Info on the weiand 8007

-
Bronze Barracuda

Bronze Barracuda

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2019
Messages
369
Reaction score
120
Location
Vancouver
Does anyone have any experience on the weiand 8007?

From a bit of research I've found (through an older hotrod.com article) that, "This is Weiand's competitor to the Edelbrock Performer and also has 318-sized small port exits. Like the Edelbrock Performer, it will improve with a 360-sized deep port match".
So could I assume that the "small port exits", are just that, and a "deep port match". is just gasket matching the small ports to 360 heads?
Reading the whole article it seems as though the 8007 has large runners that tapper down to smaller 318 size exits?
In the article it simply reverts you back to an earlier description of the edelbrock performer.
Here is a link to the article.
Interesting read anyway.

Mopar Small-Block Intake Manifold Flow Test

Anyone ever do a flow test on a weiand 8007?
Anyone have any positive results from this intake, besides weight savings?
Also what is this thing people are doing with dual planes where they cut a section of the top divider? Is it to help with all around flow? bottom end power? top end power?
 
Yeah. The article you linked to did the flow test. Did you read it? You can easily compare the numbers with all the rest they tested, but you're askin us?
 
RustyRatRod said:
Yeah. The article you linked to did the flow test. Did you read it? You can easily compare the numbers with all the rest they tested, but you're askin us?
Click to expand...
HaHa just finished reading it. Jumped the gun a bit I guess. But no flow tests after porting. Probably similar to the performer though.
It does have a little less overall flow than the performer but its spread (which seems to be an overall marker of a more balanced intake than the performer) was lower. Lower spread numbers=better balance.
 
Bronze Barracuda said:
HaHa just finished reading it. Jumped the gun a bit I guess. But no flow tests after porting. Probably similar to the performer though.
It does have a little less overall flow than the performer but its spread (which seems to be an overall marker of a more balanced intake than the performer) was lower. Lower spread numbers=better balance.
Click to expand...

It's a good intake. I have no direct experience but I know a few who have and they like it.
 
I run one on my 318 with 360 heads. I gasket matched the ports as deep as my grinder would reach. Also use a 1” open spacer on top. It has a spreadbore flange while the Stealth has a square bore flange. I’m using a Holley 650DP on mine with no problems.
 
SSG_Karg said:
I run one on my 318 with 360 heads. I gasket matched the ports as deep as my grinder would reach. Also use a 1” open spacer on top. It has a spreadbore flange while the Stealth has a square bore flange. I’m using a Holley 650DP on mine with no problems.
Click to expand...
SSG_Karg said:
I run one on my 318 with 360 heads. I gasket matched the ports as deep as my grinder would reach. Also use a 1” open spacer on top. It has a spreadbore flange while the Stealth has a square bore flange. I’m using a Holley 650DP on mine with no problems.
Click to expand...
Ok thanks. Did you also cut the top flange section? Or does the 1"spacer serve the same purpose. It seems to me the purpose for that is to improve top end performance?
 
I did not notch the divider, spacer takes car of that. I guess the theory is it equalizes the vacuum signal to the carb more evenly and the spacer adds some volume to the plenum to benefit upper rpm performance.
 
Ran the Stealth and the Performer 318/360 port matched on the same short block and ran a little faster with the Performer.
 
Just from an aesthetic point of view, I would not notch the divider. If you decide to upgrade to another intake on down the road, buyers might find that as a turn off. Just a thought.
 
RustyRatRod said:
Just from an aesthetic point of view, I would not notch the divider. If you decide to upgrade to another intake on down the road, buyers might find that as a turn off. Just a thought.
Click to expand...
True actually the reason I was asking about the 8007 weiand is because I have a set of 273 heads from 65 and they are the heads that you need to angle drill 66 and up la intakes for. I have an edelbrock torker that has had the bolt holes angle drilled already so they could be bolted to the early 273 heads. So I found a guy that will trade the weiand for the 273 heads and the torker. Still not sure if I'll pull the trigger yet. But the torker seems like a ridiculous intake for 273 heads
 
Bronze Barracuda said:
True actually the reason I was asking about the 8007 weiand is because I have a set of 273 heads from 65 and they are the heads that you need to angle drill 66 and up la intakes for. I have an edelbrock torker that has had the bolt holes angle drilled already so they could be bolted to the early 273 heads. So I found a guy that will trade the weiand for the 273 heads and the torker. Still not sure if I'll pull the trigger yet. But the torker seems like a ridiculous intake for 273 heads
Click to expand...

Ask @crackedback about the Torker. He calls them names like "doorstop". LMAO
 
does anyone have any hood clearance issues with the 8007?
Side question do all a bodies have the same clearances under the hood?
 
I played around with the Weiand, including cutting the divider down in stages ultimately to the max depth, picking up small gains along the way. Now running a completely different setup, ended up making an aluminum plate/divider to put it back to a true divided plenum which is now on my sons 360 street oriented car. Weiand Action Plus Porting
 
Here is a quick video i made a while back. I personally love the 8007 intake.
 
The original torker 340 was a doorstop or smelter material. I do like the Wheel Chock assessment as well. Worked in very limited range that most street cars never saw. Better to keep the shop door open on one side with a Torker and the other door with a pinion snubber... :)

That 8007 is a decent intake, similar to the 318/360 performer. One thing I don't like is the reversed ports and missing coil bracket mount tab on pass side above the 6/8 ports. Prefer the EDE for that reason (Ede seems to have a bazillion water ports on it Sheesh). Could always fab up a 6 pack style coil mount bracket.

The port window thing... Those weiand intakes the 8007 (Action +) and 8022 (stealth, supposed to be 340-360 intake right?) have EXACTLY the same window!!! 1.00x1.96 Plenty of stuff runs fine with the smaller window. In fact, the 318/360 ede will run darn close to an air gap/RPM intake with a few minutes opening the window and running a 1" open spacer... If you can spend a few minutes massaging the 8007, it will work great on most any reasonably cammed engine.

The 8007 is only .06 taller than a stock 340 intake. Hood clearance should not be an issue.

Don't get caught up in intake flow numbers. There are plenty of examples where a higher flowing intake made less power and less usable power throughout the range. What matters is how the engine runs in the car. Same with dynos, engine made best power jetted here, timing here... put it in a car and none of that is the right number, jet, setting. It's a baseline to start with and adjust as the car/suspension tells you what it wants.

If it's going on a 273, I would not touch the divider at all.
 
Last edited:
crackedback said:
The original torker 340 was a doorstop or smelter material. I do like the Wheel Chock assessment as well. Worked in very limited range that most street cars never saw. Better to keep the shop door open on one side with a Torker and the other door with a pinion snubber... :)

That 8007 is a decent intake, similar to the 318/360 performer. One thing I don't like is the reversed ports and missing coil bracket mount tab on pass side above the 6/8 ports. Prefer the EDE for that reason (Ede seems to have a bazillion water ports on it Sheesh). Could always fab up a 6 pack style coil mount bracket.

The port window thing... Those weiand intakes the 8007 (Action +) and 8022 (stealth, supposed to be 340-360 intake right?) have EXACTLY the same window!!! 1.00x1.96 Plenty of stuff runs fine with the smaller window. In fact, the 318/360 ede will run darn close to an air gap/RPM intake with a few minutes opening the window and running a 1" open spacer... If you can spend a few minutes massaging the 8007, it will work great on most any reasonably cammed engine.

The 8007 is only .06 taller than a stock 340 intake. Hood clearance should not be an issue.

Don't get caught up in intake flow numbers. There are plenty of examples where a higher flowing intake made less power and less usable power throughout the range. What matters is how the engine runs in the car. Same with dynos, engine made best power jetted here, timing here... put it in a car and none of that is the right number, jet, setting. It's a baseline to start with and adjust as the car/suspension tells you what it wants.

If it's going on a 273, I would not touch the divider at all.
Click to expand...
 
Great info. Thanks.
I am trading a set of 273 heads (315 castings) and a torker intake for the weiand 8007.
I will be putting the weiand onto a 360 LA roller block with older 360 LA heads and a lunati 20200212 cam.
 
The weiand also have a tuning quirk in them. It's not uncommon for the deep well plenum side to require 1-2 jet more than the shallow one.

Open up the window on the 8007 and you should be good. It doesn't need to be all the way to the gasket opening.
 
I did not notch the divider, spacer takes car of that. I guess the theory is it equalizes the vacuum signal to the carb more evenly and the spacer adds some volume to the plenum to benefit upper rpm performance.[/QUOTE]

The notch in the LD340 was for the old holley 3 bbl carbs.As Crackedback says flow does not necessarily make more power.On a warm small block there will probably not be much difference in them all.
 
BINGO!
crackedback said:
The original torker 340 was a doorstop or smelter material. I do like the Wheel Chock assessment as well. Worked in very limited range that most street cars never saw. Better to keep the shop door open on one side with a Torker and the other door with a pinion snubber... :)

That 8007 is a decent intake, similar to the 318/360 performer. One thing I don't like is the reversed ports and missing coil bracket mount tab on pass side above the 6/8 ports. Prefer the EDE for that reason (Ede seems to have a bazillion water ports on it Sheesh). Could always fab up a 6 pack style coil mount bracket.

The port window thing... Those weiand intakes the 8007 (Action +) and 8022 (stealth, supposed to be 340-360 intake right?) have EXACTLY the same window!!! 1.00x1.96 Plenty of stuff runs fine with the smaller window. In fact, the 318/360 ede will run darn close to an air gap/RPM intake with a few minutes opening the window and running a 1" open spacer... If you can spend a few minutes massaging the 8007, it will work great on most any reasonably cammed engine.

The 8007 is only .06 taller than a stock 340 intake. Hood clearance should not be an issue.

Don't get caught up in intake flow numbers. There are plenty of examples where a higher flowing intake made less power and less usable power throughout the range. What matters is how the engine runs in the car. Same with dynos, engine made best power jetted here, timing here... put it in a car and none of that is the right number, jet, setting. It's a baseline to start with and adjust as the car/suspension tells you what it wants.

If it's going on a 273, I would not touch the divider at all.
Click to expand...
A poor shot of m home made (FABO membership suggested idea) 6 pack inspired, intake side coil mount bracket and coil.
D0FCABDC-60DF-41FD-9591-4CF344ECEEFC.jpeg
 
And a new picture w/instructions on what I did.

I made a small rectangular plate, marked it where a basic coil bracket sits on it and drilled a pair of holes. A pair of 1/4 X 20 bolts and nuts w/lock washers. I used the bolts to help space up the coil to stay cool.

Not pictured are 2 simple “L” brackets with holes drilled into them for passing a bolt through them for the intake and then the bracket.

I did try and make the metal plate 1 piece but that proved weak and it broke at the base allowing the coil to shake around. Bad IMO.

Also, on my ‘67 Cuda, w/a thick carb gasket under the Edelbrock carb, a Mancini drop base was used under the MP air cleaner. It’s a close fit but works with a minor touch to the new hood insulation pad.
F4E855D5-8A54-4012-AF20-A6DB8739B02A.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Bronze Barracuda said:
does anyone have any hood clearance issues with the 8007?
Side question do all a bodies have the same clearances under the hood?
Click to expand...
I did on my '67 barracuda with a Holley 4150. Don't recall off hand which aircleaners I checked it with. Some will provide a little more clearance because the threaded rod and wing nut are down low in the lid center. A carter type 4 bbl may gain another 1/4" or so

YMMV

edit: My measurements on the 8007 were
upload_2020-7-12_17-35-34.png
for a pad ht of about 5.41"
with a 4150 and an aircleaner that was 3.7" tall, there was 1/8 to the hood. (Check with clay)

The air cleaner may have been a K&N base and filter lid. The filter lid is pretty tall as are some of the other aftermarket 14" metal lids. A different air cleaner lid (like the one on the car now) might have made the 8007 viable. The Barracuda hoodlines might be a little lower to the engines than some other models??? That's not a subject I know much about.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top