Engine and Transmission Tech

tips, technology, tools and techniques related to vehicle driveline components

Go to Thread: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicLog In
Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2


pspeaks
Paul Speaks
Dallas, Texas
(698 posts)

Registered:
07/20/2009 06:40PM

Main British Car:
1972 MGB-GT 1979 Ford 302

authors avatar
302 Intake
Posted by: pspeaks
Date: May 13, 2014 04:07AM

Even with a RV8 hood I would like a little more carb clearance, so here's my question; I have a typhoon intake which I'm told isn't all that great and probably a little too tale. What would be a good recommendation for a replacement, or should I move on and keep it?


Paul


MGBV8
Carl Floyd
Kingsport, TN
(4514 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 11:32PM

Main British Car:
1979 MGB Buick 215

authors avatar
Re: 302 Intake
Posted by: MGBV8
Date: May 13, 2014 07:47AM

Time to get out the tape measure, Paul.

I would think that the Edelbrock Performer RPM #7121 would suit your driving needs with out being too tall. There are a number of manifolds focus on higher rpm power that are much taller.


mgb260
Jim Nichols
Sequim,WA
(2465 posts)

Registered:
02/29/2008 08:29PM

Main British Car:
1973 MGB roadster 260 Ford V8

Re: 302 Intake
Posted by: mgb260
Date: May 13, 2014 12:56PM

The lowest Ford intake is the Weiand Action Plus, now called Street Warrior.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2014 09:43PM by mgb260.


ex-tyke
Graham Creswick
Chatham, Ontario, Canada
(1165 posts)

Registered:
10/25/2007 11:17AM

Main British Car:
1976 MGB Ford 302

authors avatar
Re: 302 Intake
Posted by: ex-tyke
Date: May 13, 2014 02:48PM

I've used the "Edelbrock Perrformer 289" for 9 years now as being the best all-round choice for low height and performance. Some years ago, I also investigated the Edelbrock "Performer 302" version and it is actually about 3/4+" lower than the 289 (despite the ad claims to the contrary).
The down side, is that the port match is way off the cylinder head port profile, so it sits on the shelf collecting dust.


JWD
Jim Durham
Gig Harbor, Wa.
(103 posts)

Registered:
01/22/2013 11:43AM

Main British Car:
1980 MGB Ford 302 (398.9 HP, 383.2 TQ)

Re: 302 Intake
Posted by: JWD
Date: May 13, 2014 09:41PM

I'm curious. These recommendations are for intake height only, right? No consideration given to, intended use, pistons, heads, cam, carb.,transmission, rear gears etc.? The reason I ask is the O.P. gave no info., other than a 1979 302. Certainly not enough to make any kind of a valid recommendation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2014 09:54PM by JWD.


mgb260
Jim Nichols
Sequim,WA
(2465 posts)

Registered:
02/29/2008 08:29PM

Main British Car:
1973 MGB roadster 260 Ford V8

Re: 302 Intake
Posted by: mgb260
Date: May 13, 2014 10:01PM

Jim, A lot of guys don't want to modify the hood. Paul already has the Preform Resource (Dave Craddock) RV8 style hood. If you are close, you are limited to a 2" air filter with drop base and removing the stock hood cross brace.


JWD
Jim Durham
Gig Harbor, Wa.
(103 posts)

Registered:
01/22/2013 11:43AM

Main British Car:
1980 MGB Ford 302 (398.9 HP, 383.2 TQ)

Re: 302 Intake
Posted by: JWD
Date: May 13, 2014 10:26PM

Looking at the previous builds, there are several that run a Edelbrock Performer RPM air gap using the RV8 hood and others that run a stock hood with a Edelbrock #2121 with no problems. I'm still in the "mock up" mode on mine so I haven't picked the intake, hood etc.



MGBV8
Carl Floyd
Kingsport, TN
(4514 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 11:32PM

Main British Car:
1979 MGB Buick 215

authors avatar
Re: 302 Intake
Posted by: MGBV8
Date: May 13, 2014 10:27PM

I based my pick on the basis that I have been following Paul's build and felt like I had a feel for what he was trying to accomplish. He isn't building a high strung engine. He just wants a solid performing intake that will fit.


JWD
Jim Durham
Gig Harbor, Wa.
(103 posts)

Registered:
01/22/2013 11:43AM

Main British Car:
1980 MGB Ford 302 (398.9 HP, 383.2 TQ)

Re: 302 Intake
Posted by: JWD
Date: May 13, 2014 11:07PM

I'm not privileged to what he's trying to accomplish but unless he wants a motor that pulls hard between 4000 & 6500RPM with a sacrifice to low end performance and throttle response where most of us drive 99.9% of the time, that's not the right manifold for the street.


pspeaks
Paul Speaks
Dallas, Texas
(698 posts)

Registered:
07/20/2009 06:40PM

Main British Car:
1972 MGB-GT 1979 Ford 302

authors avatar
Re: 302 Intake
Posted by: pspeaks
Date: May 14, 2014 02:58AM

(Aluminum heads, typhoon intake, Edelbrock 600 cfm carb, Comp cam, Scorpion 1.6 roller rockers, 3.90 gears, about 300 hp maybe a little more, no racing, just for the street) My front cross member has been modified as much as I dare and without lowering the steering rack, my motor is as low as I can get it. Still, it seems a little high to me compared to pictures of other conversion. I have been considering a lower intake to give me better air cleaner choices and wanted options. If all I can get is a half inch or so lower intake while destroying performance, I'll probably keep the typhoon and go with a drop base air cleaner. or do something like Curtis.

Paul


MGBV8
Carl Floyd
Kingsport, TN
(4514 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 11:32PM

Main British Car:
1979 MGB Buick 215

authors avatar
Re: 302 Intake
Posted by: MGBV8
Date: May 14, 2014 07:50AM

Quote:
but unless he wants a motor that pulls hard between 4000 & 6500RPM with a sacrifice to low end performance and throttle response where most of us drive 99.9% of the time, that's not the right manifold for the street

That's not at all what Edelbrock has to say about the Performer RPM. It is a street performance manifold. He could dial it back a bit with the 2121 or similar. Paul's choice.

A 2300 lb MGB with any old dual plane intake is going to have ample low end torque.

BTW, everyone like an engine that pulls hard from 4000-6500. ;)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2014 01:48PM by MGBV8.


Addicted
Mike Hagadorn
Warren PA
(132 posts)

Registered:
09/27/2013 03:46PM

Main British Car:
1976 TR7 Victory Edition Ford 302

Re: 302 Intake
Posted by: Addicted
Date: May 14, 2014 04:02PM

Edelbrock performer 289 (2121) is working well for me so far. I'd pick it again. It fits under my hood.


JWD
Jim Durham
Gig Harbor, Wa.
(103 posts)

Registered:
01/22/2013 11:43AM

Main British Car:
1980 MGB Ford 302 (398.9 HP, 383.2 TQ)

Re: 302 Intake
Posted by: JWD
Date: May 14, 2014 05:38PM

The O.P. hasn't given any real info. yet but I agree with using a #2121 since he says it's about 300HP which means it's a mild build. Saying it has aluminum heads and a Comp. cam mean nothing. That's the same as saying "black and round" when asked what size tires you have.
The last motor I built, a 351W, I used Edelbrock Performer heads, cam and intake. On the dyno it had a peak HP of 415 @ 6200 RPM and a peak TQ of 410 @ 4500 RPM. This was in a 2500lb. Cobra. The car was fun but for the street, it could have been a lot better. The motor didn't really come into it's sweet spot until about 3500 RPM on up.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2014 05:42PM by JWD.


MGBV8
Carl Floyd
Kingsport, TN
(4514 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 11:32PM

Main British Car:
1979 MGB Buick 215

authors avatar
Re: 302 Intake
Posted by: MGBV8
Date: May 14, 2014 07:30PM

Sounds like a hoot to me!

We can't get Cobra sized tires under the stock MGB body, so the low rpm power just goes up in smoke. Moving the powerband up a bit helps.


JWD
Jim Durham
Gig Harbor, Wa.
(103 posts)

Registered:
01/22/2013 11:43AM

Main British Car:
1980 MGB Ford 302 (398.9 HP, 383.2 TQ)

Re: 302 Intake
Posted by: JWD
Date: May 14, 2014 07:48PM

I ran 295/50/15 tires in the rear. They would go up in smoke in every gear around 4000 RPM which was almost peak TQ. Mine was a mild build compared to my buddy's Cobra with a 460 stroker. He put down over 650HP at the rear wheels. Totally useless and no fun to drive on the street.



pspeaks
Paul Speaks
Dallas, Texas
(698 posts)

Registered:
07/20/2009 06:40PM

Main British Car:
1972 MGB-GT 1979 Ford 302

authors avatar
Re: 302 Intake
Posted by: pspeaks
Date: May 14, 2014 08:18PM

You know what, all I was looking for was a little more room for my air cleaner. I think 300 hp is adequate for a 2500 pound daily driver that will never be raced. Thanks everybody for the advice.

Paul



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2014 08:26PM by pspeaks.


MGBV8
Carl Floyd
Kingsport, TN
(4514 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 11:32PM

Main British Car:
1979 MGB Buick 215

authors avatar
Re: 302 Intake
Posted by: MGBV8
Date: May 14, 2014 08:19PM

We're just givin' ya some ideas, Paul. ;)


pspeaks
Paul Speaks
Dallas, Texas
(698 posts)

Registered:
07/20/2009 06:40PM

Main British Car:
1972 MGB-GT 1979 Ford 302

authors avatar
Re: 302 Intake
Posted by: pspeaks
Date: May 14, 2014 08:34PM

Yes Carl, you guys have always helped with ideas and advice; greatly appreciated. From day one here I have relied on your advice and it's always been a great help and kept me out of any real trouble, just got a little insulted by somebody, my apologies, I'll try not to let it happen again. Best we just forget the question and move on I guess.


302GT
Larry Shimp

(241 posts)

Registered:
11/17/2007 01:13PM

Main British Car:
1968 MGB GT Ford 302 crate engine

authors avatar
Re: 302 Intake
Posted by: 302GT
Date: May 16, 2014 07:42AM

The 2121 manifold is an aluminum version of the Ford 260/289 manifold and has a unique runner design not found in any other manifold (maybe there is a reason for this?). The Weiland Stealth/Summit stage 1 is of more conventional design and fits the same as the 2121. I know this because I just changed from a 2121 to a Summit (which is made by Weiland). The 2121 works fine, but the Weiland is supposedly better for 500 more RPM at the top end. The 302 manifold is meant to be used with the stock Ford EGR spacer. It should never be used without a spacer. In general, the larger the plenum volume under the carburetor, the better the high RPM performance with no real loss at the lower end. The Performer RPM, with its large plenum, is by far the best 302 manifold, but it will not fit under a stock hood. The Weiland Stealth is like a low rise version of the Performer RPM. I also believe that the Professional Products Typhoon manifold will fit. It appears to be a copy of the Weiland stealth manifold.


MGBV8
Carl Floyd
Kingsport, TN
(4514 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 11:32PM

Main British Car:
1979 MGB Buick 215

authors avatar
Re: 302 Intake
Posted by: MGBV8
Date: May 16, 2014 08:49AM

Quote:
The Performer RPM, with its large plenum, is by far the best 302 manifold, but it will not fit under a stock hood.

Hence, my suggestion. I was just trying to find Paul the best intake that would fit under his RV8 bonnet. :)
Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.