Has anyone read the article on the Holley dual quad intake vs vic jr intake? Dual quad took bottom end honors by 50lb. ft torque. It stayed right with the single plane with 1 hp difference on the high end. Fairly impressive.

 

It's sittin' next to my throne, you just gave me incentive to jump over my current "read"!

 

2-4's or 3-2's work great... until you need to tune... but drivability<sp> suffers atleast as I heard...Never had a need for 2-4's or 3-2's muddin'

 

I have no clue as to drivability. The extra grunt may be due to the dual plane design and better fuel distribution. The carbs I am sure can be dialed in a little better but they had good a/f on wot.

 

But , alas, still no L92 love.. That dual quad intake would be SWEET with the dual TB option on my fast EZ EFI. Hey and NO tuning. Dont matter anyway. It will take holley another 10 yrs to offer it for the big heads .

 

That is pretty good. At what horsepower level? That might change when you start moving more air.

Also, you can effectively port the Victor pretty easily. It is nearly impossible to do much more than a port match on the Performer. I have not seen the dual 4 intake in person, but I suspect it would be the same scenario.

Oh, and tuning those Carter style carbs suck.

 

The motor was a bit of a bastard, a 5.3L stroked to a 383 with 215 heads. The thing made 527 HP at 6000 RPM. They didn't spin it any higher than that. The dual quad was also a dual plane. Probably weighted and extra 10 pounds with all that metal. Interestingly I couldn't find the cam specs in the article.

The two systems were dead equal above 5000 RPM. Have to wonder if the heads were limiting the airflow and not the intakes. Put those two intakes on on a motor with a 4 inch bore and spin them to +7K and see what happens then.

 

With no mention of a cam swap, I would presume the cam is probably the same one that they used in Modern Mouse pt.4

Comp LSR 281LR HR13 #54-459-11
.617/.624 231/239 113+4

 

I believe they mentioned that Holley makes the same manifold for the L92 type heads and that it performed the same. A buddy swiped my copy and hasn't returned it but if you'll reread I believe you'll find it.
Jarhead

 

I would like to get my hands on that Holley dual 4 intake for inspection. I want to see how large the ports cross section is compared to the Edelbrock dual planes.

 

I will check into the l92 dual, but sure would be nice to see a comparo . That is an expensive proposition . The extra fast throttle body is 5 bills and plumbing, then the price of the intake, yikes!

 

link to online article?

 

Here you go:

http://www.superchevy.com/technical/...t_5/index.html

 

Funniest looking "Carters" I've ever seen.

 

LOL.... even spelled wrong on bowl

 

Yeah yeah. I was thinking of the Edelbrock set up. I guess it would make sense that Holley would design their intake for Holleys eh?

I actually drove a twin 600 Holley/Offenhauser low rise equipped 65 440 Coronet for a guy for 1 season in 1990. The set up worked flawlessly and was actually faster than his single 850 set up on that car.

 

Well, eddy doesn't even make a intake for a spread bore, so you wouldn't know unless you were told so by insignia, just love seeing the market for carb induction steady rising.

Professional products was supposed to make a carb intake for the LS, but alas, nada...

 

Carters aren't spread bores. They are square bores like Holley. They just have smaller bores. The Edelbrock carbs are just updated Carters.

 

I know, just saying they don't even make them for the usualy eddy. And a eddy carb is a simplified carter, lol.

 

I have not tried the Edlebrock version. I played with some carters on an old 63 Buick Invicta and did not do very well. It had a secondary bog/hesitation that I did not successfully tune out. However, a Holley 600 solved the problem nicely.