port dimensions

[c9zx]

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

 

[TommyK]

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

 

[c9zx]

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

 

[TommyK]

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.

 

[c9zx]

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.

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