port dimensions

7173Mustangs.com

Help Support 7173Mustangs.com:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
6,146
Reaction score
1,109
Location
Mustang, OK.
My Car
1972 Mach 1 Q code
2007 GT
1969 Cougar Eliminator B302
CSX 7000 Shelby Cobra FIA
2020 Edge ST
2002 F250 V10
Does anyone have the port opening dimensions for the Edelbrock RPM AIR GAP intake manifold (PN7564)? I'm trying to compare it to Edelbrock E-Boss intake (PN 7129) and some dyno derived CFM used numbers on my Boss 347 engine. Edelbrock doesn't show dimensions for 7564 on their web site for some reason. Thanks, Chuck

 
Does anyone have the port opening dimensions for the Edelbrock RPM AIR GAP intake manifold (PN7564)? I'm trying to compare it to Edelbrock E-Boss intake (PN 7129) and some dyno derived CFM used numbers on my Boss 347 engine. Edelbrock doesn't show dimensions for 7564 on their web site for some reason. Thanks, Chuck
http://351cleveland.wikifoundry.com/page/Edelbrock+7564

 
Does anyone have the port opening dimensions for the Edelbrock RPM AIR GAP intake manifold (PN7564)? I'm trying to compare it to Edelbrock E-Boss intake (PN 7129) and some dyno derived CFM used numbers on my Boss 347 engine. Edelbrock doesn't show dimensions for 7564 on their web site for some reason. Thanks, Chuck
http://351cleveland.wikifoundry.com/page/Edelbrock+7564
Thanks Tommy! The port dimensions on both intakes are the same and the  cross section areas are likely the same. I'm trying to figure out why the CFM used and volumetric efficiency numbers were lower thanI expected. The engine makes really good power, just looking for that last little bit. Chuck

 
Does anyone have the port opening dimensions for the Edelbrock RPM AIR GAP intake manifold (PN7564)? I'm trying to compare it to Edelbrock E-Boss intake (PN 7129) and some dyno derived CFM used numbers on my Boss 347 engine. Edelbrock doesn't show dimensions for 7564 on their web site for some reason. Thanks, Chuck
http://351cleveland.wikifoundry.com/page/Edelbrock+7564
Thanks Tommy! The port dimensions on both intakes are the same and the  cross section areas are likely the same. I'm trying to figure out why the CFM used and volumetric efficiency numbers were lower thanI expected. The engine makes really good power, just looking for that last little bit. Chuck
What were the expectations based on? Sometimes the dual plane intakes can be squirrelly with aggressive cam profiles. I don't know how directly comparable port cross section may be from one intake to another or one engine platform to another. Distribution is what needs to be tuned for. I know I am not telling you anything you don't already know.

 
Thanks Tommy! The port dimensions on both intakes are the same and the  cross section areas are likely the same. I'm trying to figure out why the CFM used and volumetric efficiency numbers were lower thanI expected. The engine makes really good power, just looking for that last little bit. Chuck
What were the expectations based on? Sometimes the dual plane intakes can be squirrelly with aggressive cam profiles. I don't know how directly comparable port cross section may be from one intake to another or one engine platform to another. Distribution is what needs to be tuned for. I know I am not telling you anything you don't already know.
I was expecting to see VE numbers around 96-100 and cfm usage at 700-720. Saw VE=94% and cfm at 660. The engine made 1.5 HP per cubic inch and very good torque so I guess I shouldn't care. I wish I had the extra cash to try some ideas and buy more dyno time but, like most, I have other higher priorities. Thanks for your help. Chuck

 
Back
Top