GT40 (Tube) vs Typhoon

[moneypit94]

This should be an easy comparison I would think.

But recently I helped a kid put together a H/C/I combo and he put on a Typhoon.. Well right away I could see that the ports on it weren't very big and they didn't come close to matching up with the heads (victor Jr's).

Well he and i went to the track and he ran a best of a 13.3 @ 103. I got to drive it once and it just didn't seem as alive as it should have been.. On the way home we got to descussing what he could try out to get into the 12's... Told him defenetly needed upgrade the stock TB and maybe upgrade intakes to where it was port matched to his heads a little better.

ANYWAYS he calls me up today and says that someone told him that his intake was better then a GT40 tube type and that there was an article about it from AFM or something? Just by looking at the port sizes i told him that was crazy...

Am I crazy?

 

[Mizark347]

Typhoon is Identicle to the Edelbrock Performer RPM intake manifold and out flows FMS's GT-40 intake.

 

[moneypit94]

thats sad then. That thing looked bearly bigger then stock. Not to mention it matched up to a stock intake gasket. And the port size between the upper and lower intake had tiny ports. just a little bigger then stock.

I figured any aftermarket would automatically go up to a 1250 intake gasket. Or the next size up.

I had a gt40 in my possesion once and i don't remember it being that restrictive.. Might have been though.

 

[sirr0bin]

ive heard from a few people locally that some port work on the typhoon intakes makes a world of difference

perhaps gasket match to a larger gasket then the stock one?

 

[tmoss]

I have never seen flow numbers on the Typhoon from any source, much less a relaible one, so how does anyone know it outflows the GT40?

Port match to the head, not a gasket (unless the head is ported to a certain gasket size).

In either case, the lower needs some porting to work with those heads.

 

[bmo37]

I have never seen flow numbers on the Typhoon from any source, much less a relaible one, so how does anyone know it outflows the GT40?

Port match to the head, not a gasket (unless the head is ported to a certain gasket size).

In either case, the lower needs some porting to work with those heads.

This question always comes up and I can never remeber the 5.0 mustangs and super fords issue that they did the intake shootout, with the typhoon intake. Don't remember if they did flow numbers or plain hp and tq.

 

[tmoss]

This question always comes up and I can never remeber the 5.0 mustangs and super fords issue that they did the intake shootout, with the typhoon intake. Don't remember if they did flow numbers or plain hp and tq.

I'm pretty sure they did not flow test it.

 

[moneypit94]

http://www.andersonfordmotorsport.com/media/intake.htm

I did find that from AFM... But i still doubt it flows better then a gt40...

On the other hand the good news is that i found i picked a good intake with my systemax..

 

[bmo37]

well for one thing both intakes have there pros and cons, it all depends on what your looking for, its proven that the the gt40 has great lowend range and falls short up top, and the typhoon is quiet the the opposite where it lacks lowend and pulls from mid to high rpm. so depending on what you want you can get with a specific intake.

For instance if you have a boost car you wouldn't want a long runner intake like the gt40, rather you'd make more power with the typhoon. Or if you have a stock mustang the gt40 would performan way better than a typhoon simply because its too big for the application.

 

[tmoss]

Here is a flow test done by Victory engines - a Explorer outflowed a GT40, same bench, dame day, same operator........

 

[Kenny 5pt0]

So then according to an earlier response to this thread and what tmoss just provided us with, the Typhoon intake is statistically better then the GT40. I'm still critical of the Typhoon being the same as the Performer RPM, isn't it the same as the base Performer ( I know there is little difference, yet there is).... The Gt40 is a higher quality piece. Damn, if your going to spend the money on a Gt40 intake save the $30 and get a Holley Systemax

Kenny

 

[tmoss]

well for one thing both intakes have there pros and cons, it all depends on what your looking for, its proven that the the gt40 has great lowend range and falls short up top, and the typhoon is quiet the the opposite where it lacks lowend and pulls from mid to high rpm. so depending on what you want you can get with a specific intake.

I have two dyno comparisons, both of explorer intakes dynoed against a RPMII and a Track Heat. I have both dyno sets that have both tests on one graph from the dyno facilities that did the tests.


The RPMII test was a car with AFR 165 heads, E303 cam, 70mm TB, 75mm Pro-M, P LT headers, Bassani Off Road X and Flowmasters. The Explorer after porting by me made 6HP and 24ft-lbs more power peak, and 14HP/18ft-lbs more average over the 2,000-6,000 rpm band.

The Track Heat car had a stock Explorer intake, TW heads, AFM N-41 cam, shorties & catbacks, 65mm TB, 73MM MAF and the Explorer made 24HP/4ft-lbs better peak numbers and 9HP/12ft-lbs more average over the 2,000-5,600 rpm band - and at 5,600 rpm, the Track Heat was below the Explorer by a wide margin.

I think those intakes are the equal of the Typhoon and my point is you can't make general statements about which intake is best. They are combination specific. Bigger runner cross section does not always make more power on the engine.

 

[bmo37]

I have two dyno comparisons, both of explorer intakes dynoed against a RPMII and a Track Heat. I have both dyno sets that have both tests on one graph from the dyno facilities that did the tests.


The RPMII test was a car with AFR 165 heads, E303 cam, 70mm TB, 75mm Pro-M, P LT headers, Bassani Off Road X and Flowmasters. The Explorer after porting by me made 6HP and 24ft-lbs more power peak, and 14HP/18ft-lbs more average over the 2,000-6,000 rpm band.

The Track Heat car had a stock Explorer intake, TW heads, AFM N-41 cam, shorties & catbacks, 65mm TB, 73MM MAF and the Explorer made 24HP/4ft-lbs better peak numbers and 9HP/12ft-lbs more average over the 2,000-5,600 rpm band - and at 5,600 rpm, the Track Heat was below the Explorer by a wide margin.

I think those intakes are the equal of the Typhoon and my point is you can't make general statements about which intake is best. They are combination specific. Bigger runner cross section does not always make more power on the engine.

well that was my point too, but your now throwing into the mix porting intakes vs non ported and comparing them, a fair comparison is stock vs stock design and ported vs ported.

 

[tmoss]

I don't think it a matter of being "fair". It's risky making blanket statements about which intake is best when in reality it may be or it may not be.

Comparing a stock Explorer flow test to a Track Heat would leave many saying that the Track Heat is the better intake, well one of the above acutal tests puts that to rest. It's all combination specific.

I think it's fair comparing a ported Explorer to a stock RPMII - the Eddy is supposed to be the great new intake and it certainly has a larger cross section than even my porting takes the Explorer to. Once again comparing on flow potential doesn't tell the whole story.

Change the cams in the above tests and the results will change too. But who is to say which one will come out on top?