Performer 383 vs RPM Air Gap

[dfrazz]

I currently have an Edelbrock Performer 383 intake and am considering swapping to a RPM Air Gap. My engine is a 383 stroked to 496 ci with 440 source kit, Edelbrock RPM heads (60925), Comp cam 230/236 .541/.537 lift (23-711-9), Holley Street Avenger 770 cfm.

I can’t find any performance numbers comparing the two and would like to know if it is worth it. Anyone have experience or tested the two intakes? And will the Air Gap fit on a ‘68 Charger with a 383? Thanks in advance!

 

[RemCharger]

1 yes the RPM would be better for that motor
2 all BBD intakes are " air gap" except for hemis and cross rams. It's really a chevy term.
3 I would consider a holley street dominator single plane.. and itvwould easily fit.

 

[91r/t]

Buy the RPM Performer dual plane which is completely different from the standard performer. It will give you the best power band for the street available.

 

[BeepBeepRR]

While this article may have some people who disagree which is understandable, they did use the same engine for every test. Not every intake is suitable for a one trick pony engine. But the do give you some food for thought in this article and they do explain their findings.

Part 1 of Hot Rod's Mopar Intake Manifold Shootout

Take a look at how we made our addicting ebay habit into a compiled list of manifold's and their specs.

www.motortrend.com

https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/hrdp-0801-mopar-intake-manifolds/

 

[dfrazz]

While this article may have some people who disagree which is understandable, they did use the same engine for every test. Not every intake is suitable for a one trick pony engine. But the do give you some food for thought in this article and they do explain their findings.

http://[URL]https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/hrdp-0712-mopar-intake-manifold-comparo/

[/URL]

http://[URL]https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/hrdp-0801-mopar-intake-manifolds/

[/URL]

I did read that article, along with Part 1. It is close to what I am looking for but wanted to throw it out there if anyone had tested/driven a stroked 383 with a Performer vs a RPM Air Gap. And to see if anyone is running an Air Gap on a 383 in a Gen 2 Charger, because if it doesn't fit then the rest doesn't matter.

 

[Joske2]

I did read that article, along with Part 1. It is close to what I am looking for but wanted to throw it out there if anyone had tested/driven a stroked 383 with a Performer vs a RPM Air Gap. And to see if anyone is running an Air Gap on a 383 in a Gen 2 Charger, because if it doesn't fit then the rest doesn't matter.

We run a RPM air gap on a 383 with a 1 inch spacer, but use a 2.5" air filter. Have to check what air cleaner base we use.

 

[BSB67]

Please stop calling it an air gap.

 

[qkcuda]

I'm seeing an Edelbrock Torker intake in the picture, which is a single plane intake. The Performer RPM would work really well but probably not fit under the hood with a stock air cleaner. I had almost the same engine combo and ran a Holley Street Dominator, and it was a great intake.

 

[PROSTOCKTOM]

All BBM intakes for the most part are Air Gaps. However it's just a Performer RPM.

Tom

 

[DeltaV]

Please stop calling it an air gap.

@Kern Dog started a thread for us!

"Please S T O P saying this" thread.

 

[Kern Dog]

Please stop calling it an air gap.

I thought that there is an LA/Small Block intake known as the RPM Air Gap but the B/RB versions are like these:

You can call it an "Air Gap" but you'd be wrong.

 

[Geoff 2]

Going to 496 cubes from 383 changes EVERYTHING. The quoted rpm ranges will be considerably lower. Example, the Perf is listed as idle-5500 rpm. The same intake on a 496 is probably going to be done by 4800-5000rpm. It will go past this but will flatten out.
The RPM would be a good choice with the extra cubes & will work well with your cam which would be quite mild in a 496.

 

[451Mopar]

I would use the RPM intake if it clears the hood. I think on a "B" block it will make fitment way easier than if it was a "RB" engine.
Not sure if the "B" style RPM intake has the short carb pad like the "RB" 440 intake, but I had to space the carb up off the mounting flange (not alot, maybe 3/8") so the Avenger 770 carb fast idle screw (or whatever the lowest part on the passenger side throttle shaft) would not hit the port runners of the intake.
I also enlarged the idle restrictors on the Avenger carb, and drilled the throttle plates on the 505" stroker.

 

[91r/t]

I have an RPM performer in my 68 Charger using the drop base from mancini racing to clear the hood on the stock air cleaner. Thats a 440 block stroked to 500" so you might be able to get away with the stock air cleaner base being a 383 low deck motor. I also run one in my Roadrunner with the 383 setup and a shorter air cleaner element with the stock base.

 

[dfrazz]

I have an RPM performer in my 68 Charger using the drop base from mancini racing to clear the hood on the stock air cleaner. Thats a 440 block stroked to 500" so you might be able to get away with the stock air cleaner base being a 383 low deck motor. I also run one in my Roadrunner with the 383 setup and a shorter air cleaner element with the stock base.

View attachment 1740384
View attachment 1740385

That looks great, thank you for the pics! Did you run either set up with a different intake before? And if so, did you notice any significant performance improvement?

 

[dfrazz]

Going to 496 cubes from 383 changes EVERYTHING. The quoted rpm ranges will be considerably lower. Example, the Perf is listed as idle-5500 rpm. The same intake on a 496 is probably going to be done by 4800-5000rpm. It will go past this but will flatten out.
The RPM would be a good choice with the extra cubes & will work well with your cam which would be quite mild in a 496.

Thank you, and I agree on the cam. The current set up works well and the engine is snappy off the line and cruises well. I've had the RPM intake on my other cars and thought it might improve the performance of my current set up. Thank you!

I would use the RPM intake if it clears the hood. I think on a "B" block it will make fitment way easier than if it was a "RB" engine.
Not sure if the "B" style RPM intake has the short carb pad like the "RB" 440 intake, but I had to space the carb up off the mounting flange (not alot, maybe 3/8") so the Avenger 770 carb fast idle screw (or whatever the lowest part on the passenger side throttle shaft) would not hit the port runners of the intake.
I also enlarged the idle restrictors on the Avenger carb, and drilled the throttle plates on the 505" stroker.

Thank you for the insight, I had not thought about carb interference. I'm hoping it will clear the hood on the 383.

I thought that there is an LA/Small Block intake known as the RPM Air Gap but the B/RB versions are like these:

You can call it an "Air Gap" but you'd be wrong.

Thank you for clarifying. I've always referred to it as an Air Gap because it looks like the other Air Gap intakes. Learned something new!

I'm seeing an Edelbrock Torker intake in the picture, which is a single plane intake. The Performer RPM would work really well but probably not fit under the hood with a stock air cleaner. I had almost the same engine combo and ran a Holley Street Dominator, and it was a great intake.

The current intake is a Performer 383. I had a Street Dominator on the 505 ci stroker in a green '68 Charger I owned a few years ago and it cleared, but then I added a Sniper system and hit the hood. Ugh.

 

[91r/t]

That looks great, thank you for the pics! Did you run either set up with a different intake before? And if so, did you notice any significant performance improvement?

The charger I did not. That engine was built from scratch by myself. The roadrunner I did and it seemed to definately pick up some steam from the intake swap. The 383 in the Runner has 68 906 steel heads that have some serious port work and blending done and always ran really strong. It did however pick up a bit of the seat of the pants when I used this intake when I restored the car. I did nothing to the engine other than a teardown and inspection with new gaskets and timing chain installed at the same straight up timing as the previous chain which wasn't worn much. Figured while I was in there I'd do a new double roller. I'd say its worth the money and the strongest street/strip intake you will find while going to get ice cream and doing burnouts ha! It passed the test in my wedding collection burnout wise!

 

[dfrazz]

The specs show the RPM Performer is about 1.5" higher all the way around, so it is going to be a tight fit.
Performer 383: Manifold height: A-3.65", B-4.35", measured to engine block; Carb pad height: 4.00" - https://www.edelbrock.com/performer...1958-1979-chrysler-b-series-engines-2186.html

RPM Performer: Manifold height.: A-4.90", B-5.80"; Carb pad height: 5.35" - https://www.edelbrock.com/performer-rpm-big-block-chrysler-b-intake-manifold-7186.html

 

[dfrazz]

The charger I did not. That engine was built from scratch by myself. The roadrunner I did and it seemed to definately pick up some steam from the intake swap. The 383 in the Runner has 68 906 steel heads that have some serious port work and blending done and always ran really strong. It did however pick up a bit of the seat of the pants when I used this intake when I restored the car. I did nothing to the engine other than a teardown and inspection with new gaskets and timing chain installed at the same straight up timing as the previous chain which wasn't worn much. Figured while I was in there I'd do a new double roller. I'd say its worth the money and the strongest street/strip intake you will find while going to get ice cream and doing burnouts ha! It passed the test in my wedding collection burnout wise!

View attachment 1740546

Great pic!! That is good info, thank you!!

 

[gtxrt]

the rpm performer will give you 2-3 tenths better over the performer. the street dominator will cost you a lot of power before 3500 rpms compared to the rpm performer