Trick Flow intake manifold flow numbers

Does anybody have any experience or better yet flow numbers for the Trick Flow street intake manifold? I'm curious to see how it compares to the GT 40/Cobra style or Edelbrock performer intakes. I like the idea (design), it looks as though it would have more runner balance then the others, but am unsure of the flow capabilities. If some of you are running one, and could share some of your results and opions that would be great[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
[addsig]

OK...I found out some numbers, so I thought I'd share them. According to the guys at Trick flow the Street efi intake flows 245 cfm right out of the box, and with a port cross section of 2.4 in2, the flow /in2 is 102 cfm (not bad, about the same as the GT40). These numbers are pulled at 28 in of water. With a 15" runner length (compared to 12" for most others), these are some pretty good numbers. It outflows the Performer, and should have the same torque curve as the Cobra. The other cool thing about the intake is they claim only 1 - 1.5% flow differential between ports, the closest one to that is the Performer at 5.6%. NOW, is anybody out there running one on their car, and what kind of results are they getting???
[addsig]

There was a post a while back on efi intakes and someone had a link to a 1996 issue of Super Ford Mag. Didn't cover the Trick Flow but it has a number of others listed with flow numbers by runner. 245 sounds real good....maybe too good. Be nice to see an independent test. Latest issue of 5.0 has an article on the new Edelbrock RPM II. No flow data but it does have dyno numbers. The TFS and the new Edelbrock are similar looking in design so the performance numbers should be similar.

hey, check out this link from this site

oops, wrong flow test sorry, but its on the site here. Im laughing at myself now.
_________________
68 Restomod - 347 EFI

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: stang68 on 3/28/03 2:01am ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: stang68 on 3/28/03 2:02am ]</font>

Thanks for the input...I've seen that test from back in 96 (I think it's called "Intake Overload" its got really good info. The 245 cfm does seem high (considering the Performer is 228 cfm peak) until you look at the port size for the Trick flow its a whopping 2.4 in2 compared to the Edelbrok Performers 1.94 in2. Thus...There is also a big difference between the cfm/in2 ratio (translates to air velocity). The Performer has smaller ports, but manages lots of flow, this means better air velocity. If you just look at this, the Performer has a huge edge (114cfm/in2 (Perf) vs. 102cfm/in2 (TF)), which I would for sure think would improve low end torque.....BUT the Trick flow uses 15" runners, compared to the Performers 12", which again swings the torque back to the Trick flow, by changing the sound pulse reverberation timing.......You are definetly right a Dyno test would be great to see. I have a funny feeling the Performer would slightly come out on top, but the price of the Trick flow is very attractive. I read the article on the Performer RPM also, I'm not sure I like the manifold for the application I'm doing (its more high RPM based), It doesn't have really anymore low range grunt than the original RPM, and the original RPM has a tendency to make mild combos feel slushy until about 3 grand. Now if only Edelbrock could redesign the Performer to use the same "Y" concept as the RPM II, than I think we'd have a winner.....I wonder if any Edelbrock exec's read this forum??[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ibpluto on 3/26/03 11:42pm ]</font>