|
|
|
|
Original Message
|
| Nice pics. |
| By Dave Shoe - 03/25/2002 7:05:29 PM; IP 12.2.11.131 |
I missed the big uns on your combustion chamber, but I saved the big file this time. Nice looking intakes. Thanks for the direct comparison. I'd like to learn more about the runner changes between models.
As for the two intakes, I'm not an HP intake wiz, but I do know the higher-sitting MR-era design of 1965-later has caused the competition more grief than the earlier HP design.
The Streetmaster390 runs OK on the street (a bit too mild), but there is a modification sheet which Edelbrock released to help wake the intake up. The sheet instructs how to grind and port-patching, but is necessary to put this intake into the rev-range that it needs to start breathing. This sheet is occasionally posted in the forums. I'd post it now if I was better organized and could find it.
Since Ford had designed such fantastic dual-plane intakes by the end of the muscle car era, there was no way for a manufacturer to make money selling a dual plane - they just wouldn't sell well. The Streetmaster390 was a simple, cheap "single plane" design aimed at a large young market who knew there was something magical about single plane intakes.
The price-point was set to sell a lot of Streetmaster390 intakes, and therefore many would be installed on stock-cammed engines. This intake would work well for this purpose, though it'd lose some low-end torque (as all single planes do) because neighboring cylinders in the firing order would steal air charge at the end of the intake cycle. Dual-planes separate neighboring cylinders, so no cylinder is able to steal charge from another.
I just picked up a Streetmaster390 (my second in 30 years) a couple months ago. It was cheap, but it can make a fun motor if built right.
JMO,
Shoe. |
|
|
This thread, so far...
|
|
|
|
Post A Response
|
|
|
|
|
|