I am an avid old school 5.0 guy. The issue with carb vs fuel injection at the time.....was nobody had a Holley dominator on their street efi setup. It was ProM mass air and spout out with fuel pressure tuning. The carbs slaughtered the efi guys at the track. Even with an A trim....back in the day...a carb and a 150 shot murdered all.
agree i did the whole trickflow fuel inj top end late 90s in my late teens. Barley broke 300 whp. My father in a mild 351 with trickflow heads with a 4 barrel Alway was faster. almost .5 seconds. I could hang to the 1/8 and he destroyed me top end. Fuel injection sucked back then.
I'd be very interested to see a Holley Sniper EFI setup on top of the carb manifold to see how that stacks up. Actually, how about a general carb vs Sniper video?
Richard, back around the time i worked for DH and we were doing stuff on the Focus, I methodically tested the following parts before and after and found them to be the respective best for each around the power range this engine is at. You need to run a Holley Systemax II with a 65mm Ford Motorsport (old school) throttle body and EGR spacer. If you have the 65mm for an Explorer, it’s the same casting and throttle blade with a different lever and no PCV tube but it has the exact same flow characteristics. That pairing should gain 500-600 usable rpm and come close to or match the carburetor and dual plane at the rpm the EFI combination tops out at. -Walter
@@richardholdener1727 I tested about a dozen TBs in this power range for Bob Mclurg in a multi-way N/A and forced induction comparison to one DH was making with inserts to make it perform like a 65/70/75mm in a single unit. The two standouts from that test were the old SVO 65mm and the 75mm with a 65mm Venturi reducer in front of the throttle blade. The final article completely omitted the SVO 65mm TB because it was the top performing part in both configurations for torque and horsepower across the range. And my first inclination to how good that SVO TB was came from one of your early dyno tests on a 351W with a Vortech that made about 630HP back in the mid-90s at R&E. Those were the days.
The takeaway I got was that my decision to use a carburetor on the 302 Im building was the right one, not only in terms of poWer but simplicity. I don't think that a carb that big is necessary, I'm using a Carter/Edelbrock 600 cfm
Tubular gt 40. X cam. 24 pound injectors 331 10:5 to 1 Iron WORLD heads . T 5. Equal length Motorsport headers . In a 1992 red summertime Fox . I love the performance for the street . Perfect for 0 to 90 runs . It’s quite surprising.
For the best efi intkae manifold. I think the holley systemax 2 would be best. But i still think the carbarator would make more power and and at a little higher rpm. But i think that would be a very interesting test
The best 5.0L Ford carb intake I've tried has been the Weiand Stealth, it beat the Edelbrock RPM carb intake. The best injector intake I tried was the Edelbrock RPM. The RPM carb intake ran like it was too big for the engine and the Stealth best it everywhere in power. Used the Ford E303 camshaft too. I ran both a 65mm and a 70mm throttle body on the RPM injection intake. Try an RPM injection intake and see if you can run a Stealth carb intake. The Holley stage 2 injection intake and a Trick Flow intake were about equal, but the RPM beat both of them for me.
I was interested in this video as the efi manifold is almost the same design as the ecotec V6 ones here in Aus (3800 II) and they do as what in this video, good at low end but suck at the high revs. The older 3800 1 use an improved aussie specific version of the US LN3 manifolds with short straight shot tapered trumpets into a common 1.7L plenum. I did the calc once and the ideal rpm for that manifold is somewhere around 7500- 8000 rpm where the later ecotec ones with the long S bend runners is more like 5500-6000. Explains partly why the older engines made better NA engines when hotted up despite having much smaller valves.
Man this is cool I got a 5.0 ho from an 89 mustang they put a comp cam in it with to high of a lift I think pistons slapped the valves but it still ran amazingly.
Dude, Richard I may not own any fast cars but holy crap the knowledge you have given me over the years is insane. Thank you so much for your videos! I love learning about your combos and how they work.
Good stuff! The explorer intakes are still available in the junkyard for much cheaper than the RPMII - probably one of the best upgrades for an efi 5.0 for the money.
I second that I've seen Big dogs porting "shorten" the intake runners by porting the intake runners(on cast units) in such a way as to blend them all together in the upper portion of the runner and essentially lengthen the "plenum" portion of it. Supposedly it moved the rpm range of the intake and they are able to see tremendous gains, but I haven't seen any numbers myself.
It's close to a 400 HP Don Sherman AFR 165 Stock Cam validation run! Great that you did this Retest, it's just missing heads and a stock HO Roller cam. None of this hard work you've done is lost on me, thankyou RH!. 4:44 No way! You dialled up the Elevator Music, Mr H. Your atmospherics have changed. Ford Racing quoted the Watson's Showa Yamaha GT40 as topping out at 425 HP gross. What cam would you use to make the two types of GT40 or "G51" intake produce 425 HP instead of 369? Or is that too, Don Sherman Fantasy?
@@richardholdener1727 As noted on the 90 HP gains video a month ago at 7:55, I'm 100% your advocate in this matter. As I said then, Maybee, that 400 HP with those alloy heads, 1.7 rockers and a stock 5.0 Mustang HO roller cam 5.0 engine is possible. But I vote for a New Super R Holdener Test. Best wishes for the conquest of Truth over Hype!🫡
Impressed to see how well a carb does. How about trying a 650 Holley to see if that chokes down power. As far as an EFI manifold, I don't recall any Coyote style manifolds for the Windsor engine
The carb vs efi in my opinion carb wins cuz it's way cheaper my 306 made 400 horse with a RPM air gap and a 650 demon and I'd like to see what the BBK SSI intake can do but they're so hard to find
Looks like carb is better on this test great video, ! Think I need a carb on my 91 HO 5.0 Mustang ! A efi to carb conversation video would be helpful !
Hey Richard. the way you improve the Tubular gt40 manifolds upper rpm pull is to increase the manifolds static airflow abilities. I know you say you've tested ported gt40 manifolds but we have yet to see anyone port these things the way we do and get them to work so well. We have customers that's peaking past 6,000rpm with our stage 2 and higher with our stage 3 ported tubulars. the stock tubular gt40 manifold suffers from the lack of throttle body tunnel flow and the runners flow is low and out of balance from bank to bank so its low flow and a non optimized AFR from bank to bank because of that. The TB tunnel only flows around 800-840cfm and if you install vac sensor on the TB tunnel and measure at wot on a decent engine you will see it pull a lot of vacuum. We've tested tons of different manifolds when working on our porting programs, cut them open and picked them apart. I'm a master fabricator and a degreed engineer with over 30 years experience. Runner wave length tuning on the 3rd wave accounts for 8-10% cfm boost of the runners static flow. If you dramatically increase the statics flow you can keep the hp from falling off as the rpm climbs and boost power even more in the lower to middle rpm (2nd wave). We have a back to back dyno comparison showing this very thing. A shorter runner lower flowing aftermarket manifold vs a higher flowing stock runner length (15" runner plus a 1" spacer and a 1/2" nitrous plate) 302 base Cobra gt40 manifold. The Cobras power curve shot up quicker, made more power everywhere and made more power up top over the shorter runner lower flowing manifold without falling off all the way till 6,200-6,300rpm where they stopped the dyno pull. A stock Tubular gt40 manifold 302 base has a bolted together average runner flow of 200-210cfm. We have gotten the tubulars to flow as much as 320cfm with our stage 3 cut, modified and welded max porting and modified with expanded TB tunnel. We weld in extra material in key places in order to reshape the runners for increased flow. You have to see them In person and test them for yourself to believe lol. looking forward to working with you on that👍
I would like to test them-but if you don't change the runner length-you don't change the reflected wave (one of the three forms of charge filling associated with intake design-Reflected Wave, Inertial Ram and Hemlholtz resonance). are you also not changing the flow of the tubes in any way of the tubular GT40 or are you running a Cobra upper that provides more flexibility to porting and modifications?
@@richardholdener1727 right, on the tubular you don't have to change the wave tuning length to get them to carry the hp higher in the rpm band. You can increase the static flow and the areas in the manifold runner that has the mcsa. When you do that you increase the rpm at which the runners air velocity goes sonic. That's also how we get the LS truck manifold to carry its hp higher in the rpm curve, by increasing its static airflow as much as we can for the application. Its similar to running the frequency of a band pass subwoofer enclosure. I use to design and build them and there were several ways we could tune them. Box volume, port length and port CSA. I've seen a test where a Stock tubular gt40 manifold had a hp rpm peak at 6,600rpm. If that motor had our stage 2 or stage 3 ported tubular on it the overall power would have been considerably higher. Shoot me a your contact information and I can send you the back to back dyno results that I spoke of earlier. Bigdogscandc@aol.com
@@richardholdener1727 There was a test done by Motortrend back in 01' where they took a healthy 347 and tested several manifolds one being a 302 based Tubular gt40 manifold that had the lower Extrude honed (those tend to flow a lot less than our ported lowers . We have flow tested them to verify this) but the upper and its major restrictions were stock. They also tested the tubular with a smaller 70mm throttle body while the other manifolds tested had a bigger 75mm throttle body. Well the results were: Tubular Gt40 450hp @ 6,600rpm. TFS R 475hp @ 6,500rpm. Systemax 2 474hp @ 6,300rpm. Victor 5.0 481hp @ 6,600rpm. Although the gt40 manifold had the longest runners of them all they still all peaked around the same rpm. Had that gt40 had our stage 2 or stage 3 porting (with a much higher and better balanced static runner and throttle body tunnel flow) modifying on its upper, lower, throttle body tunnel and ran with a 75mm throttle body like the other manifolds it would have made the most hp everywhere in the tested rpm range. Dramatically increase the longer runner static cfm flow and you will extend the rpm that it can support hp at.
Hey Richard, there is one more version of the gt40 intake. They used a version on the volvo/penta boats that has a shorter intake where the throttle body bolts on. Could be worth a look
Richard, the king of budget SBF EFI intakes is the Explorer from a junkyard. The way to improve it is to port the lower. It requires a little welding so you don't break through in a couple spots but it increases and equalizes the flow from port to port and it's not that expensive... If you pull the whole engine, then port the lower, add a cam and Holley Terminator, that's a $2,000 combo unless you swap heads. If you start with the same Explorer motor, add a cam, an Edelbrock Performer RPM, a Holley 750 and a MSD distributor, you are probably also around $2,000 so the comparison makes sense. If you want a better intake, the Holley Systemax, Trick Flow (long runner) and Edelbrock Performer RPM all seemed to be pretty close in power so pick one.
Cant beat a carb for simplicity. Injection is great when it's working right. I have a friend that has been chasing the loping idle in his 86 GT for years. Every sensor and part has been changed at least once and every trick for idle reset has been done. I suggested switching to carb but he says he's lived with it this long he'll just keep living with it.
the carb venturis will have a cooling effect while the long runner EFI intake is going to soak up heat with all its surface area once the hood is closed. We could easily use the carb intake with injectors drilled into the runners by the ports and then use a throttle body and find....no different in power. the engine doesn't know how it gets its air, it just heats it up--when the runners have the same area. The long runner EFI intake did what it usually does--ran out of breath before 5,000 rpm to generate torque instead. install an old Spyder or "bread box" EFI intake, and you'll find it swaps its torque curve over the RPM band.
@@richardholdener1727 If you change the intake manifold design, yes. but as I said, you can take that carb intake, drill bungs in for fuel injectors, replace the carb with a throttle body and the engine...ain't gonna know there's a difference when the runners have the same area of flow. There may be a case for better fuel atomization depending on air temp you're running inside the dyno, but a ton of dyno tests in Hot Rod Magazine et al prove...there was maybe a 5 hp difference when this was done, and that was easily chalked up to operator error. As for this test, you compared a long runner intake to a short runner intake (the wet one) and voila, the hp peaked exactly where everyone thought it would. Now we get into the aspect you're talking about, two different intake designs and the engine is getting air with different velocities, densities, etc. But again, different intake designs make for an apple to orange comparison. For the new guys, this test is news about an engine they know little about in an age of LS, but for us old guys, a "breadbox" short runner intake compared to the carb would have been less apples to oranges.
What intake should you compare the Edelbrock Performer to? How about the Edelbrock Performer (EFI version)? Also I had a thought on that Explorer elbow test. Putting the 90 degree elbow slightly reduced power compared to the straight shot into the throttle body, but if you are running the fox body throttle body placement, there will be a very similar 90 degree bend in the air intake tube. So what would really be a fair comparison (based on how it would be installed in a car) would be the Explorer elbow with a straight intake tube and air filter compared to the fox throttle body setup with the fox style intake tube and air filter. I’m thinking that would probably equal out the power differences.
coll stuff as always. i am hoping things are going well for you. I'm wondering why you've changed the display so that both HP tracks are blue and both torque tracks are red? Previous videos would have each engine be one color for both HP and torque. I find the new way much more difficult to understand.
Hi Richard! I had a question for you. Or your loyal Ford Gurus. I have an 86 Bronco with 5.0 efi, and AOD trans. My speed density system is having age issues. (Wiring, egr, etc) Question is, i want about 300(ish HP) and 300(ish) Torque. Vehicle will be operating basically below the 4500 mark. Now for my question. I have a complete 99 Explorer parts vehicle. Which is easier to swap? converting to MAF? Converting to Carburetor? Swapping the entire 99 Explorer Motor, harness and computer? I am Looking into getting an Edelbrock top end kit regardless of which route im Suggested. Thanks in advance!
I'd love to see Holley hi-ram but 4150 pattern tuned port would probably be a more apples to apples comparison. Then again might need a performer vs performer rpm vs air gap vs victor jr vs victor sr overlay on the same. I'm a little curious why it was non airgap. Appreciate the vids Richard!
Like the video. I took a three bar explorer lower intake welded #1,4,5,8 runners and ported them to same size of for all the runners.then took a 4 bar explorer top and opened it up for a 75mm accufab tb. comp cam 1 3/4 headers 36lbs. Inj. Sct chip stock ecm 76mm may sensor rhs heads 190 fast as cast. Ported. 95 f150. 12.20s 1/4 mile. Never dynoed. Would you port a explorer intake and do some dyno test. I have a trick flow track heat now. Not much gain 12.10s .
Hey Richard, I would like to see how the truck 5.0 intake compares to the GT40 styles. It seems to have bigger rectangular runners compared to the fox body and even the standard 5.8 truck intakes.
My 95 302 truck intake ports are about 3/16" smaller in both length and width compared to the actual port opening on my stock e7te heads. So that intake is not very good for anything but high torque figures due to the high air speed in the runners.
I have yet to see anyone compare a port injected single plane vs. Dual. The internet has tons of opinions. The aftermarket has only embraced the port injected single planes. Show us why or why not they are correct in doing so!
@richardholdener1727 So the notion that a PI single plane will have better low-mid range characteristics than a carb application is not true? Or, somewhere in the middle? It has better characteristics than its carberueted conterpart, but don't expect it to rival dual plane torque production because port velocity is still inferior in comparison. Side Note... Have you done testing on plenum turtles?
Now the big question: What would the Edelbrock airgap or rpm do with a throttle body fuel injection unit? Will fuel atomizing in the plenum help make power?
I'd like to see the holley hi-ram, just for shits and giggles. Seems like all the sbf intakes will only fit small throttle bodies(in comparison to ls stuff) so I'd be curious to see what the old sbf with the holley intake and a big throttle body would do. Then later on add a better suited cam.
@@richardholdener1727 thank you. I’m in the way to make some upgrades on my Lincoln Town car and trying to figure out what cam size I can have that wake my engine up without the lope idling.
Have you ever run an Edelbrock Pro Flo 4 fuel injection system? These systems use a single plane 4 bbl style intake combined with port fuel injection and a 1000 cfm 4 bbl throttle body. This setup seems like an interesting compromise.
@@richardholdener1727 Morning. So do you think a dual plane converted to port fuel injection work? How about a long runner single plane converted to port fuel injection?
Richard, can we use a dual or single plane manifold, fabricate an elbow so one end off the elbow mounts to the intake manifold flange, and the other end of the right angle elbow we could mount the throttle body to,? Do we really need all that plenum area with the with fuel injection?, what do you think?
Mathematically speaking a 650 CFM carburetor will allow a 5 liter motor to spin to 7500 RPMs A 600 CFM carburetor will spin it to 6,800 RPMs You should have more vacuum, and better throttle response as well if you were using a 600 rather than the 750.
Trickflow Box R for an all-out efi build. I chose a Trickflow Track Heat in hopes of making peak power within the limits of my stock rotating assembly and a Trickflow stage 2 cam. We'll see.
Not sure if an efi based intake could stand up. I remember you doing a box upper but i still think that wouldn't do it. Maybe a converted air gap vs a regular air gap?
Works great in high rpms Best with larger stroker motors. Coast high performance ran one on a 408. Horsepower TV ran the 8.2. I believe it was a 347 build.
How come you did not compare a Edelbrock Performer EFI intake to the carb version? I remember reading that the Performer RPM carb intake out flows the GT40 intake. That would have been a better comparison.
also hey Richard.. have you ran a stock block 302 with fully punched out trickflow170s 61cc chambers, cobra upper gt40 lower 70mm throttle body, 60lb injectors, 70mm turbo on3 setup basically, with a full msd setup. with 3 inch downpipe to flowmaster super 44s deltas. ive got this exact same setup except ive tuned it myself with a ms2pnp . there's no dynos where I live "7hours away". would like to kno what the power and torque would be.. thanks man great video. love the Windsor content... also I pick a authentic FULL 93 svt cobra intake that's had Tmoss's touch added to it. those things make and hold power lmfao.
With factory Terminator takeoff superchargers being so cheap on eBay often in the $1000 area Being a fabricator by profession I don't think it would be hard at all to build an adapter to go from the 5.0 factory lower to a custom fabricated aluminum upper to accept the supercharger... I'd think The hardest part is getting the fore to aft pulley location without a mock engine or having my car down for awhile which I'd rather not. Anyone have any thoughts on this... A 5.0 with an Eaton blower would be pretty cool and likely make good power with some supporting mods like heads and cam.
People that consider themselves hot rodder or enthusiasts, think things like injectors too big, when you have programmable efi… that was my lol part of this one. Since I was named mr lol :p
I see that they both have their place. I assume timing and A/F were optimized for both combo's. But does this come down to evaporation factor of the wet intake vs dry intake? I ponder in my setup of vapor propane turbo sbc, could I benefit from a fuel injection intake manifold vs the Super Victor that I'm currently running. 1 was designed for dry air flow and 1 was designed as wet. But I imagine that you will say "All intakes are Turbo intakes".
Just tossing this out there hoping for some input. I'm going to try an experiment using the Holley/Ford 2V carbs from the mid '70's 2.3 mounted on a mid '80's lower f.i. intake to make an inline 4V. Should I mill the dividers between the runners or even chamfer them?
@@richardholdener1727 I only mentioned the 750 carb cause that's what was tested but yes 100% any carb you choose would be awesome to compare to carb shaped F.I. Like Fi-Tech
I imagine the bigger injectors might make it a little more difficult to make AFRs perfect for emissions at idle etc, due to more granularity, but I agree it won't matter at WOT.
Large injectors usually only might have stability issues at extremely low duty cycles/pulse width i.e. trying to idle a small engine with huge injectors. It depends on the injector design how touchy they are.
You need a ported lower to match the flow of the edelbrock. Big dogs porting would love to supply one I’m sure to showcase their work. Then retest to see power figures
Please help !!!! I have a 302 I'm rebuilding and I will be going with a carb setup. Most likely a 750, with that being said I have plans on using a E303 cam with 1.6 roller rockers because I heard it's the best cam when going with a carb setup. My cousin is dead set on getting me to use an F303 cam because he used one in the past with a carb setup and loved it. Please give me you oppion on which cam you think will work better. I will be using GT40P heads ported and polished with new springs of course and I don't plan on using any boost.
either cam will work-they don't care about it having a carb. Pick the cam that does the other things you need like idle quality, drivability, mpg etc...The bigger cam will make more peak power but less down low
Blue print cnc ports there China dart clone now? Old 90's cast efi intakes for the 5.0 are all dead before 6k nothing new there, the few better ones where all ways touted as too big. Hi ram. Box r and victor. Would be nice tests vs a baseline systemax. But there all hard to get these days
I see SBF content, I instantly hit like! 👍
Same
Me too!
Me 3😂
Same
Same here
I am an avid old school 5.0 guy. The issue with carb vs fuel injection at the time.....was nobody had a Holley dominator on their street efi setup. It was ProM mass air and spout out with fuel pressure tuning. The carbs slaughtered the efi guys at the track. Even with an A trim....back in the day...a carb and a 150 shot murdered all.
agree i did the whole trickflow fuel inj top end late 90s in my late teens. Barley broke 300 whp. My father in a mild 351 with trickflow heads with a 4 barrel Alway was faster. almost .5 seconds. I could hang to the 1/8 and he destroyed me top end. Fuel injection sucked back then.
Not to mention changing the MAF to run bigger injectors completely ignoring it was completely changing the timing table - d'oh!
@@DillonAuto Nobody is arguing car vs injector. It is the lack of efi control at the time. The efi tuning at the time was beyond horrible.
I'd be very interested to see a Holley Sniper EFI setup on top of the carb manifold to see how that stacks up. Actually, how about a general carb vs Sniper video?
Richard, back around the time i worked for DH and we were doing stuff on the Focus, I methodically tested the following parts before and after and found them to be the respective best for each around the power range this engine is at. You need to run a Holley Systemax II with a 65mm Ford Motorsport (old school) throttle body and EGR spacer. If you have the 65mm for an Explorer, it’s the same casting and throttle blade with a different lever and no PCV tube but it has the exact same flow characteristics. That pairing should gain 500-600 usable rpm and come close to or match the carburetor and dual plane at the rpm the EFI combination tops out at. -Walter
WALTER-I HAVE TESTED THE SYSTEMAX SEVERAL TIMES IN THE PAST-I HAVE VIDEOS UP ON IT-A 65 IS RESTRICTIVE AT THIS POWER LEVEL
@@richardholdener1727 I tested about a dozen TBs in this power range for Bob Mclurg in a multi-way N/A and forced induction comparison to one DH was making with inserts to make it perform like a 65/70/75mm in a single unit. The two standouts from that test were the old SVO 65mm and the 75mm with a 65mm Venturi reducer in front of the throttle blade. The final article completely omitted the SVO 65mm TB because it was the top performing part in both configurations for torque and horsepower across the range.
And my first inclination to how good that SVO TB was came from one of your early dyno tests on a 351W with a Vortech that made about 630HP back in the mid-90s at R&E. Those were the days.
The takeaway I got was that my decision to use a carburetor on the 302 Im building was the right one, not only in terms of poWer but simplicity. I don't think that a carb that big is necessary, I'm using a Carter/Edelbrock 600 cfm
I had Carter 750,600 edelbrock I didn't like either 1 I got 650 double pumper holley couple of car lengths differences
Tubular gt 40. X cam. 24 pound injectors 331 10:5 to 1
Iron WORLD heads . T 5.
Equal length Motorsport headers . In a 1992 red summertime Fox . I love the performance for the street . Perfect for 0 to 90 runs . It’s quite surprising.
For the best efi intkae manifold. I think the holley systemax 2 would be best. But i still think the carbarator would make more power and and at a little higher rpm. But i think that would be a very interesting test
The best 5.0L Ford carb intake I've tried has been the Weiand Stealth, it beat the Edelbrock RPM carb intake. The best injector intake I tried was the Edelbrock RPM. The RPM carb intake ran like it was too big for the engine and the Stealth best it everywhere in power. Used the Ford E303 camshaft too. I ran both a 65mm and a 70mm throttle body on the RPM injection intake. Try an RPM injection intake and see if you can run a Stealth carb intake. The Holley stage 2 injection intake and a Trick Flow intake were about equal, but the RPM beat both of them for me.
I was interested in this video as the efi manifold is almost the same design as the ecotec V6 ones here in Aus (3800 II) and they do as what in this video, good at low end but suck at the high revs. The older 3800 1 use an improved aussie specific version of the US LN3 manifolds with short straight shot tapered trumpets into a common 1.7L plenum. I did the calc once and the ideal rpm for that manifold is somewhere around 7500- 8000 rpm where the later ecotec ones with the long S bend runners is more like 5500-6000. Explains partly why the older engines made better NA engines when hotted up despite having much smaller valves.
Man this is cool I got a 5.0 ho from an 89 mustang they put a comp cam in it with to high of a lift I think pistons slapped the valves but it still ran amazingly.
Dude, Richard I may not own any fast cars but holy crap the knowledge you have given me over the years is insane. Thank you so much for your videos! I love learning about your combos and how they work.
Nice work, Richard. This old guy is eager to see the next installment.
Long tubular runners + the street = smile ... Carb is Sooooo versatile.. a winner.
THE TEST I have always wanted to see, GREAT job Richard 👍 👏 👌
Good stuff! The explorer intakes are still available in the junkyard for much cheaper than the RPMII - probably one of the best upgrades for an efi 5.0 for the money.
Especially if you swap the heads too.
And heads too. I got p heads and intake for 135
@@BruceLee-xn3nn Nice!
Good video Richard, here's an idea, same dual plane intake! Throttle body fuel injection for a carb versus efi in that limited form comparison
It'd be neat to see a comparison with a 351 based engine across stock and stroker cubes.
Stack injection would be my vote, but probably not many of those laying around. Thanks for the content Mr. Holdener!
I didn't expect the torque curves to be so similar. The Performer/750 combo would be a fun hooligan setup, the EFI for a daily driver.
I agree.. .EFI for sure for a daily driver
I'd use the Edelbrock Dual Plane with a Holley Sniper TBI 👍
Really cool stuff. Love to see a Gt40 ported lower, and shorter runner upper. Thanks man.
I second that I've seen Big dogs porting "shorten" the intake runners by porting the intake runners(on cast units) in such a way as to blend them all together in the upper portion of the runner and essentially lengthen the "plenum" portion of it. Supposedly it moved the rpm range of the intake and they are able to see tremendous gains, but I haven't seen any numbers myself.
I don't even have to watch this video to like it, I just like it.
THATS WHAT I WANT TO HEAR
I'd love to see what an air gap does in comparison also 650 vs 750
And how much fuel usage between them
And how a holly sniper holds up
It's close to a 400 HP Don Sherman AFR 165 Stock Cam validation run! Great that you did this Retest, it's just missing heads and a stock HO Roller cam. None of this hard work you've done is lost on me, thankyou RH!. 4:44 No way! You dialled up the Elevator Music, Mr H. Your atmospherics have changed. Ford Racing quoted the Watson's Showa Yamaha GT40 as topping out at 425 HP gross. What cam would you use to make the two types of GT40 or "G51" intake produce 425 HP instead of 369? Or is that too, Don Sherman Fantasy?
NOT CLOSE TO 400 HP STOCK CAM
@@richardholdener1727 As noted on the 90 HP gains video a month ago at 7:55, I'm 100% your advocate in this matter. As I said then, Maybee, that 400 HP with those alloy heads, 1.7 rockers and a stock 5.0 Mustang HO roller cam 5.0 engine is possible. But I vote for a New Super R Holdener Test. Best wishes for the conquest of Truth over Hype!🫡
Nice to see this comparison 👍, port the efi lower and it should pick up a ball park of 25 lbs of torque
thank you! I love the SBF content
Impressed to see how well a carb does. How about trying a 650 Holley to see if that chokes down power. As far as an EFI manifold, I don't recall any Coyote style manifolds for the Windsor engine
I want to see the 600 or 650 also
We need the Super Richy Speed Shop manifold! Perfect time to learn aluminum tig. It is easy!! YOU CAN DO IT!!!
The carb vs efi in my opinion carb wins cuz it's way cheaper my 306 made 400 horse with a RPM air gap and a 650 demon and I'd like to see what the BBK SSI intake can do but they're so hard to find
Looks like carb is better on this test great video, ! Think I need a carb on my 91 HO 5.0 Mustang ! A efi to carb conversation video would be helpful !
Hey Richard. the way you improve the Tubular gt40 manifolds upper rpm pull is to increase the manifolds static airflow abilities. I know you say you've tested ported gt40 manifolds but we have yet to see anyone port these things the way we do and get them to work so well. We have customers that's peaking past 6,000rpm with our stage 2 and higher with our stage 3 ported tubulars. the stock tubular gt40 manifold suffers from the lack of throttle body tunnel flow and the runners flow is low and out of balance from bank to bank so its low flow and a non optimized AFR from bank to bank because of that. The TB tunnel only flows around 800-840cfm and if you install vac sensor on the TB tunnel and measure at wot on a decent engine you will see it pull a lot of vacuum. We've tested tons of different manifolds when working on our porting programs, cut them open and picked them apart. I'm a master fabricator and a degreed engineer with over 30 years experience.
Runner wave length tuning on the 3rd wave accounts for 8-10% cfm boost of the runners static flow. If you dramatically increase the statics flow you can keep the hp from falling off as the rpm climbs and boost power even more in the lower to middle rpm (2nd wave). We have a back to back dyno comparison showing this very thing. A shorter runner lower flowing aftermarket manifold vs a higher flowing stock runner length (15" runner plus a 1" spacer and a 1/2" nitrous plate) 302 base Cobra gt40 manifold. The Cobras power curve shot up quicker, made more power everywhere and made more power up top over the shorter runner lower flowing manifold without falling off all the way till 6,200-6,300rpm where they stopped the dyno pull.
A stock Tubular gt40 manifold 302 base has a bolted together average runner flow of 200-210cfm. We have gotten the tubulars to flow as much as 320cfm with our stage 3 cut, modified and welded max porting and modified with expanded TB tunnel. We weld in extra material in key places in order to reshape the runners for increased flow. You have to see them In person and test them for yourself to believe lol.
looking forward to working with you on that👍
I would like to test them-but if you don't change the runner length-you don't change the reflected wave (one of the three forms of charge filling associated with intake design-Reflected Wave, Inertial Ram and Hemlholtz resonance). are you also not changing the flow of the tubes in any way of the tubular GT40 or are you running a Cobra upper that provides more flexibility to porting and modifications?
@@richardholdener1727 right, on the tubular you don't have to change the wave tuning length to get them to carry the hp higher in the rpm band. You can increase the static flow and the areas in the manifold runner that has the mcsa. When you do that you increase the rpm at which the runners air velocity goes sonic. That's also how we get the LS truck manifold to carry its hp higher in the rpm curve, by increasing its static airflow as much as we can for the application. Its similar to running the frequency of a band pass subwoofer enclosure. I use to design and build them and there were several ways we could tune them. Box volume, port length and port CSA.
I've seen a test where a Stock tubular gt40 manifold had a hp rpm peak at 6,600rpm. If that motor had our stage 2 or stage 3 ported tubular on it the overall power would have been considerably higher.
Shoot me a your contact information and I can send you the back to back dyno results that I spoke of earlier. Bigdogscandc@aol.com
@@richardholdener1727 There was a test done by Motortrend back in 01' where they took a healthy 347 and tested several manifolds one being a 302 based Tubular gt40 manifold that had the lower Extrude honed (those tend to flow a lot less than our ported lowers . We have flow tested them to verify this) but the upper and its major restrictions were stock. They also tested the tubular with a smaller 70mm throttle body while the other manifolds tested had a bigger 75mm throttle body.
Well the results were:
Tubular Gt40 450hp @ 6,600rpm.
TFS R 475hp @ 6,500rpm.
Systemax 2 474hp @ 6,300rpm.
Victor 5.0 481hp @ 6,600rpm.
Although the gt40 manifold had the longest runners of them all they still all peaked around the same rpm. Had that gt40 had our stage 2 or stage 3 porting (with a much higher and better balanced static runner and throttle body tunnel flow) modifying on its upper, lower, throttle body tunnel and ran with a 75mm throttle body like the other manifolds it would have made the most hp everywhere in the tested rpm range. Dramatically increase the longer runner static cfm flow and you will extend the rpm that it can support hp at.
lol the sound effects are the best, as far as intakes I’d say rpm2 vs rpm air gap
Hey Richard, there is one more version of the gt40 intake. They used a version on the volvo/penta boats that has a shorter intake where the throttle body bolts on. Could be worth a look
Detomosa FI intake and Centrifugal.
Was in a Customers Mark VIII back in 2007 Vegas.
I would love to see the Edelbrock Performer and RPM with those big rectangular ports be tested again.
Richard, the king of budget SBF EFI intakes is the Explorer from a junkyard. The way to improve it is to port the lower. It requires a little welding so you don't break through in a couple spots but it increases and equalizes the flow from port to port and it's not that expensive...
If you pull the whole engine, then port the lower, add a cam and Holley Terminator, that's a $2,000 combo unless you swap heads. If you start with the same Explorer motor, add a cam, an Edelbrock Performer RPM, a Holley 750 and a MSD distributor, you are probably also around $2,000 so the comparison makes sense.
If you want a better intake, the Holley Systemax, Trick Flow (long runner) and Edelbrock Performer RPM all seemed to be pretty close in power so pick one.
he already did that test, the Explorer did not do very well.
@@bradmcgrath358 did he use a ported lower? That's the secret sauce...
@@joequixotic3039
try finding the video and watching it, I'm not here to spoon feed lazy people.
using big injectors allows you to time fuel on the intake stroke and will make slightly more power if timed correctly
Would like to see various dual planes tested and also with some spacers.
Should run this test with the A9L. A dialed in couple thousand dollar efi setup will make a big difference vs the old mass air setup
IF THE AF AND TMING ARE THE SAME-THEY MAKE THE SAME POWER
That same Edelbrock intake drilled for injection and a elbow with 75mm throttle body, say it with me YES YUO CAN 😆 🤣 😂 LOL
Cant beat a carb for simplicity. Injection is great when it's working right. I have a friend that has been chasing the loping idle in his 86 GT for years. Every sensor and part has been changed at least once and every trick for idle reset has been done. I suggested switching to carb but he says he's lived with it this long he'll just keep living with it.
Baseline idle reset . !! BREWL
Hasn't gotta vacuum leak somewhere ?
Back in the day I was installing a filter to get EMI noise out of the distributor control circuit to cure the lope.
the carb venturis will have a cooling effect while the long runner EFI intake is going to soak up heat with all its surface area once the hood is closed. We could easily use the carb intake with injectors drilled into the runners by the ports and then use a throttle body and find....no different in power. the engine doesn't know how it gets its air, it just heats it up--when the runners have the same area. The long runner EFI intake did what it usually does--ran out of breath before 5,000 rpm to generate torque instead. install an old Spyder or "bread box" EFI intake, and you'll find it swaps its torque curve over the RPM band.
the engine knows how it gets air-look up reflected waves, inertial ram and Helmholtz Resonance
@@richardholdener1727 If you change the intake manifold design, yes. but as I said, you can take that carb intake, drill bungs in for fuel injectors, replace the carb with a throttle body and the engine...ain't gonna know there's a difference when the runners have the same area of flow. There may be a case for better fuel atomization depending on air temp you're running inside the dyno, but a ton of dyno tests in Hot Rod Magazine et al prove...there was maybe a 5 hp difference when this was done, and that was easily chalked up to operator error.
As for this test, you compared a long runner intake to a short runner intake (the wet one) and voila, the hp peaked exactly where everyone thought it would. Now we get into the aspect you're talking about, two different intake designs and the engine is getting air with different velocities, densities, etc. But again, different intake designs make for an apple to orange comparison. For the new guys, this test is news about an engine they know little about in an age of LS, but for us old guys, a "breadbox" short runner intake compared to the carb would have been less apples to oranges.
For a long runner intake the torque gains aren’t very much. I would choose the edelbrock in this case
What intake should you compare the Edelbrock Performer to? How about the Edelbrock Performer (EFI version)?
Also I had a thought on that Explorer elbow test. Putting the 90 degree elbow slightly reduced power compared to the straight shot into the throttle body, but if you are running the fox body throttle body placement, there will be a very similar 90 degree bend in the air intake tube. So what would really be a fair comparison (based on how it would be installed in a car) would be the Explorer elbow with a straight intake tube and air filter compared to the fox throttle body setup with the fox style intake tube and air filter. I’m thinking that would probably equal out the power differences.
This guy is the brain of all this ,he is the to go guy ,no one is smarter well u know what I mean lol
ms2pnp boosted efi for life.. and im a cobra intake gt40 lower type guy. loves the boost.. lmfao. Zim Zim zoom
coll stuff as always. i am hoping things are going well for you. I'm wondering why you've changed the display so that both HP tracks are blue and both torque tracks are red? Previous videos would have each engine be one color for both HP and torque. I find the new way much more difficult to understand.
Hi Richard!
I had a question for you. Or your loyal Ford Gurus.
I have an 86 Bronco with 5.0 efi, and AOD trans.
My speed density system is having age issues. (Wiring, egr, etc)
Question is, i want about 300(ish HP) and 300(ish) Torque. Vehicle will be operating basically below the 4500 mark.
Now for my question.
I have a complete 99 Explorer parts vehicle.
Which is easier to swap?
converting to MAF?
Converting to Carburetor?
Swapping the entire 99 Explorer Motor, harness and computer?
I am
Looking into getting an Edelbrock top end kit regardless of which route im
Suggested.
Thanks in advance!
Good information
Great video Mr. Holdener! How about a Riccie special EFI intake vs Carb. Thank you!
Can you do a autozone Power build? Only with stuff you can get out of the store Please I think that's a video I would like to watch.
I'd love to see Holley hi-ram but 4150 pattern tuned port would probably be a more apples to apples comparison. Then again might need a performer vs performer rpm vs air gap vs victor jr vs victor sr overlay on the same. I'm a little curious why it was non airgap. Appreciate the vids Richard!
it is what we had
Holley MP EFI on a spreadbore 4b intake with a 750 sb carb.
Hey Richard, how about a 4 pattern cam versus dual or single pattern cam dyno video.
Carb TT 1983 glx. My build rn🙌
Like the video. I took a three bar explorer lower intake welded #1,4,5,8 runners and ported them to same size of for all the runners.then took a 4 bar explorer top and opened it up for a 75mm accufab tb. comp cam 1 3/4 headers 36lbs. Inj. Sct chip stock ecm 76mm may sensor rhs heads 190 fast as cast. Ported. 95 f150. 12.20s 1/4 mile. Never dynoed. Would you port a explorer intake and do some dyno test. I have a trick flow track heat now. Not much gain 12.10s .
Can’t you just put a Holley efi, or any 4150 style efi, on the edlebrock intake
Wow. Im surprised the e 303 made 30 more hp than stock. Nice..
Hey Richard, I would like to see how the truck 5.0 intake compares to the GT40 styles. It seems to have bigger rectangular runners compared to the fox body and even the standard 5.8 truck intakes.
My 95 302 truck intake ports are about 3/16" smaller in both length and width compared to the actual port opening on my stock e7te heads. So that intake is not very good for anything but high torque figures due to the high air speed in the runners.
I have yet to see anyone compare a port injected single plane vs. Dual. The internet has tons of opinions. The aftermarket has only embraced the port injected single planes. Show us why or why not they are correct in doing so!
the introduction of fuel equally to both means you just have a single plane and dual plane comparison-we know what that does
@richardholdener1727 So the notion that a PI single plane will have better low-mid range characteristics than a carb application is not true? Or, somewhere in the middle? It has better characteristics than its carberueted conterpart, but don't expect it to rival dual plane torque production because port velocity is still inferior in comparison.
Side Note... Have you done testing on plenum turtles?
Holly Hi Ram it will grow with your engine .
Now the big question: What would the Edelbrock airgap or rpm do with a throttle body fuel injection unit? Will fuel atomizing in the plenum help make power?
it already does that with a carb
@@richardholdener1727 True, but the question is, can we run Throttle Body injection and get the same horsepower increase as the carb?
I'd like to see the holley hi-ram, just for shits and giggles. Seems like all the sbf intakes will only fit small throttle bodies(in comparison to ls stuff) so I'd be curious to see what the old sbf with the holley intake and a big throttle body would do. Then later on add a better suited cam.
Performer rpm2 is competitive with the 750 Qft carb.
How about some love for the 351 and the truck intakes 🧐 not that i have an invested interest in seeing a comparison
Awesome video. When you compare the camshafts you mentioned stock. I’d like to know what stock cam have you used. Thank you.
STOCK 5.0L MUSTANG STICK CAM
@@richardholdener1727 thank you. I’m in the way to make some upgrades on my Lincoln Town car and trying to figure out what cam size I can have that wake my engine up without the lope idling.
Richard should have run edelbrock performer against gt 40 then run performer rpm and victor jr against better efi manifolds and afr heads
IT HAS ENOUGH HEAD FLOW, VIC JR. IS NOT GOOD FOR A STREET 302
Have you ever run an Edelbrock Pro Flo 4 fuel injection system? These systems use a single plane 4 bbl style intake combined with port fuel injection and a 1000 cfm 4 bbl throttle body. This setup seems like an interesting compromise.
SINGLE PLANE NOT GOOD FOR THIS COMBO
@@richardholdener1727 Morning. So do you think a dual plane converted to port fuel injection work? How about a long runner single plane converted to port fuel injection?
Richard, can we use a dual or single plane manifold, fabricate an elbow so one end off the elbow mounts to the intake manifold flange, and the other end of the right angle elbow we could mount the throttle body to,? Do we really need all that plenum area with the with fuel injection?, what do you think?
people run elbows on carb style manifold (must have injector bungs or run a TBI with injectors), but that is just an intake change (like shown here)
@@richardholdener1727 Ok ,thanks Richard, your a living legend😉
Mathematically speaking a 650 CFM carburetor will allow a 5 liter motor to spin to 7500 RPMs
A 600 CFM carburetor will spin it to 6,800 RPMs
You should have more vacuum, and better throttle response as well if you were using a 600 rather than the 750.
that rpm formula based on displacement does not take power into account
3:40 omg thats the best i mean u nailed it 5.0 sound died on i was laughing my ass off
Trickflow Box R for an all-out efi build. I chose a Trickflow Track Heat in hopes of making peak power within the limits of my stock rotating assembly and a Trickflow stage 2 cam. We'll see.
Not sure if an efi based intake could stand up. I remember you doing a box upper but i still think that wouldn't do it. Maybe a converted air gap vs a regular air gap?
Richard will you try out the new-ish Holley 8.2 hi-ram? I’ve been wanting to see actual Dyno numbers and curves on that intake
Works great in high rpms
Best with larger stroker motors.
Coast high performance ran one on a 408.
Horsepower TV ran the 8.2. I believe it was a 347 build.
How come you did not compare a Edelbrock Performer EFI intake to the carb version? I remember reading that the Performer RPM carb intake out flows the GT40 intake. That would have been a better comparison.
it's not flow
also hey Richard.. have you ran a stock block 302 with fully punched out trickflow170s 61cc chambers, cobra upper gt40 lower 70mm throttle body, 60lb injectors, 70mm turbo on3 setup basically, with a full msd setup. with 3 inch downpipe to flowmaster super 44s deltas. ive got this exact same setup except ive tuned it myself with a ms2pnp . there's no dynos where I live "7hours away". would like to kno what the power and torque would be.. thanks man great video. love the Windsor content...
also I pick a authentic FULL 93 svt cobra intake that's had Tmoss's touch added to it. those things make and hold power lmfao.
the turbo would decide how much power that makes
With factory Terminator takeoff superchargers being so cheap on eBay often in the $1000 area Being a fabricator by profession I don't think it would be hard at all to build an adapter to go from the 5.0 factory lower to a custom fabricated aluminum upper to accept the supercharger... I'd think The hardest part is getting the fore to aft pulley location without a mock engine or having my car down for awhile which I'd rather not. Anyone have any thoughts on this... A 5.0 with an Eaton blower would be pretty cool and likely make good power with some supporting mods like heads and cam.
Just hate how you never show the actual dyno run at full noise you know we love that stuff
I showed the dyno run
People that consider themselves hot rodder or enthusiasts, think things like injectors too big, when you have programmable efi… that was my lol part of this one. Since I was named mr lol :p
How about a test with the dual plane, a 650 and 1-5/8 long tube headers vs shorties.
shorty headers make much less than long tubes
Ooohhhwwerr yes finally
I’d like to see the gt40 style upper vs gt40 with a box style upper test.
Both NA and boosted.
the box loses a lot of power through most of the curve-na and boosted
@@richardholdener1727 About how much lost?
What happens to torque?
Good video! how about doing a single plane intake manifold in the mix?
single plane is not good for this combo
Holly systemax II is my choice
A holley sniper on the dual plane?
I see that they both have their place. I assume timing and A/F were optimized for both combo's. But does this come down to evaporation factor of the wet intake vs dry intake?
I ponder in my setup of vapor propane turbo sbc, could I benefit from a fuel injection intake manifold vs the Super Victor that I'm currently running. 1 was designed for dry air flow and 1 was designed as wet. But I imagine that you will say "All intakes are Turbo intakes".
Just tossing this out there hoping for some input. I'm going to try an experiment using the Holley/Ford 2V carbs from the mid '70's 2.3 mounted on a mid '80's lower f.i. intake to make an inline 4V. Should I mill the dividers between the runners or even chamfer them?
The carb vs efi in my opinion carb wins cuz it's way cheaper my 306 made 400 horse with a RPM air gap and a 650 demon
Can you test the 5.0 truck manifold?
4:43 90s infomercial mode!
How about Fi Tech that looks like a carb & put it on that Performer intake man. VS that 750 cfm carb.
I'll pick the carb
@@richardholdener1727 I only mentioned the 750 carb cause that's what was tested but yes 100% any carb you choose would be awesome to compare to carb shaped F.I.
Like Fi-Tech
I imagine the bigger injectors might make it a little more difficult to make AFRs perfect for emissions at idle etc, due to more granularity, but I agree it won't matter at WOT.
Large injectors usually only might have stability issues at extremely low duty cycles/pulse width i.e. trying to idle a small engine with huge injectors. It depends on the injector design how touchy they are.
not to mention the GT40 intake is like 40 million peso's
You need a ported lower to match the flow of the edelbrock. Big dogs porting would love to supply one I’m sure to showcase their work. Then retest to see power figures
Lower and upper. On their videos the upper is as important as lower.
lol you always use the wrong carb(cam), just kidding!!! love the content!
A box upper for the GT40 lower.
Where’s the downs ford box intake? Since it fit the lower gt 40 .
Do you have a dart 302?? Are 1996-1997 5.0 engines poured better?
no and no
Please help !!!! I have a 302 I'm rebuilding and I will be going with a carb setup. Most likely a 750, with that being said I have plans on using a E303 cam with 1.6 roller rockers because I heard it's the best cam when going with a carb setup. My cousin is dead set on getting me to use an F303 cam because he used one in the past with a carb setup and loved it. Please give me you oppion on which cam you think will work better. I will be using GT40P heads ported and polished with new springs of course and I don't plan on using any boost.
either cam will work-they don't care about it having a carb. Pick the cam that does the other things you need like idle quality, drivability, mpg etc...The bigger cam will make more peak power but less down low
@@richardholdener1727 thanks so much for replying man. I love watching your videos and look forward to seeing even more of them.
Blue print cnc ports there China dart clone now? Old 90's cast efi intakes for the 5.0 are all dead before 6k nothing new there, the few better ones where all ways touted as too big. Hi ram. Box r and victor. Would be nice tests vs a baseline systemax. But there all hard to get these days