edlebrock intake mainfold
Le Mans Master
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,455
Likes: 977
From: RI, Now Franklin/Nashville TN
And just so we are clear.....there were no aluminum intakes bolted on L-82 small blocks....they all got that low rise turd.
I understand your point of view that many intakes are better than the L-82 aluminum intake but not to the extend you claim with a low intake change only. We disagree. Let's leave it at that point...OK?
As for the comment above, I think you either typed wrong and that statement is not what you meant to write or you are misinformed on this point. My OEM 78 L-82 intake is most definitely aluminum so let's not argue that comment......FWIW worth the data and comparison is about the aftermarket intakes,so let's not focus on the LT-1 which was mentioned an ancillary comment, not the point!
I guess the readers can look at the data presented now multiple times on a 500 Gross HP 406 and draw their own conclusions about what each of us and others are stating.....Pretty clear cut though from the article, not sure what can be contested, unless you and others think that hotrod fudged the data????
Last edited by jb78L-82; Jul 7, 2019 at 11:28 AM.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,937
Likes: 848
From: melbourne florida
2023 C3 of the Year Finalist - Modified
Anybody comparing the lt-1 intake and the l-82 intake has never seen the two side by side . The l-82
Intake is the same garbage as any other factory q jet intake except it's aluminum. Jenny and heads up have it nailed. Go with thier advise.
As far as carburetors, a double pumper is more responsive than any Secondary carb, the horsepower may or may not be similar but you will be noticibly quicke with a double pumper.
Intake is the same garbage as any other factory q jet intake except it's aluminum. Jenny and heads up have it nailed. Go with thier advise.
As far as carburetors, a double pumper is more responsive than any Secondary carb, the horsepower may or may not be similar but you will be noticibly quicke with a double pumper.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,455
Likes: 977
From: RI, Now Franklin/Nashville TN
Anybody comparing the lt-1 intake and the l-82 intake has never seen the two side by side . The l-82
Intake is the same garbage as any other factory q jet intake except it's aluminum. Jenny and heads up have it nailed. Go with thier advise.
As far as carburetors, a double pumper is more responsive than any Secondary carb, the horsepower may or may not be similar but you will be noticibly quicke with a double pumper.
Intake is the same garbage as any other factory q jet intake except it's aluminum. Jenny and heads up have it nailed. Go with thier advise.
As far as carburetors, a double pumper is more responsive than any Secondary carb, the horsepower may or may not be similar but you will be noticibly quicke with a double pumper.
The LT-1 intake in NOT the point...the focus is on the aftermarket intakes so we can stop digressing now.....
Le Mans Master
Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 8,336
Likes: 2,810
From: Cool Northern Michigan
Anybody comparing the lt-1 intake and the l-82 intake has never seen the two side by side . The l-82
Intake is the same garbage as any other factory q jet intake except it's aluminum. Jenny and heads up have it nailed. Go with thier advise.
As far as carburetors, a double pumper is more responsive than any Secondary carb, the horsepower may or may not be similar but you will be noticibly quicke with a double pumper.
Intake is the same garbage as any other factory q jet intake except it's aluminum. Jenny and heads up have it nailed. Go with thier advise.
As far as carburetors, a double pumper is more responsive than any Secondary carb, the horsepower may or may not be similar but you will be noticibly quicke with a double pumper.
I would recommend a Eddy 2101 as a starter manifold any day. Not as good as others but they fit easily, have a few more horse, have some bling and can be had for a song on eBay, used.
(An Air Gap 7501 is seen in my future. Maybe next winter).
Dr. Detroit
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 10,097
Likes: 4,027
From: New Braunfels Texas
Just so I am clear to everyone....I believe as follows:
The Q-Jet stock low rise intake does not flow well on anything...regardless of material.....it is essentially the same piece.
The LT-1 is a high rise unit that rivals even the mighty RPM Air Gap or not....this intake was 30 years ahead of its time and GM never had a cylinder head that could support it....it WILL support 475 horsepower with minimal massaging and a divider mill....
The Performer EPS is the highest flowing low rise manifold out there.....it flat works....and it even works well where it should not....on a high horse unit compromised by hood clearance......it also is worth a bunch on a stock L-82 if teamed with long tube headers....
The Q-jet intake and rams horn manifolds are in a word...kinda awful.....but a Vette will pick up just swapping the intake....
The L-82 can be made to run very well....just delete the parts that do not flow.....period....
Jebby
The Q-Jet stock low rise intake does not flow well on anything...regardless of material.....it is essentially the same piece.
The LT-1 is a high rise unit that rivals even the mighty RPM Air Gap or not....this intake was 30 years ahead of its time and GM never had a cylinder head that could support it....it WILL support 475 horsepower with minimal massaging and a divider mill....
The Performer EPS is the highest flowing low rise manifold out there.....it flat works....and it even works well where it should not....on a high horse unit compromised by hood clearance......it also is worth a bunch on a stock L-82 if teamed with long tube headers....
The Q-jet intake and rams horn manifolds are in a word...kinda awful.....but a Vette will pick up just swapping the intake....
The L-82 can be made to run very well....just delete the parts that do not flow.....period....
Jebby
Le Mans Master
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,937
Likes: 848
From: melbourne florida
2023 C3 of the Year Finalist - Modified
Sorry , I typed in Jebby and it changed to Jenny. In this day and age anything can happen 🤪
And 78 you referred to both those factory intakes and one is junk and should be beer cans the other is a good intake.
And 78 you referred to both those factory intakes and one is junk and should be beer cans the other is a good intake.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,284
Likes: 1,171
From: Hermosa
Just so I am clear to everyone....I believe as follows:
The Q-Jet stock low rise intake does not flow well on anything...regardless of material.....it is essentially the same piece.
The LT-1 is a high rise unit that rivals even the mighty RPM Air Gap or not....this intake was 30 years ahead of its time and GM never had a cylinder head that could support it....it WILL support 475 horsepower with minimal massaging and a divider mill....
The Performer EPS is the highest flowing low rise manifold out there.....it flat works....and it even works well where it should not....on a high horse unit compromised by hood clearance......it also is worth a bunch on a stock L-82 if teamed with long tube headers....
The Q-jet intake and rams horn manifolds are in a word...kinda awful.....but a Vette will pick up just swapping the intake....
The L-82 can be made to run very well....just delete the parts that do not flow.....period....
Jebby
The Q-Jet stock low rise intake does not flow well on anything...regardless of material.....it is essentially the same piece.
The LT-1 is a high rise unit that rivals even the mighty RPM Air Gap or not....this intake was 30 years ahead of its time and GM never had a cylinder head that could support it....it WILL support 475 horsepower with minimal massaging and a divider mill....
The Performer EPS is the highest flowing low rise manifold out there.....it flat works....and it even works well where it should not....on a high horse unit compromised by hood clearance......it also is worth a bunch on a stock L-82 if teamed with long tube headers....
The Q-jet intake and rams horn manifolds are in a word...kinda awful.....but a Vette will pick up just swapping the intake....
The L-82 can be made to run very well....just delete the parts that do not flow.....period....
Jebby
There really aren't any that I know of that will fit under the hood other than the low rise dual plane intakes. I would love to have a single plane (like a team G) with a Q-jet but after the adapter then it's too tall and the advantage is lost from using an adapter to a Q-jet. So dump the Q-jet for a Holley and a low profile air cleaner set up. Still want clean air, not under hood air.
What JB has done with porting the stock L-82 intake does not seem to be bad option to me. It's at least a middle ground and the stock arrangement can be retained.
I ported my 2101 to handle more flow for the AFR 180's. I don't think I could port them enough to provide the flow that a pair of 195's or 210's would demand at high RPM.
I'm kinda at a crossroads as well. If I want more performance without choking the heads it's gonna likely require a hole in the hood or a different hood to acommodate the intake, unless you know of a spread bore dual plane that flows very well and will not choke off a set of 195's or 210's on a SBC 350 or 400.
Last edited by REELAV8R; Jul 8, 2019 at 04:17 PM.
Dr. Detroit
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 10,097
Likes: 4,027
From: New Braunfels Texas
Jebby, What are a guy's options if he wants to retain the q-jet and the stock hood?
There really aren't any that I know of that will fit under the hood other than the low rise dual plane intakes. I would love to have a single plane (like a team G) with a Q-jet but after the adapter then it's too tall and the advantage is lost from using an adapter to a Q-jet. So dump the Q-jet for a Holley and a low profile air cleaner set up. Still want clean air, not under hood air.
What JB has done with porting the stock L-82 intake does not seem to be bad option to me. It's at least a middle ground and the stock arrangement can be retained.
I ported my 2101 to handle more flow for the AFR 180's. I don't think I could port them enough to provide the flow that a pair of 195's or 210's would demand at high RPM.
I'm kinda at a crossroads as well. If I want more performance without choking the heads it's gonna likely require a hole in the hood or a different hood to acommodate the intake, unless you know of a spread bore dual plane that flows very well and will not choke off a set of 195's or 210's on a SBC 350 or 400.
There really aren't any that I know of that will fit under the hood other than the low rise dual plane intakes. I would love to have a single plane (like a team G) with a Q-jet but after the adapter then it's too tall and the advantage is lost from using an adapter to a Q-jet. So dump the Q-jet for a Holley and a low profile air cleaner set up. Still want clean air, not under hood air.
What JB has done with porting the stock L-82 intake does not seem to be bad option to me. It's at least a middle ground and the stock arrangement can be retained.
I ported my 2101 to handle more flow for the AFR 180's. I don't think I could port them enough to provide the flow that a pair of 195's or 210's would demand at high RPM.
I'm kinda at a crossroads as well. If I want more performance without choking the heads it's gonna likely require a hole in the hood or a different hood to acommodate the intake, unless you know of a spread bore dual plane that flows very well and will not choke off a set of 195's or 210's on a SBC 350 or 400.
About the stock Q-jet intake.....ported or not....it will not flow just because of the way the runners are laid out....
Put the two next to each other and you will see what I mean....then, flip them over......
The more power you attempt to make....the worse the GM manifold gets.....
If you can find an 8004 Weiand somewhere.....that is a damn good intake as well as the best kept secret of them all....the Brodix HV1001 dual plane....the Brodie intake has HUGE runners and is comparable height wise to the 2101.....but it is also like $350!!! Eek!
Jebby
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Expensive Corvettes Ever Sold on Bring A Trailer
Brett Foote
10 Things Every Corvette Owner Needs (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
8 Most "Only Corvette Owners Understand" Quirks and Problems
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Reasons the C6 Z06 is Still A Performance Benchmark After 20 Years
Joe Kucinski
How Much Horsepower Every Corvette Engine "LOST" in 1972
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 DOs and DON'Ts for Protecting Your Convertible Top!
Michael S. Palmer
Top 10 Most Explosive Corvettes Ever Made: Power-to-Weight Ratio Ranked!
Joe Kucinski
150 hp to 1,250 hp: Every Corvette Generation Compared by the Specs That Matter
Joe Kucinski
8 Coolest Corvette Pace Cars (and Replicas) of All Time
Verdad Gallardo
Dr. Detroit
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 10,097
Likes: 4,027
From: New Braunfels Texas
Le Mans Master
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,455
Likes: 977
From: RI, Now Franklin/Nashville TN
Here is a real world example of my position on the edlebrock intake versus the L-82 aluminum NON PORTED on my OEM 65,000 mile L-82 on the same dyno jet dyno.
My 1978 L-82 4 speed 3.70 gears 65,000 miles:
OEM NON ported L-82 intake
2.5 inch duals with Monze Turbo CHAMBERED mufflers (restrictive)
no emissions
Holley 4175 650 CFM Qjet replacement carb
100% stock L-82 internals BUT
Very low compression #6 cylinder
Results on Dynojet 233 RWHP
Friends 78 L-82 4 speed 3.70 gears with higher miles
Edelbrock Performer RPM
OEM Qjet
No emissions
Higher lift aftermarket cam than L-82 OEM cam
Rest of L-82 totally stock
underdrive pulley system
2.5 inch exhaust with Magnaflow straight through mufflers
Same exact dynojet produced 248 RWHP
15 more RWHP with a free flowing exhaust, Performer RPM intake, higher lift cam against my stock L-82 with a weak compression #6! The difference in RWHP was 15..............If I had a full compression #6 cylinder the difference would be about 5-7 HP...This example is real world.
The 15 RWHP difference on these stockish L-82's was the magnaflow exhaust and higher lift cam (not the Performer RPM), and low compression on my L-82 #6 cylinder....dyno operators comment BTW...not mine
My 1978 L-82 4 speed 3.70 gears 65,000 miles:
OEM NON ported L-82 intake
2.5 inch duals with Monze Turbo CHAMBERED mufflers (restrictive)
no emissions
Holley 4175 650 CFM Qjet replacement carb
100% stock L-82 internals BUT
Very low compression #6 cylinder
Results on Dynojet 233 RWHP
Friends 78 L-82 4 speed 3.70 gears with higher miles
Edelbrock Performer RPM
OEM Qjet
No emissions
Higher lift aftermarket cam than L-82 OEM cam
Rest of L-82 totally stock
underdrive pulley system
2.5 inch exhaust with Magnaflow straight through mufflers
Same exact dynojet produced 248 RWHP
15 more RWHP with a free flowing exhaust, Performer RPM intake, higher lift cam against my stock L-82 with a weak compression #6! The difference in RWHP was 15..............If I had a full compression #6 cylinder the difference would be about 5-7 HP...This example is real world.
The 15 RWHP difference on these stockish L-82's was the magnaflow exhaust and higher lift cam (not the Performer RPM), and low compression on my L-82 #6 cylinder....dyno operators comment BTW...not mine
Last edited by jb78L-82; Jul 8, 2019 at 07:39 PM.
Le Mans Master
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 5,028
Likes: 1,120
From: North tonawanda NY
Here is a real world example of my position on the edlebrock intake versus the L-82 aluminum NON PORTED on my OEM 65,000 mile L-82 on the same dyno jet dyno.
My 1978 L-82 4 speed 3.70 gears 65,000 miles:
OEM NON ported L-82 intake
2.5 inch duals with Monze Turbo CHAMBERED mufflers (restrictive)
no emissions
Holley 4175 650 CFM Qjet replacement carb
100% stock L-82 internals BUT
Very low compression #6 cylinder
Results on Dynojet 233 RWHP
Friends 78 L-82 4 speed 3.70 gears with higher miles
Edelbrock Performer RPM
OEM Qjet
No emissions
Higher lift aftermarket cam than L-82 OEM cam
Rest of L-82 totally stock
underdrive pulley system
2.5 inch exhaust with Magnaflow straight through mufflers
Same exact dynojet produced 248 RWHP
15 more RWHP with a free flowing exhaust, Performer RPM intake, higher lift cam against my stock L-82 with a weak compression #6! The difference in RWHP was 15..............If I had a full compression #6 cylinder the difference would be about 5-7 HP...This example is real world.
The 15 RWHP difference on these stockish L-82's was the magnaflow exhaust and higher lift cam (not the Performer RPM), and low compression on my L-82 #6 cylinder....dyno operators comment BTW...not mine
My 1978 L-82 4 speed 3.70 gears 65,000 miles:
OEM NON ported L-82 intake
2.5 inch duals with Monze Turbo CHAMBERED mufflers (restrictive)
no emissions
Holley 4175 650 CFM Qjet replacement carb
100% stock L-82 internals BUT
Very low compression #6 cylinder
Results on Dynojet 233 RWHP
Friends 78 L-82 4 speed 3.70 gears with higher miles
Edelbrock Performer RPM
OEM Qjet
No emissions
Higher lift aftermarket cam than L-82 OEM cam
Rest of L-82 totally stock
underdrive pulley system
2.5 inch exhaust with Magnaflow straight through mufflers
Same exact dynojet produced 248 RWHP
15 more RWHP with a free flowing exhaust, Performer RPM intake, higher lift cam against my stock L-82 with a weak compression #6! The difference in RWHP was 15..............If I had a full compression #6 cylinder the difference would be about 5-7 HP...This example is real world.
The 15 RWHP difference on these stockish L-82's was the magnaflow exhaust and higher lift cam (not the Performer RPM), and low compression on my L-82 #6 cylinder....dyno operators comment BTW...not mine
Last edited by augiedoggy; Jul 8, 2019 at 10:23 PM.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,284
Likes: 1,171
From: Hermosa
The straight up Performer with some of the divider milled out is the best option for 68-72 cars....the later cars have a taller hood and can squeeze an RPM style in there.....
About the stock Q-jet intake.....ported or not....it will not flow just because of the way the runners are laid out....
Put the two next to each other and you will see what I mean....then, flip them over......
The more power you attempt to make....the worse the GM manifold gets.....
If you can find an 8004 Weiand somewhere.....that is a damn good intake as well as the best kept secret of them all....the Brodix HV1001 dual plane....the Brodie intake has HUGE runners and is comparable height wise to the 2101.....but it is also like $350!!! Eek!
Jebby
About the stock Q-jet intake.....ported or not....it will not flow just because of the way the runners are laid out....
Put the two next to each other and you will see what I mean....then, flip them over......
The more power you attempt to make....the worse the GM manifold gets.....
If you can find an 8004 Weiand somewhere.....that is a damn good intake as well as the best kept secret of them all....the Brodix HV1001 dual plane....the Brodie intake has HUGE runners and is comparable height wise to the 2101.....but it is also like $350!!! Eek!
Jebby
i didn’t mill down the divider at all but I did leave a gap there via 3/8” of carb gasket
I think much of the time too much emphasis is placed on peak numbers when really what a street driven car needs is drivability, and some performance.
for me, drivability and throttle response is not something I’m going to sacrifice for peak power unless racing is my goal.
Last edited by REELAV8R; Jul 8, 2019 at 10:33 PM.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,455
Likes: 977
From: RI, Now Franklin/Nashville TN
However, one L-82 with duals with restrictive mufflers and OEM L-82 intake (1 weak cylnder to boot) versus another L-82 with the same tranny/gearing, an RPM Performer intake, better flowing magnaflow mufflers, AND a performance Cam producing only 15 more HP should tell you something about the impact of the Performer RPM intake, if swapped, alone, on an engine.
What this comparison does tell you is that a low rise intake change alone will NOT give you big gains, not a chance, on a stockish motor.....
Here is another real world example for you: 73 Nova SS 350 with an intake change only from cast iron GM intake to Edlebrock SP2P (remember that intake?) only, no other change. Power difference? Almost nothing...maybe 5 HP, MAYBE.
Rebuilt the 350 in the late 80's with slightly higher compression, 9:1, with comp cams 260 camshaft with stock smog heads AND the same Edelbrock SP2P. Power gain? Noticeable gain all from the slight compression and camshaft...SP2P not so much...
Look no one is saying that an intake will not help maske power but this drone that you will get big gains from an intake alone change is simply not true....sorry
Last edited by jb78L-82; Jul 9, 2019 at 09:06 AM.
Le Mans Master
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 5,086
Likes: 786
From: Lebanon Township New Jersey
Jebby, What are a guy's options if he wants to retain the q-jet and the stock hood?
There really aren't any that I know of that will fit under the hood other than the low rise dual plane intakes. I would love to have a single plane (like a team G) with a Q-jet but after the adapter then it's too tall and the advantage is lost from using an adapter to a Q-jet. So dump the Q-jet for a Holley and a low profile air cleaner set up. Still want clean air, not under hood air.
.
There really aren't any that I know of that will fit under the hood other than the low rise dual plane intakes. I would love to have a single plane (like a team G) with a Q-jet but after the adapter then it's too tall and the advantage is lost from using an adapter to a Q-jet. So dump the Q-jet for a Holley and a low profile air cleaner set up. Still want clean air, not under hood air.
.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,284
Likes: 1,171
From: Hermosa
I have an Edelbrock RPM airgap manifold with a 1/2 thick adapter and a Qjet with a drop base air cleaner with 3 inch element under my stock 77 hood. I need the adapter because of the Vortec head manifold only comes in square bore. It is very close to the hood and I use a nut on the air cleaner stud, not a wing nut. I also have the back of the hood shimmed up about 1/4 inch. But it all works together very well.
I don't want to be pulling underhood air. So the manifold height becomes an issue in that regard. At least if I want to retain the stock hood and/or stock air cleaner configuration on my '77. Currently My air cleaner is right against the hood with stock arrangement with the 2101 and carb gaskets.
Le Mans Master
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 5,086
Likes: 786
From: Lebanon Township New Jersey
I am familiar with your set up BK and that you do 1/4 mile stuff too. Glad it works for you in that use. In a 1/4 mile I suppose the air doesn't heat up too much, but with successive runs I would think it would. In street driving scenarios it will heat up a lot, especially when using the A/C, and that leads to rich mixture, poor running and idling.
I don't want to be pulling underhood air. So the manifold height becomes an issue in that regard. At least if I want to retain the stock hood and/or stock air cleaner configuration on my '77. Currently My air cleaner is right against the hood with stock arrangement with the 2101 and carb gaskets.
I don't want to be pulling underhood air. So the manifold height becomes an issue in that regard. At least if I want to retain the stock hood and/or stock air cleaner configuration on my '77. Currently My air cleaner is right against the hood with stock arrangement with the 2101 and carb gaskets.
C3s had open element air cleaners from the factory for years, even with AC. Maybe their HP was compromised, but there were no poor running and idling issues.
My car is a street car first and it operates properly in all situations. Actually when I am racing and I manage to win a few rounds, runs become almost back-to-back. So I am racing it with high underhood temps, and it runs consistent ETs.
Early on when I had my car to the track, I tried back-to-back runs with the open element air cleaner and with the stock, single snorkel air cleaner with factory ducting in place. (This was with a Performer manifold and no adapter so it cleared the hood.) Believe it or not, the car ran 4 tenths slower with the factory air cleaner. I'm sure this was due to restriction of the single snorkel more than cancelling the benefit of cooler air. If your air cleaner is the single snorkel type, you might think about that.
Team Owner
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 81,241
Likes: 3,063
From: altered state
St. Jude Donor '05
Or run a large dia hose so a source oif cool air. Longer it is the bigger it needs to be.
Avg power is what counts, the aftermarket is usually better. Some just cant see past their tight wallet and a dyno sheet
It all adds up
fDynoed a mild 10:1 350, Isky 280, 3310 headers, 2.02 462 non ported, dyno # were even lower...but would have taken an L82s lunch. Cant base your mods off the web or numbers posted somewhere.
Avg power is what counts, the aftermarket is usually better. Some just cant see past their tight wallet and a dyno sheet
It all adds up
fDynoed a mild 10:1 350, Isky 280, 3310 headers, 2.02 462 non ported, dyno # were even lower...but would have taken an L82s lunch. Cant base your mods off the web or numbers posted somewhere.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,284
Likes: 1,171
From: Hermosa
Not to belabor this issue, and I don't doubt that your car performs well, but here are a few things to think about:
C3s had open element air cleaners from the factory for years, even with AC. Maybe their HP was compromised, but there were no poor running and idling issues.
My car is a street car first and it operates properly in all situations. Actually when I am racing and I manage to win a few rounds, runs become almost back-to-back. So I am racing it with high underhood temps, and it runs consistent ETs.
Early on when I had my car to the track, I tried back-to-back runs with the open element air cleaner and with the stock, single snorkel air cleaner with factory ducting in place. (This was with a Performer manifold and no adapter so it cleared the hood.) Believe it or not, the car ran 4 tenths slower with the factory air cleaner. I'm sure this was due to restriction of the single snorkel more than cancelling the benefit of cooler air. If your air cleaner is the single snorkel type, you might think about that.
C3s had open element air cleaners from the factory for years, even with AC. Maybe their HP was compromised, but there were no poor running and idling issues.
My car is a street car first and it operates properly in all situations. Actually when I am racing and I manage to win a few rounds, runs become almost back-to-back. So I am racing it with high underhood temps, and it runs consistent ETs.
Early on when I had my car to the track, I tried back-to-back runs with the open element air cleaner and with the stock, single snorkel air cleaner with factory ducting in place. (This was with a Performer manifold and no adapter so it cleared the hood.) Believe it or not, the car ran 4 tenths slower with the factory air cleaner. I'm sure this was due to restriction of the single snorkel more than cancelling the benefit of cooler air. If your air cleaner is the single snorkel type, you might think about that.
I know you understand the science behind cold air vs hot air and it's impact on performance. All 1/4 mile racers do.
If you were able to rig something up that fed it cold air as well as sufficient air, then the consistency of it's running characteristics would improve and it would see a bump in performance as well.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,284
Likes: 1,171
From: Hermosa
Or run a large dia hose so a source oif cool air. Longer it is the bigger it needs to be.
Avg power is what counts, the aftermarket is usually better. Some just cant see past their tight wallet and a dyno sheet
It all adds up
fDynoed a mild 10:1 350, Isky 280, 3310 headers, 2.02 462 non ported, dyno # were even lower...but would have taken an L82s lunch. Cant base your mods off the web or numbers posted somewhere.
Avg power is what counts, the aftermarket is usually better. Some just cant see past their tight wallet and a dyno sheet
It all adds up
fDynoed a mild 10:1 350, Isky 280, 3310 headers, 2.02 462 non ported, dyno # were even lower...but would have taken an L82s lunch. Cant base your mods off the web or numbers posted somewhere.
I just have a couple of hoses running out of the stock air cleaner back through the firewall where it can collect the cold air in the wiper tray area. Almost nobody who has seen under my hood, and even some who own C3's, even notices that it is a mod. So it's not unsightly and it provides just enough air that the total vacuum inside the airbox does not exceed 1.5" of water column at 6200 RPM.
Any bigger engine, or better flowing heads, or higher RPMS and I would probably need more air. Currently though I can still retain the stock setup with my modifications.
Last edited by REELAV8R; Jul 10, 2019 at 04:43 PM.