• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Performer RPM

No not an idiotic example or reply at all. Sorry if you don't get it, but it is all physics. You don't get gigantic runners on lawn mower engines, & at the other end of the scale, you do not get tiny runners feeding mountain motors. Runners are sized according to the engine they will be supplying with air.
It is idiotic. Bringing in an 800 ci engine.
Do be sorry that you think I don’t get it be sorry that you don’t. Get back to reality. Sorry to read your still replying to me. Rent free space in your head is not my intention but it is what’s happening. So sorry about that. You should go and drink heavily so you can forget about this.

Unless you want to show me your personal 800 ci engine and discuss how you can not feed it properly.
 
I don't need to forget about anything. Everything about the IC engine is proportional. A BB Chev might have 2.25" int valves, but the valves in a 2L engine will be smaller. You might use 1.5" headers on a 231 V6 Buick, but you would use larger headers on a 440. It is the same with the intake manifold. There will be a choke point reached where the power starts to drop off after the peak power rpm. That is going to be related to the size of the engine drawing air through the runners. It baffles me why this is so hard to understand.
 
The thing that you find baffling should be used for yourself.
Reading comprehension is very important. You seem to be missing it. This is not worth continuing.
 
I am not the one missing anything. And I do not why you have turned this into a personal attack.
 
It is the same with the intake manifold. There will be a choke point reached where the power starts to drop off after the peak power rpm. That is going to be related to the size of the engine drawing air through the runners. It baffles me why this is so hard to understand.
So if i understand this is that by slapping a "bigger" intake on the engine it will get more hp, at higher rpms.
Just like that...
Yes it does for sure if you start off with a completely wrong manifold to begin with, but for someone who did the basic homework in a build is going to select a good intake at the start.
So you think the "choke point" is in the intake runner or at the valve throat? What is the size difference between the Performer and Performer RPM ports and average in the runners?
Having tested an engine with these intakes, back to back, will prove your point, do you have such dyno test results?
If the intake ports are the restricting factor, why the intakes now days (with pc design, calculations, flow bench testing) are still similar in size? If they restrict a 440 engine at 6000rpm why are there no 3x2" intake runners?
The max. flow of the intake manifold itself will be well above the engines requirement.
The cylinder heads are providing the restriction, specifically the cylinder bore determines the valve sizing. Going Hemi gives you the advantage of using larger valves as they are placed angled.

The camshaft in question is most important, you can simply state the RPM manifold is good for 6500 rpm, but if your cam is done by 5500....what would be the point?
These components need to be a match in their operating range and efficiency, all these choices are the ones to be made before you build an engine...what is going to be its purpose? Race, street??
 
Wietse,

Maybe I should have added more comment: the RPM ranges quoted by Edel [ & others ] for their intakes are for optimising the HP/TQ in those quoted rpm ranges. Take the Perf intake. It does not mean that the power drops to zero at 5501 rpm. Similarly, the RPM is listed as 1500-6500; it doesn't mean that it produces nothing from idle to 1499 rpm. What it means is exactly what it says. You select the intake with the power range that will be optimised with the rest of the chosen parts to work in that rpm range. You don't use a 200 @ 050 cam with a Super Victor intake, correct? The assumption is that the accompanying parts are chosen to compliment each other in the engine being built.
Expect the HP to level off or drop once the upper rpm level of the intake is reached. Sure, you could install a big cam that might extend the peak HP rpm level, but it would kill the low end. Why would you do that if you have selected an intake that gives best power at a lower rpm level. If more peak hp at a higher rpm was wanted, then a different intake should be used with a higher rpm range.
The example I gave of the 440 v 800 cu in engine. If the Perf was used with an appropriate cam & other parts in a 440 to make peak HP at/around the 5500 peak, what rpm do you think the peak HP would be in an 800 ci engine that used the same cam & other parts? I don't think it is going to be 5500rpm, it will be considerably less. And this was the point I was trying to make about the engine sizes & the relationship with the peak HP rpm of the intakes.
 
The example I gave of the 440 v 800 cu in engine.
Yes but comparing a 400 and a 440 with the same intake is comparing sour apples with sweet apples, your comparison is between the famous apples and pears.

The basic thing is that any of these intakes are not restricting flow on either a 400 or 440 ci engine, the differences are simply between plenum lengths and volumes.

Not mentioned, but most important of all......
The Performer RPM power range is 1500-6500 rpm.
The Performer powr range is idle to 5500 rpm.
Using a RPM on a stock engine or engine that is dead by 5500 will show a performance loss, not a gain

This is what you said, and stating this without a dyno sheet or so means nothing to most.
Since the variation of engine setup (cam, displacment, etc.) is endless you can be right on some occasions and wrong on others.
 
I am not the one missing anything. And I do not why you have turned this into a personal attack.
You are missing something 440 vs 800 cubic inches is ridiculous and it’s not a person attack.
But if you take it that way I guess there’s nothing I can do about it beyond what I wrote here.

It just seems you want to shove your view up my *** insisting your right without care or concern to how I’m wording what I’m saying but would rather. Twist and bend it to your view.

In other words, your always right and I’m always wrong.

Like I said, this is not really worth continuing & since you have displayed snowflake feelings, or just simply wish to further my twist things to your favor.
 
Exactly 1000 RPM apparently.
:lol:

As optional, there was another dual plane manifold with good performance and was at or near stock height (if clearance is an issue), it was a Weiand but i don't remember the type/model.
Others here will know what i mean.
An original is a rarity already i believe so price wise could be an expensive option.
 
:lol:

As optional, there was another dual plane manifold with good performance and was at or near stock height (if clearance is an issue), it was a Weiand but i don't remember the type/model.
Others here will know what i mean.
An original is a rarity already i believe so price wise could be an expensive option.
Weiand Action + 8008 I believe.
 
Weiand Action +
Yup, thats him!
IIRC it was a very good performing intake while being near stock height, probably a Performer would do better but sometimes difficult choices must be made. :)
 
Yup, thats him!
IIRC it was a very good performing intake while being near stock height, probably a Performer would do better but sometimes difficult choices must be made. :)
Yeah, I just sold one. A Holley Street Dominator kicked its a$$ on my 493. On a stock build I would think it would work fine.
 
Yeah, I just sold one. A Holley Street Dominator kicked its a$$ on my 493. On a stock build I would think it would work fine.
I used the low deck version on a dead stock (minus headers) 400 w/a TQ.
I really didn’t like the low end response.
 
Wietse,
Post #27.
400 v 440. Is 400 a misprint, should be 800?
Do you have any Edel catalogs? If so have look some time. The rpm ranges I quoted are from Edel catalogs, they are not my numbers; & they have dyno tests. My 97 catalog has a dyno test of both the Perf & RPM. The RPM made 451 hp, peaked at 5500 rpm on a 440 with the Edel 'package', their cam, headers & carb. Note the rpm range is listed as 1500-6500, but on this engine combo peak power was at 5500.
It says this on p. 15: '...Performer RPMs have larger plenums & runners....They are intended for high perf or competition engines that run up to 6500 rpm.
Note also that Edel sells cams they claim are matched to the rpm ranges of their intakes. The cam for the Perf has less duration than the cam for the RPM or Torker.
In post #9 I talked about a performance loss. Performance [ to me anyway ] is not just about peak hp & at what rpm, it is the overall, the average tq.
Of course there will be some overlap between the performance of a Perf & a RPM intake, but the other parts used will determine which intake would give best overall performance.
The rpm ranges quoted by intake manufacturers assumes the correct matching parts are used to maximise that intake. Nor does a Perf drop dead at 5500 rpm, but it's performance is going to be compromised above 5500 because it's runner sizing etc is designed to maximise power up & below 5500. If power above 5500 is reqd, then the Perf is probably not the best choice.
If you have Vizard's How to Build HP Vol2, go to page 113. There is a pic of the original Perf & the later Perf intake: ' The original Perf had squared off runners...flow had to be achieved by larger, rather than more efficient design. The later used more efficient runner shapes...'
The point being that smaller runners are more efficient in the targeted rpm range. But common sense tells you the smaller runners are going to restrict flow as [a] rpm increases & [ b ] cu in increases. Hence my comment about the rpm ranges toggling slightly around the engine size the intake will be used on.
 
400 v 440. Is 400 a misprint, should be 800?
No misprint, i am just trying to say a 400 and 440 size engine can be close comparision, where your 440-800 ci is miles out.

However, i was just asking if you have a personal bench test between a Performer and a Performer RPM manifold, tested on the same engine without any other modifications where you can prove your point that the engine performed better with the Performer and lost HP with the RPM version?
Spec sheets and catalogues always show insane numbers and massive improvements, though that tune is called advertising skills which always need to be taken with a serious grain of salt.
 
Auto Transport Service
Back
Top