• Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech

RPM vs. RPM air gap

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1967coupe
  • Start date Start date Mar 9, 2004
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last

1967coupe

New Member
Feb 25, 2004
109
0
0
Wausau, WI
Mar 9, 2004
#1
  • Mar 9, 2004
  • #1
I'm looking to purchase one of these manifolds in the near future and was wondering what people's views were on whether the air gap is worth the extra cost. This is for a street car with a 289 stock with mild cam and AFR 265's in the future.
 

dolfan87

Founding Member
Dec 28, 2000
1,242
0
0
Lake Havasu, AZ
Mar 9, 2004
#2
  • Mar 9, 2004
  • #2
That would require someone on here to have owned both types on the same engine.

The airgap is supposed to lower the incoming air/fuel charge because it's seperated from the base of the intake, but when the engine is at operating temp under a hood, how much does it really reduce the temp??

If you are on a tight budget, I would think the standard RPM would be fine.

87
 

66 BLAKE 96

Native Texican
Founding Member
Feb 16, 2001
4,810
0
0
Cowtown
Mar 9, 2004
#3
  • Mar 9, 2004
  • #3
dolfan87 said:
That would require someone on here to have owned both types on the same engine.

The airgap is supposed to lower the incoming air/fuel charge because it's seperated from the base of the intake, but when the engine is at operating temp under a hood, how much does it really reduce the temp??

If you are on a tight budget, I would think the standard RPM would be fine.

87
Click to expand...

Agreed. The Air Gap is a cool idea and might be worth it for the wow factor if you have the extra cash, but if $ is a factor, I'm willing to bet you wouldn't really feel a difference between the two.
 
M

mustangdave

My rearend needs a stud and two nuts.
Founding Member
Feb 26, 2002
2,976
1
56
North Carolina
Mar 9, 2004
#4
  • Mar 9, 2004
  • #4
I have to disagree: I read several dyno tests on the Air Gap when it first came out and it blew the rpm away. It almost equalled the Victor Junior on the top end while still beating the rpm on the bottom in several different engine combos. True, the underhood heat was not taken into account, but the same heat will be there with the regular rpm manifold.
 

66 BLAKE 96

Native Texican
Founding Member
Feb 16, 2001
4,810
0
0
Cowtown
Mar 9, 2004
#5
  • Mar 9, 2004
  • #5
mustangdave said:
I have to disagree: I read several dyno tests on the Air Gap when it first came out and it blew the rpm away. It almost equalled the Victor Junior on the top end while still beating the rpm on the bottom in several different engine combos. True, the underhood heat was not taken into account, but the same heat will be there with the regular rpm manifold.
Click to expand...

Cool!

I like hearing that. Too bad my car is rockin' the regular RPM.
Oh well, it was cutting edge when I bought it.
 
3

3spd on floor

Founding Member
Aug 13, 2002
1,099
0
0
Acworth, GA
Mar 9, 2004
#6
  • Mar 9, 2004
  • #6
i bought the Professonal Products version of it. havent installed it yet, but it seems to be a decent casting, needs a little cleanup of some casting flash but nothing terrible. it was only 146 shipped brand spankin new. Its basically a carbon copy made in china version of the airgap for 100 bucks less. if money is a factor, check them out.
 
F

Fostang

Founding Member
May 8, 2002
1,400
0
36
Stockton, Ca
Mar 9, 2004
#7
  • Mar 9, 2004
  • #7
holly crap afr 265!!! where do I get those?

Just get a sheet metal intake with forced induction for those heads because they're not going to flow very low below 4000 rpm.

LOL

Just get the gap.
 
G

gp001

Founding Member
Jun 30, 2001
4,401
0
66
So. Cal.
Mar 9, 2004
#8
  • Mar 9, 2004
  • #8
I haven't owned the ford version, but if you look at the old chysler big block manifolds they are separated from the block via a valley pan (gasket). This keeps the manifold separated from the hot engine oil in the crankcase. The bottom side of our regular manifolds get that hot oil slung up onto it which raises the temp of the part of the manifold that the air/fuel mix passes through. Colder charge = better
 

1967coupe

New Member
Feb 25, 2004
109
0
0
Wausau, WI
Mar 9, 2004
#9
  • Mar 9, 2004
  • #9
My bad on the AFR's...how about 165. Thanks for all the input. Think I'm going for the air gap.
 

SadbutTrue

Founding Member
May 1, 2002
2,390
4
49
Granada Hills, California
Mar 10, 2004
#10
  • Mar 10, 2004
  • #10
1967coupe said:
My bad on the AFR's...how about 165. Thanks for all the input. Think I'm going for the air gap.
Click to expand...

was gonna say... AFR 265 lol? What do they flow? 1600 cfm at 1.1" lift? Rev to 12000 rpm?

If you can fit it, get the Air Gap. If not, the RPM is fine. Might want to look at the Weiand Stealth, shorter than both (i believe) but revs higher and I hear nothing but good stuff about it.
 

69 302/351c

Founding Member
May 29, 2001
1,147
0
36
Walkertown NC, originally Western Mass
Mar 10, 2004
#11
  • Mar 10, 2004
  • #11
Air Gap tests out better than the performer RPM but doesn't run as well in cold weather. My buddy has one and it takes a while to get heat in it.
 

allcarfan

The Answer Man
Founding Member
Apr 8, 2001
2,458
1
56
North Atlanta
Mar 10, 2004
#12
  • Mar 10, 2004
  • #12
Will an air gap RPM manifold even fit under your hood? Just soemthing to consider
 

BobV

20+ Year Stangneter
May 18, 2003
474
0
16
Leavenworth, KS
Mar 10, 2004
#13
  • Mar 10, 2004
  • #13
On a 289/302, Air Gap and Performer RPM are the same height. If one fits, the other will also.
Only the 351 Air Gaps are taller.
 

allcarfan

The Answer Man
Founding Member
Apr 8, 2001
2,458
1
56
North Atlanta
Mar 10, 2004
#14
  • Mar 10, 2004
  • #14
Thanks for the Info. I just wanted to make sure!!!
 

1967coupe

New Member
Feb 25, 2004
109
0
0
Wausau, WI
Mar 10, 2004
#15
  • Mar 10, 2004
  • #15
I called Edelbrock yesterday and they guaranteed me that it would have plenty of clearance with a 289. My buddy has a '68 with the RPM and it fits fine. Just had to call them to know if they were the same height.
 
M

mustangman70

Founding Member
Dec 30, 2001
1,235
1
0
St pete, Florida
Jun 12, 2004
#16
  • Jun 12, 2004
  • #16
I just orderd my RPM air gap yesterday, i have heard nothing but GOOD things about this intake. Ill tell ya how the install goes and if i feel a difference ( i am switching from a torker)
 
U

usedtobe 67p51d

New Member
Jul 8, 2003
208
0
0
let's tear up golfcourses and build race tracks!
Jun 12, 2004
#17
  • Jun 12, 2004
  • #17
I've had both, if your going to have a decent cam, gears and valvetrain get the air gap. stock cam and 2sumptin' gears go with the non gap
 

Max Power

Active Member
Jul 31, 2003
1,774
1
36
St Paul
Jun 13, 2004
#18
  • Jun 13, 2004
  • #18
Amazing how this 45 year old technology came roaring back a couple of years ago. Pontiac started doing this on stock motors in about 1960.

Also, even though you may save a little money, Edelbrock is an American company, owned by an American hot rodding pioneer, who makes his parts in America using American labor.

Please don't buy cheap chinese rip-offs.
 
J

jesserose17

New Member
Aug 21, 2003
219
0
0
Southern CA
Jun 13, 2004
#19
  • Jun 13, 2004
  • #19
You might want to check out the July issue of Hot Rod - it has an article on dyno comparsion of all Edelbrock intake manifolds.
 

Great68

Founding Member
May 16, 2002
691
0
16
Victoria BC
Jun 13, 2004
#20
  • Jun 13, 2004
  • #20
I have the RPM Air Gap manifold and AFR 165 heads, I haven't had the chance to drive it around a lot, but it definately rocks the world of my old Offenhauser intake.


Oh yeah, the Air Gap has slightly larger runners than the standard RPM, which makes it great for more cubic inches.
 
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Progress Thread Progress Thread- From6to8's 95 GT/Saleen Supercharged 331 install
  • from6to8
  • Mar 22, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
24
Views
937
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 6, 2026
from6to8
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
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
907
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jun 20, 2026
gray owl
G
Forced Induction Bypass valve backwards?
  • Dontknowchit
  • Jun 25, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
3
Views
347
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jun 29, 2025
JD1964
3
Eight inches is enough for me...
  • 351MooseStang
  • Nov 27, 2025
  • 1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech
Replies
5
Views
584
1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech Mar 2, 2026
Bullitt347
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific 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?