Vintage Mustang Forums banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,965 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just recently, I read a test on intake manifolds. The test engine was a 5.0 with a hot roller cam and AFR heads. With a Performer 289, this engine made 400 hp and IIRC about 375 ft lbs of torque.

Next up, a Performer RPM was installed. Naturally, it made more hp, to the tune of 425 hp and about 10 ft lbs more torque.

The fact that on a hot, 425 hp 5.0, the Performer 289 could support 400 hp was impressive I thought. The Performer 289 also made more torque up to about 4,600 rpm too, just where most of us drive on the street.

On a milder 302 that places much less demand on airflow, then a 425 hp motor, I think the Performer 289 will be a great choice for the street. Since my new engine is going to be for the street, I have no intention of buzzing it more then 5,500 rpm. I just don't see the need to. Also my target hp is for about 275 hp (GT40P heads, mild cam and headers), I don't think the Performer RPM will be worth more then about 10-12 hp over the Performer 289 at peak power, where I'll seldom be driving. I also believe the RPM will give up torque just in the rpm range that I intend to operate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,638 Posts
Hey Tom, I just bought one of those Performer 289's for $70 bucks off of eblow. I glass beaded it, and looks brand new! Now I'm doing a little porting and polishing. Can't wait to try it out! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,528 Posts
When you say "Porting and polishing" I hope you are talking about the heads. Port matching the intake is a good thing but I think polishing it is not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,528 Posts
When you say "Porting and polishing" I hope you are talking about the heads. Port matching the intake is a good thing but I think polishing it is not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,638 Posts
I sorry, I meant porting and polishing the heads. I am going to clean up the intake a little. Match it to the gaskets/heads.
 

·
Gone but never forgetten
Joined
·
25,239 Posts
They're both great intakes. I have the Performer on my son's 289 and daughter's 302, and have the RPM on my '66 289. An advantage of the Performer is added hood clearance. The RPM is pretty tall and so more difficult to find an air filter to fit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,528 Posts
John is right about hood clearance. My '71 with Performer has room for 3" filter, My '68 with RPM is really tight with dropped base and 2".
For me the Performer is more fun on the street and the RPM is more fun on freeway and highway, so I guess you must decide where you want your fun to be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
I used to run a Torker on my 289, with a Holley 600, and managed to crack an ear with only about 10 foot pounds of torque while installing it. Replaced it with a Performer, and lost power across the rpm range. Additionally, this sounds odd, but the exhaust note became noticeably quieter. Say what you may about single plane intakes, but that Torker was darn impressive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
I still run the Torker 289 and your right....it's a monster. Every DYNO article I have seen shows the Torker 289 comming in strong at about 3000 RPM and pulling ahead of the other manifolds by at least 20 HP and 20 lBS of Torque. Plus you can run your RPM's higher and the Torker let's you get away with it.

Just thought I'd share my experience.

Greg.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
Yeah, ditto on that. What's annoying is that I did't feel any real increase in low end grunt from the Performer, compared to the Torker. Plus, the Torker has a PCV port whereas the Performer doesn't, and the carb mounting area is much larger on the Torker. Drat, now I want my Torker back /forums/images/icons/frown.gif
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top