Ford Mustang Forums banner

61 - 80 of 167 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,604 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
923 Posts
So let me clarify. These heads described are "Hogged" out literally. No flow benching done just plain hogged out absolutely no science applied. Probably has plenty of volume to use though, lol. Then putting a unported GT40 lower mated to it along with shorty headers that are way undersized compared to the exhaust port topped with an X303 cam which is not really the best cam to use with a KB. Good combo? No I don't think so. But it did make 450hp to the wheels.
 

·
USAF retired
Joined
·
9,308 Posts
Or you can always grind through the aluminum and use epoxy to fill it in and paint over it. Thats a professional way to do it. Not aluminum weld.
I've done that on my junk, it works.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,827 Posts
The biggest limitation on a gt40 style 302 intake will always be the two front runners on the lower. I've seen some fairly wild claims that you can get close to 300 cfm @ 28inH2O through them which is highly suspect, especially without any welding on the lower. Obviously static flow numbers don't show the whole story of power potential but for the sake of comparing numbers it makes a valid point.

I ran a Lightning 351w gt40 intake on my original 408w for the sake of stock appearance to please the emissions police and for hood clearance, but even that lower manifold with its less radiused ports needed to have the no. 1 and 5 runners welded up in order to remove enough material to balance out the airflow distribution across all the runners. I had 40 hrs of work in that manifold and managed to get it flowing 275 cfm on the lower runners which was good for about 400 rwhp with AFR 185s and an emissions friendly cam. Swapping only the intake for an unported single plane victor jr efi with 90 deg elbow and 80mm tb bumped it up by almost 70 rwhp with a negligible low end torque loss. That says alot about how much of a restriction the older intake was. A bigger cam would have narrowed the playing field a little if emissions wouldn't have been a concern.

I'm posting this as an observation. Not trying to feed the flames.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,880 Posts
So let me clarify. These heads described are "Hogged" out literally. No flow benching done just plain hogged out absolutely no science applied. Probably has plenty of volume to use though, lol. Then putting a unported GT40 lower mated to it along with shorty headers that are way undersized compared to the exhaust port topped with an X303 cam which is not really the best cam to use with a KB. Good combo? No I don't think so. But it did make 450hp to the wheels.
That's a very good dyno figure for the GT40 lower intake and the KB 2200 setup. I forgot you said it had Performer RPM heads, and ported, that should be plenty of head.

As the other here mentioned the lower GT40 intake being small, and the debate of porting etc, I'd want a better intake if there was a choice.

As TMoss and others point out sometimes, porting isn't so much about the maximum size of runners, but which parts are big versus small. The runners should be their largest size at the inlet openings, and slowly get smaller(taper), all the way to the outlets, such as at the head. So the upper intake should have inner port sizes much bigger than the ports at the heads, or at the inlet ports of the lower intake. I'd bet that taper concept is lost on most porters who just "hog out the ports".
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
261 Posts
Just curious, what if the engine was supercharged? Would the ported explorer still be a restriction at say 350-400rwph? Would there be a noticeable gain from an aftermarket intake?
We had a customer make 530whp/610wtrq with our stage 2 ported Explorer gt40 manifold, our stage 2 ported gt40 heads and stock cam at 9lbs of boost. Power peaked at 5100rpm and held it till he let up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
923 Posts
That's a very good dyno figure for the GT40 lower intake and the KB 2200 setup. I forgot you said it had Performer RPM heads, and ported, that should be plenty of head.

As the other here mentioned the lower GT40 intake being small, and the debate of porting etc, I'd want a better intake if there was a choice.
These are the early Edelbrocks from the 90s when they first came out. So my bad just Performers 6037 with 2.02 installed afterwards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,779 Posts
Intakes and heads have used epoxy for years. If done properly, there are no issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tmoss and Ed Curtis

·
Old timer
Joined
·
6,107 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
261 Posts
Any before and after track times?
I don't know any of his times but you can get on our page and ask him directly. We have many customers willing to share their results when asked directly.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
261 Posts
Intakes and heads have used epoxy for years. If done properly, there are no issues.
That's not the correct way of doing it. It might work for a short time but eventually it will fail. Any good porter should also know how to tig weld. We weld areas where we bust through that way the part lasts. I would be very weary about a porter that uses epoxy to fill in port holes on his customers parts. What else is he skimping on.
 

·
Old timer
Joined
·
6,107 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
261 Posts
True Professionals provide their customers with before and after flow results on their parts as well.
YouTube and other social media sources are just platforms that modern people use to exchange information and not the soup can and string method.
 

·
Old timer
Joined
·
6,107 Posts
Professionals do not test measure their work with sockets.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
642 Posts
Ed, I need more power bro. These new cars are too fast. Never thought I would see the day when a 550 rwhp car weighing 2750 lbs is too slow to keep up.
 
61 - 80 of 167 Posts
Top