[Christer (Christer)]

There is one article in Mopar muscle that I would like to share with you, HP-lovers! It is a test between 11 different intakes on a brute 440-engine!

All intakes were single four-barrel 4150-flanged designs; and all, with one exception, were run out-of-the box stock. They used a high-powered engine to do the test, that really pulled the air. Their objective was to test for higher rpm power.

Test engine:
-.060 inch over production 440
-Arias forged 12.5:1 domed pistons
-Production #915 heads with seriously reworked ports
-Manley 2.25 inch intake valves and 1.81-inch exhausts
-Comp roller cam with 260/258 at .050 and over .650-inch lift with Comps 1.6:1 roller rockers.
-Race Demon carburator 950AD

Here are the results from the dyno:

Intake: Chrysler Factory ’70-’71 #2951736
Type: Two-plane
Rated rpm range: N/A
Max hp: 575.4@6200rpm
Max Torque: 581.2@4000rpm
Avg. Hp 4000-6600 rpm: 534.3 hp
Avg.Tq 4000-6600rpm: 535.1 lb-ft

Intake: Edelbrock CH4B #2290
Type: Two-plane
Rated rpm range: 1500-5500
Max hp: 607@6400rpm
Max Torque: 573.7@4000rpm
Avg. Hp 4000-6600 rpm: 544.6 hp
Avg.Tq 4000-6600rpm: 543.5 lb-ft

Intake: Weiand Action+/Holley #8009
Type: Two-plane
Rated rpm range: Idle-6000
Max hp: 597.2@6300/6400rpm
Max Torque: 564@4000rpm
Avg. Hp 4000-6600 rpm: 536.9 hp
Avg.Tq 4000-6600rpm: 535.7lb-ft

Intake: Edelbrock Performer RPM #7193
Type: Two-plane
Rated rpm range: 1500-6500
Max hp: 610.2@6100rpm
Max Torque: 590.2@4000rpm
Avg. Hp 4000-6600 rpm: 555.9 hp
Avg.Tq 4000-6600rpm: 555.4 lb-ft

Intake: Holley street dominator 300-14 (Not stock, mildly modified!)
Type: Single-plane
Rated rpm range: Idle-4800
Max hp: 636.0@6200m
Max Torque: 598.2@5000rpm
Avg. Hp 4000-6600 rpm: 572.5 hp
Avg.Tq 4000-6600rpm: 571.1 lb-ft

Intake: Edelbrock torker (Original) #3015
Type: Single-plane
Rated rpm range: 2500-6000
Max hp: 605.8@5500m
Max Torque: 608.4@4700rpm
Avg. Hp 4000-6600 rpm: 564.6 hp
Avg.Tq 4000-6600rpm: 565.5 lb-ft

Intake: Edelbrock torker II #5091
Type: Single-plane
Rated rpm range: 2500-6500
Max hp: 627.8@6300m
Max Torque: 593.3@4900rpm
Avg. Hp 4000-6600 rpm: 565 hp
Avg.Tq 4000-6600rpm: 563.3lb-ft


Intake: Edelbrock TM-7 #5415
Type: Single-plane
Rated rpm range: 3500-7500
Max hp: 618.3@6200m
Max Torque: 601.7@4900rpm
Avg. Hp 4000-6600 rpm: 568.5 hp
Avg.Tq 4000-6600rpm: 568.1lb-ft

Intake: Edelbrock Victor 440
Type: Single-plane
Rated rpm range: 3500-7500
Max hp: 637.7@6400m
Max Torque: 593.0@4700rpm
Avg. Hp 4000-6600 rpm: 568.1 hp
Avg.Tq 4000-6600rpm: 570.1lb-ft

Intake: Weiand Team G/Holley #7534 (Bad casting!)
Type: Single-plane
Rated rpm range: 3000-7800
Max hp: 597.2@6300m
Max Torque: 569@4900rpm
Avg. Hp 4000-6600 rpm: 540.3 hp
Avg.Tq 4000-6600rpm: 534.3lb-ft

Intake: Mopar Performance M-1
Type: Single-plane
Rated rpm range: N/A
Max hp: 628.9@6100m
Max Torque: 589.3@4900rpm
Avg. Hp 4000-6600 rpm: 563.7 hp
Avg.Tq 4000-6600rpm: 566.9lb-ft

I am a bit surprised that the factory #736 casting is able to crank out 575 hp.
Any other comments?

[Dave-R (Roppa440)]

What these numbers do not show you is the torque below 4000 rpm. A dual plane has a lot more bottom end torque which is what you need in a street car.

I always thought the raised dual plane design of the Edelbrock Performer RPM was a good all-round design and the test seems to bear that out although this engine is pretty wild and not really a street engine.

The six-pack manifold is a high rise dual plane as well. One of the reasons using a six-pack on my engine made sense to me at the planning stage.

I am mildly surprised by the Edlebrock Victor doing better than the M-1 in the high rpm peak power league.

[Christer (Christer)]

I agree with you that the Edelbrock Performer RPM probably is the best choise in a street application (if you only got these intakes to choose from). It seems to me that the guys at Edelbrock are doing a good job.

The difference between M-1 and Victor is quite small if you compare 'avg. hp 4000-6600rpm'.
I guess, that doing a port job on these kind of intakes is mandatory and that it is hard to tell anything about hp in the ported version. Maybe M-1 will be No1 then!?

When it comes to appearence and looks, the six-pack setup is hard to beat....

[Hans (72challenger)]

It certainly is too bad they didn't mentioned the torque/hp at the lower rpm's. For a street engine like yours Dave, when it would just come down to performance and not the looks would you go for a sixpack setup again or one of the intakes from above?

I'm asking this cause I know one for sale around here. (cast iron intake w/ the sixpack carbs) For about as much money as a new good performing 4bbl intake w/ carb this would be a nice package for my 440. And just as Christer Said, when it comes to appearence and looks...

[Dave-R (Roppa440)]

If power and quarter mile times were my only objectives then I would be using a tall single plane intake and a single 4bbl carb. It would be a lot easier to tune too!

But the original idea was to build an engine that looked as stock as possible. (Plus I wanted the badges on the hood!)
I have strayed from that original look a bit but the six-pack is still a good all-round design as long as your engine rpms do not run too high. I am sure the Edelbrock RPM is just a six-pack manifold re-moulded for a single carb.

The good thing about the six-pack is that you can tune the centre carb for economy and make up the difference with the outer carbs.

With mine I decided that I wanted as even a fuel mixture to all cylinders as possible so my centre carb is leaning towards tuned for best power same as the outers. That makes it thirsty though. With the cam and gears I run I am getting 13 mpg at best. In practice (with traffic and overtaking etc) I get about 11 mpg on a long run at 70mph. But part of that may be the way I have modified my carbs.

I would not use the 6-pack iron intake if you buy it. Sell it on and get the Edelbrock aluminium version instead. Much lighter for your car and your back!

And don't forget to block off the heat passage through the intake!

[Hans (72challenger)]

The car will mostly be used for some stoplight races I guess cause there's only one real strip here in Holland where's an event about 3 times the year. But building a car only for the ET's wouldn't be a lot of fun to drive it on the streets I think. A street car has to make some good power at low rpm's in my opinion. That's also why I will buy a cam which will work mostly in the mid range rpm (1800-5700). So for a street driven car the sixpack will be a good option comparing to a dual plane intake (performer RPM)

But I won't notice anything 'bout mpg etc. Only know these figures in 'how many km per liter', well mine little 340 drinks about 1 liter for every 4-5km driving on the highway (120kph) and about 2-3km in city traffic.

Anyway, thanks for the 'heat passage' tip. I will rethink the whole subject of intake and maybe buy the sixpack setup.

[Dave-R (Roppa440)]

I see those Victor manifolds are designed for 8000 rpm! No wonder they worked well on this engine.

As far as the more sensible manifolds are concerned I see that Edelbrock rate the six-pack in a 2500-6500 rpm range. Same as the single plane Torker II.

That compares to the Performer RPM which is rated at 1500-6500 rpm.

Funny enough. They also do a dual quad intake which looks just like the six-pack manifold and is designed for two 500cfm Edelbrock Performer carbs but they rate that one at 1500-6000 rpm. This was another option that I had considered for my car at one time.

[Hans (72challenger)]

And what about the Mopar Performance sixpack manifold, you know the RPM range for that one? Any different from the edelbrock one?

Someday I would like the dual quad on top of my 440, would make quite some power when adjusted the right way. The 1500-6500 RPM range is very nice for a street/strip engine!

[Dave-R (Roppa440)]

The dual quad is 1500-6000 not 6500. The six pack is spot on for the sort of car mine is I feel.

Edelbrock made the original ally six-pack manifold in 1968-69. Chrysler started making their own versions in 1969-70 but in cast iron.

I would think that the MP version is in fact cast by Edelbrock but if not I would think it was exactly the same?

Weiand used to make a hi-rise cross-ram version of the six-pack manifold for super stock racing. I might be able to put my hand on a photo...

Here it is.

[Robbert D 70`Chally (383m]

Off course this test on a less brute or original 440 the figures would be different. But I wonder whether the power-top-ten or torque-top-ten in a lower aspirating engine would show any surprises.

As you mention fuel consumption Dave, I presume you are talking miles per imperial gallon?

[Dave-R (Roppa440)]

Ah yes! Sorry Robbert. I forgot. The only thing that is actually smaller in America!

Yes Hans. It is true. Us Brits have a gallon that is about 4.2 litres but the American gallon is only about 3.75 L. Very confusing. I may be too tired to work this out right but if I convert my 11-13mpg into your units hans I come up with a figure the same as you! 4-5 km/litre!!!
maybe I did the sums wrong?

I wonder why they used such a serious high horse engine? It would power a heavy car like mine into the tens at about 125mph! It was bound to favour the high velocity runners of the single planes. So why even try the dual planes on them in the first place?

[Robbert D 70`Chally (383m]

None of us Europeans drive Challengers for there fuel economy, but it is an interesting subject though. I am very surprised with the fuel economy of your car Dave!
Here we go:
(btw: 1 US gal=3.79 litre)

1 UK gal=4.55 litre
Thus:
x mpg => x*1.609/4.55 litres per km

and vice versa off course:
x litres per km => x*4.55/1.609 mpg

reference:
http://www.hoptechno.com/nightcrew/sante7000/convert.cfm

Your hot 6 pack 440 is in your eyes tuned for max power at the cost of fuel consumption, it gives you 11 mpg => 3.88 km/litre
(written as 1:3.88, pronounced in NL as 1 op 3,88).

My stage I 383 gives 1:3,7 on long trips on the highway at 60 mph (10 mph), but I drive 80-85 most of the time, that makes it 1:3,2 (9mpg).
Normal traffic (half urban half open road) it gives me 1:2.5 (7 mpg). I must ad that these are LPG figures, LPG has less calories per litre, inducing apr. 20% lower efficiency. But if you bear in mind that your car has more cuis and has a cam quite hotter I would call your car relatively fuel efficient.

In comparison: Ronnies' supposedly original Six pack Superbee did 1:1-1:1.5, that is 3 to 4 mpg, horrific! (Ronnie is a Mopar mechanic. The engine was healthy. The car had a quite short rear axle. He sold the car). Arthur's standard 340 Chally gives 1:6 in urban traffic (17 mpg), and allmost 1:9 on a constant 60 mph (25mpg, how cheap!).

Americans, just multiply the UK milage with 0.833 to get the US milage. And remember our fuel prices, in the Netherlands we pay 4.548 dollars per US Gallon, 3.59 pounds per UK Gallon.

Dave, did you not state your cars 550 horses would give you an E.T. in the twelves? It surprises me that you estimate an E.T. in the tens with only 80 extra horses. Don't know your cars weight, so can't realy work it out in your spreadsheet.

[Robbert D 70`Chally (383m]

And Hans, how inefficient your car is!

[Dave-R (Roppa440)]

I expect to run in the 11s Robbert and I am still fine tuning the engine! Because my car is not optimised for drag racing the chassis and suspension are my biggest limiting factor.

I think I have around 480 - 490 hp at the rear wheels so in theory it should run about 11.7 @ 116. I will just have to wait and see what it really does. It weighs about 3950lbs with me in it and a tank of fuel. The 3.9:1 gears are not ideal either.
I will be more than happy with an 11.9 run so anything extra is just icing on the cake.

When I first got my Challenger it was stock except for a 284 duration Crane cam and a Edelbrock Performer carb. With 3.23:1 rear gears I was getting over 18 mpg on a long run. About 13 mpg around town. My old 318 Aussie Charger would do over 20mpg if I was very careful. But it too would drop to around 13 mpg or less if I was driving around very fast and showing off.