can I benefit from porting my lower Performer manifold?
- Thread starter rockin_rick
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
I would just have to think it would give a gain Rick.
Gotta give you more air flow and ..................
More Flow = More Go
A while back you told me you were pushing your 24's to their limit.
Do you think the extra flow from the porting will be the death of those 24's?
Grady
Gotta give you more air flow and ..................
More Flow = More Go
A while back you told me you were pushing your 24's to their limit.
Do you think the extra flow from the porting will be the death of those 24's?
Grady
Rick, my example to you would be GTJake, who doesn't come around much anymore. He had his lower done by Tom and it yielded the best FTI/AFR numbers I've ever seen from a low-shift-point, stock block 302.
It could have been due to the fact that his motor only had about 20k original miles on it, but I sincerely doubt that compression/"newness" played that much of a factor.
Like the "old man" Grady
D) said, I'd say go for it.
Joe
It could have been due to the fact that his motor only had about 20k original miles on it, but I sincerely doubt that compression/"newness" played that much of a factor.
Like the "old man" Grady
D) said, I'd say go for it.Joe
rockin_rick said:IIRC, GTJake also had a RPM, though. His setup planted this thought seed in my head a while back... Maybe I should consider a RPM... But I wonder if I'd just give up low end for high end and have a net result of no change of area under the curve
My motor has less that 10K on it
Rick
I don't think you would loose very much low end Rick and here is a thought or two on why I think that way.
I've got Jakes dyno pull and many others on these forums all in one Excell file that allows me to easily compare them to each other.
When you compare Jakes ported lower to my non ported lower this is kinda how it looks.
The diff between tq curves down low was my advantage to the range of 10 to 20 lbs from the range of 2250 to 2800 rpm and then at about 3300 rpm he matched me and just stayed up on me with a range of 15 to 20 lbs all the way out to a little less than 6K.
Another thing to consider about those two curves is ............
at the time of that pull, Jake had not worked with his tune a whole lot and after talking to him, I felt he had more in it with a bit more tweecing.
IIRC, he did not have his spark curve setup for a quick rate of advance and his total was pretty low with a value of something like 28 or there abouts.
As you know Rick, getting the spark in quicker really makes a difference you can feel so I don't think I'd be outta line in saying his low end was a bit softer than it could have been due to the lazy spark curve.
Grady
slvrbullit302
New Member
FWIW When I was running a stock 165k mile 302 with ported E7's, F-cam, 1.6rr, and Stock intake, I made 260rwhp and 278 rwtq. I then switched to one of the early typhoon intakes(RPM clone) I gained 10rwhp and 15rwtq also the peak hp moved up from 5200 to 6000 and I think my torque peaked out pretty close to the same vs. stock intake. With this combo my best ET was a 13.4ish at 103. I was running untuned. Other mods were 75mm TB and MAF, 30# inj., MAC LT's, Prochamber, Cat-back, CAI and timing at 12°.
Just throwing out a little info to justify that you will not see a big drop in low end power by switching to a RPM intake.
Just throwing out a little info to justify that you will not see a big drop in low end power by switching to a RPM intake.
Joes95GT said:Rick, my example to you would be GTJake, who doesn't come around much anymore. He had his lower done by Tom and it yielded the best FTI/AFR numbers I've ever seen from a low-shift-point, stock block 302.
It could have been due to the fact that his motor only had about 20k original miles on it, but I sincerely doubt that compression/"newness" played that much of a factor.
Like the "old man" Grady
Joe
Actually, Toms89LX50 had the best stock bottom afr/fti numbers at a low rpm. He made 347rwhp. He used a ported rpm manifold and a HELL of a camshaft. Made killer low end and ran hard upstairs!
zenboy99
Founding Member
Joes95GT said:
Yes he was running a Performer. He also trapped 110mph his first time out without a great 60 foot.
WhiteDevil
New Member
Yeah he ran a performer but im sure the porting would help. I would wait till i had a reason for the intake to come off before i did it. But im going to get it done this summer by TMOSS.
Yes, you will pick up good power. Your heads flow [email protected]" and your intake flows about 220cfm - 30cfm is significant power potential and I'd bet the FTI cam will be up to the task.......
Yes, just like the stock lower, the Cobra/GT40/Explorer - the Performer lower is the restriction.
how much could you get a performer (entire manifold) to flow if you had to take guess Tom? I am just curious, but do you think you could get it to flow over 250, and with porting it out that much and still having the longer runners it would still hold all its low end and possibly gain some right?
250~270 is not a problem, even higher. How much is max depends on how much time is put into the work - but why go to extremes? I only recommend what is economically feasible for what you need. Done properly, an intake will not loose low end due to the intake work. The dynos I have of before-and-afters have shown no loss down low and gains over most of (if not all) the rpm range.
I'm getting a lower ported by Tom soon
Toms89lx50 made those numbers with some tricks like low accessories/afw/and higher revving engine.
A higher 60ft can usually relate to a higher mph in general. Just because one has a "worse" 60ft doesn't mean it hurts their performance. In fact some of my worst 60ft's (a bit to much spin) induced my highest traps because off the line your putting out more power even though it causes you to spin. Hope that made sense
Toms89lx50 made those numbers with some tricks like low accessories/afw/and higher revving engine.
A higher 60ft can usually relate to a higher mph in general. Just because one has a "worse" 60ft doesn't mean it hurts their performance. In fact some of my worst 60ft's (a bit to much spin) induced my highest traps because off the line your putting out more power even though it causes you to spin. Hope that made sense
5spd GT said:
His car peaked @ a low 5,800 and was nose diving after 6,000. I'm starring at the graph now. You won't see a power difference on the dyno with lighter internals, you'll see that @ the track.
The ported performer lower sounds like a nice upgrade for you low rpm 302 guys
Tom, what kinda gains can be seen with port matching a lower to the head? I have a slight port mismatch with my R lower and heads but I think it may be due to the heads being milled a bit and the block being decked to 0.
So what is a "nose dive". 5,800rpm is higher than most 302 afr/fti combos peak at on the street. That isn't "low".
Good question by the way. I believe Tom allows you to send him a stitch of the heads and he can match them. Is their an extra cost to doing that?
Good question by the way. I believe Tom allows you to send him a stitch of the heads and he can match them. Is their an extra cost to doing that?
