How does a "ported to a Fel-Pro 1205" C4B compare to a Edelbrock RPM air gap? I suspect the Air Gap would smoke it, but since I have no experience thus far, with the C4b, I am posting this. Anyone ever use the old C4B? Any input?

The engine is a 400, 224/234 cam, Trick Flow heads, Long tubes. Which intake would perform better? Thanks.

 

they work well...I have one I'd like to sell. Makes a great "period" piece.

Can't give you direct comparison though.

 

I had one of those C4B intakes on my 69 ElCamino. Had the oil fill tube in the front of the intake. So cool. I think in the past 20 or 30 years they have made significant progress on intake manifold design. Probably would be good on an old cruiser.

 

Thanks for the replies.

The goal here isn't nostalgia. It may be a cool intake, but I am looking for some info as to what kind of hp/tq variation I'd see on the above mentioned combo, between the C4B and the RPM Air gap (a modern intake).

I already HAVE a C4B, the question is, is it worth the money to upgrade technology? Someone on here must have expirience with this intake -and something new.

 

Anyone else? Old timers, show yourselves!

-Tom

 

The performer came along to replace the C4B in the 80s. Then there was another design change to the Perf in the late 80s or early 90s. Then the Perf rpm came along.
I've always assumed that it's safe to give Edlbrock credit for changing things for the better, when they do make a change.
Other than that I have no other advice to offer.
I wouldn't mind having a C4B tho, cause they look kinda neat.

 

I got for sale
$60 + shipping and its yours

 

ttt