Hey, I have a question that a search didn't really help to answer...

Over the winter, I'll be building up my 350 a bit. What I have right now is basically a stock smogger longblock 350 out of a '79 Z28. Its got 882 heads, dished pistons, stock cam, stock bottom end. Only mods to it are a Torker intake, 4160 Holley (VS 4bbl) and headers and a 3" exhaust.

Now... the plan over the winter is to change out most or all of the top end for better parts. What I planned on doing was to tear the 350 down to a shortblock, and install a set of 195cc Trickflow aluminum heads (64cc chambers, 2.02/1.60 valves), change the intake manifold to a Ede Performer EPS which I already have but haven't yet used, and get a 650cfm Holley double pumper 4bbl (4150 style).

I *might* also change out the cam as well, if time and funds allow, but it won't be anything too crazy.

At the same time, I'll be installing my T10 trans, so thats part of the reason for the carb change.

My car has been running mid 14s all summer with the setup I have now (350 as described and very slow shifting T5) and I'd like to get it to the low 14s or possibly into the 13s.

I want to make all the power at 5500 rpm and below, because I don't want to overwork an untouched, 25 year old shortblock and nuke it.

Is that intake manifold a good choice for an engine like what I plan on building? Edelbrock gives it a idle-5500 rpm powerband, which works for me, and its got a squarebore flange to fit a 4150 Holley nicely on it. The ports looks about the same size as whats on my Torker as well.

I don't like the Torker, because its a horrid mismatch to the rest of the engine, and I'm pretty sure its killing some performance because of that.

Will this intake (performer EPS) work well with the heads and carb I plan on using?

PS - would thing engine be able to run on 87 octane? I'm not sure what the CR would be, but not over 10:1 im sure.

 

That intake will work very nicely.

 

Got that intake on my 350 right now, cant say yay or nay on it until i pull my timing cover and see if my timing chain jumped. But right now it has a whole lot of nothing below 2k RPM but picks up nicely after that.

 

So it sounds like a good choice so far... anyone else have anything to add?

 

I haven't tried one, but I would.
I'd expect the EPS to fall between the #2101 performer and the #7101 RPM.
I like it because it's engineered for the square bore carbs. And in addition, the radius of the runners where they meet the head flange are smoother than the #2101 performer. So I'm inclined to believe that it lives up to Edelbrock's claims as outperforming the performer.
And I'd expect it to give a slight edge in low end drivability and fuel economy over the RPM as well. Offset by a slight sacrifice in upper end HP, of course.
I think that if you're into fine tuning the low speed circuits on squarebore carbs and want something better than the #2101 performer, it would be a really good intake.

 

another vote yes for the EPS.I've never ran one,but it looks like just the right step between a regular performer and an RPM.I've seen too many RPMs on a basically stock engine,killing tourqe where a performer or EPS would be a more suitable intake.It will be a HUGE improvement over the Torker.Those were great intakes,25 years ago.

With the dished pistons and 64cc chambers,you should land around 9.7:1.87 octane maybe,just depends on the tune.But I'd almost bet you can do it on 89 octane.

One more thing,Kudos for making HP with a stock shortblock,it's more fun than spending all your cash on high dollar bull**** any day.I'm about at the point of frustration to severely simplify things myself.

 

Its more fun this way... guys spend $5000 and drop a new engine into a car, and I can spend $1000 or less and outrun them at the track, then seeing them come over when I'm not at the car and peering in to see an old, dirty, oily small block and scratch their heads

(And I can think of a few examples of just that, too )