BSB67
Well-Known Member
If you do a side by side comparison, I think you'll find that the runner shape, size and cross sectional area to be the same as the "301" factory cast iron.
Choosing an intake for a 383.
- Thread starter Kern Dog
- Start date
If you do a side by side comparison, I think you'll find that the runner shape, size and cross sectional area to be the same as the "301" factory cast iron.
Bad B-rad
Well-Known Member
You may be 100% correct.
I was basing my statement on an old 2002ish Mopar performance catalog description.
I was a HUGE Mopar Performance DORK, and used to believe everything the printed in there performance books, LOL
The catalog description, claims: "similar to production, but with larger cross sectional area runners for increased power".
But the intake does look almost IDENTICAL to stock, and I honestly never compared it to the original cast iron one.
The first time I bought one, I was replacing the cast iron 2bbl intake, and carb, and that may have been were part of my love for it came, as it was much better then the stock 2bbl!!!!
And I ran 14.2 @98MPH with that 383 with this intake, but looks like most reviews on this intake are not so favorable.
Last edited:
Bad B-rad
Well-Known Member
I dug up the instruction sheet, that came with the intake, its just a black and white photo copy of the torque specs.
And they claim this:" These Manifolds are duel plane designs, they flow more air then the cast iron production intake manifold and therefore make more power.
LOL!!
I love the statement "therefore, make for power"
I like it because of its stock looks, stock parts placement, and aluminum construction.
I know its not the best intake for max power, but for me, trying to keep a stock look, and preform better then stock, it was the way to go.
It looks as if it is no longer available, anyway.
And they claim this:" These Manifolds are duel plane designs, they flow more air then the cast iron production intake manifold and therefore make more power.
LOL!!
I love the statement "therefore, make for power"
I like it because of its stock looks, stock parts placement, and aluminum construction.
I know its not the best intake for max power, but for me, trying to keep a stock look, and preform better then stock, it was the way to go.
It looks as if it is no longer available, anyway.
Last edited:
- Local time
- 2:25 PM
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2012
- Messages
- 40,294
- Reaction score
- 144,532
- Location
- Granite Bay CA
This 383 may not be the last engine that the car will get. I may eventually put a 440 in it, a late model Hemi, maybe stroke this 383 later, who knows. For now, I'm looking for a reliable build that should be stronger than a stock 383 Magnum. Compression should be about the same despite the lies that are published about the factory compression ratios. Bigger cam, better intake and carburetor, headers instead of manifolds, etc.
Nate S
Well-Known Member
Love that engine setup. I'd go just a bit more than stock, Edelbrock DP4B. Regular "performer" is too close to stock, "RPM" and other high dual planes are great but give up lots of low end and. The DP4B still looks stock but performs quite well. Also you can still fit the air cleaner under the hood.
Read this:
https://www.forbbodiesonly.com/mopa...ntake-manifolds-vs-edelbrock-performer.77891/
Read this:
https://www.forbbodiesonly.com/mopa...ntake-manifolds-vs-edelbrock-performer.77891/
BSB67
Well-Known Member
The DP4B and Performer are nearly identical. The Performer is the DP4B flipped end to end, with a spreadbore flange added. The crossectional area of the runners is the same, and both are much larger than stock 301 and the M1 dual plane.
The referenced/linked discussion is poor manifold test. They all made the same power within the repetability of the testing. Why?, because the intake manifold was not hp limiting in this testing. The very slight differences are going to be due to repeatability of 60ft times (i.e. suspension related) and shift points and theweather conditions.
To learrn anything from data that close would require strict repeatibility and control of water temp, oil temp, and engine temp and adjustment for wind, and then the per run atmospheric conditions corrected to standard conditions.
Last edited:
BSB67
Well-Known Member
The old DC and MP books/bulletins have a lot of good information. But when it comes to parts, you need to use caution as selling parts is business. And generally speaking their parts were good.
I have measured the outside of the M1 verses the factory unit with calipers, and some limited inside measurements, and could not find a meaningfull difference anywhere. If there is a difference it is really small. I keep thinking I'll do a actual manifold fill volume measurement for these. Maybe one day.
Nate S
Well-Known Member
A couple points: The setup proposed will not put the intake as the limiting element either. The referenced poster clearly was very consistent in approach and driving. 60 ft times only apply to ET which isn't a good measure anyway. Look at the MPH as a better indicator. These tests largely match the data in the HotRod article.
furious70
Well-Known Member
Given certain conditions, equal traction or lack of, an open can send power to both wheels. We had a charger with small tires that would do it too. Spinning backwards when jacked up means open rear. But if it behaves like you want, who cares?
furious70
Well-Known Member
The moparts thread also has a guy who did his own b2b test showing how far down on tq the SD was
Bee1971
Well-Known Member
I agree about the SD on a Street Car Auto Trans
Below 3,000 RPM Off Idle was a complete old dog - Around town terrible
Getting into the throttle on the Highway was a different story though
And I run a 3:91 Sure Grip
Below 3,000 RPM Off Idle was a complete old dog - Around town terrible
Getting into the throttle on the Highway was a different story though
And I run a 3:91 Sure Grip
BSB67
Well-Known Member
It will if comparing stock intakes verses the larger volume aluminum dual planes
Define consistant. I'll promise you that you can have that level of variability on the same day without changing anything, and that's if you are good, and a lot worse if not.
Agree 100%. And there is only one mph between all of them, excluding the old factory low performance intake. I just notice that someone else also pointed out variation in DA. Change in DA during one outing, changing nothing else, can be 1 mph. I've seen 2 mph from weekend to weekend with what seemed like the same weather conditions.
Well, sort of, but for different reasons. The Hot Rod article did not test the M1 or factory manifold, which would have shown a more meaningful difference. But this would be expected, as the HR motor made 450+ hp, the post of comparisons has a 325 hp motor.
I'll agree that between the 3 similar dual planes (Weiand, DP4B, and Performer) when tested on a motor more sensitive to intake capabilities, they still perform about the same.
black64
Well-Known Member
The mods you are talking about should make a noticeable difference it did to my 383 in my cuda.
rumblefish360
Well-Known Member
Since this seems to be a on the cheap build rather than throwing money at a new project like the US government throws money at there problems.....
Id use the Performer intake with what ever carb you feel is good to go with. But not the 650. The Holley 750 or the small primary TQ is a good cfm choice.
Do your own port matching on the intake as deep as the bit to s in and call it good. The intake is very capable and the light port work helps it everywhere.
The Comp Cam duration @.050 spec wise is an excellent street performer. I’d look into a cam with more lift to take advantage of the ported heads. That’s it. That’s what I would do and suggest.
Otherwise, the RPM would be best to use but not by much looking at the cam specs involved. I would not purchase it new to use over the Performer with this build.
Similar threads
