|
|
Member
Posts: 41
Location: South Central PA | I've been researching what the best choice is for my 1960 383 RB (4.013 bore) and haven't come up with anything definitive and was hoping someone on here might be able to guide me in the right direction...
I'm trying to figure out if the cast iron intake is a better choice over an aluminum intake or vice versa. I've got both a 2206000 intake and an edelbrock performer sitting in the shop and am trying to figure out which one would work best on this motor, pro's and con's and all. Thanks in advance. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1506
 
Location: Colo Spgs | Hola Andy
As always The cast iron Intake Manifold with four round holes is "Very "Correct".
Place a matching Carburetor and Air Cleaner Housing on it and all will be fine every time you open the hood.
Rodger and Gabby
COS |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 3035
Location: N.W. Fla. | the Performer in most cases is just an alloy copy of the OEM intake, lightens things a bit but not a big increase in performance. |
|
| |
|
Expert 5K+
Posts: 7403
 
Location: northern germany | the dp performer and dp performer rpm are a different design, with differently designed runners. they improve performance noticeably IF the engine can take advantage of the better flowing runners.
with a stock cam/exhaust system i don't think there will be a noticeable performance gain. however, i'd use an aluminum intake only to get weight off the front axle and to improve weight distribution. it makes a big difference.
with stock exhaust and cam I'd use a mopar M1 dual plane manifold. its an improved aluminum version of the late 60s hp manifold, close to stock looking and with the choke well in stock location.
the edelbrock rpm dual plane is probably the most popular and highest performance dual plane manifold available that even beat some single plane manifolds on the dyno.
that being said i'm not a big fan of it. its pretty high rise and the runner design must lead to unequal fuel distribution. if you look at the factory intakes, they designed the runners differently to give fuel distribution as equal as possible.
Edited by 1960fury 2015-10-05 6:50 PM
|
|
| |
|
Temporarily suspended to cool off
Posts: 316
| I'm with you on the MP dual plane.
There is also a slight advantage in intake charge density with any aluminum intake, but how big it is wholy depends on if you have done anything to lower under hood temperatures. If you don't remove the hood seals and misalign the hood to increase airflow through the engine bay and reduced the under hood temps, you won't see much if any change in performance. That said, if you do, you can see some gains in fuel economy, at the cost of giving the engine a shower whenever it rains hard. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 41
Location: South Central PA | I put a comp cams 21-221-4 in it when I rebuilt the motor, bored it .030 over. Dual exhaust from Waldron's, everything else is pretty much stock. I'm not building a race motor, just want something that will be dependable and long lasting. I wasn't sure if they changed the design of the heads/size of the ports in the mid-late 60's since, I'm sure we've all run into it, most people out there don't believe a mopar existed before 62 and not all parts advertised to fit do easily. The biggest thing I see between the iron intake I have and the aluminum one is the deck height of the aluminum one is 3/4" higher, which isn't a huge deal unless I run the original air cleaner which then I will have a clearance issue.
I like the authentic look, but with the quality of fuel nowadays, block the exhaust crossover off to keep the intake cooler and use an electric choke on anything I build. I have yet to find an adapter made that will let me use the original air cleaner on top of a 5 1/8" air horn or find a way to easily adapt an electric choke onto an original afb.
I've looked at the mopar aluminum intakes but have heard that they or edelbrock copied one another and I don't know how true that is. I was going to run an edelbrock 600cfm since those carbs are pretty much plug and play.
|
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 3778
Location: NorCal |
A 2206000 manifold would never be "correct" for a '60 so you might as well use the Performer...it'll accept a wider range of carbs. |
|
| |
|
Expert 5K+
Posts: 7403
Location: northern germany | 60 Windsor - 2015-10-05 11:25 PM
I put a comp cams 21-221-4 in it
sounds good. i considered that one myself. how is the idle? much rougher than stock? what is your idle speed? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 41
Location: South Central PA | I keep the idle speed at 550 (I use the original cast iron t/f), it seems to idle fine/start hot just a little shake which is why I was curious about the difference between the edel and stock (I have a 318 with a 4 barrel and when that idles you can't tell it's running). I still use the stock springs since they tested fine and I've been told by several people that the comp cams suggestion won't fit anyway. I would suggest the cam for anyone looking for something a little hotter than stock. It's not too radical that you have to worry about clearances.
When I had a 3.73 gear in it, it wouldn't hesitate to leave a little of the tire on the road. Still waiting to see how the 2.93 is going to react, hoping to have the car back on the road this week depending on how much time Hershey takes away from my garage time.
Is there any advantage to getting a mopar intake and ditching the edel? |
|
| |
|
Expert 5K+
Posts: 7403
Location: northern germany | 60 Windsor - 2015-10-06 4:52 PM
Is there any advantage to getting a mopar intake and ditching the edel?
what i wrote above. but if you already have the edelbrock intake and going to use an electric choke anyway, i'd use the edelbrock. check for core shift and port match the intake/heads, otherwise you might even lose power. just one more thing, search this site about what i wrote about blocking off the heat riser passage and its negative effects.
Edited by 1960fury 2015-10-06 7:07 PM
|
|
| |
Intake manifold
