CANADIANOLDS

uh, it’s actually very important,,that’s my whole point on this. going through all the trouble and expense to pay someone to convert an intake wrong, is bad to start with. if you’re gonna do it, do it right..you’re paying either way.

I didn’t make anyone feel bad..if they do, that’s on them. It’s words on a screen.

I’ll post the pics you want in the EFI thread

cutlassefi

But it would do it for ALL cyls not just one or two.

CANADIANOLDS

Duttweiller said it..I posted that in the EFI thread.

the intercept angle is crucial…he says less than 45deg. These olds intakes are way more than that. Have you even measured them after you sent them out for someone else to convert them.

CANADIANOLDS

not really..unless you knew the afr before a cam swap that had a narrower lsa, and had the egt’s before and after..you would be guessing

a narrower lsa does screw around with the intake manifold reversion, which can affect the distribution per cylinder…it’s not a guaranteed even up or down on all EGT’s

wr1970

I get why you used the performer, performer RPM. What I don't get is using a victor in this test for obvious reasons it doesn't really work good till after the RPM above your test parameters . Thanks for posting Mark.

CANADIANOLDS

Taking only the motor into consideration, not the TQ converter or gears in the vehicle, this engine should have done very well with the Victor if the AFR was right….but it wasn’t.

you’re basing your opinion on bogus data. it’s there for you to see. would you install any intake on your own vehicle and not tune it for best AFR/power?

wr1970

Short answer! No 🤣 I have to go talk to my shrink now because I am crazy for even answering you! Medic where's my meds!🤣🤣

CANADIANOLDS

I’m proud of you.

cfair

Mark and OP,
Many thanks for A/B data. Great stuff! We’ve all wanted to run these tests to confirm which parts are best for our application(s), but few of us have the time, equipment, training & resources to do it.

Our detractor may have a point, but you did the work. Like the difference between the movie director and the movie critic: one puts their stuff out there, one critiques. Ocean of difference.

I run Edelbrock Performer manifolds on my street-driven big Oldses. They rarely see any use above 4,000 RPM. Not a criticism, but as a street driver, I’m much more interested in 750-3,000 RPM, than say, 4000 and above. The way I use my old cars, a Performer has been right on target and lighter than what Olds built.

Again, not criticism, but I suspect it takes engines running hard above 3,000 RPM until you see big differences in combinations, or in this case, manifolds. So you’re right to focus on the upper RPM range.

For anyone watching, if you can’t sleep and get MotorTrend TV, check out Engine Masters for similar kinds of controlled A/B testing. Illuminating at least in direction if not perfect on testing every time.

I was in an analytical role for many decades, there’s always a critic. They’re often correct, or near-target with criticism. But it’s crazy rare when they’ve done the work as well. Anyone doing these kinds of tests uses benchmarks, explicitly declares them, as well as assumptions and lets the data show. When I see that, I trust. So thanks.

Chris