Depends on the shop.The shop where I have my blocks done doesn"t do sonic testing,they send blocks to another shop.If your machinest can"t do it,for sure he knows who does.If he doesn"t,find another place to have your blocks done.

The torque is 80-90 ft-lbs using motor oil. It's not factory rated to be torqued with moly lube.

Increments should be 70, 80, and finally 80-90 ft-lbs.

Shoe.

Jeff I Might Have One In My Parts Bin Get In Touch With Me And Ill Check For Ya Tim P.

While the compression rings do have a secondary function of oil control, a properly machined and assembled engine isn’t going to have an issue here just about regardless of what rings you’re using.

There are a couple of more likely possibilities. An old saying: It’s a poor craftsman who blames his tools. I’m not implying that your machinist has competency issues but it is not unheard of for a block to come back with a bore a bit more than it was supposed to. Happened to a friend of mine so I know it does happen. So if you have a set of .030 over rings and your block is .032 you’re going to have ring seal problems. Your machinist also has to know the type of ring you’re using so that you will have the correct surface finish on the final hone. The assembly of the engine is where you employ the “trust but verify” philosophy. This is where you, yourself, run a dial bore gauge down all the cylinders, mic or plastigauge the crank and rod journals, and check the ring end gaps in the block.

The oil control ring…well, is primarily responsible for controlling how much oil is on the cylinder wall. If you have a problem with the ring set, then there is no compression ring that will be able to make up the difference. Most of the time, you’re not going to have an issue here as long as the ring set floats in the ring land as it should. The oil control set also needs to work in an environment where it can do its job. If you have loose clearance on the bearings and the side clearance is loose and you’re running a high volume pump, you’re going to put a lot of oil on the cylinder. You can easily get to the point where you overload the control ring’s ability to move the oil off the wall.

Some folks also make the mistake of running low-tension rings on a street engine. If you don’t have a lot of negative pressure in the crankcase the rings won’t work properly. This is an application mistake.

And there’s also the possibility that the oil burning is being blamed on the rings and it’s coming from elsewhere like the valve stem seals and guides or oil being sucked through the intake ports from a failed gasket.

I do not use ZGS rings but that’s only because I don’t have any engines in need of an overhaul at this point. If all the engines this machinist and others did had oil burning problems with these rings, then you might have a legitimate argument that there is some issue with them. But that only some do leads me to believe otherwise. As long as these rings have been on the market we surely would have heard this by now if there was any merit to it.

total seal rings pain in the but for set up that ,s why your machinist hates them . and so do i i feal thear not worth the money..

The Performer390 is little more than stock.

RPM should be the only consideration between the two, even for a mild performance build. It's a great intake.

Edelbrock is a top quality casting, so you can be sure there is comparatively little risk of porosity. It's a new intake, so you don't have to wonder if you are buying someone elses overmilled and warped parts. It's the lowest priced worthwhile intake out there. It's well engineered and is used on engines making 300 to 700 normally aspirated horsepower.

Shoe.

That word "moderate" is key. It's also up for interpretation. What's moderate to you might be approaching radical to another.

I know that many have expressed their opinions on the virtues of the RPM. I'm one of them but I'll admit that I have not run an E'brock FE RPM, yet. My opinions are based on reading E'brock's publicity and reading this tech forum.

It's my understanding that the RPM is especially suited for 1,500 to 6,500 rpms. A nice broad range indeed. But it takes the right camshaft and a coordinated, well planned out FE build to get the all the benefits the RPM offers.

Moderate? It really depends on two things to me. First is the weight of the vehicle and then the intended use. A Galaxie approaching/exceeding 4K lbs. or a pick-up that will exceed 4K, running a mild low 200's @ .050 duration camshaft; street/highway driven, would benefit greatly with the Performer. The Performer is designed/proven to work very well from smooth idle to 5,000 r.p.m. I'm reminded of that old classic automotive terminology - "Recreatiional Vehicle", er RV.

I've told the story before and the good thing is that I'm getting more succinct with my personal testimonial to the Performer.

I ran a Performer on a 428CJ installed first in a 3,800 lb. '61 Starliner, then in a 4,100 lb. '68 F100 2wd. I also ran E'brock's 750 CFM manual choke carb on this intake. The cam I installed at the same time as the Performer intake was Ford's one offering from their Performance Parts program(the name of which I can't ever remember because it seemed to change so often). This cam is mild/moderate. Somewhat similar to the GT/CJ C6OZ-B cam. It idled very nicely at 650 and was all done by 5,700. This induction system worked extremely well. There was a ton of off idle torque/acceleration. And that torque we love from the FE was there all the way to 5,700.

Currently, a friend of mine is running a Performer/Motorcraft 4V(Not a 4100 Autolite) on top of a moderate 428 in his '76 F150 4X4, C6/3.50 gears. He is very pleased to say the least. This pick-up is used primarily for recreational purposes, i.e., huntin' & fishin'.

All that being said, would I buy a Performer today over an RPM? No. I don't think I'll ever run a moderate cam again in an FE. If I do run a moderate cam it will be a GT/CJ C6OZ-B topped off with the mighty iron brute...the CJ intake. A concours GT 390 or CJ 428 car. But I've never been a concours guy and I hope I never am.

if your bilding a littel over stock wy not use stock 4v intake, and save your money for cam and real good head work.......

If you are going to invest your hard earned money in a intake spend a few more dollars and buy the offenhouser fe intake, Mild or wild it will out perform the edelbrock hands down, I run a 427 FE in my drag car and picked up 3 tenths when I switched from the edelbrock to the offy, Remember it only takes a little more to go first class.

I have a 67 Mustang with the Performer RPM, and it runs fine, looking back the only real problem is hood clearance. Im running the stock Holley with a 1/4" spacer between the carb and intake and the Cobra oval aircleaner hits the inside of the hood. Even without the spacer/heat insulator it still touches the hood. If you are using the Cobra oval aircleaner check the clearances before shutting the hood. The stock GT aircleaner fits fine with or without the insulator.

the 350 had a ton of interchanged parts with the 265, 238, & the 327. In 58 the 352 was a completely new engine, but by the time the 350 came out of GM the 352 had been overshadowed by the 390 & 427. Also the 351 W & C were very strong engines out of the box.

in the late 60,s early 70,s 352, wer a rerl preformer in the dirt track i remember seeing many cheavy powerd stockcars crushed by the fe,s

The 63 1/2 used a cast iron Cruiseomatic. A C4 will not bolt to the Cruiseomatic bellhousing. C6 was introduced in 1966.

Hooker makes them, tight fit, but even the manifolds are wedged in there, have used them with good results but they hang down to where they will hit on speed bumps especially if your car is lowered. Ford Powertrain Applications (FPA) makes a set of tri-y that should fit a lot better (haven't tried those, yet), but I have read mixed reviews about fitment and hitting the block or motor mounts in certain places. I think Crites restorations also makes them.

If im not mistaken the hooker headers wont work with the 8 bolt exhaust pattern heads. I was talking yesterday with a older guy about headers and he was telling me about the hell he had putting headers on his '69 cougar with a 390. He used the hooker super comp but also had to use a adapter bracket to move the power steering ram down a bit. I am going to try the FPA headers on my torino and they also carry the power steering bracket. Pretty expensive but from what I have heard they fit pretty good. http://www.fordpowertrain.com/Headers.htm

It's critical that you get the header that best maches the exhaust port. Do a forum search for "port mismatch" for details.

Shoe.

Bolts will qquickly strip out the rockershafts on Ed heads. Studs are nice for the headbolts, as they tend to be more accurately torqued than head bolts and the hardened washer of the studs distributes the load over 7/8" diameter instead of the bolt's 3/4" contact patch.

Having said that, stock head bolts are pretty reliable with iron heads but the softer aluminum would appreciate the washer.

Shoe.

I have had bolts in my Edelbrocks since I got them about 9 years ago. Not a problem provided you cut off the one that is too long as indicated in Edelbrock's instructions. If running stock chrome "Power By Ford" valve covers studs won't clear, you have to use bolts.

Studs are of course superior but not mandatory if care is used.

Royce