Why are so guys running TFS Track Heats and Performer RPM intakes????

[nmcgrawj]

Whats up guys? Im planning my h/c/i and i have been talking to Ed. He advised me to run the Eddie Performer for torque to get our heavy cars down the strip. And im wondering if that is what we need, and obviously KillerCanary proved it, why are so many guys getting the bigger intakes? Shouldn't we getting the smaller, more high velocity intakes?

Im not doubting anyone, i just want to make sure i understand this science as i go through it so i can explain it to others. Does anyone know how the Ed. Performer and TFS Street compare? What about the RPM/RPM II and the TFS Track heat?

 

[VIPERn94Five-0]

the thing is, Paul's(Killer) combo was put together with the regular performer in mind...his heads and cam were both carefully chosen to work well with that intake. its not what parts you use, its how they work together. I would guess Paul might pick up a little with an RPM upper, but he doesnt spin his car all that high as well, which doesnt neccisarily warrent the use of the high RPM intake....


Anthony

 

[nmcgrawj]

Hmmm yea i guess i can see that. But how much velocity will he give up with a rpm intake? Its about average numbers, not peak, so will the rpm give that?

I am asking because i have TFS twisted wedges with a stage 1 port job and i was a BIT surprised to be told to get the performer. I had the Track heat(performer rpm) in mind but if the performer will get the car to go faster, i could care less about dyno numbers.

Not many in COUPES out of our 94-95 cars have touched Paul's times. I think people should follow what he has done if they want the track times....maybe not if they want the Dyno King crown. He is in a fat vert and is still one of the fastest if not the fastest n/a h/c/i 94-95.

Please post any reasons or anything else to help me out. I do want to learn and im open to ALL opinions.

 

[T_5.0_N'works]

Not everyone is obsessed with 1/4 times or competes day in and day out. Low end torque isn't the end all be all. I can't stand a car that dies early in the RPM's. now for a daily driven truck/commuter, low end torque is nice.

Weight and gearing can negate the need for a lot of torque.

 

[YEAHLOH95]

i agree its all with the combo. i have the same heads as paul ,but not as heavy a car and i have boost which makes up for the shorter runners , i have a spacer on my car right now and would like to run it with it, then without to see how much difference a 1 inch change in runner length makes .

 

[nmcgrawj]

Not everyone is obsessed with 1/4 times or competes day in and day out. Low end torque isn't the end all be all. I can't stand a car that dies early in the RPM's. now for a daily driven truck/commuter, low end torque is nice.

Weight and gearing can negate the need for a lot of torque.

I agree....totally. You dont have to worry about it being lighter with the fox chassis. I was directing this towards the 94-95 guys. But whats the point of a high revving motor if its not making power? I can drive a civic if i want that.

If you can build it to rev it making more power and to go faster than by all means do it. 1/4 times are what you see on street light racing, not that you run for a 1/4 mile. I just dont see the point in having a super high peak hp number on the dyno if you are getting beat on the street or strip by someone who was "weaker" on the dyno.

 

[T_5.0_N'works]

I have a fox now but physics transfers to any year of cars. I'll have mt sn95 pretty soon within the month.

I don't race much on the street from light to light, so that's why I said what I said. You are right it's not about high peak numbers on the dyno's if it was Supras would be kings, hence why they are great on rolls. The power band through the RPM range is more important.

I guess you can over analyze intakes if you're out there competing for money, if not, it's not something to fret over, at least for me. My car still gets up and goes and can breath up top where I want it to be, on the highway.

 

[wytstang]

Those higher rpm intakes on daily drivers are not necessary. Meaning if you plan on revving the engine to at least 6500+ at the track than by all means go for it. But if you talk to most of the guys here who have a h/c/i combo they really don't feel to confident revving it to 6250. Too much air and not enough cubes = power loss.

 

[Grn92LX]

Too much air and not enough cubes = power loss.

Wrong (with in reason. we're not talking a TFS R head on a stock 302 short)

What that means is the combo is mismatched, NOT "too much air". The right cam will fix that mismatch with more power.

Ed recommended an RPM/75mm on my car and its NOT a high rpm car. My friend with an afr/fti set up uses an rpm as recommended by ed. Our cars are not some light weight cars either. Not all sn95's are heavy too, theres a few guys on here with race weight similar or less than mine. I know 94DreamGT's race weight is about what mine is. Its ALL in the combo. Theres a post in this section about a dude with afr's and an rpm intake with an aode. Ed recommended the rpm for him he said. I'm keeping my street heat manifold, but i'll probably add the much needed 75mm tb. If I ever did a new motor the rpm or track heat would be too tiny for it anyway.

 

[wytstang]

Wrong (with in reason. we're not talking a TFS R head on a stock 302 short)

What that means is the combo is mismatched, NOT "too much air". The right cam will fix that mismatch with more power.

He asked about the RPM II and that's what I was referring to when I said "too much air".

 

[zenboy99]

I'll have dyno numbers soon comparing RPM to my old Performer. Same dyno, same setup (minus the intake) and similar weather conditions. My car has been my daily driver for the last 3 years, averaging about 30 miles per day. Just put the RPM intake on last weekend, the car still has plenty of low end torque. I'm not sure why everyone steered me away from this intake?

 

[GTJake]

Not many in COUPES out of our 94-95 cars have touched Paul's times. I think people should follow what he has done if they want the track times....maybe not if they want the Dyno King crown. He is in a fat vert and is still one of the fastest if not the fastest n/a h/c/i 94-95.

Have you thought about when these new guys have got they're setups up and running? Not to take anything away from Paul (as he is a huge inspiration to everyone going all out N/A on here), but he has been working at his setup for a long time. These other guys like Jeremy, Chad, Stangfreak95, Joe, and Dave just got their new setups running this summer. It takes more than a couple outings at the track to come back with great numbers. I went to the track the first time just hoping for 12s because I knew I was an inexpireance racer and I was learning a new combo. I think in the next few years you will see quite a few SN-95s running sub 12.50s with their new combos. I wouldn't doubt in the next few years if there are a few in the 11s with the stock SB

Not all sn95's are heavy too, theres a few guys on here with race weight similar or less than mine. I know 94DreamGT's race weight is about what mine is. Its ALL in the combo.

I agree with Mike 100%. SN-95 are not all that heavier than their fox counterparts (at least coupes vs. hatches). My race weight is 3325 with just basic weight reduction. That's a 3175lb. SN-95, not too shabby for very very little weight reduction. And I know snoozer and Jesse have got their cars even lighter with some cleaver thinking.



Chad- Did you leave the same TB and TB setup on there? That would be interesting to see the before and after numbers.

Jake

 

[5spd GT]

Listen to Ed...he knows what he is talking about and what is best for your car...

By the way I have a Performer intake on my car...and my car comes on strong once it hits 4000+...Ed recommended it to me and I wouldn't go either other way...he does this sort of a thing for a living...

Bigger is not always better...you can get a cam to get you some low bottom end but that could suffer during the grind (to get the lowend) and you may have to sacrifice mid or high rpm power levels that may not match well with the flow of the heads, intake, etc...

 

[Grn92LX]

He asked about the RPM II and that's what I was referring to when I said "too much air".

Well, not to ruin or hi jack the thread but its still not 'too much air' if the combo was designed with it Now, putting that on an E cammed car I can see your point. IMO bigger is better if you design the combo right and have the p to v clearence. Just take a look at 86 cobra's pump gas 306 making 365rwhp and 300 ft/lbs by 3000 RPM(more than some afr 165 guys make at 3000rpm). Now (with in reason) tell me bigger isnt better if the combo's designed right

Jake- the last time I weighed my car it was 3180 with me in it but that was with a near empty tank and a T5. Now with this tremec and mcleod scattershield its probably another 50lbs more. Not that it matters anymore since our local track shut down for good

 

[nmcgrawj]

Ok so obvisouly weight matters but i have never weighed mine. I didn't add anything weight wise except the wheels(which are a good amount of weight themselves) and the hood. Everything else is still stock.

What did 95 GT 5-speeds weigh out the factory? How much would you add for 18's?

I like how this thread is going. Im learning a lot and like to see everyone's point of view. I also didn't think about everyone just getting started, that was a very good point

But with these bigger intakes, how can you make up the velocity with the cam and heads? Do you need smaller valves in the heads? Is it something in the cam grind for quicker openings of the valve or something?

I didn't know the RPM II flowed that much more air. I thought it was a re-designed RPM that flowed a little better but was still about the same as the Track Heat.

Since I wanted the TFS intakes for the black finish, what do i need to do to the Edelbrock intakes to paint them?

Keep the thread going guys with the facts, well stated opinions and best of all experiences.

 

[wytstang]

Well, not to ruin or hi jack the thread but its still not 'too much air' if the combo was designed with it Now, putting that on an E cammed car I can see your point. IMO bigger is better if you design the combo right and have the p to v clearence. Just take a look at 86 cobra's pump gas 306 making 365rwhp and 300 ft/lbs by 3000 RPM(more than some afr 165 guys make at 3000rpm). Now (with in reason) tell me bigger isnt better if the combo's designed right

A huge intake on a d/d would be over kill I would assume (you know what they say if you assume) even if the combo is right with a intake that doesn't start to make power well into the rpm range would not be suitable for a d/d. Drivability would be a major concern especially if it’s a stock short block with 100,000 + commuter which most people have. Great info by the way keep it coming. On a side note that's awesome #'s that guys putting down.

 

[Grn92LX]

You clearly missed my point. Let me try 1 more time A "huge" intake on a dd 302-306 car is NOT overkill. JUst look at the example I posted. That dude uses a holley systemax intake which is similar to an rpm2 which you call 'too much air'. Look at the power it makes and the low end tq is makes. It makes more power than every car in this thread AND has the low end tq for the fun factor. It makes more tq at 3000rpm than you probably make at the peak Again, when matched right to the combo, tell me how that "big" intake is 'too much'?

All this talk makes me wanna do a new motor combo..

 

[nmcgrawj]

So Grrn92lx, you dont really consider the trackheat, rpm, rpm II, holley, etc class of intakes to be too much air do you? I didn't before this thread.

I thought the TFS R intakes, the Victor Jr.s, etc where the HUGE intakes. I thought the middle ones like the trackheat and rpm were just like the smallest ones, just being able to perform better up top.

So do you think i should get a bigger intake? Or stick with the performer like Ed says?

 

[Grn92LX]

Yes, I agree with you.

As for what intake to use, I would use the RPM and tell ed you wanna make good power all around and that low end tq is still important. Do what GTJake did and tell him you want 11 second power and still awesome low end.

I know that jay allen (another good cam grinder) likes bigger parts. I'd look into him as well for a cam. I was planning a 347 and he recommended the victor for it. I'd use the TFS R actually if I ever did it.

For the record, it doesn't always take an ed c cam to make power. My friend has a 306 with edelbrock heads (new ones) a tfs street intake and a comp xe270 cam and made 323hp/348tq with a chip. Only thing he needs is a set of longtubes!! If only our local track was open he'd be running low 12's easily or better with an et street. I wanna see him race my friends aft/rpm/fti combo. It ent 12.40's. I was neck and neck with his 306 and neck and neck with my friends afr/fti car. My car was (and still is) not 100% tuned/dialed in.

 

[nmcgrawj]

Yes, I agree with you.

As for what intake to use, I would use the RPM and tell ed you wanna make good power all around and that low end tq is still important. Do what GTJake did and tell him you want 11 second power and still awesome low end.

I know that jay allen (another good cam grinder) likes bigger parts. I'd look into him as well for a cam. I was planning a 347 and he recommended the victor for it. I'd use the TFS R actually if I ever did it.

Ok, well what about the Trackheat(i want the black finish) and you seem to be a TFS guy, are those as good as the rpm?

Hey GTJAKE! Lol, what is your car weighing in at? Where do you shift? I guess i will tell Ed that if thats what you did and you ended up with 325rwhp. What do you think you need to do to get those times to the low 12's?

My heads will flow with the fox lake stage 1 job(tfs twisted wedge) and i dont want to NOT use any potential power that a small intake would leave behind.