Stock intake vs performer?

-
69 Cuda 440 said:
1971 340 Cast Iron Intake Manifold #3512100

Is a damn good 'breather'.

Just a little gasket-port matching and some smoothing of the plenum-area,
and you've got yourself one solid performing Intake Manifold.

No big deal that it weighs about {+28 lbs.} more than an Aluminum Intake.

Problem solved > You just have to find a lighter Girlfriend.
Click to expand...
What's the 1970 cast iron intake like ?
 
#3512100

Question > Good Morning Mr. 1971 340 Cast Iron Intake Manifold. Do you have anything to say ?

Answer > Yes, I like to eat Chevy Small Blocks for Breakfast. And I'm very hungry right now.

attachment.php
 
forphorty said:
Here's a stock intake vs performer : http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/...60_smog_motor/carburetors_and_inductions.html
Click to expand...

Good article..

Based on the quote below it is my understanding that the limiting factor of the performer intake as it relates to flow restriction is that it is pinched at the runner exit and not the full length.

"In order to crossover to the small-port 318 application, the port window at the manifold exit is actually somewhat smaller than the 360's head port. ...
Not surpassingly, torque was up by 10 ft/lbs down around 2000 rpm, but the smaller outlet where the runners meet the heads actually hurt output as the rpm went up. The lesson? Port-match the Performer if running it with 360 heads, and you will probably see some gains with this intake."

Do you agree that it's just at the exit of the runner? or is it the entire length?

If the former is true in theory one could just port the runner exits and add a carb plate To improve the the performers output.

What say you folks?

-AlV
 
Intake Manifold-------------------------------- Port Size---------- Carburetor Height

Edelbrock Performer #2176 ....................... .97" x 1.95"............ 4.63"

Edelbrock #LD-4B ..................................... 1.05" x 1.95" ........... 4.90"

Edelbrock Torker 340 ............................... 1.01" x 2.10 ............. 4.90"

Edelbrock Performer RPM #7176 .............. 1.01" x 2.17" ........... 5.35"

1971 '340' Cast Iron #3512100 ................ 1.08" x 2.17" ........... 5.00"

Edelbrock Performer Air-Gap #7576 ......... .98" x 2.16" ............. 5.35"

Edelbrock Torker II #5076 ....................... 1.00" x 2.17" ........... 5.72"

Edelbrock #LD-340 ................................... 1.08" x 2.17" ........... 5.30"

Edelbrock Tarantula #TM-5 ...................... 1.06" x 2.17" ........... 5.73"

Edelbrock Victor #2915 ............................ 1.08" x 2.17" ........... 4.93"
 
69 Cuda 440 said:
Intake Manifold Port Size Carburetor Height

Edelbrock Performer #2176 ....................... .97" x 1.95"............ 4.63"

Edelbrock #LD-4B ..................................... 1.05" x 1.95"

Edelbrock Performer RPM #7176 .............. 1.01" x 2.17" ........... 5.35"

1971 '340' Cast Iron #3512100 ................ 1.08" x 2.17" ........... 5.00"

Edelbrock Performer Air-Gap #7576 ......... .98" x 2.16" ............. 5.35"

Edelbrock Torker II #5076 ....................... 1.00" x 2.17" ........... 5.72"
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info Cuda 440.

I'm still unclear on how these specs are derived, how these numbers are measured?
Are the dimensions measured at the exit window? And Do they represent the dimensions through the full length of the runner?

I am being very specific because it does make a difference.

-AlV
 
69 Cuda 440 said:
Intake Manifold-------------------------------- Port Size---------- Carburetor Height

Edelbrock Performer #2176 ....................... .97" x 1.95"............ 4.63"

Edelbrock #LD-4B ..................................... 1.05" x 1.95" ........... 4.90"

Edelbrock Torker 340 ............................... 1.01" x 2.10 ............. 4.90"

Edelbrock Performer RPM #7176 .............. 1.01" x 2.17" ........... 5.35"

1971 '340' Cast Iron #3512100 ................ 1.08" x 2.17" ........... 5.00"

Edelbrock Performer Air-Gap #7576 ......... .98" x 2.16" ............. 5.35"

Edelbrock Torker II #5076 ....................... 1.00" x 2.17" ........... 5.72"

Edelbrock #LD-340 ................................... 1.08" x 2.17" ........... 5.30"

Edelbrock Tarantula #TM-5 ...................... 1.06" x 2.17" ........... 5.73"

Edelbrock Victor #2915 ............................ 1.08" x 2.17" ........... 4.93"
Click to expand...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The general consensus, is that the LD-340 was the best overall Intake Manifold
for the 340 on the Street/Strip.

It was a beautiful piece of casting.

I ran a Tarantula on my 1968 Barracuda 340 4-Speed {Classed in Super Stock} 'SS/I' back in 1972 thru 1975.

Once I hit 5500 RPM's, you could feel the 340 take off. It was like another level.
 
69 Cuda 440 said:
AIV,

These are the port dimensions at the end of the Intake Runners, for the Intake/Cylinder Head gasket mounting.
Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying.
Would it be safe to say that if I ported the performer intake to match the 340 head/gasket that this restriction concern is no longer an issue?
 
AIV,

Porting and gasket-matching the Performer #2176 will be beneficial, especially for
higher RPM power {+4500 RPM's}.

The only negative, is that the Performer 'runner-ports' are not as big.

I think you can make the Performer 'close' to a 'stock' 1971 340 Cast Iron Intake
with massaging, but it will 'not' outperform the stock factory unit.
 
71dusterdan said:
Does anybody have credible test comparisons or know of a source. 71 340 intake vs edelbrock performer.
Click to expand...

Dan,

Actual Drag Test

* 1971 Duster 340, 4-speed, w/3.91 Gears

* Engine rebuilt to 'stock' specifications
* Balanced and Blueprinted
* Stock Exhaust System
* Stock Intake #3512100 {100% Stock}
* Thermoquad Carburetor {#4972S}
* 8" x 28" M & H Street Slicks

Best Performance........ 13.96 @ 100.70 MPH
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Same car, with Edelbrock Performer #2176 {Not Modified}

Best Performance........ 14.18 @ 98.97 MPH
 
Thanks for this, Paul. You're always full of surprises. Would love to shake your hand one day.
 
Rusty,

You dream of shaking my hand every night. So much so, that it appears to
be real.

Now take your hand off that thing before you go blind.

And only use the 'Performer' #2176 with 318 Cylinder Heads or RV vehicles.
 
69 Cuda 440 said:
Rusty,

You dream of shaking my hand every night. So much so, that it appears to
be real.

Now take your hand off that thing before you go blind.

And only use the 'Performer' #2176 with 318 Cylinder Heads or RV vehicles.
Click to expand...

You aint got bat brains. lol
 
69 Cuda 440 said:
Macon,

Are your bragging again.
Click to expand...

Yes. Let me brag. We have actually been OUT of Macon now since 2002. Although we have a Macon address, we are actually in the next county over. Thank goodness.
 
A better phrase would be,

We live in the South Eastern Conference.

You'd get more respect, and keep them guessing.
 
So after really spending some time comparing the pics posted of a stock intake and the massaged one, was there much benefit to be had carving up the plenum? By the way, you guys are turning me to my stock intake. Guess the performer will be for sale soon. I'm going to throw that mopar crank with the 340 journals and 360 stroke in it, keep my XE268 cam, and TQ. Only question left is which heads? My J's or my magnums. That will depend on pistons and condition of both sets of heads. For obvious reasons I am hoping the J's are good, and I can find a piston to work. Thanks for the intake help.
 
69 Cuda 440 said:
AIV,

Porting and gasket-matching the Performer #2176 will be beneficial, especially for
higher RPM power {+4500 RPM's}.

The only negative, is that the Performer 'runner-ports' are not as big.

I think you can make the Performer 'close' to a 'stock' 1971 340 Cast Iron Intake
with massaging, but it will 'not' outperform the stock factory unit.
Click to expand...

Got it. The performer 2176 runners are small all the way through to the end.
And the porting work I did at the exits may make a slight improvement but the overall restriction still exists. That's the bottom line

That being said, it looks like the 71 #3512100 and the Eddie LD-340 have the largest runner ports (as does the victor)

I'm going to roll with the performer for now since I've decided to stay with the HP exhaust manifolds. Ill pick up an LD-340 down the line and pair that with a set of Doug's or TTIs.


Thanks again!

AlV
 
AIV,

You must gasket-port match to get any benefit from the Performer #2176,
especially at higher RPM's.




And, install a spacer-plate.

2691.jpg


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top