Holley 300-131 LS3 Single Plane Manifold Compared to Edelbrock 28457 PICS
03-07-2014, 02:32 PM
#1
Holley 300-131 LS3 Single Plane Manifold Compared to Edelbrock 28457 PICS Hey all.
Just got the Holley 300-131 LS3 Single Plane Manifolds, see below for pictures compared to an Edelbrock 28457.
$235 intro price for the Holley
Installation Notes
Carbureted, All GM LS Gen III LS3/L92 Single plane intake manifold. All GM LS Gen III or IV engines equipped with LS3/L92 style rectangular port cylinder heads)
Features
2500-7000 RPM power band
4150 Square bore flange
Optimized runner layout and constant cross sectional area - broad torque curve, best vehicle performance from 2500-7000 RPM
Minimum carb flange height - fit in vehicles with minimum hood modifications
Cast aluminum construction - great manifold for centrifugal blower, turbocharged or NOS mild power adder applications
Efficient casting design - lightweight, consistent wall thicknesses, improved casting quality
Height (front) - 5.417" to the lifter valley cover flange at the engine block front flange and bellhousing flange
Port size - 2.50" height x 1.15" wide
Mounting flange gasket type - o-ring
About 1" Lower carb pad vs the Edelbrock.
Edelbrock on Left, Holley on Right
Just got the Holley 300-131 LS3 Single Plane Manifolds, see below for pictures compared to an Edelbrock 28457.
$235 intro price for the Holley
Installation Notes
Carbureted, All GM LS Gen III LS3/L92 Single plane intake manifold. All GM LS Gen III or IV engines equipped with LS3/L92 style rectangular port cylinder heads)
Features
2500-7000 RPM power band
4150 Square bore flange
Optimized runner layout and constant cross sectional area - broad torque curve, best vehicle performance from 2500-7000 RPM
Minimum carb flange height - fit in vehicles with minimum hood modifications
Cast aluminum construction - great manifold for centrifugal blower, turbocharged or NOS mild power adder applications
Efficient casting design - lightweight, consistent wall thicknesses, improved casting quality
Height (front) - 5.417" to the lifter valley cover flange at the engine block front flange and bellhousing flange
Port size - 2.50" height x 1.15" wide
Mounting flange gasket type - o-ring
About 1" Lower carb pad vs the Edelbrock.
Edelbrock on Left, Holley on Right
03-07-2014, 05:03 PM
#3
My honest impressions:
The edelbrock is a cleaner casting. The holley has less wall thickness in the runners as well.
It's two different markets in my opinion; the Holley is $100 cheaper and offers a lower pad height which may be better for basic swaps. The Edelbrock seems to have performance in mind from the start with less flash on the casting.
We'll hopefully have our Engine Dyno running within a few months so I can do some head to head comparisons!
The edelbrock is a cleaner casting. The holley has less wall thickness in the runners as well.
It's two different markets in my opinion; the Holley is $100 cheaper and offers a lower pad height which may be better for basic swaps. The Edelbrock seems to have performance in mind from the start with less flash on the casting.
We'll hopefully have our Engine Dyno running within a few months so I can do some head to head comparisons!
03-07-2014, 05:34 PM
#4
Does Holley have plans for a higher performance model? More like a Super Vic? Their small block Strip Dominator was always a great intake.
Trending Topics
04-25-2014, 01:03 PM
#14
I would have been down for this in my Datsun 260Z LY6 swap, but I bought a GMPP L92 intake for the shorter height.
What in the world is up with the port O-rings? The circled one looks squared nicely, the arrowed... not so much.
It would not matter if you were using paper gaskets. But I have saw pictures of the rubber gaskets breaking runner walls. I personally would use a paper fel-pro gasket regardless with this type intake. I would like to see a picture of a L92 paper gasket laid on it for alignment.
Thank you for posting up the pictures. I buy from you guys whenever possible and you guys have always done great.
What in the world is up with the port O-rings? The circled one looks squared nicely, the arrowed... not so much.
It would not matter if you were using paper gaskets. But I have saw pictures of the rubber gaskets breaking runner walls. I personally would use a paper fel-pro gasket regardless with this type intake. I would like to see a picture of a L92 paper gasket laid on it for alignment.
Thank you for posting up the pictures. I buy from you guys whenever possible and you guys have always done great.
Last edited by The stunningman; 04-25-2014 at 01:09 PM.
04-25-2014, 10:34 PM
#16
TECH Regular
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have been down for this in my Datsun 260Z LY6 swap, but I bought a GMPP L92 intake for the shorter height.
What in the world is up with the port O-rings? The circled one looks squared nicely, the arrowed... not so much.
It would not matter if you were using paper gaskets. But I have saw pictures of the rubber gaskets breaking runner walls. I personally would use a paper fel-pro gasket regardless with this type intake. I would like to see a picture of a L92 paper gasket laid on it for alignment.
Thank you for posting up the pictures. I buy from you guys whenever possible and you guys have always done great.
What in the world is up with the port O-rings? The circled one looks squared nicely, the arrowed... not so much.
It would not matter if you were using paper gaskets. But I have saw pictures of the rubber gaskets breaking runner walls. I personally would use a paper fel-pro gasket regardless with this type intake. I would like to see a picture of a L92 paper gasket laid on it for alignment.
Thank you for posting up the pictures. I buy from you guys whenever possible and you guys have always done great.
04-26-2014, 06:33 AM
#17
10 Second Club
I remember a few intakes having porosity issues and having vacuum leaks a few years back (forget brand)...is there a way you could seal this thing up and do a pressure/vacuum test also ?
