ok, basicly just wondering what everyone's preference is here. It will be going on a n/a 331 with comp 280hr, AFR185s, 10:1, stock block.
Holley Systemax vs. RPM2 on a 331
- Thread starter riceslayer302
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
vikingpower
New Member
I'm running the systemax, there's an artical some where comparing the two . One thing I know is the intake ports are a near100% match to the afr's. I do recall they where both very good as far as power and torque with in 1-2 h.p . I would use a edlbrock on a 347 and a systemax on a fast reving and higher reving 331 . MY 331 likes 6500 rpm will dyno in a few weeks.
the only reason for my question was i saw in the latest MM&FF they put an RPM II on their 93 cobra project. The thing that sparked my interest is they offer it in black, im trying to go all black in my bay, i dont think holley offers this.
RiceSlayer - I read the MM&FF article your talking about and if i remembering correctly they were replacing a Trick Flow Track Heat or Street Heat intake with Edelbrocks RPMII's. Obviously they gained more power, RPMII's have much shorter runners to begin with. As far as he Systemax goes, as other guys have said, its pretty much near a dead match as far as flow potentional andhorsepower is concerned. If your trying to keep your engine bay black, which is what i'm doing, I would go with maybe the Trick Flow R intake (not the box R) or the Edelbrock RPMII's in the black powdercoat. Good luck and have fun. Sounds like you have a good N/A combo going there.
Cobra912
Active Member
I ran a RPM II on my 331 when it was still N/A. Seemed to haul pretty good, even off the line. But I think my choice would be the Holley
fiveohwblow
Official Member
- Jul 21, 2005
- 2,169
- 145
- 135
Kinda funny this thread was resurrected as its OP is now back again... lol
Either way on topic have the Eddy, Holley and TF been tested in a shootout? Is/are there any graphs and or dynos?
Either way on topic have the Eddy, Holley and TF been tested in a shootout? Is/are there any graphs and or dynos?
cjrpony
Member
Mustang Street/Strip Intake Test - Dyno Test Results - 5.0 Mustang & Super Fords Magazine
The Eddy made a few more HP and the Holley a few more torque. I personally run the RPM II but I don't think you would go wrong with either.
fiveohwblow
Official Member
- Jul 21, 2005
- 2,169
- 145
- 135
Am I reading that correctly though, the TF was the cheapest and produces the most power and torque?
Edit: "In fact, the Performer RPM II was this test's top dog-the only intake to sneak past the 450hp barrier. It posted the highest peak power, both in rpm and horsepower, and it hangs on to its power-making potential longer than the other intakes. Some of these trends are not huge, but they are pronounced enough to label the RPM II as the most horsepower-friendly intake here."
TF was second then with 447 and RPM II with 450.2 I would say If it were me I would go Trickflow to save $150, or spend the $450 on the TF and pay someone $150 to port match it and come out ahead of the RPM II with the same investment.
Edit: "In fact, the Performer RPM II was this test's top dog-the only intake to sneak past the 450hp barrier. It posted the highest peak power, both in rpm and horsepower, and it hangs on to its power-making potential longer than the other intakes. Some of these trends are not huge, but they are pronounced enough to label the RPM II as the most horsepower-friendly intake here."
TF was second then with 447 and RPM II with 450.2 I would say If it were me I would go Trickflow to save $150, or spend the $450 on the TF and pay someone $150 to port match it and come out ahead of the RPM II with the same investment.
I remember that magazine article, and there are a few things to note about the results. First notice they accidentally flipped the torque/HP columns. It's mathematically impossible to make your peak torque at a higher RPM than your peak horsepower.
Second, notice that they cut the test off at a measly 6000 rpm. It looks like the reason they did that was because all of the intakes were out of breath by then... Except the Eddie. The Eddie posted 450hp AT THE CUTOFF. It would have been interesting to see them pull the engine to maybe 6500 and see if the Eddie would have climbed any higher. It's hard to say, but fun to speculate.
fiveohwblow
Official Member
- Jul 21, 2005
- 2,169
- 145
- 135
I remember that magazine article, and there are a few things to note about the results. First notice they accidentally flipped the torque/HP columns. It's mathematically impossible to make your peak torque at a higher RPM than your peak horsepower.
Second, notice that they cut the test off at a measly 6000 rpm. It looks like the reason they did that was because all of the intakes were out of breath by then... Except the Eddie. The Eddie posted 450hp AT THE CUTOFF. It would have been interesting to see them pull the engine to maybe 6500 and see if the Eddie would have climbed any higher. It's hard to say, but fun to speculate.
VERY very valid argument. I wonder what $150 worth of porting would do with the TF though. I realize its all speculation as you said, but it would be fun to see with the same investment which would be your best intake. Anyone want to fork these over I will use my beast as the test mule
Already have a Cobra with a mildly ported lower intake 
