[form406]

just like new software and new operating systems for computers, the bugs need to be worked out...hopefully the next batch of hurricanes will have the negative issues fixed...as for asian labor its americans exploiting the cheap labor...qc must be stepped up...and as always you usually get what you pay for...go cheap and you usually pay more in the end...i hear nothing but great things about brewer and if this is his baby im sure hes on it...but i know it can be tough breaking out a new product in a mass production way...

[Skip Fix]

My 0.02- I can't comment on these particular E bay manifolds just my Tomahawk. It's fit and port alignment is as good or better as any Edelbrock manifold I have had recently. All of the new ones have had to be milled 0.050 -0.080 to line up. I bought mine from ACE as he did help bring these to the market and it has alot more mods that a Holley would need(read that grinding time) already.The jury is still out where this manifold will fit in our choices.

It is based on the Dave Bisshop modified Holley Street Dominator which many guys do use as a race intake even fitted for a Dominator carb. Steve Coombs has previous posted dyno results comparing it to T2,RPM and Victor on one of his motors. Steve's manifold on my 520 hp pump gas motor dynoed almost identical to a T2 that has the more even runners, has wider fatter(which I have read also are more ideal) runner dividers. Herb Adams only sold the Holley intake when he had VSE going.My T2 does have some very consistent runner entrances and lengths.

My original Torker dynoed within 1 HP of my Pontiac HO intake and the T2 on a 400 hp 400 ci and LOST 0.3 seconds but picked up 1 mph. It's front 4 runners flow less than the rear runner by a signifigant amount even after doing the HO Racing modifications to them,it really needs some milling for best aligment to bolt holes and ports.

I'll agree with Bruce on the runner dividers not being ideal but do they affect real HP numbers? Didn't on my motor or Steve's compared to a T2, my old 400 the T1 and T2 where a dead heat also. Is it perfect out of the box-there isn't one, my machine shop routinely has to mill and fit most aftermarket manifolds for all makes of engines. I also personally have had to fit almost every intake, even my purchased new Pontiac HO intake-it's ports were all different sizes.

You can fit a spacer on it under a Shaker, maybe not a 1" but 3/8 for sure.Throw Larry's WFO air cleaner and a 1" would be no problem.

The original Torker was a good Super stock manifold years ago but most have used other intakes, ask Lynn or Don. I'll bet Phil's Super Stock original Torker looks alot different than the one Bruce has pictured as that one looks out of the bow, and maybe some of the dirt in the plenum floor isn't there either.

[Skip Fix]

A further note I have most of the Pontiac intakes that are out there other than a Warrior in my collection, including a Hilborn mechanical FI,M/T crossram, Edelbrock dual quad, two Victors,T1, two T2s, two RPMs, Performer, Performer EGR, HO, 73 SD, Holley new in box , 70 cast iron, 78 cast iron, Tomahawk. I've had most on the flow bench(alot posted here awhile back) and many on different motors on dyno pulls and track tested.

[Bad Karma]

Originally Posted by Colin

Nothing wrong with using vintage equipment.......just know how to use it.
I ran a piece of equipment that was built in the early '40's that was a better machine than the one right beside it that was built in the '90's.

I would have to agree here the older machines do good work as long as the OPERATOR knows how to OPERATE THEM. When I was a steel worker the older machines ran better than the new ones just like colin is saying. They were built to last and being used 24 7 for 50 years proves they last thats for sure!

[P@blo]

That hurricane looks alot like A Holley Street dominator .........Nice pictures of the factory in China I worked at a factory making mitsubishi fork lift parts and it was a shotty set up at best with parts constantly coming back because of manufacturing errors......Welcome to the world of 21 century Quality manufacturing

[TUNNEL PORT]

Originally Posted by 69LeManster

I personally see a lot inconsistancy on these boards...

I mean, just a few threads down there are all sorts of guys ripping the crap out of chinese-made h-beam rods for various reasons (most of which were not first hand experiences) and right here, there are people stead-fastedly defending this intake manifold that comes from the same country and has the same (possibly more?) defects than the rods..... I know that a rod and an intake are very different things and if i had to choose between a crappy rod and a crappy intake, id take the intake, no doubt--but why be so adimant about it's defense?

I can understand that 2nd gens can only choose between this or stock/performer intakes (maybe torker II?) for increased performance, but not everyone has to jump on the side of this intake because Ken Brewer put a lot of stock into it and he's a good pontiac builder. To me, it don't matter if the Pope endorses it, if it's not a good product; it's not a good product, period.

After Bruce Fulper personally showed me this intake, with the made in china casting ground off the botton and hideous port and runner design, I am convinced to never, ever put a dime into this intake unless it is professionally redone and i have no other viable choices.--don't get me wrong, i'm not a fulper worshiper; the guy is pure a-hole material, but he's not an idiot, and that intake does not look like a quality piece by any stretch of the imagination.

just my opinion, and I know it's quite worthless...but why would somebody poo-poo chinese rods and praise a chinese intake just because they have a different distributor?

69 LeManster,

I dont know Ken but I have been ripped buy guys about products I've worked on & know darn well the difference between a product brought out by a Pontiac guy through a 2nd party & big business doing it on there own, the way they think it should be done.

The big guys don't care or even take complaints farther than your phone call. The Pontiac guys with there money a stake will do what they have to to get things done right.

Do you think just because it's made in China its badly made?

Edelebrock is an American Co right? Well when the E-heads for Pontiac came out they had there share of problems. It took them a while to fix them.

There intakes aren't much better for Pontiac. I've had to mill many new E-intakes like RPM's to name one. Even on a stock un-milled motor. I dont know about where you are but around here its more to mill an intake than a head. They wont fix that problem ever.

This Tomahawk intake the ports lined up so it didn't need milling. Just 3 bolt holes didn't line up.

A set of snap gauges a grinder & an hour made the pleneum fine. So the money I saved on milling made up for that.

The fact that there's a Pontiac builder that is the sole resone we have it. Because they (the intake co) sure wouldn't make it on there own for us. Only after most of there risk was removed by someone else using there money.

Name a few parts that have or are comming out for us now that were not something that a Pontiac supplier or average Pontiac guy didnt push for. In every instance those guys are the ones taking the finnical burden over the place ther getting to do it for us.

Yet they still get bashed for tring. If you haven't brought anything out for the hobby then you cant begine to imagine how many hours a day & wasted money to get something even started. Then double or more than that to keep it going.

[JSchmitz]

After what I've read about Bruce Fulper, I wouldn't believe him if he said the sun would rise in the morning. Why anyone would quote his findings is beyond me.

[Z Code 400]

Oldone: I agree with your patriotic stance, but the real issue here is, not too many aftermarket manufacturers really care about anything other than the Small Block ****ty V8.

Most 'Pontiac' camshafts are age-old Chevrolet grinds executed on a Pontiac core.

If Edelbrock was to offer an intake like the Hurricane, you can bet it would cost $400.00 or more.

The selling point of the Hurricane is simple...it provides an option for people with 'F'Bodies that would otherwise be restricted to a stock intake or the no-better-than-stock (yet lighter weight) Performer.

As far as performance is concerned...not bad when you consider Cliff's much modified iron intake only beat this Chinese Junk Intake by .7 seconds...Robert

[Z Code 400]

I milled .015" from my block and .015" from my heads, so I don't think alignment will be too much of an issue.

Why doesn't Pacific Performance chime in on this subject???...Robert

[Tom Vaught]

Quote:

"Herb Adams only sold the Holley intake when he had VSE going.My T2 does have some very consistent runner entrances and lengths."

The Holley piece was not that much better than a good Factory aluminum intake (The target was 3% better everywhere than the RA IV and the 455 HO intake). Obviously Herb knew his engineering and also the value of the intake fitting under the TA Factory scoop.

Tom V.

[sixt8bird]

I actually wonder how much affects intakes make if set up with the right heads/cam/exhaust etc. I have heard about the port dividers below the carb needing to be a smooth radius to prevent air shear and puddling but heres a little facts with my Street Dominator. I actually sharpened the dividers so sharp that they are like knives. You actually could cut your fingers on them. The carb is a stock Holley 800 DP which now is the second mismatch with my non ported #16 heads and stock built 400 .030 overbore. I then added a 224-234 duration cam with .468-.488 lift with 1.5s. I then added 1.65 rockers to the mismatched combo which I heard that any lift over .500 is a waste without porting heads, so I guess this would be the 4th mismatch. Last but not least, the suspension is the worst mismatch, 1 1/4" front sway bar, 7/8" rear, KYBs all around . This car, I was told would not hook up, would have no low end, would have no revs since gas would puddle and loose air suspension when it hits the edges that I ground, so my car would be a low 14-high 13s and if I was lucky, I would run a mid 13 if I could hook up. Well, I have far exceeded this time. I run the crappiest/cheapest premium all day long, never get over 175 even sitting in traffic in the hot summer heat, and then drive to the track and do 12.60 with a 0-60 ft in 1.67 seconds.This was a stock 400 build in 1991 for $999 and it still kicks ass. So my point is, evn if the intake looks F&^$%^ up, it cant hurt the performance that much.

[P@blo]

Right on sixtbird....im running a similar set up HSD 400 .030 over and have yet to get a spanking allthough mabey i have been lucky.....just last sunday i raced a 396 70 monte and he turned off after we had our run...lol...I cant wait to get my gears (with a ignition box so i can limmit my RPM's as to not gernade my motor when i get all excited)

[PONTIAC DUDE]

The Holley Street Dominator was a great manifold that was dropped in production 'back in the day' because of low volume sales. Pontiac was a very very limited market in the 80's.
A certain West Coast person (Not PPR) asked Holley to re-produce it again and told they weren't interested.
So Others took up the cause.
Anyone remember pre Tomohawk/Hurricane sales of the Holley intake? Was up there. LOL.

Both intakes are from the same location.
Both intakes take up where the original intake stopped.
I have run track tests with the old Holley intake and various other aftermarket intakes and saw improvements years ago.
Based on S.D. research and re-ported/relocated ports, I would think people would see an improvement if this manifold fits 'the requirements' for their combo.
Other tests seem to indicate when a new to old replacement was tested.
If we ever get Karen's car back to the track with a current old Hollet dominator intake and use/try the "NEW" improved Holley/Hurricane/Tomahawk/etc/etc/ version I will post results in a 12.90/13.0 ET street 87 octane 79 T/A with a 8.5-1 compression 455.

Opinions vary and will go on forever.................. 'Accurate' testing won't.

[tempest455]

You guys should try and fit a Wenzler intake!

[Will]

Sixt8bird - the people who told you that 1.65 rockers on un-ported heads are a waste of time don't know what they're talking about. These are the same people that will turn around and tell you to run a hydraulic roller cam instead of a flat tappet cam. Why is a roller better than a flat cam? Because it opens the valves faster and further for the same seat duration. What happens when you put high ratio rockers on a flat tappet cam? LOL!!! And all this BS about friction reduction, give me a break. There is some reduction in friction with a roller, sure, but compared to the total friction generated everywhere in the engine it's so small as to be inconsequential for the vast majority of applications. Once again, the real world trumps theory. I'd bet good money that two engines built identically only one having a roller cam and one having a flat tappet cam that were designed to produce the same valve motions would see maybe a 1 or 2 HP difference between them due to friction reduction. Is that 1 or 2 HP really worth several hundred dollars?

I'm going to be buying a Tomahawk intake for my '73 'bird. I'll be curious to see whether it has the same problems that Fulper is bashing them for. Most other people who've bought them aren't seeing those problems. Even if it does have a few things that need attention, it will certainly be better than doing all the work an HSD intake requires.

[sixt8bird]

The roller cams can be way more aggressive and run smoother than a flat tappet. If you ran a flat tappet on a roller cam the friction would be huge as the flat tappet would gouge the ramps. The point I was making was they (SD Performance and others) after .500 lift, the non ported heads would see no gain. I am at .530ish lift. Dave also said with my combo, it would be at most 13.5 seconds. This was about 8 years ago when he said this. But many people have also said this. I bet if I posted my combo, most people would also agree with Daves guess. I havent done any changes to my combo this year but I think I will richen up the secondaries as I seem to get faster with the heat of the day. Looking for 12.50s

[KenB]

I'm not qualified to comment on the technical issues of the manifold, however, some posts include jingoistic terms that have no merit, IMHO.
The country of origin is irrelevant.
Good Design, Good Practices are relevant.

Go look at the Monroney Label (window sticker) of every Chevrolet Equinox, I think near the bottom it lists country of origin for engine and maybe transmission as well as overall domestic content. Guess where the engine is built? (answer in PS)
I tried to post a sticker, but strangely enough, Chevrolet's site cannot pull one up right now.

Unless a company advertises what the country of origin is, you have no idea where an assembly, much less components are coming from. I work for an OE, and assemblies coming from very large well known American suppliers have subsupplied components coming from all over the globe.

So trying to bring an affordable quality product to market is difficult considering what was the largest company on earth now recommends low wage countries to its suppliers

My point is that it is a global economy, even for parts for obsolete engines

Below is a little long. From 9/9/2005 Detroit News, so it ain't BS

Regards

Ken B

PS People's Republic of China

"GM puts squeeze on suppliers

Automaker wants parts makers to open plants in low-cost countries, a move sure to spark fury.

By Brett Clanton / The Detroit News


DETROIT -- General Motors Corp. is launching a three-year cost-cutting plan that will stress the need for U.S. parts suppliers to open more factories in low-cost countries and to become more competitive on costs and price.

The new plan, designed to save GM billions of dollars over time, could increase already simmering tensions between the struggling automaker and its supplier network.

Bo Andersson, GM's purchasing chief, is expected to roll out the plan to 250 top suppliers at a Sept. 22 meeting at the automaker's proving grounds in Milford.

GM is wrapping up a separate three-year program aimed at reducing by 20 percent its $85 billion global purchasing bill as rancor among suppliers over the automaker's cost-cutting demands is reaching a fever pitch.

In an interview with Automotive News last month, Andersson said suppliers have shouted at him and even grabbed his tie to vent their frustrations. "I see much more emotion in our supply base and nonprofessional businessmanship in the last two years than I've seen in my whole career," he said.

While it's nothing new for a Detroit automaker to push suppliers to reduce costs, GM is under particular pressure to find additional savings after losing $2.5 billion in North America this year. GM also is pressing the United Auto Workers to consider higher out-of-pocket health care costs.

The new cost-cutting plan for suppliers is likely to widen the rift between GM and its U.S. auto parts makers, who in a recent survey said their trust in GM had fallen to a 15-year low. Parts makers are struggling to eke out profits because of high raw material costs, weakening sales by Detroit automakers and global pricing pressures. Several large players have been forced into bankruptcy.

In such an environment, GM needs to be careful how hard it pushes, said Jim Gillette, an industry analyst with CSM Worldwide in Grand Rapids.

"There are a lot of fragile suppliers out there," Gillette said.


'Aggressive restructuring'


But GM is making clear that those who cannot keep up will be left behind.

In a presentation late last month to financial analysts, Andersson called for an "aggressive restructuring" of the company's supply base to include only the suppliers who are on board with GM's delivery, quality and cost targets.

In addition, he said GM's North American suppliers needed to accelerate efforts to locate factories in low-cost countries such as China, Brazil, Honduras and India to become more competitive.

As GM expands its global "footprint" into regions outside the United States -- particularly in emerging markets such as Eastern Europe, China and Korea -- it says it wants suppliers to be there to grow with the company and to ease logistics. But GM also is interested in lower prices for parts, a natural byproduct of sourcing components in regions where labor is cheaper -- a sore point for many U.S. suppliers.

"When they start talking about restructuring, it strikes me that it's just a veiled threat that if you don't come through (with lower prices), we're going to get other suppliers," said John Henke, head of Planning Perspectives Inc., an industry consulting firm in Birmingham that conducts an annual survey of supplier attitudes toward major automakers.

GM will not discuss details of the cost-cutting program, but Andersson gave hints about the plan in a June meeting with suppliers.

In addition to addressing the need to locate overseas, the program will begin holding more suppliers accountable for reducing costs. It will also give credit against current cost-cutting targets to suppliers that find ways to take costs out of future vehicle programs, according to a slide presentation made at a June meeting.


GM's plans will overlap


The new program is scheduled to begin in the fourth quarter and run through 2007.

It will briefly overlap and then replace a previous program ending Dec. 31 that GM called "20/3." Under that plan, GM sought a 20 percent reduction in parts purchasing costs during the last three years.

While the 20/3 program brought a "great deal of savings" to GM, it fell short of the 20 percent goal, said Thomas Hill, a GM spokesman, who declined to elaborate. He said that 20 percent was a "stretch goal" the company knew would be hard to achieve and that the new program would be a "continuation" of cost-reduction efforts.

Richard Dauch, chairman and CEO of American Axle & Manufacturing Inc., a publicly traded axle maker in Detroit and a supplier to GM, said he was not aware of the details in the automaker's new plan but would be "open-minded" about the issues the automaker is facing.

"We have to adjust to global competition," Dauch said Thursday after a Detroit Economic Club luncheon. "Each customer has to put together an action plan of how can they compete with great products and with the economic reality. We're all going to have to be part of that. Nobody can wait this war out."

During the previous program, GM was successful in reducing the size of its supply base -- from 3,700 in 2003 to about 3,200 today -- as part of an effort to create a more efficient supply chain. And that figure will probably decline more under the new plan, Hill said.

"As we become more strict about our alignment issues, some suppliers may decide to put their hands up and say, 'We're going to elect not to do anymore business with you.'"

And what about suppliers who decide not to build factories in low-cost countries? Will GM sever ties with them?

"It's not a mandate," Hill said. "If you can make it work where you have operations, whether that's in North America or Western Europe or South America, that's not an issue. The issue is, if you have a target, you may want to look at low-cost-countries as an option."


Overseas factories a must?


Some parts makers have complained that GM has made it all but impossible not to open factories overseas if they want to continue doing business with the automaker.

"Some suppliers have tried to tell GM that not everybody needs to be global, not all the parts need to be global," CSM's Gillette said. "But they just figure that's the way they're going to get the cheaper price."

DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group recently announced a new supplier strategy that more closely mimics the often-praised relationship Japanese automakers have with suppliers. Chrysler has pledged to reward top-performing suppliers with additional contracts with the goal of forming long-term relationships with parts makers rather than sourcing anew with each vehicle.

But Chrysler also wants suppliers to consider opening factories in regions outside of North America.

"As a supplier, an ability to operate in multiple geographic locations simultaneously is a competitive edge," Tom LaSorda, the incoming CEO of Chrysler, said in an Aug. 29 speech in Detroit.


Toyota seeks cost cuts


In recent years, Toyota Motor Corp. has also demanded as much as a 30 percent reduction in component parts from its suppliers. And last month, Nissan Motor Co. said it is aiming to reduce component costs by 15 percent over the next three years by buying more parts from China and other low-wage countries.

North American auto suppliers will close plants and move as much as 20 percent of their production to lower-cost regions by 2010, according to a survey conducted last year by Roland Berger Strategy Consultants in Troy.

But parts makers are more likely to respond to cost-reduction efforts if automakers work together with suppliers rather than dictating demands to them, said David Andrea, vice president of the Original Equipment Suppliers Association in Troy, a supplier industry trade group.

"The proper way of looking at supplier relationships is where both sides attack the costs."

GM is also expecting suppliers to play a role in reducing its warranty costs, which have dropped from $35.56 per vehicle after six months in service to $24.90 in 2004. GM's target for 2005 is $22.05 per vehicle. The automaker also is stressing more early collaboration between its engineers and suppliers to avoid late changes in the design of parts, which can produce quality problems.

But GM's Andersson said the automaker will not do business with suppliers who are in bankruptcy. Among the list of suppliers in Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection are interiors specialist Collins and Aikman Corp. in Troy and vehicle frame maker Tower Automotive in Novi.

Delphi Corp., the world's largest supplier, which was spun off from GM in 1999, has threatened a bankruptcy filing by Oct. 17 if it cannot get the UAW to agree to lower labor costs. But GM declined to say how the company would respond if Delphi filed. "

[Half-Inch Stud]

Somebody make a good$ buy producing Throttle brackets for that Toamhawk intake. HIS

[Z Code 400]

Good point HIS, what would you use for a throttle bracket on the Hurricane???...Robert

[slowbird]

Sixt8bird, have you tried any other intakes to see if that knife edging of the runner divider is helping or hurting? What does you car weigh? I guess I dont see why your combo shouldnt be in the 12s (I think the intake might be hurting you alittle but everything elso looks good).