New Eliminator intake

Regular Dominator flange ability before cutting it open to a streched carb

Have any of these actually been cast yet, or is this another unicorn like the other intake that was along side it at PRI?

Are there adaptors available to use an A intake with C type heads? If/when this intake is available looks like it would be way better than the current cast C type intake.

Sheldon G.

^^^^I believe Charlie Evens makes adapters for A-Head intake on C-Heads.

Scott Foxwell wrote:Have any of these actually been cast yet, or is this another unicorn like the other intake that was along side it at PRI?

I hope not, I want one!!!!

stanger68 wrote:Pictures can be deceiving. YOu guys may be right. The more I look at the pic it does have a pretty good distance between the mounting pad and the runner entry. no one ever said how tall it is did they? And was that 30 extra horse gained with a stretch carb and ported intake? , versus "what is currently available" could be anything. If your comparing a ported stretched tricked out dominator carb that is 10" tall against a stock victor out of the box with an out of the box shelf carb then heck yeah it's going to beat it by 3o!

It was run against a very heavily ported trick flow a head intake, sv1 carb..20 better down low , 30 better at 7000k...60 hp better at 7800. If you want peak power below 7000k this probably ain't your intake. Old intake started falling off at 7000k.-A

4speed wrote:

stanger68 wrote:Pictures can be deceiving. YOu guys may be right. The more I look at the pic it does have a pretty good distance between the mounting pad and the runner entry. no one ever said how tall it is did they? And was that 30 extra horse gained with a stretch carb and ported intake? , versus "what is currently available" could be anything. If your comparing a ported stretched tricked out dominator carb that is 10" tall against a stock victor out of the box with an out of the box shelf carb then heck yeah it's going to beat it by 3o!

It was run against a very heavily ported trick flow a head intake, sv1 carb..20 better down low , 30 better at 7000k...60 hp better at 7800. If you want peak power below 7000k this probably ain't your intake. Old intake started falling off at 7000k.-A

how big a motor was this tested on....?

4speed wrote:

stanger68 wrote:Pictures can be deceiving. YOu guys may be right. The more I look at the pic it does have a pretty good distance between the mounting pad and the runner entry. no one ever said how tall it is did they? And was that 30 extra horse gained with a stretch carb and ported intake? , versus "what is currently available" could be anything. If your comparing a ported stretched tricked out dominator carb that is 10" tall against a stock victor out of the box with an out of the box shelf carb then heck yeah it's going to beat it by 3o!

It was run against a very heavily ported trick flow a head intake, sv1 carb..20 better down low , 30 better at 7000k...60 hp better at 7800. If you want peak power below 7000k this probably ain't your intake. Old intake started falling off at 7000k.-A

I can see just from the pics where improvements can be made to help throughout the rpm range. Very small details in these types of intakes can make a huge difference.

Yes Scott, the designer is well aware of what this thing is capable of, but thanks for your input.-A

hookin78 wrote:

4speed wrote:

stanger68 wrote:Pictures can be deceiving. YOu guys may be right. The more I look at the pic it does have a pretty good distance between the mounting pad and the runner entry. no one ever said how tall it is did they? And was that 30 extra horse gained with a stretch carb and ported intake? , versus "what is currently available" could be anything. If your comparing a ported stretched tricked out dominator carb that is 10" tall against a stock victor out of the box with an out of the box shelf carb then heck yeah it's going to beat it by 3o!

It was run against a very heavily ported trick flow a head intake, sv1 carb..20 better down low , 30 better at 7000k...60 hp better at 7800. If you want peak power below 7000k this probably ain't your intake. Old intake started falling off at 7000k.-A

how big a motor was this tested on....?

A 557

4speed wrote:It was run against a very heavily ported trick flow a head intake, sv1 carb..20 better down low , 30 better at 7000k...60 hp better at 7800. If you want peak power below 7000k this probably ain't your intake. Old intake started falling off at 7000k.-A

Was the TFS A head intake the latest tall one or the older shorter one ?

Thx Mark

4speed wrote:

stanger68 wrote:Pictures can be deceiving. YOu guys may be right. The more I look at the pic it does have a pretty good distance between the mounting pad and the runner entry. no one ever said how tall it is did they? And was that 30 extra horse gained with a stretch carb and ported intake? , versus "what is currently available" could be anything. If your comparing a ported stretched tricked out dominator carb that is 10" tall against a stock victor out of the box with an out of the box shelf carb then heck yeah it's going to beat it by 3o!

It was run against a very heavily ported trick flow a head intake, sv1 carb..20 better down low , 30 better at 7000k...60 hp better at 7800. If you want peak power below 7000k this probably ain't your intake. Old intake started falling off at 7000k.-A

557 with 340 cc TFS A. Most likely will be 7-7,400rpm

Lem Evans wrote:

4speed wrote:

Lem Evans wrote:The unit been ran on an engine?

Yea Lem it was ran on a 557 A headed deal, spun up to 8000 rpm. In initial testing it was 30 horse better than what's currently available well ported. I know there have been some changes made to the plenum and floor since the PRI show.-A

At what RPM did the horse power peak?

?

4speed wrote:Yes Scott, the designer is well aware of what this thing is capable of, but thanks for your input.-A

If you say so.

Lem Evans wrote:

Lem Evans wrote:

4speed wrote:

Lem Evans wrote:The unit been ran on an engine?

Yea Lem it was ran on a 557 A headed deal, spun up to 8000 rpm. In initial testing it was 30 horse better than what's currently available well ported. I know there have been some changes made to the plenum and floor since the PRI show.-A

At what RPM did the horse power peak?

?

Lem, the old intake peaked at 7000 and started to fall off, not bad but started loosing altitude...the new intake peaked at 7800 and was holding on pretty good to 8200 where the pull stopped.-A

Thanks.

Lem Evans wrote:Thanks.

Yes sir! Your welcome Lem

Only thing missing is a fogger or 3.

Another good post showing why we are in need of better engineered manifolds...............

Instead of copy and past old intakes and just making runners bigger.

It's not just air flow missing on what we have had available.

IDT-572 wrote:Another good post showing why we are in need of better engineered manifolds...............  

Instead of copy and past old intakes and just making runners bigger.

It's not just air flow missing on what we have had available.

Overall tuned length and much different tuning lengths cylinder to cylinder are the main culprits.

rmcomprandy wrote:

IDT-572 wrote:Another good post showing why we are in need of better engineered manifolds...............  

Instead of copy and past old intakes and just making runners bigger.

It's not just air flow missing on what we have had available.

Overall tuned length and much different tuning lengths cylinder to cylinder are the main culprits.

I agree........... The Chevy guys have 50 intakes for every one we have.

[quote="Scott Foxwell"[/quote]
I can see just from the pics where improvements can be made to help throughout the rpm range. Very small details in these types of intakes can make a huge difference.[/quote]


and How Much have you put into This Project? oh that's right you are a back patter, I am surprised yo can type with your arms in back patting yourself all the time...  if you don't like it, do something about it make one like you think should be, but we can't see that happening cause that would entail you spending your money Just be happy someone is trying to help the Ford fans get another Intake....and stop Patting yourself on the back so much, it makes you look like a Self centered Dork

Albert Clark wrote:

Scott Foxwell wrote:
I can see just from the pics where improvements can be made to help throughout the rpm range. Very small details in these types of intakes can make a huge difference.

and How Much have you put into This Project? oh that's right you are a back patter, I am surprised yo can type with your arms in back patting yourself all the time...  if you don't like it, do something about it make one like you think should be, but we can't see that happening cause that would entail you spending your money Just be happy someone is trying to help the Ford fans get another Intake....and stop Patting yourself on the back so much, it makes you look like a Self centered Dork

Wow, Albert. Who pissed in your Cheerios? LOL... a back patter, huh. That's a new one. So attacking me makes you look how? All I did was offer an observation. Sorry if it offended you. I promise, I'll keep my thoughts to myself.

rmcomprandy wrote:

IDT-572 wrote:Another good post showing why we are in need of better engineered manifolds...............  

Instead of copy and past old intakes and just making runners bigger.

It's not just air flow missing on what we have had available.

Overall tuned length and much different tuning lengths cylinder to cylinder are the main culprits.

X2

would this benefit an engine with Mechanical fuel injection?