Offenhauser vs Weiand vs Edelbrock

[Geoff 2]

[1] I find it hard to believe that the CH4B will perform better than the Perf intake. Why would Edel bring out a new intake that works in the same basic rpm range as the one it is replacing, but make less power!?!? What would be the sense, or reasoning in that?
[2] The Perf intake had runners with smaller CSA [ than the CH4B ] & a trapezoid shape through the runner bends. This was done for more airflow efficiency because 40 yrs of knowledge gained showed that bigger is not always best. The Japs & Europeans learned that a loooooong time ago.
[3] I am not sure that the Perf intake needs an adapter for non-spread bore carbs. It has both sets of mounting holes & both types of carbs were used on Ch engines.

 

[The Crusher]

[1] I find it hard to believe that the CH4B will perform better than the Perf intake. Why would Edel bring out a new intake that works in the same basic rpm range as the one it is replacing, but make less power!?!? What would be the sense, or reasoning in that?
[2] The Perf intake had runners with smaller CSA [ than the CH4B ] & a trapezoid shape through the runner bends. This was done for more airflow efficiency because 40 yrs of knowledge gained showed that bigger is not always best. The Japs & Europeans learned that a loooooong time ago.
[3] I am not sure that the Perf intake needs an adapter for non-spread bore carbs. It has both sets of mounting holes & both types of carbs were used on Ch engines.

(1) The Performer is different than the CH4B in that it has provisions for EGR and divorced choke. Eddy may have discontinued the CH4B because they performs marginally the same, as tested by MOPAR MUSCLE, but the Performer is more versatile., who knows. I'd like to think that they also improved over time, too.
(2) Thank you, that's what I was trying to say earlier, bigger is now always better for what you may be wanting to do (volume vs velocity).
(3) You don't NEED an adapter, but like BSB67 said, Edelbrock recommends one (I posted the wrong one earlier. That one was for spread bore - square. I forgot he did say he was going to be running the 800 CFM AVS2). For square bore to performer manifold, Edelbrock recommends the #2732, like GTXRT said.
Carb Adapter #2732 for Edelbrock Manifolds Only, Square Bore-Spread Bore .100in

 

[gtxrt]

they come with the 2732 adapter.

 

[gtxrt]

this is the older one i was thinking of with out EGR pad

 

[Cheapsunglasses]

I deleted it, but upon re reading the original post, I have to agree about the old ch4b being decent for what you're looking for.
BSB67 deserves some respect on his info sharing.

Post 54, and 56, has no information sharing, finally he shares some information on post 76. But other comments that are ridiculous ruin anything he said.

 

[gtxrt]

we are here to learn on the forums, i know i have.I respest BSB67 he helped me on some of my posts plus other posts. as long as we agree that an adapter is needed or at least is best to use one, plus all the difference between intakes, lets move on to more learning.

 

[gtxrt]

I deleted it, but upon re reading the original post, I have to agree about the old ch4b being decent for what you're looking for.
BSB67 deserves some respect on his info sharing.

plus i think cheapsunglasses should also be shown some respect too along with BSB 67

 

[64 Plan B]

Hello everyone,

I have a 1968 GTX, with a 69 Chrysler Newport 350hp 440. The bottom is completely stock, including the cam. The top end has 440 source heads, for all the benefits that an aluminum head offers, and possibly future upgrades. And Stock 440 hp manifolds. I’m contemplating an intake change.

I currently have an offenhauser 360, strange single plane with a divider thing. The car seems to run good, but is this a good intake, for such a tame engine, or dare I say stock engine?

Would I be better off with a dual plane, like the Edelbrock ch4b. Or the Weiand 8008, which I believe is the old action plus? If so is one better then the other?

I built my car in the spirit of late 60s- 70s day 2, or street machine whatever you want to call it. I want to keep that look, these intakes were the direct connection suggestions which is why I wanted to use one, if it’s a better choice. It’s just a fun cruiser, not a race car yet. Any experience and advice is appreciated!

Hey
Last year I decided to swap out a dual 4 set up with the Offy 360’on my 440
I read up on the Eddy Torker and , it seemed to be the best choice for a streetable set up…. I found a demon 750 and put it on with the new Torker
So far the new set up seems slightly better on acceleration, but not a drastic improvement
Keep us updated !
Cheers

 

[Cheapsunglasses]

Hey
Last year I decided to swap out a dual 4 set up with the Offy 360’on my 440
I read up on the Eddy Torker and , it seemed to be the best choice for a streetable set up…. I found a demon 750 and put it on with the new Torker
So far the new set up seems slightly better on acceleration, but not a drastic improvement
Keep us updated !
Cheers

Is your engine stock?

 

[64 Plan B]

Is your engine stock?

Nearly ….
I had it rebuilt - true planed block and heads , ported 906 iron heads and slightly more squeeze (10:1) mild cam and headers ….

 

[Cheapsunglasses]

Nearly ….
I had it rebuilt - true planed block and heads , ported 906 iron heads and slightly more squeeze (10:1) mild cam and headers ….

That’s the variable I’ve gathered. I think what I’ve been told and gather from people, single planes need cam and headers, they need more airflow to work

I know someone will be quick to correct me here, , but I was told the torker intake was designed for towing, rvs, and station wagons. The theory is they help torque (hmm, wonder why it’s called a torker lol,) but it also helps hp to 5,200 to 5,500. I don’t know if that true, but that’s what I heard.

 

[Cheapsunglasses]

I saw on another thread, and also after reading some things, I started to wonder. Would I see any benefit with a carb spacer?

I’m not really worried about vapor lock, I run one of these and it seems to work well. Just got to wondering if a spacer would do anything on a stock engine.

Carburetor Heat Insulator #9265 Square Bore

 

[The Crusher]

I saw on another thread, and also after reading some things, I started to wonder. Would I see any benefit with a carb spacer?

I’m not really worried about vapor lock, I run one of these and it seems to work well. Just got to wondering if a spacer would do anything on a stock engine.

Carburetor Heat Insulator #9265 Square Bore

It depends. Your engine combination will decide. They are more of a tuning aid than HP/TQ gainers, although you may get a few with the right choice. If you plan on a dual plane manifold, I wouldn't run the open spacer.

 

[Cheapsunglasses]

It depends. Your engine combination will decide. They are more of a tuning aid than HP/TQ gainers, although you may get a few with the right choice. If you plan on a dual plane manifold, I wouldn't run the open spacer.

That is a very helpful video, he’s one of the engine builders I like watching.

 

[69ChargerR/TSE]

Oh, also, stock is about 4.2" tall. The Performer and the CH4B are the same @ 4.8" height, measured at the tallest point. So, you will gain a bit of height with the swap. The Holley SD (5.25") and the Eddy RPM (5.28") are even taller.

Just looked at this.
The CH4B is taller 0.6” than the OE 69 intake?
If so, that’s why my air cleaner touches my hood.
I’ll need to see if I can lower it somehow.