RV cam and alum intake

[tommyhawk13]

I finally got off of my wallet & did something nice for one of my hearses for Christmas. I bought a rebuilt 72 500 with an RV cam. The seller says it had about 1,500 miles since the rebuild. It was a good deal, so I jumped on it.

I read a dyno comaprison that claimed the RV cam produced the same numbers with or without the Edelbrock intake. I have the intake, and I want to put it on the new motor, but it will cause hood clearance issues.
I had planned on cutting a hole in my hood for a scoop, but if this is true, I don't think it would be a good idea to use the intake.


So, should I jsut swap the motors and enjoy the ride, or jump up to an MTS # 10 grind & change the rockers, and intake?

[fast large one]

From what I was just reading on the 'net, the Edelbrock carb pad is 3 inches taller than the stock intake. If you look at a profile of the stocker you can see why - Cad made some funky bends in the runners to get the carb below the hoodline. The disturbance in airflow would be undesirable to a performance buildup, to say the least.

[tommyhawk13]

It is definitely 3" taller, I had to use a 1" filter element when it was in my 74 Cad.
I read that cleaning up the mold lines & grinding the radius under the lip of the "plenum" would help the flow. Would a port and polish on the intake with a mild cam setup help or hinder?

[STDog]

Porting will only help unless it's done wrong.

If you've got the cash, I'd swap the cam and intake too.
I think the MT10 will be a better cam, and even better with the porting. Add some headers too :)

[Haunted Ken]

I have seen somewhere dyno tests for the edelbrock versus a slightly worked stock intake and the only main advantage was that the edelbrock was like 8 pounds lighter... and the edelbrock actually hurt the low end torque a little bit, which imo is undisirable for a hearse...

I would do the cam, rockers, and a little head work...

I have a 72 Superior 3-way with a 472 with a #10 cam, port matched stock intake (I just cleaned up the runners a little with a basic dremel, flash, etc), basic head porting (I think a set of the earlier heads would make a big difference) and headers with dual 2 1/2" exhaust... I can light the tires up with no prob..... now to get the spray and install it ;)

[Terrible One]

Yes, a stocker with the plenum cut out flows almost as good as the Edelbrock.

[tommyhawk13]

I have seen somewhere dyno tests for the edelbrock versus a slightly worked stock intake and the only main advantage was that the edelbrock was like 8 pounds lighter... and the edelbrock actually hurt the low end torque a little bit, which imo is undisirable for a hearse...

I would do the cam, rockers, and a little head work...

I have a 72 Superior 3-way with a 472 with a #10 cam, port matched stock intake (I just cleaned up the runners a little with a basic dremel, flash, etc), basic head porting (I think a set of the earlier heads would make a big difference) and headers with dual 2 1/2" exhaust... I can light the tires up with no prob..... now to get the spray and install it ;)
Any problems with the driveshaft with that cam? I was worried about it shattering with too much power ad torque vs. that much weight.
How about springs & valves? I would imagine that keeping the intake runner size about the same would help with torque, I would just clean up the short side & port match the heads & intake if I go that route.
Any et's? How about an estimated 0-60?
It's good to see another hot rod hearse. I know of a guy with a 520 in his coach, claims it has 600hp, and he had to replace everything behind the motor.