That's interesting, because the MP online cantalog shows the P4876337, P4876128 & P4876129 intakes as all being max wedge ports. With the 337 being for 4150 carb, max wedge, and stock heads. The 129 being for 4500 carb, max wedge stage VI heads. And the 128 being for "four barrel carb", max wedge stage VI heads.
Not sure is that "four barrel carb" on the 128 means it will handle both 4150 and 4500.

I'm looking for a lower profile 4500 alternative to the super Victor on the Eddie super victor max wedge heads.

Interestingly the 337 is considered a max wedge, but as delivered the ports are really only slightly larger than 1/2 way between a 906 and a true 2.6" x 1.3" Max Wedge. They may have done this intentionally in the height to allow it to be used on a well ported 906 size window.

One great feature of the 337 for high end horsepower is even as cast it has very nice taper and cross section transition from the plenum to the port mating flange. This is good for power up high ( keeping the plenum charged) but i could see on a 440-470" motor its going to take more rpm to get it to the sweet spot, so with a big cam it's going to be more of a 'light switch' torque curve. On my 11.5:1 517 it seems nearly perfectly matched.

You might be able to rework the plenum with a 4500 bolt pattern and then it would be a lower profile alternative to the Super Victor. When you add a 4150 to 4500 adapter on top of the 337 it gets about as tall as a Super Victor.

I stand corrected, the 337 is advertised as having max wedge port..but I'm not sure how close it is to actually max wedge port size. My standard port MP aluminum 452's are not max wedge and I'm certain there was very little difference in the port size from the intake t
o the cylinder head. I'm also certain I didn't use max wedge gaskets.

You most likely had some port mismatch with the intake ports larger than the heads. That might be why you didn't seem much performance improvement. The ports in the 337 are larger than std ports although they usually are smaller than a full MW port. I've run the as cast 337 intake at 800 hp so the ports are big enough to work at that level.

As I mentioned above, the 337 is not as tall nor nearly as wide as the true MW window. I think they did this on purpose so a well ported 906 size port could consider it as an option.

Before sending my manifold to Larry I scribed the port match to my heads and gaskets, there was a good bit of width and some roof height grinding to get it there.

I went back and saw some dyno sheets from a 572" 4.5 x 4.5 (I'm sorry can't remember whether it was Firefighters or Old Schools but compared side by side their 2d vs the 337 each with a 1" open spacer the peak results were pretty 'close' 713.9 @ 4600 to 721.2 @ 4500 on torque and 697.3 @ 5700 to 705.2 @ 5800 on HP, my motor is "only" 517 and the 2D I had was deeper ported, so you can probably see why I wasn't in any real hurry to swap. the 337 was more, just not that much more. I also think (to make it true "apples to apples" fair fight) the 2D could have been tested with a larger carb (the 337 had 1050/4150 and the 2d only had an 850/4150?). If anything a dual plane generally wants MORE CFM to compensate for the divided plenum, a single plane (as we all know) allows each port to access all four barrels of the carb. I've been running a 1000cfm/4150 Pro systems on mine with both manifolds.

I have a 337 intake on MW ported Performers. I use a 1050 Dominator on an adapter and it works great. As delivered the ports are right in between std and MW. Having the built in valley tray is a huge plus. I've always been surprised this intake hasn't caught on more than it has.