Weiand (say Why-and) was just bought out by Holley. They had been making heads &
manifolds back to the old flathead Ford days. Sad to see a leading brand sell
out.
But money talks. Pretty soon , there will only be a few stores left in corporate
Amerika: Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Pep Boys (featuring Holley speed equipment), and
of
course, McDonalds.
Al Johnson
Daniel Jones wrote:
> Super Ford did a big test of intakes on a 5.0L crate motor. There were lots
> of intakes including the Torker II and a reproduction Tiger intake (a low
> rise intake, not the F4B. The test was conducted before the Performer
> RPM and Weiand Stealth high rise dual plane intakes became available
> though. The only high rise tested was the Cobra reproduction intake.
> As I remember, Weiand Xcelerator was the winner. As far as heights go,
> it specs out with an A/B measurement of 3.75" and 4.88". The Stealth
> is very similar to the RPM and measures 4.35" and 5.59".
>
> Dan Jones
>
> >>> Bob Palmer <rpalmer@ames.ucsd.edu> 05/07/99 09:39pm >>>
>
> I like the way my F4B works, but I have had been using it for the past
> twenty years now and don't really know how much better (or worse) some of
> the newer manifolds might work. I might be tempted to take Dan's advice and
> try the Weiand Xcelerator. Any data comparing it to the Performer RPM?
> (That you trust that is.) Also, are there any data comparing the F4B to one
> of the popular modern intakes? Would prefer though, all else being more or
> less equal, to stick with the parts that are contemporary with the car.
>
> TTFN,
>
> Bob
>
> P.S., I probably should mention, for completeness, that there are
> variations in where the engine sits, depending on the motor mounts, etc.
> Quite a few Tigers out there have the engine lowered and moved back a bit
> for clearance and center of gravity reasons.
>
> At 09:59 AM 5/7/99 -0500, Daniel Jones wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>> Steve Laifman <laifman@flash.net> 05/06/99 07:21pm >>>
> >Daniel Jones wrote:
> >
> >> >The Torker is a HIGH rise manifold. The Carter is about the same as the
> >>I believe it is not a dual plane manifold, and is a bit soggy at the
> lower RPM
> >>ranges, but superior at the high revs.
> >
> >It is a single plane. Windsor states his is a Torker 289 but what Edelbrock
> >now lists is a Torker II which may or may not be the same as a Torker 289.
> >They redesigned some of the early intakes but others were simply renamed.
> >Some single planes are much better than others. Stay away from the x-type
> >single planes that have straight runners into the ports. The better ones
> have
> >gently curved runners. The best high rise dual planes may beat a so-so
> >single plane all the way across the rev range. A good single plane will
> >usually
> >win out on the top end and some aren't too bad on the low end either. The
> >tricky part is when you add the effect of an air cleaner. I lean towards a
> >good medium rise single plane like a Weiand Xcelerator with a full air
> cleaner
> >element over a high rise with a restricted element. That assumes I've got
>the
> >cam and compression to use a single plane in the first place. Single planes
> >can work well but they are more sensitive to engine configuration and tuning.
> >
> >Dan Jones
> >
>
> Robert L. Palmer
> Dept. of AMES, Univ. of Calif., San Diego
> rpalmer@ames.ucsd.edu
> rpalmer@cts.com
|