intake for towing

[turbohunter]

With total respect I have to say hmmmmmm.
I've got a Performer that supports over 400hp/500 torque with D2 heads.
It was port matched but that's all. No runner work.
Of course it's leaking oil but hey, nobody's perfect. LOL

[My427stang]

With total respect I have to say hmmmmmm.
I've got a Performer that supports over 400hp/500 torque with D2 heads.
It was port matched but that's all. No runner work.
Of course it's leaking oil but hey, nobody's perfect. LOL

I wonder what a Street Dominator, 428 PI or CJ manifold would do on yours?  Yours certainly is NOT a slouch, but on my mild 390 (pre-445) I went from PI to Performer and back to the PI in one weekend because it lost so much on the whole curve.

[chris401]

At the risk of being laughed out of here, I will offer this data

from 2500-3500 rpm an Edelbrock SP2P  made 20 to 30 more ft/lb of torque than a Performer.  This was on a 416 D3 head 8.5 compression with a 210@.050 cam

I have heard that from a others who have used it but I lack personal experience.

[abyars]

Is the PI or CJ intake aluminum or cast iron?

Edit:
I looked on ebay and see the PI is aluminum I guess the CJ is as well.  Dadgum, I can't afford one!

[abyars]

Well, you guys are making me rethink going to an aluminum manifold and maybe just using a cast iron 4bbl.  Thanks for all the input.

[abyars]

Considering everyone's input and the money I'm going to stick with a factory cast iron intake.  I don't think the 50lb weight difference between alum & cast iron will make a difference in a 5000lb truck.  I have two older gentlemen near me that stock pile factory FE parts.  I'll go see what they have.  So from what I gather the "S" is a good candidate as well as the CJ.  I've heard talk about intake runner size changing after a certain year.  Do I need to look for smaller runners after a certain date code.

Thanks again for your knowledge.

[RJP]

Considering everyone's input and the money I'm going to stick with a factory cast iron intake.  I don't think the 50lb weight difference between alum & cast iron will make a difference in a 5000lb truck.  I have two older gentlemen near me that stock pile factory FE parts.  I'll go see what they have.  So from what I gather the "S" is a good candidate as well as the CJ.  I've heard talk about intake runner size changing after a certain year.  Do I need to look for smaller runners after a certain date code.

Thanks again for your knowledge.

The 50 lb difference in manifold weight will not be noticable on your F-250...And IMHO the "S" manifold is perfect for your need. Price is usually right as they often sell by the pound. And if you live a charmed life you might find someone who'll pay you to haul the lump off.

[fe66comet]

I ran a lot of Performers on my work trucks that came with two barrels originally, I never ran into a better street intake yet regardless of the engine it was on. Somehow they got it down on that one it just works and gives gobs of torque.

[rockittsled]

Just to throw this thread back in, I wonder if a 410 or 433 would work with the "S" or "T" or if the greater c.i. would work better with the Performer?

[machoneman]

Aside from the weight, which would not make a difference here, it's also a matter of superior fuel distribution engineered into the Performer intake. E-boks engineers spoke of this when articles, pre-release of the manifold, started coming out years ago. It would be interesting to see how the S and the Performer stack up here, even at relatively low rpms.

[rockittsled]

Looking at Jays book at the volume numbers of the intakes mentioned so far, and throwing in the Streetmaster, which is lower than the dual planes, it can be difficult to make a decision when deviating from one "recipe" to enhance other characteristics.  It seems like the choices here are in the transitional area away from street and into power

[jholmes217]

With total respect I have to say hmmmmmm.
I've got a Performer that supports over 400hp/500 torque with D2 heads.
It was port matched but that's all. No runner work.
Of course it's leaking oil but hey, nobody's perfect. LOL

Ford Fe engines don't leak.  It was merely marking its territory!

[TomP]

I never tried the stock iron intake on my truck and never would after using one on my 67 Ranchero which towed my race car before getting the truck. Even on my Ranchero the iron intake was a real turd and towed better with the Edelbrock F427. That is the intake i used on the 428 in the truck at first and when i swapped to the RPM it made a noticeable gain in bottom end power, 1500 to 3000 rpm. In my case both were 4 speeds with close ratio spreads, 1.3 to 1.4 third gears.
Also in both i'd used vacuum gauges and drove to keep the manifold vacuum up. That is where the gas mileage comes from no matter how mismatched the combo.

The late Rick Johnston had a Ford ramptruck with a 390 and granny low 4 speed, very wide ratios, 1.7-something third gear. He had an SP2P on it and hated it, said you get almost to the RPM you need to shift and it's like the throttle cable broke. Hit the next gear as quick as that tranny allows and it's still lost all momentum and you are crawling up the shoulder with the four ways flashing the rest of the hill.

[My427stang]

I agree with TomP

I have never lost on my 4x4 truck with more intake, only gained.  The key is to look very close at what RPM you are going to pull too, because with stock or the Performer, the bottom may be OK, but power drops very quick with RPM.

I really liked my 428 PI intake on my 390, and I really liked the Holley SD even as a single plane, no problem with bottom end, even with 35 inch tall tires and 3.50s

Remember, runner length affects torque too, and FEs are not 289s, they have long runners and do pretty darn well when you feed them

[abyars]

That's a good point, Ross.  When I tow on the highway I keep it below 60 mph, which equates to about 2500 rpm with my tire, C6 and 3.73 rear gears.