edelbrock performer vs RPM
- Thread starter Cobain03
- Start date
Are you stalking me D? LOLD.Hearne said:EXCEPTING the intakeOnly difference there is the 10-20 lb weight savings.
The C-code was a 2v, so yes the plain old performer (aluminum 4V) WILL give improved performance over the cast iron 2V, perhaps not an economy improvement but that depends more on the weight of the right foot than anything else.
300 horses at the flywheel would be plenty for me! thats enough to not be afraid of most cars here in lexington.
I would like to take this space to side with the guys in support of the RPM intake. Ive got a few years of magazine artical and diffrent forum reading "experience" under my belt and have heard nothing but good from the RPM intake. nearly ALL say it beats the performer in almost every aspect and its downfalls are SO minute, they probly should not be mentioned at all. I plan to bolt one on top of my first build-up according to my research.
Do what you want to do.
Tyler
Do what you want to do.
Tyler
JUST PICK ONE ALREADY LOL
Dark Knight
Founding Member
well, since you have the performer, get the RPM, try it out, and if you dont like it.. sell it to tyler 
BTW, if you dont have one already, get a trans cooler too. External from the radiator.. more HP will equal more heat in the trans
So, if the RPM is so good, why did it slow my vert down?
BTW, if you dont have one already, get a trans cooler too. External from the radiator.. more HP will equal more heat in the trans
So, if the RPM is so good, why did it slow my vert down?
I threw an RPM on my Mustang years ago in place of a 2v set up, using stock cam and manifolds. The car was softer off the line with the RPM than with the 2v.
That changed when I swapped 3.50 gears in place of the 2.80s.
Still, the gains up top would still make me choose the RPM.
That changed when I swapped 3.50 gears in place of the 2.80s.
Still, the gains up top would still make me choose the RPM.
69Rcode_Mach1
Active Member
Yes just go with the RPM and be done with it. Performer is a waste of time. The RPM does not compromise streetability.
A more detailed list of what your 'vert had under the hood is in order for that question to be answered. Just from what you listed in your signature, a few questions come to mind. 1. What cam did it have ? 2. How much tuning did you do to that 600 Holley ? Or was that the carb you had on the RPM ? The improvement could be due simply to the carb. For instance, if you ran it as is out of the box with that combo, the secondaries may not have been opening, or opening too soon and that, combined with an insufficient accellerator pump shot would cause it to bog off the line ( too lean with the larger plenum volume) I can think of a dozen scenariosDark Knight said:
Dark Knight
Founding Member
It didnt bog at all, just lazy. RPM's didnt climb nearly as quick. With the AFR's, you'd think the RPM would have given me more top end, but it didnt happen. Engine has the stock hyd roller with 1.7 rockers, so around .470 lift at the valve, BBK shorties, the performer with a port match, 80457s holley with jet conversion, 65/73 jets IIRC, 1/2in 4 hole phenolic spacer and the factory EGR plate and AFR 165 heads. And yes, it pulls right up to and peaks at 6k rpm with the HP. You'd THINK that with the higher flowing RPM intake, that I'd pick up on the top end at least...
Dark Knight
Founding Member
Dark Knight
Founding Member
