Click here to search for Mopar cars and parts for sale.

Moparchat - Home of MOPAR enthusiasts worldwide!  

Go Back   Moparchat - Home of MOPAR enthusiasts worldwide! > Technical Forums > Performance Talk
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Welcome to the Moparchat - Home of MOPAR enthusiasts worldwide! forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-03-2004, 08:51 PM
Kaizen340 Kaizen340 is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Mobile, Alabama
Posts: 1
Default High-Rise vs Low-Rise Intake Manifold for 340


I'm new to forums, so please forgive me if this has been covered. I cannot seem to get the search forum tool to work, nor can I view or post in any other areas except this one.

I have a '69 340 from a Dodge Dart in my 98 Dakota. It runs great from about 3000rpm and up, but I am rarely at that RPM. I'm looking for a little more down low, like 1500-4500rpm, 5000 tops. I have a Edelbrock Performer RPM manifold, with a Hughes HE1423AL. The cam is ground for power from 1200 to 4800rpm, just where I want it, but I think the Performer RPM is robbing some low end power. I have a 5 speed in it also. The Performer RPM is a high rise manifold, do you think a low rise would suit me better? If so, which would you recommend? I was thinking about trying the Weiand Action Plus or the regular Edelbrock Performer. Thanks in advance for any advice you can give me. I think I made a mistake with the Performer RPM, and don't want to do it again!

98 Dakota w/340
Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2004, 09:22 PM
MoparMarcIdaho's Avatar
MoparMarcIdaho MoparMarcIdaho is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: The Great Northwest
Age: 59
Posts: 3,459

Hey Josh,how are you running that in a 98? No computer it sounds like.A dual plane intake will give you better low end torque if thats what you want to know.You can also recurve the distributor to give you more advance at lower RPMs,try this first and if its still doogy down low switch intakes.
If it aint broke-keep speed shiftin until the driveshaft hits the pavement.
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2004, 04:17 PM
rumblefish360's Avatar
rumblefish360 rumblefish360 is offline
Moparchat Bronze member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: C
Age: 50
Posts: 11,120

Humm, Thats where that cam is rated to work in. Did you degree in the cam? Also , whats the rear ratio and tire size combo. The RPM isn't really out of range for this cam.
The cam does start a tiny bit lower than the RPM is slated for. But it should not be a problem.
Also, what carb are you running or is it F.I. ?
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2004, 11:02 PM
jd-indy's Avatar
jd-indy jd-indy is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Indianapolis,Indiana
Posts: 69

I think the RPM intake might make a little less power than the performer down below 2000rpm, but I doubt it would be worth the small gain unless you could get one cheap. You would lose overall power. The performer is not much better than a stock intake. Other hi-rise 2 plane intakes will be similar to the rpm in low power. The 98 dakota weighs about 4000lbs and unless you have a pretty steep gear, it will be tough to make the 340 run with a lot of low end power.
Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2004, 10:40 AM
rumblefish360's Avatar
rumblefish360 rumblefish360 is offline
Moparchat Bronze member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: C
Age: 50
Posts: 11,120

What JD siad. Also, in thinking, add a 4 hole spacer to the carb if possible.
Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2004, 11:07 AM
345Dart 345Dart is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calgary/Alberta
Age: 68
Posts: 466
Default RPM performer

Adding a 1" 4 hole spacer to my 340 with the RPM performer made a big difference in the 2-3000rpm power/torque output. cheap test and tune - give it a try
2nd time around - Leo
Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2004, 07:24 AM
cryppie cryppie is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: IN
Posts: 19

If you decide to go with the Performer, I have a brand new one that has been ported by Hughes Engines listed on eBay right now.

I am selling it for my father because he just went through the same issue as you described. He also has a 340 and had the RPM on it, then took it off because of loss of low-end power. He bought this one from Hughes Engines, who ported it, but he didn't like how it looked. It was going to be chromed and put on a show car, but he said it just didn't look as good as the RPM. I told him that this one would have been perfect for his setup and the type of driving he does, but I guess you can't overlook how things look on a show car... Anyway, I would also like more information about your truck, and pics if you can post them. It sounds like an interesting project. Good luck.
Reply With Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Want to contribute to Moparchat?  Click below!



New 2006

468 x 60 with phones
2GB Totally Free Online Backup!  Compliments of Mozy!

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Forums Directory