Info on factory 4v intake manifolds?

[SLYDAWG]

"Mustangs could be had with a 4 barrel 302 (aluminum intake) in the early 80's"
" So the '83-'85 Rustang intake was the one that gave up by 4500 rpm?"
That is correct. Altho these intakes are not performance oriented, they make excellent DD/street intakes. I used one of these with its corresponding 4180 carb for a number of years on a DD. Stock 86 stang engine, AOD, 3.73s. 5000 rpm max.

[Mercmarquis]

I got one of those 85 stang intakes for sale if anybody is interested.

[Mercracer]

This factory manifold also looks similar to the Edelbrock F4B and clones, though it's hard to be certain from the pics.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Ford-...QQcmdZViewItem

This is THE factory intake to get for a 302. It is a tall dual plane high rise. It is higher than the Stealth or the Performer RPM. If there are no cracks, it is a steal at less than $100.

[1987cp]

I discovered an interesting article on Ford intakes originally from Super Ford, July 1988, paraphrased at: http://www.jason.fletcher.net/tech/intakes/intakes.htm

They ran a variety of intakes on an '85-1/2 crate motor with a mild Motorsport cam. I've plotted the four most relevant, a stock '85 intake, a Performer 289, a clone of the Shelby/F4B intake from the '60s, and a Weiand 7515 single-plane, here labeled as "Torker 289" because Fletcher claims them to be similar. Results for the stock '65 intake were very similar to the '85, and I've omitted those for the other single-planes tested because the Torker 289 clone put out the best overall numbers in this test.

I'm a little disconcerted that for whatever reason, none of the manifolds were tested below 2750 rpm. This is great for the track intakes, but most likely items like the stock and Performer intakes probably had a bit of impressing to do below that point?

[turbo2256b]

I discovered an interesting article on Ford intakes originally from Super Ford, July 1988, paraphrased at: http://www.jason.fletcher.net/tech/intakes/intakes.htm

They ran a variety of intakes on an '85-1/2 crate motor with a mild Motorsport cam. I've plotted the four most relevant, a stock '85 intake, a Performer 289, a clone of the Shelby/F4B intake from the '60s, and a Weiand 7515 single-plane, here labeled as "Torker 289" because Fletcher claims them to be similar. Results for the stock '65 intake were very similar to the '85, and I've omitted those for the other single-planes tested because the Torker 289 clone put out the best overall numbers in this test.

I'm a little disconcerted that for whatever reason, none of the manifolds were tested below 2750 rpm. This is great for the track intakes, but most likely items like the stock and Performer intakes probably had a bit of impressing to do below that point?

Has to do with the dyno not the intakes

[1987cp]

Has to do with the dyno not the intakes

Can't I still whine about it?

[turbo2256b]

Shure have another glass

[1987cp]

Anyone seen Mercmarquis online lately? I'm trying to get him to give me a shipping price on that manifold ....

[Nathan in MI]

Have you IMed him? He's on AIM quite often.

[Pirate]

So the '83-'85 Rustang intake was the one that gave up by 4500 rpm?

I put one on a 79 F150/302 that I built for my brother, 9.5:1 compression (zero-deck), .040 over forged pistons, 268 hi-energy cam.....and that intake. Excellent low-end grunt for a 302 with a carb, and that engine.

[1987cp]

Have you IMed him? He's on AIM quite often.

Just added him to my buddy list last night, so I'll have to check on there from time to time. There's also a guy in Warren, MI who has one (had the carb/intake/air cleaner combo on eBay), but he's not getting back to me with a price for just the manifold.

[torquelover]

Someone on here is running an Edelbrock Torker in his box, can't remember who, with good results. What would be better (more area under the curve), RPM Air Gap or the Torker?

[1987cp]

With what cam and heads? We all know the Performer RPM's tremendous reputation in creating huge average torque numbers even on motors with huge heads and cams. If only we all had the resources to do multiple dyno tests on our own engines. My experience would certainly seem to suggest that one should always use the mildest manifold suitable, but I can't imagine that would always be best.

[88MercWagon]

With what cam and heads? We all know the Performer RPM's tremendous reputation in creating huge average torque numbers even on motors with huge heads and cams. If only we all had the resources to do multiple dyno tests on our own engines. My experience would certainly seem to suggest that one should always use the mildest manifold suitable, but I can't imagine that would always be best.

From my limited knowledge, you are correct in the minimal intake suggestion, provided it is in a street application. The more mild the intake in comparison to the heads/cam, the more low end grunt the motor will have, due to higher air velocity. Again my knowledge is limited to what I've read in magazine tests and on this message board.

[Mercracer]

With what cam and heads? We all know the Performer RPM's tremendous reputation in creating huge average torque numbers even on motors with huge heads and cams. If only we all had the resources to do multiple dyno tests on our own engines. My experience would certainly seem to suggest that one should always use the mildest manifold suitable, but I can't imagine that would always be best.

There already have been several dyno tests on 302 and 351W motors and the currently available intakes. You guys should check out Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords magazine and any other Ford performance magazines. Get in the mind set that a Crown Vic is a heavy Mustang and you will realize that everything that you are pondering to do has already been done hundreds of times and more.

The Performance RPM, Weiand Stealth, Offenhauser 360, etc. are the mildest suitable intake for a performance build. You need to match your gears, converter and cam together to achieve the performance level that suits your goals.