• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Intake Manifold Question
#1
I'm getting ready to put 4V quench heads back on my 71 M Code, I'm just getting all the part together. The prior owner for what ever reason put 2V heads on but I have the stock Intake manifold D0AE-9425-L and stock 4v Exhaust manifolds. It currently has an Edlebrock performer 2675 intake on it with the 2v heads which works with my ram-air system.

My question, (besides the weight advantage), is there enough performance advantage to justify spending $300.00 for a 4V Edelbrock performer intake (2665)over the stock DOAE-9425-L intake?

I know there are other options for intakes but the Edelbrock is one of the few that will be low enough to use with my ram-air system.

Jim

Jim

M code 71 Mach 1, 351 4V Cleveland, Ram Air (not factory), C6 Trans, 3.5 rear
  Reply
#2
Even the 4V performer is a bit of a slug on 4V heads. I can only imagine the 2V will be worse.

Will the car run and drive? Sure but I would venture to guess it would not perform as well as the 4V cast iron manifold you have.

73 conv. 460, D0VE large valve heads, Performer RPM manifold, Voodoo 227/233 cam, Holley 950 HP carb, C6 trans, 3.25 trak-loc.
  Reply
#3
TommyK;161078 Wrote:Even the 4V performer is a bit of a slug on 4V heads. I can only imagine the 2V will be worse.

Will the car run and drive? Sure but I would venture to guess it would not perform as well as the 4V cast iron manifold you have.

So you feel the original cast iron 4V intake will perform better than a 4V Edlebrock performer intake with the 4V heads?

Jim

M code 71 Mach 1, 351 4V Cleveland, Ram Air (not factory), C6 Trans, 3.5 rear
  Reply
#4
We replaced the Edelbrock Performer LB that came with my 4V Cleveland with the
original iron manifold. One thing I noticed was the ports on the Edelbrock were smaller
than the iron one. All things aside, Bill Gay's group got it right with the Cleveland.
I can't imagine changing anything on the engine especially when related to air flow
can make it a better Cleveland.

mike

[Image: 1_11_11_13_11_50_27.png]
  Reply
#5
Jim and Jutta;161080 Wrote:
TommyK;161078 Wrote:Even the 4V performer is a bit of a slug on 4V heads. I can only imagine the 2V will be worse.

Will the car run and drive? Sure but I would venture to guess it would not perform as well as the 4V cast iron manifold you have.

So you feel the original cast iron 4V intake will perform better than a 4V Edlebrock performer intake with the 4V heads?

I think it will perform better than an Edelbrock 2V manifold on 4V heads. I thought that was the original question.

Below 3000 rpm the cast iron will slightly outperform the Eddy 4V manifold. Above that the Eddy 4V will be better.

73 conv. 460, D0VE large valve heads, Performer RPM manifold, Voodoo 227/233 cam, Holley 950 HP carb, C6 trans, 3.25 trak-loc.
  Reply
#6
Absolutely no difference in performance between the Edelbrock and stock 4V manifold. Weight savings yes, but performance no. I wish I would have saved my stock intake instead of going to the edelbrock. Save your money.

Rick Bombard
1971 Grabber Green Mach 1 351C 4V
2013 Race Red California Special Convertible
1973 Medium Copper Metallic Convertible 302 4V     SOLD
1953 F-100 project

  Reply
#7
goodnigh;161082 Wrote:We replaced the Edelbrock Performer LB that came with my 4V Cleveland with the
original iron manifold. One thing I noticed was the ports on the Edelbrock were smaller
than the iron one. All things aside, Bill Gay's group got it right with the Cleveland.
I can't imagine changing anything on the engine especially when related to air flow
can make it a better Cleveland.

mike

Thanks Mike!

TommyK;161087 Wrote:
Jim and Jutta;161080 Wrote:
TommyK;161078 Wrote:Even the 4V performer is a bit of a slug on 4V heads. I can only imagine the 2V will be worse.

Will the car run and drive? Sure but I would venture to guess it would not perform as well as the 4V cast iron manifold you have.

So you feel the original cast iron 4V intake will perform better than a 4V Edlebrock performer intake with the 4V heads?

I think it will perform better than an Edelbrock 2V manifold on 4V heads. I thought that was the original question.

Below 3000 rpm the cast iron will slightly outperform the Eddy 4V manifold. Above that the Eddy 4V will be better.

I guess I confused you talking about the 2V Edelbrock now on it, but was trying to compare the two 4V's. Thanks for the response, most of my driving will be below 3000 so it sounds like I can save the money and put the cast iron one on it.

71mach351;161089 Wrote:Absolutely no difference in performance between the Edelbrock and stock 4V manifold. Weight savings yes, but performance no. I wish I would have saved my stock intake instead of going to the edelbrock. Save your money.

Glad I checked before buying the Edlebrock, thanks! Another example of why this site is so great.

Jim

Jim

M code 71 Mach 1, 351 4V Cleveland, Ram Air (not factory), C6 Trans, 3.5 rear
  Reply
#8
You can try out the edelbrock 4v that's on mine if you'd like. I'm not going to use it again.

1973 Mach 1 Q code 351 4V, 9A paint, standard interior, 3.50 rear, C6 trans.
  Reply
#9
No reason to change an original M-code 4V intake for any reason other than weight, as stated above. It's a mild spreadbore for the 4300A and will accept a number of 600CFM carbs on top of it provided the bore isn't greater than 1-9/16" (the size of the primary bores; secondaries are a hair wider at 1-11/16"). A small spacer can also give you a few more options here.

On the other hand, Q-code 4V intakes from '72-73 have the unique spreadbore for the 4300D. Good excuse to swap for the Edelbrock - ability to mount most any carb that you wish.

-Kurt

[Image: satellite-valiant-mustang-license-tags-signature.png]
How to buy a '71-73 Mustang:
Rule #1: Assume all classic car sellers are guilty until proven innocent.
Rule #2: No classic car dealer is ever innocent; thus, they are all guilty.
Rule #3: Buy from trustworthy people: Fellow forum members. Visit 7173Mustang's For Sale forum.
  Reply
#10
Yes I clearly fubar'd that one!

I will offer one other observation though where the edelbrock has an advantage over the M code intake.

The M code limits the butterfly size (600cfm 1-9/16") of the carb that can be used due to it's four hole carb pad unless a spacer is used. The Edelbrock has a split plenum design which will accept any square bore carb.

73 conv. 460, D0VE large valve heads, Performer RPM manifold, Voodoo 227/233 cam, Holley 950 HP carb, C6 trans, 3.25 trak-loc.
  Reply
Share Thread:  


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Intake have to be on for a compression check? scgamecock 9 355 11-15-2018, 09:17 PM
Last Post: barnett468
  Edelbrock Torquer intake scgamecock 6 231 11-09-2018, 11:56 AM
Last Post: scgamecock
  Toploader question Jeff73Mach1 16 431 10-11-2018, 12:24 PM
Last Post: Jeff73Mach1
  Underside of Intake manifold Studdley 40 1,582 09-20-2018, 03:48 PM
Last Post: Ron Tanzi
  Motor mount vs Frame mount question crzyfun 8 433 09-15-2018, 12:31 PM
Last Post: Don C
  Blue Thunder Intake: What carb size? Machlovin 20 4,094 09-06-2018, 02:24 PM
Last Post: goodnigh
  INTAKE MANIFOLD PAPPY HAROLD 1 331 08-07-2018, 04:50 AM
Last Post: TommyK
  Last ram air question i promise eventhorizon 9 1,101 07-21-2018, 10:28 AM
Last Post: Carolina_Mountain_Mustangs



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)