Do we Need another choice in Intakes for the 472/500

PROSTOCKTOM

PROSTOCKTOM

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
42
Points
48
Location
West Central, Indiana
Ok, Dave Brode has been talking to me about intakes.

He's of the belief that Edelbrock needs to make a dual plane Performer RPM or a Weiand Stealth thyp RPM dual plane.

I know the 2115 Performer has it's flaws and the ports are not balanced in flow.

So what does everyone else think about this subject.

Tom
 
Oh, yea, blame another poop storm on me. :devil:

Same story, too much cost per units made - will not happen......

3x2 single plane street rod type? Good dual plane? Small plenum, small runner single plane. There are some threads on 460.com on intakes. Some surprising stuff, iirc.

My well pump died wednesday night, dealing with that today.$$$$$$ I'll try to look later. Hopefully, after a shower.

Dave

p.s. - what else do we have to talk about, anyway.
 
I still haven't purchased an intake for my 500 Cad . I have a brand new 850 D.P. and have to make a decision .
An 8-71 blower is DEFINITELY in the cards for this engine ( or another ) down the road .
If I can make the 850 D.P. work decently with a Boogieman until I buy the blower , then I'll purchase your Boogieman off of you Tom . I just don't want to spend almost $400 on a new Performer and then have to buy the Boogieman later on .
I can't see one carb feeding that huge plenum without mixture distribution problems . But there may be a way around that .
Edelbrock hit the ball out of the park with their Performer RPM Air Gap intake line .
The Bulldog single plane looks to be a very nice high performance manifold ... how does it stack up in back to back dyno testing , with a brand new Performer ? How much torque loss or torque shift would there be ? If your going for horsepower ... what are the realistic gains compared to the Performer ?
The Boogieman intake is a great manifold with tops that can be changed for different carb configurations ... it's downfall , as I see it , is development of different plenum inserts which enhance mixture distribution for various carb locations / configurations . As it is right now , the buyer is on his own for that experimentation .

Maybe I should get into a side hobby of buying new 460 Ford RPM Airgaps , slicing them down the center to fit the Cad port config , welding them back up nice , making an adapter to correct the cloverleaf at the carb pad and then offering them to the world . Nah ... I need my sleep :backinmyday: .

Next question : Why was the Bulldog single plane intake developed and not a better high performance dual plane ? Was there a lot of people belly-aching / lobbying the vendors that they didn't have a single plane to race the Cad ?
 
The original Bulldog was really a race only intake unless filled with a lot of epoxy. The current MTS SP is much like the "filled" Bulldog with some further refinements.
We don't make enough $ at $495 each to actually justify all the money that was / is required to manufacture and sell such an item
A DUAL PLANE cost twice as much to get into production as the single plane.
There was some dyno testing at Potter's done back to back between the MTS SP and the Edelbrock 2115 a couple years ago.
Not sure if the data is still on the forum.
 
Al Betker did some testing with the original bulldog vs a Edelbrock and the bulldog was better from about 3000 up and lost a little below that i cannot remember how much.

MTS will not be making a DP intake because there is no money in it plain and simple and that is the same reason edelbrock will not be making an rpm for the Caddy.

We are looking into making a multi purpose intake that will be a 2X4,3X2 supercharger or EFI with a LS1 style throttle body front or rear mount however there are other projects that need to be finished before we look really hard at another intake.

What would be nice is if Edelbrock would improve on the intake that exists ,doing two things.

Make the intake flanges about .200 taller so it will match the t-1 and t-2 CNC ports on a MTS FR head and enlarge and reshape the runners a little bit to get a little better flow numbers out of it
 
Just wet my pants laughing at that 3 year old thread...Tiny's last stand..lmao...Terry have you gotten past the stigma yet..hee hee.

Maddog
 
Thanks again for doing the test.....cant wait to do some testing with a similar combo and a set of cnc ported aluminum heads
 
great that they did the test

But no dyno sheets :thumbdown:

I am pretty sure you would see the same thing comparing the two intakes that are available as potters will not work on a stock head without a ton of work that would skew the testing.
 
Joe,

Slicing a single plane 460 intake lengthwise could be done [has been, by madmax, member here]. On the contrary, I will not say can't be done, but slicing a dual plane would be much more complex.

Dave
 
nitrojoe said:
I still haven't purchased an intake for my 500 Cad . I have a brand new 850 D.P. and have to make a decision .
An 8-71 blower is DEFINITELY in the cards for this engine ( or another ) down the road .
If I can make the 850 D.P. work decently with a Boogieman until I buy the blower , then I'll purchase your Boogieman off of you Tom . I just don't want to spend $400 on a new Performer and then have to buy the Boogieman later on .
I can't see one carb feeding that huge plenum without mixture distribution problems . But there may be a way around that .
Edelbrock hit the ball out of the park with their Performer RPM Air Gap intake line .
The Bulldog single plane looks to be a very nice high performance manifold ... how does it stack up in back to back dyno testing , with a brand new Performer ? How much torque loss or torque shift would there be ? If your going for horsepower ... what are the realistic gains compared to the Performer ?
The Boogieman intake is a great manifold with tops that can be changed for different carb configurations ... it's downfall , as I see it , is development of different plenum inserts which enhance mixture distribution for various carb locations / configurations . As it is right now , the buyer is on his own for that experimentation .

Maybe I should get into a side hobby of buying new 460 Ford RPM Airgaps , slicing them down the center to fit the Cad port config , welding them back up nice , making an adapter to correct the cloverleaf at the carb pad and then offering them to the world . Nah ... I need my sleep :backinmyday: .

Next question : Why was the Bulldog single plane intake developed and not a better high performance dual plane ? Was there a lot of people belly-aching / lobbying the vendors that they didn't have a single plane to race the Cad ?
Click to expand...


There was at the time one intake manifold and the edelbrock has its limitations

Think i answered it and i know marty did.....a DP intake cost twice as much to make patterns are double the cost, cores are double the cost so it never happened.

Even if we did produce a manifold it would be about $500 a pop and again who would pay that ?

For what i know I can get everything made for by the time i have one machined manifold ready to test.....test not knowing if it is better and if so how much ill have about 12 k in a manifold and never recoupe the cost.
 
I find this technology absolutely amazing and I've seen a complete final drive gearbox model for a tank made with internal gears , threaded holes ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_prototyping

I'll be purchasing an intake soon and thanks to Terry's comprehensive testing , review and endorsment , the MTS single plane is proven to be a hot intake which also allows room for future engine development ( roller cam , aluminum heads ) :thumbup: .
I'm using 10.5 in. slicks , so a bit of a loss down low will help me keep this monster hooked up .
 
dave brode said:
Joe,

Slicing a single plane 460 intake lengthwise could be done [has been, by madmax, member here]. On the contrary, I will not say can't be done, but slicing a dual plane would be much more complex.

Dave
Click to expand...

I agree Dave that there would be some serious slicing ( in more than one plane ) to make it work . But ,the first one is always the hardest to do ! :whistle:
If a prototype was completed and back to back dyno tests carried out to prove very good gains over a stock Performer ... a person may be able to sell every one of them .
To prevent getting Edelbrock's lawyers on your ass , they could only be sold out of the trunk of your car at tractor pulls , corn boils , public feats of strength , cow pasture dragstrips .... :shhh: :shhh: :shhh:
 
JW said:
great that they did the test

But no dyno sheets :thumbdown:

I am pretty sure you would see the same thing comparing the two intakes that are available as potters will not work on a stock head without a ton of work that would skew the testing.
Click to expand...

We have been discussing how to do a "fair" comparison of stock iron, 2115, MTS SP, and CPP 1475. We might even throw in an original Boogie-Man for old time sake lol. Since the port dimensions and over all design is comparably different on the Boogie-Man heads and 1475. You are either modifying a head for a 1475 port or modifying a the other parts to fit our heads. I do not consider that a "fair" comparison on either end of the scale. I will keep the information up to date when we decide what test is considered "fair" and the results will be posted when the information comes available. I also understand that there will be some information on a 1475 to iron heads from an outside source once he gets the intake. I will leave the details and names anonymous till such information is available.

MTS Marty AKA Nashillac said:
There was some dyno testing at Potter's done back to back between the MTS SP and the Edelbrock 2115 a couple years ago.
Not sure if the data is still on the forum.
Click to expand...

I am not aware of this testing and have no data for such a test.
 
Well I remember some test and you're the one that posted the results.

Wasn't it with Vern's engine? By the way where has Vern been lately?

Tom
 
I believe Miles had a edelbrock on his engine and have never seen a dyno sheet on it
 
Gents,

This is Tom's party, but I hope it doesn't become another 1475 vs MTS thread. We have one or more of those.

Although one could compare the MTS to the 4175, it really could only be with Potter's wide port head, with the MTS widened to match. Iirc, that was hashed in a past engine build thread. Although Matt has said that the 4175 was used on at least one iron headed engine by a customer, it really doesn't apply, as 99.9% of the guys out there don't want to jump through those hoops.

Here are two intake war threads;

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10653&hilit=1475

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9912&p=105315&hilit=potter+intake+iron+heads#p105315


Please take 1475 vs MTS talk there, or start your own thread on that specific topic.

The topic is ANOTHER choice in intakes.

Dave
 
JW said:
I believe Miles had a edelbrock on his engine and have never seen a dyno sheet on it
Click to expand...

We did various tests with Miles's engine. He has a presence on this board and therefore the shop nor me will disclose his information. He can do, with his results, what he would like.

Dave,
If we do some extensive testing it will most likely be done on our aluminum heads and we will be modifying the other ports to match. However we have talked about doing an airboat engine test. Since these guys use basically stock engines with intake changes and maybe a cam. We will be deciding in the near future what tests we are going to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top