Weiand Stealth vs. Air-gap on a 347?

Fast63 · Oct 27, 2007

Hey guys, I'm getting close to finishing the rebuild of the 347 to put in my ranchero. I was trying to decide between intakes today, if I wanted to install a Stealth or an Air-gap. I have both and decided to go with the air-gap mainly because it looks cooler. Do you think I made the right choice? Heads are old style twisted wedgies, cam is comp 282S with 236/236 duration and .528 lift.

2bav8 · Oct 28, 2007

Using a manual tranny? Go with the Vic Jr. instead...

Fast63 · Oct 28, 2007

using a C-4. I don't expect to go over 6500 with this engine. Kinda looking more for low end grunt. It's definitely just a street car.

dennis112 · Oct 28, 2007

Hope you are running a hood scoop (or plan too.) The air gap is taller than the Stealth and can lead to installed height issues.

ratio411 · Oct 28, 2007

Those intakes are too close to call.
Use either one...

CarFreakGT · Oct 28, 2007

dennis112 said:
Hope you are running a hood scoop (or plan too.) The air gap is taller than the Stealth and can lead to installed height issues.

I was trying to decide b/w the same two intakes, and I went w/ the Stealth due to its lower profile and (advertised) broader power band. Ultimately, my hope is to build out a 347 stroker. I just have a ton of other 'projects' to tend to first on the car.

Decurion · Oct 28, 2007

Ill say go with the air gap. Also, if youre just looking for a strong street engine, the cam you picked is kinda big, especially depending on stall speed and rear gears. My 302 has 185cc heads, .500 lift, 222* @ .050, 3.55 gear, 2500 stall, and its a turd under about 3000. So you have more cubes, but more cam as well. Doesnt help me any that the old governor in the trans shifts it at 4700. Ya, I have a little work to do.

D.Hearne · Oct 28, 2007

Decurion said:
Ill say go with the air gap. Also, if youre just looking for a strong street engine, the cam you picked is kinda big, especially depending on stall speed and rear gears. My 302 has 185cc heads, .500 lift, 222* @ .050, 3.55 gear, 2500 stall, and its a turd under about 3000. So you have more cubes, but more cam as well. Doesnt help me any that the old governor in the trans shifts it at 4700. Ya, I have a little work to do.

What intake and carb are you running? With the cam you have, it ought to turn on at 1000-1500 with a dual plane and the right carb.

Fast63 · Oct 28, 2007

Decurion said:
Ill say go with the air gap. Also, if youre just looking for a strong street engine, the cam you picked is kinda big, especially depending on stall speed and rear gears. My 302 has 185cc heads, .500 lift, 222* @ .050, 3.55 gear, 2500 stall, and its a turd under about 3000. So you have more cubes, but more cam as well. Doesnt help me any that the old governor in the trans shifts it at 4700. Ya, I have a little work to do.

The cam is what came with the engine when I bought it. A little big for what I am planning, but I have read some posts on other sites where people say it is fine on the street. I'll be running 3.55 gears and a 2400 stall. The description of the cam says its range is 2000-6000 and I installed it 2 degrees advanced for a little more low end. 63 rancheros are really light, they are lighter than 64-66 mustangs, so I am not too worried about it.

ratio411 · Oct 28, 2007

Decurion said:
...if youre just looking for a strong street engine, the cam you picked is kinda big...

If it was a hydraulic cam, I would agree, however it is solid.
Combine that with the extra cubes and dual plane intake, and you got a good street combo there.
A 236* solid will act like a 221-226* hydraulic cam.
Add to that the extra cubes taming the duration, and that cam is effectively smaller than your 222* hydraulic in a 302 cube engine.

Solids have much better low end and throttle response... very good combo IMO.

Decurion · Oct 28, 2007

After rethinking my previous statement, I think the heads are a little on the big side causing a little sluggish low end, not so much the cam. Carb was 600 vac sec holley, RPM (non air gap) intake, long tube headers, 2 1/2" pipes. I did some more looking, and my cam is essentially a flat tappet version of the FRPP "E" cam. I think a set of 165cc heads would really wake up the low end without sacrificing any top end since its only a 302 and not a bigger 347. :OT:

In any case, I still vote for the RPM air gap.

Decurion · Oct 28, 2007

ratio411 said:
If it was a hydraulic cam, I would agree, however it is solid.
Combine that with the extra cubes and dual plane intake, and you got a good street combo there.
A 236* solid will act like a 221-226* hydraulic cam.
Add to that the extra cubes taming the duration, and that cam is effectively smaller than your 222* hydraulic in a 302 cube engine.

Solids have much better low end and throttle response... very good combo IMO.

Im not sure I understand your logic. Wouldnt a hydraulic cam bleed off a little bit before the valve actually started opening, giving a smaller effective duration?

EDIT:

Fast63 said:
63 rancheros are really light, they are lighter than 64-66 mustangs, so I am not too worried about it.

And TIGHT! I have a 65 Falcon and Comet, both wagons. Are you familiar with tffn?

2bav8 · Oct 28, 2007

hydraulic lifters bleed off a little at low rpm, but when working correctly are fully pumped up at higher rpms. Solid cams however use valve lash that reduces overall cam profile.

Fast63 · Oct 28, 2007

Decurion said:
And TIGHT! I have a 65 Falcon and Comet, both wagons. Are you familiar with tffn?

Yes, you PM'd me about it! I haven't signed up yet though, but have cruised there a little. Been spending too much time on my ranchero

ashford · Oct 29, 2007

i had a stealth on my 347(afr165's e303 cam 700dp holley 2500rpm stall). very strong midrange, adequate low end torque and became wheezy around 5200 rpm but would still make touque to 6000 rpm. later i did a megasquirt setup with a ported truck lower intake and home made upper. low end torque got a nice bump mid range suffered a little and pulled hard as hell to 5800rpm. hopefully this will give you a reference on torque curve.

ratio411 · Oct 29, 2007

Decurion said:
Im not sure I understand your logic. Wouldnt a hydraulic cam bleed off a little bit before the valve actually started opening, giving a smaller effective duration?

A solid cam compared to a hydraulic will act like it has 10-15 fewer degrees of duration. Don't know why off the top of my head... Just something I learned years ago.

Then, on top of that, you can run a tighter or looser lash and fine tune duration...

Solid cams make more throttle response, rpm, vacuum, and noise.
Less lope.

SoCalCruising · Oct 30, 2007

Those intakes are a toss-up, unless you want to port one. The RPM has several runners with equal cross sectional area, and are not amenable to porting. They can be Extrude Hone ported, since that will open up the entire runner. The Stealth has good taper on all runners, allowing you to open up the ports to match your heads, while still maintaining some taper from the plenum to the port. I have opened up a Stealth to match my 185s and the match was fairly easy to do.

Fast63 · Oct 30, 2007

that's good infro blkfrd. I set my lash at .022 so that it will be a little tamer for break-in and initial driving. If I want it bigger, I'll tighten that sucker up, haha.

I wasn't planning on porting the intake. I am not looking for all out power anyway. Thanks for the input everyone.

D.Hearne · Oct 30, 2007

ratio411 said:
A solid cam compared to a hydraulic will act like it has 10-15 fewer degrees of duration. Don't know why off the top of my head... Just something I learned years ago.

It's due to the lash, the lifter doesn't move the valve till the lash (slack) is taken up first.

ratio411 · Oct 30, 2007

blkfrd said:
Someone may deduce from that statement that a 270H should be a close equal to a 282S which is not true by any means.

I didn't think I needed a disclaimer for that.
Ramps are proprietory and a 270H from one company won't be equal to the 270H from another maker, much less comparing apples to oranges with hydraulic vs solid.

I figured that was elementary.

The whole point of my post was that hydraulics cannot be compared to solids using duration.
I should have left it at that.

Edit:
Btw, no part of this post should be construed as smarta$$!
Just clarifying my comments as you just might have a point!

Weiand Stealth vs. Air-gap on a 347?

Fast63

New Member

2bav8

Fast63

New Member

dennis112

ratio411

CarFreakGT

Decurion

Member

D.Hearne

New Member

Fast63

New Member

ratio411

Decurion

Member

Decurion

Member

2bav8

Fast63

New Member

ashford

Member

ratio411

SoCalCruising

Fast63

New Member

D.Hearne

New Member

ratio411

Similar threads

Weiand Stealth vs. Air-gap on a 347?

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Member

Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency