So, I pulled the #16 4 barrel intake manifold off a '73 Olds 350. I seem to remember reading on this forum that this manifold actually flows pretty good considering its cast iron composition vs. the new fangled aluminum intakes.

Can anyone shed any light on the subject?

d1

 

Common
heavy iron
+ "Oldsmobile" usually visible
EGR - yawn
Why not use the lighter A4 instead?
I generally consider the #16/17 scrap metal. YMMV.

 

No worries, I figured I'd ask. I heard the #16 flowed better than the A4. As you mention, the A4 is lighter. I don't need the intake but I have it and was wondering if it was worth using.

 

Flow rate has nothing to do with the materials and everything to do with the shape of the runners. You could make a wooden manifold that flowed pretty good if you got the runners right.

 

What is the source for this claimed flow rate? From whom specifically did you hear this information? Perhaps 442.com?

 

I never flowed one or accurately measured, but to the casual observer the A4 ports and runners are the same as the #17/16. More or less.
Therefore the iron wins on "OLDSMOBILE" lettering and cheap cost, but AL "A4" wins for weight loss. Not the "A5".

 

Correct, I was not clear on what I was attempting to explain.


I have read it on this forum, but I cannot find the thread. I have looked on the intraweb and have found excerpts, but nothing definitively giving the #16 a nod over the A4 or any other intake. The consensus states its comparable to a Edelbrock Performer. Again, I have no data points to verify the claims of others.