founding Member

May 24, 2000

1,640

0

36

Dec 13, 2003

#11

• Dec 13, 2003

• #11

the performer is an all around awesome intake. on my full weight 95 with stock heads, cam, TB and everything else changed it took me from 14.2-14.3's to a 13.79 on street tires.

 

Mrgreen94gt

SIMMA DA NA!!!

Founding Member

Jul 16, 2002

448

0

0

West TN

Dec 14, 2003

#12

• Dec 14, 2003

• #12

I love the Performer, it made more of a difference in the way my car runs around town than going to 4.10 gears. However, that difference over which improved more is small and arguable.

If anything, I noticed more torque across the board. Made the car feel more lively all around.

 

tmoss

Gettin Wired

Founding Member

Jun 28, 2001

7,153

32

128

Saint Louis, MO

Dec 14, 2003

#13

• Dec 14, 2003

• #13

The Performer is a very good intake, however it does not flow much if any more than the GT40/Cobra/Explorer intakes. The GT40/Cobra/Explorer intakes flow VERY close to each other. Anderson Ford Motor Sport did a dyno of all 3 intake on the same mule two years ago and they all made within 1-2 HP of each other through the whole rpm band that stopped at 6,600 rpm. I also have a SF600 flow test of an Explorer and a GT40. Explorer - 209cfm, GT40 - 206cfm. The Performer flows ~210-215cfm.

 

GTJake

Founding Member

Oct 28, 2002

3,049

0

56

Ann Arbor, MI

Dec 14, 2003

#14

• Dec 14, 2003

• #14

According to the FAQ sheet that has a flow test of the intakes that was in 5.0 mag:

Performer: 222.6
94-95 Cobra: 209.88
GT-40: 208.82
Explorer: 188.68

Jake

 

tmoss

Gettin Wired

Founding Member

Jun 28, 2001

7,153

32

128

Saint Louis, MO

Dec 14, 2003

#15

• Dec 14, 2003

• #15

I don't have that info and I subscribe to every mag - what issue was that in? Here is the flow test of the GT40/Explorer/RPM. That Performer test might have been an RPM(?) as that is a little on the high side for other tests resutls I have and as it compares to this RPM test.........

 

GTJake

Founding Member

Oct 28, 2002

3,049

0

56

Ann Arbor, MI

Dec 14, 2003

#16

• Dec 14, 2003

• #16

It says to multiply each value by 1.06 to get 28" so that's what I did.


Jake

 

tmoss

Gettin Wired

Founding Member

Jun 28, 2001

7,153

32

128

Saint Louis, MO

Dec 14, 2003

#17

• Dec 14, 2003

• #17

Yeah Jake, that is my graphic and it is from a Super Ford test done in 96. Lots more testing done since then. I think that Explorer number does not represent the average Explorer intake.

 

tmoss

Gettin Wired

Founding Member

Jun 28, 2001

7,153

32

128

Saint Louis, MO

Dec 14, 2003

#18

• Dec 14, 2003

• #18

Here is the AFm test sheet. The Explorer couldn't give up 20cfm to the GT40 and make the same power.............