Team Camaro Tech banner
Cancel
Create thread New Garage Forums

New Holley HP EFI Pics 550-835 BB/Oval Port

Jump to Latest
21 - 40 of 44 Posts
Discussion starter · #21 ·
Tony Mamo said:
Guys,

I'm a little late to the party but I thought I would quickly throw in my two cents.

Vince alerted me to this thread and I felt it was important to comment on the situation.

Either manifold in stock configuration would have cost the OP a good deal of power.....the Holley notably more than the Edelbrock piece though.

Im not sure what the OP didnt like about the Eddy piece but IMO it would have produced more power with less grinding.

The Holley can be ported to work but it will need some serious grinding to open up the runners.....assuming the middle of the runners are just as conservative (hopefully not) it will really require alot of work to try and keep up with the AFR 290 head. Looks to me the Holley engineers were trying to also produce a manifold that would work well with those ridiculous small "peanut" oval ports which were a waste of time.

The key to getting the Holley to work will be not just "bellmouthing" the exits to meet the entrance of the AFR head.....it will have to be ported all the way up the runner to increase the cross section and allow a seamless transition from the plenum to the entrance of the head. Its alot of grinding but before any money gets sunk into the porting I would clarify exactly what will be done.

The height of the Vic Jr and the larger cross section would have been a better match for this combination IMO and while that intake would have also needed some work, the amount of grinding necessary would have been more manageable. The 290 moves a serious amount of air (as much as a good medium sized rect port) and will require a good flowing intake with the proper CSA to allow that head to shine as bright as it could.

The Holley can work.....it will just represent a much larger endeavor by the guy wielding the grinder.

Hope this helps....sorry I didn't get here a bit sooner

-Tony
Click to expand...
Tony,
Thanks for the input. The only reason why I kept the Holley intake is because it came with the kit and it had all the holes already in the intake for the sensors. The fuel rails from Holley could mount on it either which was the major factor.

The guy doing the port work is going to open up the runners to 2 1/2 to 3 inches deep. When he saw the port size difference he said there would be a lot of work to be done, but hopefully it will turn out ok.

Thanks again.
 
#25 ·
I see why the Holley intake is an inch higher. I have the Edelbrock jr intake. The Holley linkage interferes with the fuel rails big time. The linkage will have to be reworked or a 3/4 to 1 inch spacer added under the throttle body to make it work.
Comparing the castings, the Holley has a much smoother ,cleaner finish. Inside and out.
Thinking I should have went Holley. I have to do some cleaning up and porting anyway.

That porting will make those heads breathe now. Nice.
 
#26 ·
Dan, can you just cut the bottom-most part of the linkage off (part the tranny kick-down or return spring hooks-up), or will the whole thing contact no matter what?
 
#27 ·
That part is long gone (return spring hook up). The linkage arm that connects the primary to the secondary is now on the inside and it still hits. I have the throttle (butterfly) shafts out and am considering shortening them. I need about an 1/8th to 3/16's more room. I may take a little off the fuel rail as well.
I think I have room for a small spacer as well. That will also help.
Positive note , my air filter and pedal linkage all worked out.

Sorry Chuck, I'm not meaning to take over. This info might be helpful to others.
 
Discussion starter · #34 ·
trackman said:
I ran mine back up to the fill spout, added a charcoal filter and back down. Seems to work well so far.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the pics. What filter did you use, because I havn't found any that small yet. Also, Where do you run the house back down to?

This is the vent plug correct? This isn't my tank, but a pic from Rick's website.

Image
 
#35 ·
I returned the line back to where the feed and return lines are. You can just see it in the last pic. I thought if fuel was to leak down to there it would be easier to clean than up by the license plate. Yes that is the vent port location. Stiener suggested part# 80195 for a filter. Google the part # and you will find it.
 
Discussion starter · #36 ·
trackman said:
I returned the line back to where the feed and return lines are. You can just see it in the last pic. I thought if fuel was to leak down to there it would be easier to clean than up by the license plate. Yes that is the vent port location. Stiener suggested part# 80195 for a filter. Google the part # and you will find it.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the help. I thought that was te return line, but couldn't see very well.
 
#37 · (Edited)
the ports on the Holley Projection2,Commander 950, Avenger and HP intakes appear all the same...small. I believe they all share the same intake design and this is done with the intent for the intakes to be port matched. I went through the same small port dilemma with mine a few years back. I contacted holley and someone there told me it would be ok. I couldnt beleive it. well, I wasn't buying that line. I knew those small ports would kill performance. maybe they thought I was using "small" the peanut-port heads, thats all I can think of. I told them I had a ZZ502 with bowtie aluminum heads and those ports are unique,amlost like an oval square port.So anyway, I had a local old-school engine builder in the area port match the intake for me and it's beautiful now. Ive read stories where guys didnt have these port matched and were very sorry for not doing so.

Image
sorry, it's the best pic I have...
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
Discussion starter · #38 ·
68zz502fi said:
the ports on the Holley Projection2,Commander 950, Avenger and HP intakes appear all the same...small. I believe they all share the same intake design and this is done with the intent for the intakes to be port matched. I went through the same small port dilemma with mine a few years back. I contacted holley and someone there told me it would be ok. I couldnt beleive it. well, I wasn't buying that line. I knew those small ports would kill performance. maybe they thought I was using "small" the peanut-port heads, thats all I can think of. I told them I had a ZZ502 with bowtie aluminum heads and those ports are unique,amlost like an oval square port.So anyway, I had a local old-school engine builder in the area port match the intake for me and it's beautiful now. Ive read stories where guys didnt have these port matched and were very sorry for not doing so.

Image
sorry, it's the best pic I have...
Click to expand...


Defiantly money well spent with a port job. Nice looking intake BTW.
 
#40 ·
Hey Chuck, what car is this going into? If you have a '67 or '68 you can get that little coupler for the tank-to-fill spout that has a nipple in it. It's made to use as a return but you could use it for a vent and plug the port in the tank. I looked for a place to mount the canister on the front side of the tank but couldn't really find a place high enough to where I thought it would keep fuel from shooting up the line. I wound up putting an elbow in the filler neck and mounting a large charcoal can from a K-car in the trunk. Line comes up to the can and back down beside filler neck. Stuck a little plastic fuel filter on the end of the line to act as an air filter. Ugly but functional, just like every girlfriend I've ever had.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
21 - 40 of 44 Posts
About this Discussion
43 Replies
10 Participants
Last post:
chuck0379
Team Camaro Tech
posts
2.4M
members
90K
Since
1998
A forum community dedicated to 1st generation Chevy Camaros owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, builds, restoration, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, reviews, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Bench Racing Engine Body Shop Performance Brakes, Suspension & Steering