BBF INTAKE SHOOTOUT ....

Pretty cool stuff here ... found this on the net

BBF Intake Shootout!
Well, gang, here is the *legal* version of the shootout. I am prevented from publishing actual dyno results, but I'm going to list the intakes in order of WORST to BEST for torque, horsepower, and editor's choice "Best All-Around" 385-series intake. I hope you enjoy the results and you can make use of them!!!

All dyno pulls were run on my C9VE 460 block, bored .030" over, with C8VE heads (same as D0OE) with 2.19/1.8 Ferrea SS valves, Harland Sharp 1.73 roller rockers, and a Lunati flat-tappet camshaft (relatively mild, 06166 grind, 218/218 dur. @ .050" and .527"/.527" lift). The carburetor is your typical Holley 3310 off-the-shelf with NO jet or spring changes. Exhaust consisted of CJ manifolds, from a Torino (D0 casting numbers). I felt this combination best epitomized the "warmed-over" street motor most of us build. Any variations from the basic combination are noted (such as carburetor, most notably). The dyno was a Go-Power measuring from 1500-5500 RPM in 100 RPM/sec increments, that's about all the numerical data that I can divulge.


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

Best to Worst, for making TORQUE
Edelbrock SP2P [discontinued]
D2VE Stock
Offenhauser Dual-Port (Q-Jet, tested w/ TQ carburetor) [discontinued]
Weiand Stealth
C8SE Stock
Edelbrock Performer RPM
Offenhauser Dual-Port (Holley)
Edelbrock Performer/Edelbrock Streetmaster [discontinued] (TIE)
D1AE Police Interceptor (4300-D carburetor, 735-cfm)
D0AE Cobra Jet (Q-Jet, tested w/ TQ carburetor)
Blue Thunder Dual-Quad (tested w/ 2xEdelbrock 500-cfm)
Edelbrock Torker II
Edelbrock Victor 460
Offenhauser Port-O-Sonic


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

Best to Worst, for making HP
Blue Thunder Dual-Quad (tested w/ 2xEdelbrock 500-cfm)
Edelbrock Victor 460
Offenhauser Port-O-Sonic
Edelbrock Torker II
Weiand Stealth
D0AE Cobra Jet (Q-Jet, tested w/ TQ carburetor) SURPRISE!
Edelbrock Performer RPM
D1AE Police Interceptor (4300-D carburetor, 735-cfm)
D2VE Stock
C8SE Stock
Edelbrock Streetmaster [discontinued]
Edelbrock Performer
Edelbrock SP2P [discontinued]
Offenhauser Dual-Port (Q-Jet, tested w/ TQ carburetor) [discontinued]
Offenhauser Dual-Port (Holley)


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

Editor's Choice
for Looks: the Blue Thunder Dual-Quad, but $$$
for HP: Offy Port-O-Sonic, good results and will fit under most hoods
for TORQUE: Weiand Stealth (NO QUESTION...hint, hint)
Best All-Around: Weiand Stealth


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

Well boys and girls, there it is in black-and-white w/ NO bribery or "urging" from advertisers. I'd like to thank those of you that let me borrow intakes for an EXTENDED period of time, my engine builder who donated time (after hours) on his dyno (thanks Chet!), and those who put up w/ me all hours while swapping intakes! Sorry for lack of pictures, we planned on getting them later but due to aggravating circumstances we just wanted to get the page up and visible to all who were interested in the results!!!

All dyno pulls were run on my C9VE 460 block, bored .030" over, with C8VE heads (same as D0OE) with 2.19/1.8 Ferrea SS valves,

It's rigged.

use a motor with some heads, comp, cam and cubes and see what happens.

IDIeselman wrote:All dyno pulls were run on my C9VE 460 block, bored .030" over, with C8VE heads (same as D0OE) with 2.19/1.8 Ferrea SS valves,

It's rigged.

it's a test!!! With certian restrictions and the findings are not a suprise....... Only thing I disagree with is no jetting / tuning........

i run a stealth on my 429 ,to me really good for hot street rod good throttle response

Thanks for doing the tests Bruno! I don't know if everyone realizes how much work it is even on a dyno to change that many intake gaskets! Its alot of work. I found the results interesting. It was interesting that the old offy dual port manifold did well on torque but not on overall hp. I used one of those on a 351w back in the 1970's when manifolds for 351w were scarce. It was a good street manifold back then. The weiand has a good reputation and I'm not surprised it did well. I would have liked to see a tunnel ram with the same small carbs as the blue thunder low rise for a comparison. Kind of a mild motor for a tunnel, but alot of street cars do that purely for the looks. Well thank you for all your efforts! Greg blown473

Greg,

Bruno did NOT do the tests. The first sentence says he found this on the "net".

I do not think the test has a whole lot of validity with us, because most of our (The Band of Brothers) engines are "stronger" in terms of torque and horsepower, and most likely have a much greater airflow capability than those C9VE heads he used.

Uncle Charlie

blown473 wrote:Thanks for doing the tests Bruno! I don't know if everyone realizes how much work it is even on a dyno to change that many intake gaskets! Its alot of work. I found the results interesting. It was interesting that the old offy dual port manifold did well on torque but not on overall hp. I used one of those on a 351w back in the 1970's when manifolds for 351w were scarce. It was a good street manifold back then. The weiand has a good reputation and I'm not surprised it did well. I would have liked to see a tunnel ram with the same small carbs as the blue thunder low rise for a comparison. Kind of a mild motor for a tunnel, but alot of street cars do that purely for the looks. Well thank you for all your efforts! Greg blown473

not to even mention to have access to said dyno...

Where is the tunnel ram at? I wonder how that weiand kit would do with the 2 600 holleys on a mild build. Funny they call it a street setup.

c.evans wrote:Greg,

Bruno did NOT do the tests. The first sentence says he found this on the "net".

I do not think the test has a whole lot of validity with us, because most of our (The Band of Brothers) engines are "stronger" in terms of torque and horsepower, and most likely have a much greater airflow capability than those C9VE heads he used.

Uncle Charlie

How can that be? It states they are the same heads as Do0E's

I tend to lean towards the seasoned and well known members (Builders) of the board who have dyno'd most of them intakes on various engines and have reported less than positive results with the stealth

If all things being equal...which they are most certainly not....

my moderate street headed 466 build with a stealth and a QFT 750 is a much different engine than my rather mild 521 with the "Evans rub" on my streets and a Track Heat and a QFT 950.

Im not sure how the extra umph of the stroker is over taking the low end grunt of the dual plane but Im sure it would be a interesting side by side comparison. Overall hp Im sure is pretty much the same but the rpm is the difference.

IDIeselman wrote:

c.evans wrote:Greg,

Bruno did NOT do the tests. The first sentence says he found this on the "net".

I do not think the test has a whole lot of validity with us, because most of our (The Band of Brothers) engines are "stronger" in terms of torque and horsepower, and most likely have a much greater airflow capability than those C9VE heads he used.

Uncle Charlie

How can that be? It states they are the same heads as Do0E's

I tend to lean towards the seasoned and well known members (Builders) of the board who have dyno'd most of them intakes on various engines and have reported less than positive results with the stealth

The STEALTH has excellent PEAK torque and horsepower numbers at wide open throttle.
It's part throttle driving and the power exhibited BELOW the torque PEAK which is lacking and where some other intakes shine over it.

Part throttle power? What is that?

I have had EXCELLENT results with both the 8021 CJ stealth and the 8012 D0VE style stealth intakes.

They are very very good in my opinion for a guy that plans to keep max HP below 6000.

For example, I ran a CJ stealth on a 460 with Edelbrock CJ heads, 11.5:1 or so on the compression with a solid flat tappet cam around 250/262 @.050 in my Torino. Switched to a Victor and saw ZERO gain in ET or MPH.

Greg

blown473 wrote:Thanks for doing the tests Bruno! I don't know if everyone realizes how much work it is even on a dyno to change that many intake gaskets! Its alot of work. I found the results interesting. It was interesting that the old offy dual port manifold did well on torque but not on overall hp. I used one of those on a 351w back in the 1970's when manifolds for 351w were scarce. It was a good street manifold back then. The weiand has a good reputation and I'm not surprised it did well. I would have liked to see a tunnel ram with the same small carbs as the blue thunder low rise for a comparison. Kind of a mild motor for a tunnel, but alot of street cars do that purely for the looks. Well thank you for all your efforts! Greg blown473

Greg i didnt do the tests ... you must have just overlooked the first sentence ....no biggie

I don't totally agree with these results. In 1995 we had a 460 police cruiser motor with a Holman Moody flat tappet camshaft, roller rockers, and a 1050 dominator carb. With an Edelbrock torker II it ran a 6.86 at 97 mph. All we did was put a Stealth intake on it and slowed to a 7.00 at 92 mph. It killed that particular motor in every way. It lost on 60 foot, top end, bottom end, everywhere. It may have just been a bad combination on that particular motor but when we switched the intake back it picked right back up.

Very interesting results. I guess I should futher clarify that on my engine I used a 1" open spacer on the stealth.

The car ran 7.49 in the 1/8 mile, and with the Victor in cooler air it ran a 7.48. This was at over 4100 lbs.

Greg

Greg_P wrote:Part throttle power? What is that?

I have had EXCELLENT results with both the 8021 CJ stealth and the 8012 D0VE style stealth intakes.

They are very very good in my opinion for a guy that plans to keep max HP below 6000.

For example, I ran a CJ stealth on a 460 with Edelbrock CJ heads, 11.5:1 or so on the compression with a solid flat tappet cam around 250/262 @.050 in my Torino. Switched to a Victor and saw ZERO gain in ET or MPH.

Greg

NOWHERE did I say "part throttle power" ... I think you are * reading whatever you wish into others statements to fit your own agenda.

Edit: I left out word * PROBABLY; I was thinking it.

How about average power from 4000 rpms to 6000 rpms.

rmcomprandy wrote:

Greg_P wrote:Part throttle power? What is that?

I have had EXCELLENT results with both the 8021 CJ stealth and the 8012 D0VE style stealth intakes.

They are very very good in my opinion for a guy that plans to keep max HP below 6000.

For example, I ran a CJ stealth on a 460 with Edelbrock CJ heads, 11.5:1 or so on the compression with a solid flat tappet cam around 250/262 @.050 in my Torino. Switched to a Victor and saw ZERO gain in ET or MPH.

Greg

NOWHERE did I say "part throttle power" ... I think you are reading whatever you wish into others statements to fit your own agenda.

Randy,

I do not have an "agenda".

I think you are overstepping your psychic abilities with that one.



Are you saying my results with the Victor and Stealth are invalid?

Years ago, in the Buick community, there was a Buick parts manufacturer that always recommended his single plane intake manifold for all performance builds. Even if the car was a 5000+ lb. Riverea loaded with power steering, power brakes, air conditioning, power everything, and 2:93:1 ratio highway gears. Was it the wrong recommendation? Of course it was, but the single plane manifold was the only manifold he made and sold for the 400-430-455 engines. He wasn't going to recommend a better choice such as an Edelbrock B4B dual plane manifold, because he didn't make it.

My point is, that the criteria for "best manifold choice" changes, as the parameters change. A heavy car with a low rpm engine and a tight convertor needs low rpm torque, whereas a lightweight car, with a bigger engine, better breathing set of heads, high rpm engine and loose convertor, will probably like the single plane manifolds.

From the dyno testing that I have helped do, the crossover point, between a dual plane and a single plane, seems to be right right 4,300 to 4,500 rpm. So you ask yourself this question,,,,,how much real time does my engine spend above 4,400 rpm?

Charlie

That's the way it rolls....the question is always what is best . It'd be best to use the best head/manifold/cam per the application .

c.evans wrote: So you ask yourself this question,,,,,how much real time does my engine spend above 4,400 rpm?

Charlie

Does this number take into account for different ci engines or does the rpm go down when the ci goes up? How does the Victor compare to the TFS single plane IYO Uncle Charlie?

Adding to Charlie's post, How much time will your engine spend BELOW 4400 RPM?
Like leaving off a 36-4000 chip running up against a 53-5500 converter, 4.86 gears shifting at 6-6500 etc., etc., only time spent below4000 is getting to the starting line.

Most of the builds I read about are above 500 HP. I'm kind of happy with those results with under 500 HP engines. My 460 build is a lot like it except for a bit more cam. I have a mild DOVE headed 466 with an 8021 and a 2" spacer. Seems to work fine but have had nothing to compare it with until now. Thanks for the info Bruno.

No tuning of the carb? All this test shows is which intake works best with the carb as it was set up. There can be significant differences in jetting required from one intake to the next. If they took the time to re-jet for each manifold, they'd have some legitimate results.