[Cliff R]

"a test such as this proves one thing for sure. Parts that are miss matched and not designed to work with each other will be less efficient."

+3 on that statement, lunch is on me J.C. if you ever get to Mount Vernon Ohio or we run into each other at a track someplace!

Lots of good information on this thread, even with the "negative" attitude and comments overshadowing it by the OP. I never once had a problem with how the test was done, why it was done, or that it was done for any other reason than to optimize what the customer had and was able to supply within his budget.

I saw some SERIOUS flaws in some of the parts used which would have a significant negative impact on the test results, so ran my own thread to point these out. This was done solely to educate folks about these things, not to criticize the OP, his work, methods, or anything else of that sort. Folks, I spend more time at optimizing "stock" parts than most, as we are DIRECTY involved with some of the fastest Pontiac powered cars out there using them. I knew that a 1/2" spacer/adapter is REQUIRED to clear the throttle plates with the AFB clone carburetors, in addition to a pretty serious miss-match between the parts once it's in place.

Not sure how the thread got off course to cost of "modified" iron intakes, which is pretty irrelevant when you consider the cost of going any other direction as it all costs pretty big money. As far as "modified" iron intakes, I got mine for $25, cost $12 for a Dewalt saws-all blade, one carbide cutter and half a dozen sanding rolls plus 4 hours of my time. I spend a few more hours with it on another session to set it up to take square flange carbs without an adapter. So I may be up to 7-8 hours total in the deal. The end result, made 7 MORE HP than an Edelbrock RPM on a back to back dyno test against an RPM intake, and that testing was done on a 428 engine with KRE heads and custom HR camshaft making right at 500hp.

Why is that statement important and it needs to be repeated.....because an RPM intake costs nearly $200, plus all the additional time, components (WFO base, Dude Scoop, Blocker air cleaner assembly , etc), and effort to get it under the hood of many Pontiac Shaker and Ram Air set-ups. The RPM intake also raises up the carb to a point where the throttle cable becomes too short and some cobbling needs to be done there as well on many set-ups.

I always thought this hobby was about "hot-rodding", and modifying parts to fit our needs. For those with a little ambition, a saws-all and an air grinder, you can have a really nice intake for less than $100. For those with even greater capabilities, a small amount of nickel rod can be added to it, so you can run your favorite Holley carb at the flange without an adapter........Cliff

[harry k]

Originally Posted by Cliff R

Lots of good information on this thread, even with the "negative" attitude and comments overshadowing it by the OP. I never once had a problem with how the test was done, why it was done, or that it was done for any other reason than to optimize what the customer had and was able to supply within his budget.

I saw some SERIOUS flaws in some of the parts used which would have a significant negative impact on the test results, so ran my own thread to point these out. This was done solely to educate folks about these things, not to criticize the OP, his work, methods, or anything else of that sort. Folks, I spend more time at optimizing "stock" parts than most, as we are DIRECTY involved with some of the fastest Pontiac powered cars out there using them. I knew that a 1/2" spacer/adapter is REQUIRED to clear the throttle plates with the AFB clone carburetors, in addition to a pretty serious miss-match between the parts once it's in place.

Cliff

"I wanted to stay off Harry K's thread so it doesn't sound like I'm picking on him or being critical of his testing, which I am not"
Why are you back here? you just cannot help yourself when someone in here posts results that are not in your best interest ,,,,just admited

Why is that you and only and bunch of newbie followers of yours have to attack my threads? HUH , every friking time i post something in here once in a while, you are the one attacking my credence
and for the sake of whole PY site, you have done this in a "book writing skills" with many others in here
you just cannot help yourself that there are many others in this site that have knowledge & opinions different than yours ...

from now on i will not take your replys lightly anymore towards my threads that i start them as i said initialy in my post#1.

Just to show other's there there was no serious flaws as well as hes painting the picture, i took the extra time to demonstrate what was used AND THE PIC TALKS ITSELF.

[Bruce Meyer]

Cliff- Your posts about mismatch make sense. I lifted this photo from one of Skips posts. Can you explain why the factory would build a manifold with a mismatch as Goatwhore would say "any 15 year old could see"? Also people on here claim that there is no difference in performance than the ones without this mismatch? How can that be according to your theories?

[GOAT WHORE]

Bruce, that mismatch is between a square bore carb (aftermarket) to a spread bore (factory) manifold. The factory or engineers did not design then to work togeather.

[Bruce Meyer]

Originally Posted by GOAT WHORE

Bruce, that mismatch is between a square bore carb (aftermarket) to a spread bore (factory) manifold. The factory or engineers did not design then to work togeather.

A mismatch is a mismatch.

[GOAT WHORE]

Originally Posted by Bruce Meyer

A mismatch is a mismatch.

The mismatch I was saying any 15 yr old could see was refering to the square bore Holley to the stock spread bore Pontiac intake. Spread bore to spread bore is a minor mistmatch but at some point the mismatch is just ridiculous.

[Skip Fix]

"The mismatch I was saying any 15 yr old could see was refering to the square bore Holley to the stock spread bore Pontiac intake. Spread bore to spread bore is a minor mistmatch but at some point the mismatch is just ridiculous"

But the 3/4" taper spacer smooths out most of that and allows the fuel/air to turn much easier. Heck and open spread bore 3/4 spacer allows fuel air to slam into the flat area also.Even spacers ca drop HP the 1/2" 4 hole Qjet spacer that on my RAIV 400 using a 72 HO intake and 73 SD SR Qjet picked up 5 HP lost 5 HP on y friend's 72 455 HO same intake casting same carb model #.

Here's the only way to tell if the adapter actually hurts. "Maybe someone with an RPM intake(Crosswind)use a square bore carb with an adapter(since intake has a plenum shaped for both), then the same carb with the same thickness square bore spacer if we want to really see what just the adapter does."

[grandville455]

The simple fact is that harry's testing on this particular car's setup picked up power, mis match or not, it picked up,there is no one intake works on everything, there are soooo many variables in a car like exh,cam etc that will effect the outcome of a test or a certain part. Why cant we ever accept one's test and take it with a ****ing grain of salt! Same thing goes on in race section with fing heads! big deal! Everyone's ego's get in their ways. Just be happy that Pontiac isn't dead and we have all these parts offered for us! This site is turning into a bunch of whining kids not getting there way, even I will admit I have been caught up in it at times in the past ,but have since quit posting on certain ****.

[GOAT WHORE]

So are we not to debate it? Ask not why? Just bow down in awe at the hp gain? Come on, why not discuss why the hp gains? Some people just need thicker skin.

[GOAT WHORE]

I have no agenda here. I run a Ultra 950 on a RPM with aluminum heads and headers on one combo and will be running a Q-jet on a stock intake, iron heads and RAIIIanifolds on another. Its all in what your desired end results are.

[Chipped Tooth]

Back in Highschool with my Gto I had a 600 dp on a factory 4 bbl intake with the open taperd adapter, ran good then I ground out the plenum to make a almost single plain as such and the car was quicker and faster at the track. How much? Don't remember exactly that was 15 years ago.
Then a Street Dominator went on and I never looked back...

Thanks to OP for the test !!!!!

[Half-Inch Stud]

Originally Posted by Half-Inch Stud

The TQ curve shows an improved inhale across a broad RPM. Personally, i'd like to see what a Q-JET does. ( should be same, right?)

How many pages & posturing for bicker ?! POST#6 in Expanded form;

Squarebore carb on a spreadbore intake got measured; not good.

Spreadbore on the factory Intake would reveal performance.

Squarebore carb on Squarebore intake got measured; is fine.

no ifs, and or butts, no bull, no OBFUSCATION. Just plain clarity. HIS

[NeighborsComplaint]

What a surprise , an aluminum intake with a flange-matching carburetor outperformed a cobbled together intake mismatch with a PepBoys store carburetor adaptor. Like comparing apples and lemons.

[242177P]

Originally Posted by harry k

AND THE PIC TALKS ITSELF.

More math.

Originally Posted by harry k

this is a 3/8"tall spacer that was mounted between ...

[Kenth]

This topic is unreal from the start!

JMHO

[Half-Inch Stud]

Originally Posted by 242177P

More math.

So, after 5 pages & 2866 views; 3/8" was false, 0.8" was real, so now we all know the throttle plate could hit WOT

Nothing to see here, just a flow problem with Square on Spread. HIS

[67drake]

Originally Posted by GOAT WHORE

So are we not to debate it? Ask not why? Just bow down in awe at the hp gain? Come on, why not discuss why the hp gains? Some people just need thicker skin.

I agree. I actually learn more from this type of thread because people let it all hang out. It seems like you get more points of view too.
It's also possible to debate without being an A hole. I've debated/questioned before in the past and some people automatically think I'm disagreeing with them and get butthurt. Sometimes "why" just means "Why?"

[rtanner]

wow i been gone awhile, this threads reminds me why i left, you dont see this on the yellow bullet

[Cliff R]

I don't enjoy the same freedom as others when it comes to this type of thread. As soon as I point out serious flaws with the parts tested, the OP gets his panties all wadded up and starts attacking me with all the personal crap, condescending attitude toward me in a personal nature, and whines and cries like a little child, threating to quit taking my replies "lightly", blah, blah, blah. Harry, why don't we just air all this stuff in Public Forum. You hate my guts because I REFUSED to send back your carburetor without payment, which we never did get and it's been over two years now, and all I was charging you half our normal labor rate, plus materials and return shipping.

Folks need to grow up and look at the FACTS. All you need to do is look at the picture that I put up on my own thread where I painted the factory gasket white to show how terrible the miss-match is between the parts, and how far up you MUST raise the AFB clone just to keep the throttle plates from hitting the intake.

Then use a little bit of common sense and form your own conclusions as to what was really tested here.

Unless you are a complete idiot when it comes to engine efficiency, and think air moving thru an engine enjoys running into flat areas where it has to make SERIOUS bends to find it's way thru the intact tract doesn't effect airflow clear across the load/speed range, then you need to get off this thread, and even clear out of the hobby all together....IMHO.

This was NOT an intake manifold comparison, as one set-up was HIGHLY flawed and using components that were not designed for it. It's no more complicated than that, yet I'm sitting here wondering how so many folks that I thought really had their "shi@ together" patted Harry on the back and thought this was a valid "apples to apples" comparison instead of a "back to back" test comparing a well optimized set-up vs a cobbled up set-up using miss-matched components.

Folks also need to look very closely at the intake testing we have done, and other hobbyists like Jim Hand. The factory engineers really did know what they were doing with these things. Even a later model EGR intake can support great power without a single modification to it, and with some professional porting your Pontiac powered vehicle can run like this......on bias ply tires!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AVXn...ature=youtu.be

The early intakes can run this good with a little messaging as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AVXn...ature=youtu.be

The white FB is also running on bias ply tires, not slicks, and has went 10.0's in good air!
A lot of folks reading this, including myself don't have our street cars going this quick without any limitations as to what we use on them, let alone having to keep all the "stock" components in place and appearing to be operational.

Anyhow, I'm completely done with this thread, now Harry can whine and cry and continue with his personal attacks toward me to throw folks off tract as to what was really done here and why we need to point out the specifics involved with the testing......Cliff

[Skip Fix]

Cliff maybe some semantics apples to apples vs back to back.I think you are missing a big point-many combinations folks run are not optimized as they have some bias they want-existing parts, stock appearing, more street than strip. Then we have theoretical issues/benefits that may or not play out in the real world. Harold Brookshire one of the best cam designers would probably like less exhaust duration than most of the guys use-and most haven't even tried something different. Most of the Pontiac world doesn't even try different ratio rockers on different side-yet look at the SS guys and EMC Pontiac motors-more on the intake. Different convertor and gears in your own car you have mentioned would pick it up-yet you like it more a driver. How many guys tried to copy Jim Hand's 64 heads on a pump gas 455,Wolverine cam, stock intake, Q jet and barely were in the 13s?

Again back to rear world track back to back testing-the adapter and a square nore on a factory intake picked up 0.25 seconds and 3-4 mph getting the car in the 11s for the first time. Yes the air flow wasn't ideal, but it pciked the car up. The next greatest pick up was a really loose big end slippage 5000 stall convertor and fresh tranny that picked up 0.75 seconds getting the car in the high 10s. An inefficient convertor msot wopuld say but the car picked up and 60 ft'd 1.51s on a 9" slick.

Theory vs real world.

This motor Harry tested came with a mismatched intake that did OK but a different intake picked it up. It did show a bigger intake does not hurt performance too.