Anyone used a Edelbrock SP2P manifold on a 350?

[odoa3]

Had a friend tell me to use a Edelbrock SP2P intake manifold on my 350 for low end torque. I did some research online and found out it gets it's torque from the narrow runners which increase the velocity. Sounds like it stops producing power somewhere between 3000 and 4000 rpm.

I couldn't find anyone who reported using this intake on a 350, just 304 AMC's. My friend really knows his engines, but I was wonderiing if anyone here had any experiences with this intake with off road vehicles Hate to spend money on it and be stuck with something i can't use.

Thanks for any information you guys may have.

 

[odoa3]

Anyone?

 

[Hogback Fabrication]

I don't know exactly which intake you are talking about but swapping it out for the stock one will be worth it. If your engine is stock you will not choke it with that intake.

 

[odoa3]

My engine has a mild "rv" cam and is bored .40 over. Nothing to wild by any means. Just looking for a little extra power.

 

[dyeager535]

Only somewhat official comment I could find about this (was curious)

"I just talked to a rep. for[FONT=verdana,geneva,lucida,&quot] [FONT=verdana,geneva,lucida,&quot]Edelbrock[/FONT][/FONT] about the SP2P and in his words "The SP2P is an economy intake and NOT to be used with ANY [FONT=verdana,geneva,lucida,&quot][FONT=verdana,geneva,lucida,&quot]performance [/FONT][/FONT]or with a heavy vehicle."

I'd agree, narrowing intake ports is really going to limit any sort of top end, and for any sort of street use, most people need at least a tiny bit of upper end power.

 

[3 on the tree]

Back in 81, I put one of those , along with the Economaster carb on a 283 in a 76 shortbed C10. It was a 6 cylinder with 3 speed. Kept the 3 speed. Mild RV cam, headers. It got 18-20 on the highway and would melt the tires down. It did start to run out of breath about 4500 rpm though.

 

[odoa3]

Thanks for the info guys. The only time I am on the roads is on the way to the trail. Don't do anything over about 55 with it..... hmmmm interesting to hear the Edelbrock rep's response and then 3 on the trees response.

 

[dyeager535]

Just looking at this objectively, it seems ridiculous to use that intake, if indeed the intake ports are smaller.

First thing is that "everyone" replaces the stock intake manifold to make more power. If it's a restriction, (as is always stated) then that must mean that flow and/or port size is inadequate at least at the upper end. So why even bother changing intakes from stock if you want low end torque? Velocity=torque, if the stock intakes have low end, then that must mean they have adequate velocity, just not enough flow to support higher RPM's. Which sounds exactly like what the intake in question is.

Yes, it may have refined ports, etc., but without objective dyno testing, I wouldn't simply buy into it. Tests like "seat of the pants" really are invalid, get some numbers or some time slips and it starts to become reality. This reminds me of the airgap intake. The ONLY time I saw a dyno test with that intake not advertised by Edelbrock, it made something like 5HP over the comparable non-airgap edelbrock model. Certainly not a major change like they'd have you believe.

 

[odoa3]

Dyeager535, I have an Weind 8004 aluminum spreadbore, dual plane intake on right now, not the stock intake. That intake is supposed to be an idle to 6000 rpm range. As this is basically a trail only truck, top end is not too important to me. I would like to make all my power as low as I can. With my cam, I believe I am done about 5500 rpm anyways.

Am I completely off the reservation in thinking that I can move the power down lower to a more useable range with the intake?
Thanks guys, I am trying to learn here so keep it coming.

 

[dyeager535]

Intake design can certainly make an impact on where an engine starts and stops making power, but so do all the other components.

I say throw a stock truck intake back on there, regardless of what some people may say, if you want low end power and care nothing about upper end, why not use something you can probably get for free? I seriously doubt GM did anything but use the cheapest intake around that ALSO made as much low end torque as possible. The HP numbers were nothing while torque was still relatively strong for a reason.

 

[trailblazr81]

I would just stick with a Performer, if you plan to ever do anything more to the motor or want more high end HP for spinning the tires in goo grab the Performer RPM. Ive used both, along with the Air Gap and have no complaints. The only reason I used the Performer was for smog.

 

[chevyguybc]

go with the performer rpm