QuickZoh6

Just wondering who all has done this, what hood you have, who made the elbow, and any measurements you can help me out with. Im planning on doing this on my car, and am going to get a high rise hood from RKsport. How tall is the 90 deg elbow from the base of the intake? thanks for any info

JoeyG

Robert56 was doing this swap, I think he used a higher profile elbow needing a high-rise hood. The Edelbrock (low-profile) elbow supoosibly will work with a stock hood. I just can't justify the swap for my 416 yet

DALE C

Do you have a link or any more info on the Edelbrock elbow?
Thanks, Dale

QuickZoh6

http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive_...e_elbows.shtml

I saw the edelbrock elbow, it does look like it will work well, but the only thing that scares me a little is where they say:
"BOX STYLE ELBOWS
These box style elbows add the great EFI appearance to carburetor-style EFI manifolds. Their performance matches our High Flow Elbow #3849 up to 400 horsepower"

Does that mean that the horsepower falls off drastically on engines more than 400 HP compared to the high flow elbow?

If the whole point of going to the carbed intake swap is to get more airflow at higher RPM's, i wouldnt want to cut back down the gains with a restrictive elbow.

looking at the measurements, i think the low profile part number 3848 should work with a high rise hood, but i dont have my intake yet to make sure. I wonder if the ultra low profile elbow part number 3847 that is 3.62" above the carb flange will work with the stock hood??

Can anyone take a couple measurements for me? Distance from mount flage of the carb intake to hood/wiper cowl? maybe how much more clearance a hood like the RK sport or LPE hood gives in that area where the elbow will be mounted...approx. 9" forward from the carb flange center line

DALE C

Thanks for the link, You may want to do a search on LS1tech as well I have seen some setups on there I liked a lot better, one of them was supposed to fit with a stock hood which is a big concern for me due to visibility in the roadrace car with my seating position being 1" off the floor

Robert56@RNS

Here's a link to some ideas and photos. it's an ongoing thread with a few of us doing the elbow and single plain in few different manners. My pics will be up soon.
http://nitrousforum.com/forums/showt...?threadid=1728
Robert

kromberg

Has anyone had any experience with the www.intakeelbows.com one?



Keith

Robert56@RNS

yea, that's the one to go with if your going a sheet metal style elbow, though you will be cutting your hood out a bunch. Also adapters of some sort will be needed to get to your CAI.

Here's my latest, but the sheet metal elbow is longer and with out my carb spacer it puts the TB in the stock location. The elbow itself is junk though. You can see the 3-piece fiberglass adapter I made to mount it to the CAI. If elbows.com would make one where the TB actually ends up in the stock location, that would be the way to go. The one you posted is more for the F-Body guys, but some Vettes have used it. The Edelbrock style seems to be about the best going that I have found and currently they 3-models.

Robert

0Tony Mamo @ AFR

Guys,

I have been close to a few of these carb intake / 90' elbow projects and most have provided disappointing results....all very similar. Huge loss of low end torque due to the much shorter runners and 180' turn in the airpath to hit the front cylinders, and not even matching a ported FAST in the power department upstairs (shy by 10-20 RWHP).

Essentially alot of work for a much lower average torque and horsepower figures.

I would be interested in anyone that has seen otherwise from a similar situation (90' elbow that fits stock or close to stock height hoods)....the biggest problem is there isnt nearly enough height available to strighten out the air as it hits the plenum, and the reality is the much shorter runners even in an ideal situation would always be alot softer in the lower and middle RPM's most of you spend the bulk of your time driving.

Tony

Robert56@RNS

True what you say, however, some of the big cube guys really will never notice a couple ponies missing cruising around down low, and will appreciate the power gained up high. Another area, where most of the guys I know that are doing the swap also spray their cars. So the added safety, (no backfire blowing the intake apart and dislodging the fuel rails then the fire) concerning spraying really nulls any low rpm loss. We are more interested in ¼ mile times than we are in how much HP the dyno says we have down low. The plastic intakes and nitrous just aren't a conducive match. One more thing, although no comparisons to the ported FAST, the testing I have been following in many issues of Hot Rod show small low end loses in general, and always gains up top with some gains very significant, compared to the front entrance plastics as well as most other intakes. Now with all that said, if I could run a ported FAST without the concern for backfires, then I certainly would, no doubt. I don't think we have to worry about a mass migration to the single plains, at least not at this point. Then there are the boosted guys, and all out drag guys, but average Joe street/stripper, no worry, stay with the known to work pretty well FAST intakes.
Robert
Robert

0Tony Mamo @ AFR

Im talking about a loss of 40+ ft/lbs of torque down low (due to the short runners versus the much longer FAST runners) and due to an un-optimized approach to the plenum and the very short distance the incoming air must make a 180' about face to feed the front cylinders the shorter runners never really benefit you upstairs....it just narrows the losses seen on the bottom. A buddy of mine did the testing on a low 500 RWHP 408 so the engine had plenty of cubes to work with as well. He said the car was noticably slower with the single plane set-up and the numbers certainly backed that SOTP impressions (he ultimately switched back to the ported FAST set-up).

Regarding the FAST with nitrous usage, Wilson makes some backfire protection with thin steel blow out discs that are made specifically for the FAST intake in the event of a bad backfire etc. Two of them mount in the lower plenum (and the install is pretty easy with a hole saw). The kit is a bit pricey but works well in the event of a backfire.

Robert you did a beautiful job on the plumbing and install and everything looks great but Im only sharing what I have seen in the past and I was pretty excited about the prospects of the single plane myself till my buddy and another forum member came up with similar results.

Look at the airpath and consider for a minute how a high speed column of air does not like to make sharp turns and radical changes in direction. A manifold like that is much better functionally with a direct throttle body mounted on top of it (the way it was designed) where the air only has to negotiate 90' bends into all the intake runners and has a straight non-turbulent shot into the plenum area where it can be more easily distributed to each cylinder. Even in that situation we are still once again back to discussing which intake has a more ideal runner length for the intended RPM range we are trying to optimize....

I look forward to your results but have an open mind to the fact this mod may or may not be the homerun you think it is and take a scientific approach in analyzing all the data. Depending on your timing and what I have going on at the time if you wanted to pit a ported FAST against the numbers I may be able to provide one for the test.

Cheers,
Tony

9secondflat

the ford blue oval circle has used this type of intake for all of the fast track (not street yet you will hear people say my car is registered so its a street car) cars for years...they spin those motors to 7k+ and run in the single digits..

kromberg

Anyone have any experience with the Edelbrock elbow?



Keith

Robert56@RNS

Again, I am in agreement and hope you don't think I am trying to be argumentive. I have never heard of the FAST blow off discs working, but the intake exploading anyway. I do run a Wilson carb style spacer/burst panel but they are known to work. There is whole story on the sprayed backfire dynamics issue where the front entrance intakes have no easy escape path for the expanding explosion, and the easiest route is through the sides (been there, done that, lol). Anyway, and I can get my dyno sheets if needed, I have currently with a small hit on my 408, 717RWTQ by 4200rpm, so that was my point for the sprayed cars, loosing 40 n/a means nothing to us. I don't know if the Vic Jr can surpass the ported FAST up top, but it certainly does a non ported. We are looking for a little higher power band for the stick sprayed cars (rpm drop per gear) and the single plains offer this with minimal clean up work. Edelbrock has worked pretty hard on their elbows that have been recently released, and the combo is said to be capable of 600hp n/a, of course not box stock. They have some dividers built in with the use of some sort of fluid engineering programs. I have talked with Aaron at intakeelbows, and am sending him a template for a free'er flowing elbow compared to the crappy one on my car. The link above i posted, a guy just posted some logging of the Vic elbow and it shows no restrictions thus far, it looks promising at this point. Maybe we could get together and talk about setting up a ported FAST and plumb it for a Direct Port Dry hit running one of the new fuel and timing controllers? Then we could see some real world comparisons, at least how it relates in the nitrous world, which my perspective comes form. OK, enough jumping around and babbling for tonight, lol. It's good to talk with someone in the know, that's for sure.
Robert

Robert56@RNS

Yes, check out the link I posted earlier. one of our guys is running one and in testing right now. It looks very promising. There are also two more levels of elbows to consider like the one pictured, depending on high we are willing to have the bend protrude through the hood. Wilson has a nice 110° piece if going with a high scoop.
Robert