Interesting Ford 302 intake manifold tests from 1988

[427LX]

I found some interesting test facts and some that might surprise!     http://carbdford.com/fletch/tech/intakes/intakes.htm

[Rory428]

Considering that testing was done on a stock, low compression 302, with crappy heads and a small cam, I doubt that any of the newer intakes would help at all. Also shows how bad the factory mid 80s aluminum 4 barrel intake was. I had to run that intake on my 85 Mustang Stock Eliminator car, and just swapping the factory 4V intake for an Edelbrock Performer RPM Air Gap, it went from 12.4, down to 11.8s, still with the stock factory heads and 8.4 compression ratio, with .444" valve lift.

[427LX]

 I thought the Tunnel Ram intakes would have flowed better at least to the max flow of the head.

[frnkeore]

I'm sure they would have but, with one 4bb TR's don't do nearly as well as with two.

[TomP]

I am surprised the regular Performer does tthat much better than tttthe factory intake. I have a Port-O-Sonic for my 302 Ranchero Also have a tunnel ram.

[machoneman]

Considering that testing was done on a stock, low compression 302, with crappy heads and a small cam, I doubt that any of the newer intakes would help at all. Also shows how bad the factory mid 80s aluminum 4 barrel intake was. I had to run that intake on my 85 Mustang Stock Eliminator car, and just swapping the factory 4V intake for an Edelbrock Performer RPM Air Gap, it went from 12.4, down to 11.8s, still with the stock factory heads and 8.4 compression ratio, with .444" valve lift.

Wow, that is a near unbelievable reduction in e.t.!

[Rory428]

Bob, keep in mind that this was with my Stock Eliminator engine, not a stock street engine. I was shifting that 302 between 6200-6400 RPM.

[machoneman]

Bob, keep in mind that this was with my Stock Eliminator engine, not a stock street engine. I was shifting that 302 between 6200-6400 RPM.

Ah! Thanks for the reply Rory. Now that makes more sense as to how & why the RPM intake lowered your e.t. so much.