• Mustang Forums
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech

Reichard Intake - pictures and write up!

  • Thread starter Thread starter snkypete
  • Start date Start date Feb 29, 2004

snkypete

Founding Member
Mar 1, 2001
1,299
0
0
NY
Feb 29, 2004
#1
  • Feb 29, 2004
  • #1
Well my intake showed up while I was away, first thing I did was open it up and take some pictures.....

For the full write up (some might find it very interesting...) and the pictures :


Reichard Intake Write Up

(There's also tons of new things - VT stroker motor pictures, cams, X2C transmission, Fluidyne Radiator, pictures from the TurboMustang shootout as well as the Autorama car show that was at the Alamodome)
 

COramprat

...I can take it. I think.
20+ Year Stangneter
Mar 2, 2003
8,474
1,463
223
Sea of Tranquility
Feb 29, 2004
#2
  • Feb 29, 2004
  • #2
Damn you rich guys and your free spending ways....

Great purchase if the minor bugs are worked out or don't turn into major ones. I guess Reichard can listen to it's customers and maybe resoleve some of these issues.
 

snkypete

Founding Member
Mar 1, 2001
1,299
0
0
NY
Feb 29, 2004
#3
  • Feb 29, 2004
  • #3
That's my hope....why I always try to be fair and honest in my write ups.

For me it was more of a necessity, I don't think the stock plastic intake would live a happy life when real boost is put through it this summer....
 
6

68 & 00 GT

New Member
May 14, 2003
2,407
1
0
HOUSTON TEXAS
Feb 29, 2004
#4
  • Feb 29, 2004
  • #4
sure looks nice.


Hopefully none of the small issues are big problems.

What kinds of gains does it advertise, and for what applications ? N/A, s/c, turbo etc...
see pm
 

Attachments

  • P2270003.webp
    30.7 KB · Views: 479
E

edwardohaskillo

New Member
Nov 24, 2003
120
0
0
The Land of Milk and Honey
Feb 29, 2004
#5
  • Feb 29, 2004
  • #5
From what I've seen in the mags, it doesn't help alot. Most of the reviews I have seen have been N/A. It looks like it would be a good manifold for blowers tho'. Forced induction would make up for the intake velocity lost by the short runners. I also think forged internals would make the high rpms necessary more "survivable".

I look forward to a true OBJECTIVE review.

Just my two.
 

snkypete

Founding Member
Mar 1, 2001
1,299
0
0
NY
Feb 29, 2004
#6
  • Feb 29, 2004
  • #6
There haven't been any reviews of the v2.0 intake - everything that has been posted was based upon the v1.0 intake.

There was one review in a mag that used a NA car - why??? A short runner intake is not setup for a NA car, it is setup for a FI car.

The v1.0 was tested on a SC car - there was low end hp/tq loss, but major gains on the top end (~53rwhp) over a Bullitt intake...imagine it over a stock intake. The v2.0 is supposed to cut the losses in half according to Jim.

There are a few SC cars that have the v2.0 on now that are getting ready to do some testing so we should see some real world numbers. Myself and Sizz will also have numbers on turbocharged applications - however neither of us will have 'before' numbers with the same setup since we're both doing full motors (him cobra crank, stage 3 heads - me 302ci stroker, stage 2 heads).

For a NA car, get a Fox Lake intake, or if you don't like the looks - wait to see what BBK brings to market....
 

JonJon

Founding Member
Aug 16, 2002
4,801
1
68
back in Marylands
Feb 29, 2004
#7
  • Feb 29, 2004
  • #7
wow
 
R

Ryan L

Founding Member
Apr 15, 2001
783
0
16
St. Augustine, FL
Feb 29, 2004
#8
  • Feb 29, 2004
  • #8
snkypete said:
For a NA car, get a Fox Lake intake, or if you don't like the looks - wait to see what BBK brings to market....
Click to expand...

Something tells me the BBK intake will look more like a production piece as opposed to the ugly Fox Lake intake. The only 2V intakes available are ones that look like they were put together by hand, as opposed to most aftermarket parts that was produced entirely by a machine.
 

snkypete

Founding Member
Mar 1, 2001
1,299
0
0
NY
Feb 29, 2004
#9
  • Feb 29, 2004
  • #9
Exactly...but BBK's pockets are a lot deeper than FL

I only wish I could have justified a Hogan....but the RR is still nice and I think it will be perfect for a turbocharged application - especially with a stroker as well - I can afford the loss of some low end torque for gains on the top end.

I think when BBK does come out with something, it will be similar to their other intakes and should have enough R&D money in it to make decent power all around.

The FL would look better if they could have figured out another place for the TB, but I understand why its there - to keep costs down and allow people to use stock mounting locations...not everyone wants to fab up a discharge tube, etc, etc....
 

snkypete

Founding Member
Mar 1, 2001
1,299
0
0
NY
Mar 1, 2004
#10
  • Mar 1, 2004
  • #10
Update :

Had a nice conversation with Jim Reichard today, here is a summary :

Pin Holes : He is fully aware of them. Like I suspected/hoped, they are BELOW the injector O-ring so it is a non-issue (which I confirmed with the angry germans the other night, but it was good to hear Jim say the same thing). The reason for them (as stated by Jim) is to allow the injector to sit as low as possible to increase hp/tq.

As for the transfer between the runners, it was exactly what I stated...some hand cleaning would clean it up - Jim said he could gladly do it for an additional fee if it truly bothered some people and they didn't have the capability of doing it.... But like I stated, you'll need to do some hand cleaning on any manifold.

For those that have stated they feel the intake costs too much, you'll be happy to know Reichard still hasn't recouped the investment cost - and actually just invested more money into the fabrication stage - and it will take at least two more batches for him to break even/turn a profit.
 

NasaGT

Founding Member
Sep 19, 2002
1,993
2
49
Virginia
Mar 1, 2004
#11
  • Mar 1, 2004
  • #11
All I can say is - Wow. That looks great. It'll be interesting to see what it produces compared to the old version and the Bullitt intake.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that thigns the fox lake intake is fugly. But if it works...
 
L

LegendTypeII

New Member
Sep 25, 2003
5
0
0
Mar 1, 2004
#12
  • Mar 1, 2004
  • #12
I would love to see some dno numbers on N/A GT's... also maybe a different color. Black or polished would be nice
 

snkypete

Founding Member
Mar 1, 2001
1,299
0
0
NY
Mar 1, 2004
#13
  • Mar 1, 2004
  • #13
This intake is not for a NA car...if a NA car wants an alternative to the Bullitt - the only choice is the Fox Lake.

Yeah FL did a great job making the intake work, I just am not fond of the hump that was necessary...but it does make some pretty good numbers for the first attempt - subsequent testing supposedly went even better....(at least according to some inside people)
 

COramprat

...I can take it. I think.
20+ Year Stangneter
Mar 2, 2003
8,474
1,463
223
Sea of Tranquility
Mar 1, 2004
#14
  • Mar 1, 2004
  • #14
snkypete said:
Exactly...but BBK's pockets are a lot deeper than FL

I only wish I could have justified a Hogan....but the RR is still nice and I think it will be perfect for a turbocharged application - especially with a stroker as well - I can afford the loss of some low end torque for gains on the top end.

I think when BBK does come out with something, it will be similar to their other intakes and should have enough R&D money in it to make decent power all around.

The FL would look better if they could have figured out another place for the TB, but I understand why its there - to keep costs down and allow people to use stock mounting locations...not everyone wants to fab up a discharge tube, etc, etc....
Click to expand...
...and maybe BBK with a decent price for us poor ol guys like me. I mean I'm clutching at straws with my 96. Short of just swapping for a new engine we have to get what's left over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Ongoing Battle With Hydraulic Lifters
  • hailer06
  • Jun 8, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
7
Views
254
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jun 9, 2026
Noobz347
SN95 Desktop 363 Engine Combination - Looking for input
  • WhiteCobra95
  • Sep 8, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
11
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 6, 2025
Habu135
Place to Avoid: Jamison Auto Group in Gulfport, MS
  • D Durden
  • Oct 20, 2025
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • 2 3
Replies
46
Views
2K
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Thursday at 9:44 PM
Noobz347
Progress Thread "Alter Ego" White 1993 LX 5.0 5spd
  • idareu
  • Sep 9, 2024
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2 3
Replies
42
Views
2K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Feb 19, 2025
idareu
J
Progress Thread Family member 1989 GT- Backstory and updates
  • JRC99
  • Apr 19, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
15
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 26, 2025
JRC99
J
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • SN95 4.6L 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?