When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
So would you say that without head work the Victor is usually a bad choice?
Do you think more duration would have any affect? Or do you think the stock heads are about maxed out at this point?
In general, if you had a “hotter” build the Victor would be a good choice.
HOWEVER, I’ll post the Cfm numbers for each and you’ll see they don’t don’t vary much, hence why the hp numbers were all fairly close.
But what was even more interesting for me was the EGT’s for all. They’re closest, by far, with the Victor. Both dual planes showed vastly different/uneven EGT’s vs the Victor, yet made more power and tq., hmmmm.
Since CFM's are the same, your fuel will be the same. X amount of CFM will draw Y amount of fuel through the same venturi.
FUEL = HP
This tells you the weak link is the head not the manifold. The difference in curves, is the difference in efficiency of the intake to deliver the mixture at velocity. Velocity through the intake is the reliant to port design and demand from the motor. The best intake is the one that matches the usage and build, not the peak numbers.
Since CFM's are the same, your fuel will be the same. X amount of CFM will draw Y amount of fuel through the same venturi.
FUEL = HP
This tells you the weak link is the head not the manifold. The difference in curves, is the difference in efficiency of the intake to deliver the mixture at velocity. Velocity through the intake is the reliant to port design and demand from the motor. The best intake is the one that matches the usage and build, not the peak numbers.
Not sure this adds much value to the conversation but I plotted out hp and torque to get a better visual of how the three compare over the speed range. Would have been nice to have data points from ~1500/2krpm.
The RPM looks to be just a tiny bit better all along the curves but really takes a dive at the last data point. Probably not enough to amount to anything in the real world. Also, the Victor has a decent torque drop between 3500 and 4500. I'd like to calculate the area under the curves for each of these and look at that percent delta. Excel isn't the best tool for that but if I find the time, I'll post that just for additional information.
Thanks for doing the testing and sharing the results with us, Mark. It's nice to put the sales/marketing BS aside and compare real data!
Thanks for doing the testing and sharing the results with us, Mark. It's nice to put the sales/marketing BS aside and compare real data!
You’re very welcome, and thanks for graphing them. I can do that in my dyno software, but I don’t do it much so I’ll have to play with it to see.
i have another couple of potential tests in mind. Next up maybe all single plane intakes? It all comes down to making the time to do them.
i have a helper that really enjoys doing this stuff as well, but i also have engines to get done and shipped.
Thanks.
Last edited by cutlassefi; April 2nd, 2024 at 02:30 PM.
In case anyone cares...I wanted to look at the difference in area under the curves as that is really a better way to understand the total difference between the parts. Take the numbers with a grain of salt because, like I said, excel isn't really the best tool to do this but it's good enough for what we're doing.
A polynomial trendline was the best I could get for the curves. Close enough and consistent method between the three. I used the Performer as the baseline and calculated the percent delta (in area under the curve) for the other two compared to the Performer. Also, I clipped the Victor at 5400rpm rather than 5500 just to keep the comparison consistent.
As you can see from the curves, the RPM is pretty close in hp and torque to the Performer. Only a 2.6 (hp) and 3.9 (torque) percent difference. Note area under the curves for the Performer were greater than the RPM.
The big eye opener is the Victor. Obviously a poor choice (for this engine) from the initial curves but look at the area comparison. The Victor is down 34% from the Performer in both hp and torque. That's huge.
If you see an error in my math, let me know. Results make sense based on Mark's original posted dyno numbers.
Very nice. The RPM is slightly higher until it nose dives. Is this due to the small plenum? It should pick up over the Performer at that RPM. It does over 5000 rpm then goes off the cliff. If height is an issue, the two intakes are close and there won't be enough of difference to notice, which I think Mark was getting at.
For some reason I can't see any of the graphs or pictures from these threads on my feed.
What was the HP/TQ ratings on the 3.
A while ago BTR did one with the victor that seemed to come out on top.
Been a bitch modifying all my hoods to use those.
A while ago BTR did one with the victor that seemed to come out on top.
In this test, the average hp between 4000 and 5400 was
Victor 458.6
Performer 459.1
RPM 463.6
The Victor had the lowest hp until between 5000 and 5400, it had passed the other two. Victor looked like it might be better for a higher-rpm build than this one.
The Performer and RPM both had higher peak HP, but the Victor carried on when the others started to drop.
For some reason I can't see any of the graphs or pictures from these threads on my feed.
What was the HP/TQ ratings on the 3.
A while ago BTR did one with the victor that seemed to come out on top.
Been a bitch modifying all my hoods to use those.
Have someone email you the graphs and dyno sheets. The graphs are eye opening to see the results.
It was a few years ago as far as the victor test, around the time the intake came out, before the airgap RPM.
I have the RPM on 2 of my cars with ram hoods and the victor on 3. my SBO seems to like the victor.
Obviously, the hood clearance with the RPM is a great advantage, Good information and thanks for sharing.
After acavagnaro and I traded some ideas about how to present this data, I gave it a try and here's my result.
Is your graph more or less accurate? The reason I ask your graph shows the rpm intake nosing over at peak rpm v the other graph shows it falling of a cliff. This is important in my opinion because performer looks to hang in there better at peak rpm. The quarter mile ET/MPH between these intakes could be surprising depending on shift point and what rpm the car crosses the stripe. The average hp data is nice to have. Thanks
Mark always warns to ignore the first and last readings in a dyno run because artifacts of applying the load and cutting the throttle cause those points to be unreliable.
Mea culpa, one data point was opinion versus measurement. I stretched the point at which all the curves gave good data to show more of the Victor's higher-rpm capability.
To Mark's point, only the Performer didn't show a collapse on the last data point. (The Victor at 5500 showed a sharp drop as well.)
Stopping the analysis at 5300 rpm, where all intakes have solid data, gives these 4000 to 5300 rpm averages...
Performer 458.8 hp
RPM 462.8
Victor 457.1
Mark always warns to ignore the first and last readings in a dyno run because artifacts of applying the load and cutting the throttle cause those points to be unreliable.
Mea culpa, one data point was opinion versus measurement. I stretched the point at which all the curves gave good data to show more of the Victor's higher-rpm capability.
To Mark's point, only the Performer didn't show a collapse on the last data point. (The Victor at 5500 showed a sharp drop as well.)
Stopping the analysis at 5300 rpm, where all intakes have solid data, gives these 4000 to 5300 rpm averages...
Performer 458.8 hp
RPM 462.8
Victor 457.1
Mark always warns to ignore the first and last readings in a dyno run because artifacts of applying the load and cutting the throttle cause those points to be unreliable.
Mea culpa, one data point was opinion versus measurement. I stretched the point at which all the curves gave good data to show more of the Victor's higher-rpm capability.
To Mark's point, only the Performer didn't show a collapse on the last data point. (The Victor at 5500 showed a sharp drop as well.)
Stopping the analysis at 5300 rpm, where all intakes have solid data, gives these 4000 to 5300 rpm averages...
Performer 458.8 hp
RPM 462.8
Victor 457.1
Gary
Bernhard wrote:
Thanks Gary
That makes sense as to why the rpm fell off the cliff. I guess the only way to know how it reacts above 5500 is to pull well past 5500 rpm to avoid dyno throttle variation.
The RPM seems to be higher in the torque at 3300 - was it outperforming the Performer at even lower RPM? Or did you not start your reading until you got to 3300 RPM?
ya know what they say about testing, garbage in is garbage out. nobody should take any of this info as anything other than a waste of dyno time.
nobody in their right mind would do an intake swap and NOT spend the time to get the afr correct for max power for each. this is like a backyard test where an intake swap made the car slower, then throw your hands up in the air and declare the “intake” didn’t work.
and no, it’s not “tweaking” . It’s basic testing..you wouldn’t do this kind of test with anything else,, why do it with an intake?
whenever you make a major change, you have to optimize it. not only wasn’t the afr optimized for each intake…in the one test with the Victor where the afr was posted..it’s all out of whack. not only is it pig rich, it’s way off from left bank to right bank.
I know someone will say..well it was just an awful test, equally awful between each intake, so that’s ok, its all good. nope,,the op should be ashamed of himself. especially for someone who goes ballistic on others here for not using a wide band O2 sensor to tune the afr spot on.
That is really strange that the AFRs were not significantly different. I tested 3 different single-plane intakes on a 427 Windsor once, and there was over a 10-size difference in jetting to keep the AFR the same. I would expect an even bigger swing when going from a Performer to a Victor, even on a milder motor.
The three intakes I tested, for refernce. Left intake took the lest jetting, right intake required a few sizes more, the middle (Super Vic) require much larger jets, and made the most power.
Pardon the non-Olds photo, but wanted to give a visual reference to the intakes I mentioned. Similar design, but significantly different jetting requirements.
you are the only one who’s right. it’s weird because the op didn’t even do the basics of optimizing the afr for each set up.
April 2nd, 2024, 05:22 AM
