RAMM
Well-Known Member
Love Garage 54. Interestingly Garage 54 on page 54. J.Rob
I brought a motorcycle drag slick, packed with transmission parts and a side exhaust for a KZ1000 back once as luggage . Customs guy had a laugh.A buddy of mine who flys over to Australia from Canada about 6 times a year just took 2 heads and an intake in his suitcase for me that I sold…the Australian who bought them said it was like a half price sale!
Here is an interesting video of an experimental transparent intake manifold to show the fuel/air mixture moving through it.
Shows what is going on inside like where Charles is doing his intake manifold internal runner cleanups.
Here's a dyno test of a 367 hp engine test at 50% throttle and made 94% of the power 344 hp, the intake might be less of a problem than we think.
Here's a dyno test of a 367 hp engine test at 50% throttle and made 94% of the power 344 hp, the intake might be less of a problem than we think.
It might not translate to well to intake runner size the length of the restriction might come into play, it's probably more comparable to the carb. I guess the importance of restriction is head than intake then carb.It depends upon what part is biggest restriction to air flow. That intake they used definitely was not the restriction. As far as 50% throttle blade angle goes, I wonder how that translates to what percentage the restriction of max airflow is. That was pretty big throttle body in the video.
Reminds me of this test where they swapped out a tiny Streetmaster for an Air gap and gained a whopping 16 Hp at peak airflow demand:
Mopar Performance Parts - '71 Satellite 340 Small-Block Bolt-Ons - Hot Rod Magazine
View attachment 1716038796
Compare the size of those ports and plenum and realize it was only a 16 HP difference @ 5000 RPM
Big difference in port size not a big difference in outcome. Peak airflow demand isn't @ 3000 RPM.The rest of the story is the engine was basically a stock rebuilt high compression 340 with stock spec cam and 1.88 360 heads. And it had 318 exhaust manifolds on it. And made more than 20hp difference at 3000 rpm- AT THE WHEELS.
Under those conditions the manifold swap made a huge difference, and did not have the benefit or cam or headers to do so.
Point is swap the cam to anything bigger and put headers and good exhaust on that engine, and THEN swap the intake and watch the power numbers go up substantially because the old intake then becomes the restriction.
As always it is using the right combination of parts to get the biggest change in output.
That is $400 well spent for an intake swap, especially considering you could likely sell the old intake for 150 to 200.
Big difference in port size not a big difference in outcome. Peak airflow demand isn't @ 3000 RPM.
Seems people need to move the goal posts so as not to have to deal with the reality.
Oh the irony....Hes a idiot
I'm just highlighting how a tiny port half the size of the air gap didn't kill performance as most would suspect. Why didn't that 302 lose a whole lot of power by halving the the throttle opening? Didn't it lose a lot of flow? Maybe you can't comprehend that an engine can only use so much air and giving it more wont changer that ability.Your downplaying the difference of 16hp at the rear wheel to try to further your agenda is either disingenuous or ignorant.
damn,...i like 302 heads to but ...damn!! take your 302s have them dipped in 24 ct gold and set them on your mantle,..then thay be worth something!!Oh the irony....
I'm just highlighting how a tiny port half the size of the air gap didn't kill performance as most would suspect. Why didn't that 302 lose a whole lot of power by halving the the throttle opening? Didn't it lose a lot of flow? Maybe you can't comprehend that an engine can only use so much air and giving it more wont changer that ability.
As I understand it, they had to get the Italians to sort it out, because they couldn't.Concerning the Aussie 265 Pentroof design inline six.
A complete car was shipped to Italy along with Aussie engineers to fit the Weber carbs. The car was driven in up a hill, starting at 20 mph, in top gear with three people in the back & crested the hill doing 60 mph..
British racing car driver Sterling Moss was employed by Chrys to to TV ads for the new design.
Didn't Ford need 427 ci monsters to beat Ferraris 3.3 litre engines at le Mans?As I understand it, they had to get the Italians to sort it out, because they couldn't.
I can comprehend fine thanks. There is a place for smaller ports depending upon the build. You cherry picked one data point to try to make your point, but chose poorly.Oh the irony....
I'm just highlighting how a tiny port half the size of the air gap didn't kill performance as most would suspect. Why didn't that 302 lose a whole lot of power by halving the the throttle opening? Didn't it lose a lot of flow? Maybe you can't comprehend that an engine can only use so much air and giving it more wont changer that ability.
Maybe so, but winning is winning....Didn't Ford need 427 ci monsters to beat Ferraris 3.3 litre engines at le Mans?
I only came back to this thread because I saw YOU posted, I knew right then, there would be something worth reading... and there was !!!Since this thread is off the rails anyhow...
In 1994 I helped a good friend build a low$$ 360, stock stroke, speed pro h405p pistons .060, MP 284/484cam, 850 DP, generic a body headers, 904 with 4000 stall GER(, yeah, a GER) converter. He had a Streetmaster intake and I told him to get a real one. The Dart went 8.5s in the 1/8th. Mid summer he picked up a single plane M1. That change dropped it to 8.10 in the 1/8th. No other changes. By the end of the summer it ran 7.8s.
I was young and had a lot to learn, still do. I just feel that the 360 needed more than what the Streetmaster could give it.
That is my real world experience.
Form your own opinions.
Maybe we were too dumb to extract the power from the Streetmaster..
Maybe the 360 needed more flow, that the M1 provided.
Whatever you think, it is fine , if you think I'm dumb, it won't bother me.
Edit: Maybe the power of the S-master was blowing through the GER converter, hence the slower times... Maybe I need to rethink this....