Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,617 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This is an article that, is so simple that you would assume it's been done a dozen times before, but after searching the web over and over, I've had zero luck finding anything. I'd like to see a back-to-back comparison of a Performer RPM (air gap?), Victor Jr, and Weiand Xcelerator on a ~400hp sbf. Dyno runs (rear wheel or engine) that cover 3000-7000rpm would be ideal, as it would show where each intake shines. I think this would be a great article because there are SO MANY of us running 289/302/331/347s that are in the 350-450hp realm, which is right in the grey area of "should I run a single plane or dual plane?". I think the ideal test would be rear-wheel dyno of a manual transmission car, with a 302 or 331, 230ish camshaft, moderate aftermarket heads like AFR 165/185 or similar, 650 carb, and a free flowing full exhaust system. For me personally, this would really answer the question of what I'm giving up/gaining with a medium rise single plane vs. the high-rise Vic Jr., and also what affect switching to a high-rise dual-plane would have. Another interesting thing to try (if time allowed) would be comparing a 650 carb vs. a 750 carb on the dual plane vs. the single plane. I think the dual plane would see a lot greater gain than the single plane, but it would be cool to see the real world difference. Is there any chance that FM would be interested in putting something like this together? Even though it's a little on the higher-hp side, the 347 used in the "Dyno Duel" AFR165 Comp. article would work well as a test bed, and it has already been tested with the Xcelerator intake.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,211 Posts
Good idea

I would like to see the same comparison for the 351W including the Stealth manifold. When running a 351W in the 65/66 chassis not many manifiolds fit under the hood.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
991 Posts
at 7k the vic would be the winner
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,617 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I agree that at 7000 the Vic would definitely make the most power... but by how much? And would the Xcelerator ever out-power the Vic? And at what RPM does the Vic pass the Performer RPM? Would be really helpful for someone that knows what RPM range they are going to run, but doesn't know which intake makes the best average power in that range.

_________________
'86 Bronco fullsize, 460, E4OD
'85 Ranger, 340hp 289, T5


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Motorhead on 7/25/06 7:24am ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,028 Posts
On 2006-07-24 14:39, jeffstar wrote:
Good idea

I would like to see the same comparison for the 351W including the Stealth manifold. When running a 351W in the 65/66 chassis not many manifiolds fit under the hood.
With a couple of mods, a Vic Jr. can fit under a stock hood--I did it on my 393w since it is better suited for my intended 6400rpm shifts.

Nothing sits in my Shelby hood scoop.

Requires 65' type or otherwise lowered motor mounts, a modded dropped air cleaner base (mine is 14x3" with a HiPo Chrome top), and a angle mill of the carb pad on the Jr. I only needed to angle mill .300 off the front of mine. An HP type Holley with no choke helps too.

Interestingly, it gave me a better carb angle plus hot and cold idle, plus better top end performance compared to the Stealth. Only slight, (oh so slight,) difference in the lower RPM range (1500 ish.)

_________________
Dennis

65' Stang

393W Stroker, Wide Toploader 4 Spd, 9" 3:70 Posi

Victor Jr. Heads, Vic Jr. Intake, 750dp, 236/561 Solid Cam, 9.6CR, 1 3/4" Headers, Lakewood, Subframes, Caltracs




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dennis111 on 7/25/06 6:34pm ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,028 Posts
I too would like to see a comprehensive test of the RPM/Stealth/Xcellerator and the Vic Jr.

I would also like to see how each of them perform on a stroker windsor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,627 Posts
Great Idea, but the top end horse power is only a small factor. You can have two identical engine's set ups, (heads, and displacement) with different intake, carb, and cam combinations, all making the same horse power. But one is a 12 second engine, one is a 13 and one is a 14 second engine.

Velocity measurements and comparisons would be very helpful in such an artical.

It is all about air flow velocity. I don't think I have ever seen an artical in the national publications saying which combo gives you the fastest RPM building capacity. They only talk about top end HP and tourque.

Nice to brag you have a lot of power, but how fast you can get to that max power is what the real deal is all about....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,758 Posts
Good suggestions guys. We are working on a 351W build for later this year, and we'll consider the manifold tests.

Thanks and keep up the good feedback!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,551 Posts
Well, I've used a couple different intakes...on a mild 306 in my old Mustang. It came with a torker. I left it on, even with the "new" motor (like I said, it was mild...10:1 compression, light pistons, stock bottom end, 228 @ .050" cam....114 LSA). It was alright but seemed to kind of hit a wall at 5500.

Fast forward, I swapped a Victor Jr onto the engine, no other changes other than the needed jetting & timing changes. HUGE difference, made a TON more top end power (from 5500-6500...cam quit at about 6600 +/-) but at an expense. The low end was mushy. Not soft, just sluggish...low end is under 3500 RPM.

Dad wanted the Victor Jr on his drag car, so I traded him for his RPM (non air gap). Played with jetting and timing and immediately noticed a change in the tone of the engine especially at idle and lower speeds (under 3000 RPM). It was a LOT more enjoyable to drive on the street with the RPM compared to either the torker or the jr. WAAAAY more responsive than the jr under 3500, but again, it just did not have the kick on the top end as the Victor jr did. But then again, how often did I spend above 4000 RPM? Once a month maybe? Keep in mind that is was a street car (no drag racing) with a 5 speed and 3.73's. Low end responsiveness was the key to making it a really fun car to drive. With the light pistons, ti valves, and hyd roller, it was responsive...and later I bought an aluminum flywheel but never got around to putting it on. Wish I would have though, seems like it would have been a little more fun.

BTW, the fuel mileage between the 3, the RPM was BY FAR the best. Best of 42 mpg, averaged 30-35 depending on how I drove it and what speeds. In town, it usually stayed 25-28 mpg. Keep in mind that it was NOT a smooth running machine...it bucked, farted, surged, and it was a riteous biotch to start when it was cold. Beyond that, it was also VERY cold natured...if the air was below 40 degrees F, it HAD to be at 160 degrees water temp for it to run without hesitating. It didn't have a choke in the carb...so that probably also helped MPG.

OT, I wish I had kept it. It was by far the best mpg and most fun car I've driven next to my SVO, but the SVO never got better than 30 mpg. My lightning, though cool as hell and it runs respectable for a 5000 lb truck, only gets around 12. The GT was fun, quick, responsive, and SIMPLE. Can't say that much for the SVO or the SVT!

_________________
"it is better to appear ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"--Mark Twain

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mavman on 7/26/06 11:10am ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,617 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Hi Mavman, thanks for the reply, good info there! Which Torker intake did you originally have? Was it the old Torker (similar to the Xcelerator, except with the carb pad that was twisted at an angle), or was it the newer Torker II with the big plenum and short puny intake runners that Edelbrock currently sells in the pic below?



It sounds like your 306 was more mild than my 289, so if you noticed a big difference after switching to the Vic Jr, seems like I'd see an even bigger difference.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top