Wrong Edelbrock intake port sizes?

[win1897]

Further to my valley pan post , I thought this should go on a new thread , this is my new 2665 performer 4v intake , I was surprised to see such a large difference in the port size to the std intake, looks more like a 2v item , this cant be correct , it was packaged as a 2665 and even has 4v cast in on top , any ideas,

 

[72fastback]

that is correct the edelbrock has smaller ports for more low end torque.

 

[Widowmaker00]

Yup they are correct.

 

[droptop73]

They are correct. The size has been reduced for flow velocity. The 4v ports are MUCH too big to be effective with the engine displacement and RPM range this engine will be used at. On the 351c race engine in the SS GT/D car I crew on the ports are FILLED by approximately 25 - 30%. This engine produces way more power than any streetable stock displacement cleveland will and runs at between 7000 and 8500 rpm. I know many will argue this but it is proven on the racetrack. The ports shown are not too far off from the size used with the race engine.

 

[win1897]

Thanks to you all.

 

[not2old]

I have the same intake but with full size ports

Alan L

 

[droptop73]

Is it the performer or the F4B? Edelbrock built an dual plane intake prior to the performer that was very similar.

 

[goodnigh]

They are correct. The size has been reduced for flow velocity. The 4v ports are MUCH too big to be effective with the engine displacement and RPM range this engine will be used at. On the 351c race engine in the SS GT/D car I crew on the ports are FILLED by approximately 25 - 30%. This engine produces way more power than any streetable stock displacement cleveland will and runs at between 7000 and 8500 rpm. I know many will argue this but it is proven on the racetrack. The ports shown are not too far off from the size used with the race engine.

When I bought my early '71 M-code Grande the car had an Edelbrock just like the one in the picture. I had the original Ford iron intake put back on.

Don't want to argue rather respectfully disagree. I think the car runs a lot better. The engine will pull the car along at a smooth idle down to 500 RPM so it seems to have plenty of low end torque. I understand the concept of smaller ports but my personal experience tells me otherwise. With the giant intake valves why use small ports? A friend has a 440 (not hemi) in his classic car and he knows my Mustang can take him Sold the Performer LB on eBay for $80, then the guy wanted me to ship it to Italy.

mike

 

[droptop73]

Not to argue but 9.42 @ 145 mph says it all.