This is topic whats a good match??? in forum Tech Talk at Northern California Ford Owners  .


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://californiafords.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=001749

---

Posted by Tough347 (Member # 1776) on :
 
i have a systemax 1 lower and wanted to know what upper manifold would match up with it the best?the car redlines at 6,000-6,800 rpm
any thoughts on this would be great
Thanks Blair
 

---

Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on :
 
Holley systemax ONE lower on a 347? Ouch, that's just a Ford truck lower intake mildly worked over from what I remember. I'd sell it online and get a Systemax 2 or Victor jr EFI intake for that 347.

Anyways, Comp Polymers use to make a box upper for that lower. I think the Saleen/Vortech upper may also match up.
 

---

Posted by Tough347 (Member # 1776) on :
 
yah it seems to be choking the car so i think ill get a new on thanks for the input st5150
 

---

Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on :
 
What heads and cam do you have on this 347? Every part has to match the other...
 

---

Posted by shade-tree (Member # 298) on :
 
check the 5.0 rag for anderson ford's 347 buildup. Bunch of intakes thrown on his high revving 347, suprising results. The victor was the weakest of those tested believe it or not! (but the guy is winding his motor well past 7k, which you might not be, so the victor might be perfect for you)
 

---

Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on :
 
Can you give us the details to the story? What heads and cam? Whick intakes performed best? What RWHP?
 

---

Posted by AaronC (Member # 86) on :
 
I don't like those magazine articles about intakes. Every combination is different. Each intake will like certain cam timing better than others. They use the same cam in every test and the cam they used I believe is the N-113. That cam is rediculously big. 270 at .050 so it will like to rev beyond most intakes abilities. I've read a lot of their articles and haven't been too impressed with them. They just did the 302 intake test and it took that cut and re-welded RPM intake and a N-71 (232/240) to make 340 RWHP and 328 RWTQ. I almost LMAO that it took those big parts to make that power with TFS heads.

Forgot to ask... How do they flow intakes? I mean if they can get a cylinder head to flow 300 CFM for example with a big ass valve impeding flow then how do they flow the intakes which have nothing in the way to impede flow?

[ September 26, 2002, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: AaronC ]
 

---

Posted by Tough347 (Member # 1776) on :
 
well the heads are dart windsor jrs ported and polished. its a crower cam im not sure what size but it is pretty radical.it has 30lb injectors long tubes,shorty h pipe mass air and throttle body.10to1 compresion. eagle forged internals 8mm fordmotor sports wires ford motorsports distributer. little info that i thought might help.im looking to buy them used so if you know of any?
thanks,
Blair
 

---

Posted by shade-tree (Member # 298) on :
 
Well, hate it or not but Anderson did something right to get 470+ rwhp out of a 347.

400 fly-wheel HP is pretty common for a carbed solid roller 302 with an agressive cam and a lot of rpms. It's all where you set your standards.
 

---

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :
 
Those high numbers were only achieved due to the Wickedly large cam those idiots make.
If they knew what they were doning, they'd have a 470RWHP 347 spinning under 7K with torque peaks above 430 & a WAY smaller cam.
At no time did that 347 break 400RWTQ.

There cars are fast on the track, I'll give them that, but hey, the cams they sell make their power in the upper RPM range (evident by the highest #s from the boxed uppers)...cause they don't know how to grind a cam with good low-midrange....& on the track, when are you ever at 3500rpm?

IMHO these cams should not be run on a street car. Too large for too little gain.
 

---

Posted by shade-tree (Member # 298) on :
 
correct if I'm wrong, but where in the article do they imply that the combo is for anything but the strip? (10 second all motor stuff is mentioned several times)
 

---

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :
 
Your right. Just stating that all their cams are large for what they produce.

The HP/TQ curves remind me of a Vtec motor....Everything in the upper rpm. Where you rarely use it on a street car.
 

---

Posted by shade-tree (Member # 298) on :
 
totally. where do I get me one of those 470 rwhp 347's
 

---

Posted by Tough347 (Member # 1776) on :
 
what do you all think of a trick flow manifold or a cobra with a stock ported lower. cause i cant afford the holley right now
or should i just wait
thanks
Blair
 

---

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :
 
Stock ported lower????
I would not use that. Save up & do it right the first time.

Find out where your cams torque-peak lies & get a long-runner intake to match. The edlebrock line works nicely & if you need more volume, have 'em hogged out.
 

---

Posted by AaronC (Member # 86) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by shade-tree:
totally. where do I get me one of those 470 rwhp 347's

---

It's very easy to do. I just know it could be done with smaller parts and cam and at less RPM. I have no idea why they just didn't use a solid roller cam. It's already a race motor. what was their compression? I think I remember hearing 13:1 but not sure. I just see a trend stemming from their street setups. The 302 intake test article was a joke. IMO these Anderson combo's are radical for the power they make.
 

---

Posted by Tough347 (Member # 1776) on :
 
93PONY thanks for the advice i think ill do that.what do you think of the holley systemax 2 though, in comparison to the edelbrocks?
Thanks
Blair
 

---

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :
 
The Holley is pretty much the highest flowing intake (runner style) you can buy. For most applications it's a little too large (even a 347). I MUCH prefer the edlebrock line. (even though I've never run one!) Unless you have heads that flow 300CFM+, a 347 or larger & a wild cam, I don't think it's needed....& even then a ported E-bock will perform just as well w/a better torque curve. But, it will make power. The torque curve will not be as stout as say an E-bock, but at the strip it doesn't really mater.
I believe the Systemax runners flow within 2% of each other....which is highly desirable.

IMO the systemax is too large....& Fugly.
 

---

Posted by Tough347 (Member # 1776) on :
 
thanxs but one more thing,so your saying that a ported stock lower with a cobra upper is not a good choice?

 

---

Posted by Tough347 (Member # 1776) on :
 
93PONY
sorry dont know what i was thinking since the above would not match. i ment to ask what you thought about the cobra manifold at whole
thanks
Blair
 

---

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :
 
I run a cobra, but I'm not NA & I don't need a high flowing intake.

It's a cast GT-40 intake. The explorer intake is also a GT-40 style intake, but it is not drilled for smog.
All-in-all, the Cobra is a good intake & definately has potential for some serious power through porting. The box-stock lowers are chocked down WAY too much for a 347. You can pick up a ported Upper/lower on the corral or stangnet fairly cheap since these are quite comon.
Drawback. The #1 & #5 runners, as with the stock intake, they tend to flow less than the other runners which can be an issue.
It's also one of the longer runner intakes, so it favors torquey street cams.

Trickflow, Holley, E-bocks don't have the #1&5 cylinder issues.
 

---

Posted by Tough347 (Member # 1776) on :
 
thanks for all the help 93PONY
 

---

Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tough347:
well the heads are dart windsor jrs ported and polished.

---