• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech

Edelbrock RPM 2 intake... whoops???

  • Thread starter Thread starter 68converted
  • Start date Start date Feb 5, 2008

68converted

Member
Nov 19, 2003
772
0
16
Colorado
Feb 5, 2008
#1
  • Feb 5, 2008
  • #1
I have been reading posts by tmoss and other intake pros, and I have to make a choice on intakes. I jumped the gun and bought the RPM2 intake. Now after reading a bunch, and I mean a bunch of posts, I think I made the wrong choice. Here are the stats: AFR 165 heads, 1.6 RR's, Xtreame Energy 270HE cam, 70 MM TB, 73 MM Mass Air, stock bottom end, with Hedman shorties, and 2 1/2" exhaust.

I think the better choice would be the Cobra or GT-40 intake. What do you think? I am getting close to starting up this project and don't want to fire it with an intake that is brand new if I am just going to switch it out.
 

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"
Founding Member
Aug 7, 2002
9,516
6
99
Arkansas
Feb 5, 2008
#2
  • Feb 5, 2008
  • #2
I believe you could use a "smaller" intake to keep your useable powerband, more useable

A ported Performer would be fun. A ported GT-40 would be fun. A ported Cobra would be fun.

Good Luck.
 

LiquidGT

Member
Oct 8, 2007
368
0
16
Near STL hell
Feb 5, 2008
#3
  • Feb 5, 2008
  • #3
That intake is better suited for something like a 347.
Peformer, GT40/Cobra, one of the smaller TFS intakes would be good.
 

68converted

Member
Nov 19, 2003
772
0
16
Colorado
Feb 5, 2008
#4
  • Feb 5, 2008
  • #4
Yup, I am thinking the same thing. My question is this; if I do decide to go with the GT-40, why is it so important to port it? Wouldn't that just get me back to the same flow numbers of the RPM2?
 
M

macx

New Member
Jul 18, 2004
228
0
0
SE Missouri near Cape Girardeau
Feb 5, 2008
#5
  • Feb 5, 2008
  • #5
Porting the GT-40 (you can only port the lower cuz the upper isn't cast it's tubular)
will basically improve the dogleg in the front runners and the problems they cause with uneven distribution.

The big factor with the GT40 types is the mid range torque which is significantly
over the aftermarket intakes below low 5's rpm range, which is where you're gonna spend 95++% of your time on the street.
 

68converted

Member
Nov 19, 2003
772
0
16
Colorado
Feb 5, 2008
#6
  • Feb 5, 2008
  • #6
macx said:
Porting the GT-40 (you can only port the lower cuz the upper isn't cast it's tubular)
will basically improve the dogleg in the front runners and the problems they cause with uneven distribution.

The big factor with the GT40 types is the mid range torque which is significantly
over the aftermarket intakes below low 5's rpm range, which is where you're gonna spend 95++% of your time on the street.
Click to expand...

That is the exact reason for the switch idea. I will want way more torque down in the RPM range. I am pretty sure I want to make the switch, but now I have find someone who wants the RPM2...
 

jhonda

Member
Jul 22, 2003
125
1
16
Huntersville NC
Feb 6, 2008
#7
  • Feb 6, 2008
  • #7
I went to the dyno recently and a intake makes a world of differance on sizing.
There was a 93lx mustang with basically the same modifications as me but still had the stock mass airflow sensor, and also had equal length bbk headers, coldair intake, and bbk intake manifold (one of the big ones that comes up on both sides). We made the same power till about 5500rpms and then he gained 13whp to about 6000rpms and 10wtq.......but I had about 8wtq on him in the bottom from about 2000-4000rpms and maybe 1-2hp.
We also had the same air fuel ratio and I had about 2degrees more timing than he did.
 

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"
Founding Member
Aug 7, 2002
9,516
6
99
Arkansas
Feb 6, 2008
#8
  • Feb 6, 2008
  • #8
Is the RPM II brand new in box? You could just return it

Someone like Tom porting the intake will only help. The longer runner intake tunes in at a lower rpm. A little porting in the right areas, and you can also see some power up top.
 

68converted

Member
Nov 19, 2003
772
0
16
Colorado
Feb 6, 2008
#9
  • Feb 6, 2008
  • #9
Unfortunately the Intake is now installed (but never started/run). I know that I want to switch it out to the GT-40 intake, maybe one that is ported by a pro like Tom.

I saw the dyno numbers for the intakes he has done, and the lower range that his are producing the maximum power in is right where I want to be. I do have the AOD, so I would be cruising at about 2800 RPM that is really the bottom end of the power range for the RPM2. I really want idle-5500.

Note to self: Stupid ego, Stupid ego, Stupid ego, Stupid ego,
 

Sonicaceman

Member
Sep 28, 2004
72
0
6
Apr 9, 2009
#10
  • Apr 9, 2009
  • #10
old post, if you check here is an intake tip

you have probably installed your new part and gone on with this a while ago but i was reading it and your last sentence said idle-5500, sounds familiar. the edelbrock performer which is about $495 is exactly in that range for a 302 and i had one on my car when it was a 302 and it worked very well, i heard a lot about the gt-40 so i switched out to that. this was about 4 years or so ago and since i have put a 347 stroker in the car. both intakes work great but the gt-40 has awesome midrange and even really good low range tq. through the power band up to about 5000 rpm. it's a trade off but now i realize with the 347 i should have upped the intake with my 347 to the rpm II that you originally had. hope it turned out good for ya.
 

from6to8

There's suction so I used that end O_O
15 Year Member
Sep 2, 2012
1,896
142
94
Nov 23, 2012
#11
  • Nov 23, 2012
  • #11
68converted said:
Unfortunately the Intake is now installed (but never started/run). I know that I want to switch it out to the GT-40 intake, maybe one that is ported by a pro like Tom.

I saw the dyno numbers for the intakes he has done, and the lower range that his are producing the maximum power in is right where I want to be. I do have the AOD, so I would be cruising at about 2800 RPM that is really the bottom end of the power range for the RPM2. I really want idle-5500.

Note to self: Stupid ego, Stupid ego, Stupid ego, Stupid ego,
Click to expand...
So how'd the whole thing work out for ya? I have had my current combo since 04 and will post here with what I did today.

Today I reset the idle using just the stop screw. I turned the Idle bypass screw clockwise till it stopped and backed off the stop screw until it barely touched the base of the stop. I know the instructions say .10 on the feeler gauge then about 1 1/2 turns the opposite direction. I then unplugged the IAC and started the car, having my son play with throttle until I got back in front of car. I first tried turning the Idle bypass screw in increments to see it it helped keep the car running and it didnt. When I got to 2 full turns it still didnt keep car running so I had turned it back clockwise till it stopped/closed. I then had to turn the stop screw in tiny increments till the car would stay running, then I turned back in small increments back to get it to where it would just run,barely, with IAC unplugged. I then turned the car off leaving it switched on and checked the tps and it was at .98 so it was fine. I waited about 10 minutes then plugged back in IAC and went for a drive.

It seemed to make some difference with having the Idle bypass screw completely closed. Rpm's still seemed to move about the same between gears. It seems as if the rpm's since I have done all the up to date maintenance, it seems as the car tachs up fast but it just doesnt seem too torqy and mainly down low. NOw if I'm in say 2nd gear and have the rpm's about 2-3 the car is much much stronger. I guess that's just the powerband for that performer rpm 2 cause I think it power comes on about 2500-3k. I wonder if a new, up to date tune would add any power/torque down low. Remember I have a tune from 05 and was done with an autologic 2000 chip which no one does anymore? I guess an intake more suited for my combo would have been the best overall solution but I swear I would hate to take that intake off and put another on. I also called a few tuning places as well as edelbrock and trick flow and talked to the Techs. They all pretty much said with the performer 2 it should work well and not be an issue of being too big.
 

mikestang63

SN Certified Technician
Aug 27, 2012
11,606
8,859
214
In the garage
Nov 23, 2012
#12
  • Nov 23, 2012
  • #12
I believe you can buy the Performer upper itself and swap it for the II upper, and then sell the II upper, unless you have a really old version of the performer. The bolt pattern changed about 10 years ago.
 

from6to8

There's suction so I used that end O_O
15 Year Member
Sep 2, 2012
1,896
142
94
Nov 23, 2012
#13
  • Nov 23, 2012
  • #13
mikestang63 said:
I believe you can buy the Performer upper itself and swap it for the II upper, and then sell the II upper, unless you have a really old version of the performer. The bolt pattern changed about 10 years ago.
Click to expand...
Now that would be worth trying then. If I could find someone who has one and try theirs, that would be the better way to go vs buying one and getting stuck with it if I aint happy with the results. I would check some used options as I might not even be able to just buy the upper in the store????? I'm gona call edelbrock now to see if they are open today.

well they are closed today. One thing about buying used is making sure it would indeed bolt up to mines. I bought mines in 03 or 04
 

mikestang63

SN Certified Technician
Aug 27, 2012
11,606
8,859
214
In the garage
Nov 23, 2012
#14
  • Nov 23, 2012
  • #14
I've owned both the old style and new style Performer. I think the old style had 8 bolts and the new one has 6 for the upper to lower? It's been 10 years since I owned them so bear with me. As long as the Performer you buy isnt the old school with the removal inspection plate that is finned, you should be good to go. Check with Edelbrock anyway.
 

from6to8

There's suction so I used that end O_O
15 Year Member
Sep 2, 2012
1,896
142
94
Nov 23, 2012
#15
  • Nov 23, 2012
  • #15
mikestang63 said:
I've owned both the old style and new style Performer. I think the old style had 8 bolts and the new one has 6 for the upper to lower? It's been 10 years since I owned them so bear with me. As long as the Performer you buy isnt the old school with the removal inspection plate that is finned, you should be good to go. Check with Edelbrock anyway.
Click to expand...
yeah mine has 6 im pretty sure
 
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
888
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jun 20, 2026
gray owl
G
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
J
68 Mustang with Foxbody Engine Stalling Issues - MSPNP2
  • JayV68Stang
  • Mar 13, 2025
  • Digital Self-tuning Forum
Replies
3
Views
443
Digital Self-tuning Forum Mar 13, 2025
JayV68Stang
J
V
pushrod 5.0 (MILD/ Torque) turbo build for an old scout II help
  • vz58
  • Apr 21, 2024
  • Other Auto Tech
Replies
11
Views
2K
Other Auto Tech Jan 21, 2026
Flyboy60
F
Progress Thread H/C Swap Problems/Ideas
  • sav22rem22
  • Mar 31, 2024
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
10
Views
2K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Sep 10, 2024
AeroCoupe
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang 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?