Looking at the plenum of the Victor and the corners are shrouded, should I unshroud them or leave it alone? Just doesn't look right as compared to other SP intakes, although it's mostly there for a reason i'm sure. What have you guys done?

Yes, removing the "eyebrows" above the port entrances and making a nice radiused transition into the top of the runner helps. I can't find the pics of the mods I did years ago (on an older PC, probably), but back-to-back comparisons of the modified intake vs. a untouched Victor 440 showed an 8-10 HP increase in peak HP on a 600+ HP 440, as I recall.

We also tested the unmodified intake w/ a 1" open spacer to see if it was just an increase in plenum volume that helped, and the modified Victor w/ no spacer still made more power than the standard intake w/ the spacer.

Those eyebrows on the Victor intake have always bothered me. I'm not smart enough to know what the guy who designed the intake was thinking, I'm sure he had a reason for putting them there.

I prefer the way the Trick Flow intake looks. I don't have any flow bench info on the TF intake but it sure looks like it will work better than the Victor.

Good info Brad thanks!I think the Victor port has the lip to help draw from the bottom of the intake and reduce separation.Just a guess.

496 stroker, RPM heads, Victor Intake.

Average torque/horsepower, 3000-6100rpm, with the brows smoothed but not removed 560.4TQ/485.7HP

Average torque/horsepower, 3000-6100rpm, with the brows removed .............................556.9TQ/483.6HP

IQ52 who is a member on another board, not sure if he is here or not? Anyway he claims any major wok on a Victor intake is actually going backwards. Claims Eddy did their homework on that intake. But I suppose that all depends on the combo?

Mine is HEAVILY ported/modified and easily put my junk in the high 9`s at 3200+ lbs and now at around 3050 I`m hoping to improve greatly over that. Not a pro porter but now you can look all of the way down my intake and see most of the roof line kinda like a NASCAR intake and shows no puddling or weird distribution............

I always looked at the eyebrows as a way to add length to the runner.
If you are running a combo that can benefit from a shorter runner(higher rpm), then I think removing them would help, as it did on Brads 452.

For the most part, on the running engine, the air doesn't really go from the carb right down into the cylinder. There are pulses bouncing back and forth the whole length of the runner.
Slight changes in length will change the point at which the manifold is most effective, which will be slightly different depending on the basic engine configuration.

Thanks for the feedback guys..... Now here's another factor, i'm running a F2 Procharger and a 950 Prosystems blow thru carb on it so do I remove the eyebrows or just smooth them out???

Interesting... did you also test a stock one to see how all three versions compared?

IQ52 and LaRoy Engines are either the same person, or father & son.

If others are interested, we ran those tests from 3500 - 7000, and the HP peak was usually at 6300 to 6400.

And on a street/strip race car with a 4500 or plus vert. Id want to know the averages from that rpm and above. Not starting at 3000 or 3500 rpm for a more accurate data. Brads test is a better reference to that model.

Yeah I did, used the same manifold for all, well, five tests actually.

RPM..........OOTB.........smooth brow.......remove brow

3000......519tq/297hp........522/298.........511/292
3200........548/334..........539/329.........525/320
3400........585/379..........591/383.........592/383
3600........605/415..........609/418.........604/414
3800........609/440..........611/442.........608/440
4000........607/462..........614/467.........610/464
4200........604/483..........615/491.........609/487
4400........599/502..........602/505.........604/506
4600........605/530..........606/531.........611/535
4800........606/554..........608/556.........613/560
5000........611/581..........617/588.........616/587
5200........608/602..........619/612.........608/602
5400........602/619..........606/623.........601/618
5600........592/632..........597/636.........594/634
5800........577/637..........584/644.........581/642
6000........555/634..........564/644.........566/646
6100........542/629..........562/653.........554/644

Didn't pull this engine any higher.

I assume a misprint on line one going from 602 to 692 from 5400 to 5600..........

LaRoy
Do you have any pics of the plenum with the modified brows

Sorry, no pictures. We kept the same brow shape, just rounded any sharp edges.

OK, the topic caught my interest enough that I went digging around on our old 'puter to find this info & pics.

Basic combination: 440 + .060"; 10.7 cr, MP Stage VI heads (~305/235 @ .600"), Comp "XX" solid 266/266 @ .050", .600"/.600" (1.5), 108 + 4, , Street Hemi pan w/ ½” pickup, Hooker 2" Super Comps w/ 3.5" x 18" collector extension, 35 degrees total advance, Valvoline 20w50 racing oil.

Tests:
A. Stock Edelbrock Victor intake, BG Gold Claw 825 (1.42" venturi, 1.75" butterfly, downleg booster), 1.5/1.5 rockers
B. Added 1" open spacer
C. Switched to 1.6 intake rockers
D. Switched to plenum-ported Edelbrock Victor w/o spacer

TEST ----- A ------------- B -------------- C ------------- D
RPM -- TQ / HP ----- TQ / HP ----- TQ / HP ----- TQ / HP
3500 -- 479 / 319 ---- 485 / 323 ---- 481 / 321 ---- 480 / 320
3600 -- 478 / 327 ---- 484 / 332 ---- 481 / 330 ---- 479 / 329
3700 -- 482 / 340 ---- 482 / 339 ---- 480 / 338 ---- 478 / 337
3800 -- 492 / 356 ---- 488 / 353 ---- 483 / 349 ---- 482 / 349
3900 -- 505 / 375 ---- 501 / 372 ---- 492 / 365 ---- 488 / 363
4000 -- 525 / 400 ---- 518 / 394 ---- 513 / 391 ---- 504 / 384
4100 -- 540 / 421 ---- 534 / 417 ---- 526 / 410 ---- 527 / 412
4200 -- 546 / 437 ---- 544 / 435 ---- 537 / 429 ---- 538 / 430
4300 -- 552 / 452 ---- 554 / 454 ---- 548 / 448 ---- 547 / 448
4400 -- 558 / 468 ---- 555 / 465 ---- 549 / 460 ---- 553 / 464
4500 -- 563 / 483 ---- 563 / 483 ---- 556 / 476 ---- 559 / 479
4600 -- 567 / 496 ---- 559 / 489 ---- 560 / 490 ---- 563 / 493
4700 -- 564 / 505 ---- 564 / 505 ---- 566 / 506 ---- 567 / 507
4800 -- 565 / 517 ---- 565 / 516 ---- 566 / 517 ---- 568 / 519
4900 -- 563 / 525 ---- 565 / 527 ---- 568 / 530 ---- 572 / 534
5000 -- 562 / 535 ---- 565 / 538 ---- 565 / 538 ---- 570 / 543
5100 -- 564 / 548 ---- 564 / 548 ---- 565 / 549 ---- 568 / 551
5200 -- 561 / 555 ---- 561 / 555 ---- 564 / 559 ---- 565 / 559
5300 -- 554 / 559 ---- 561 / 566 ---- 560 / 565 ---- 564 / 570
5400 -- 548 / 564 ---- 555 / 571 ---- 556 / 572 ---- 559 / 575
5500 -- 548 / 574 ---- 549 / 575 ---- 549 / 575 ---- 556 / 582
5600 -- 535 / 570 ---- 540 / 576 ---- 540 / 575 ---- 548 / 585
5700 -- 530 / 575 ---- 535 / 580 ---- 535 / 581 ---- 540 / 586
5800 -- 523 / 577 ---- 525 / 580 ---- 533 / 588 ---- 535 / 591
5900 -- 523 / 587 ---- 521 / 585 ---- 523 / 588 ---- 529 / 595
6000 -- 516 / 589 ---- 518 / 591 ---- 520 / 594 ---- 529 / 605
6100 -- 509 / 592 ---- 512 / 595 ---- 513 / 596 ---- 522 / 607
6200 -- 501 / 591 ---- 509 / 600 ---- 512 / 604 ---- 517 / 611
6300 -- 497 / 596 ---- 500 / 600 ---- 504 / 604 ---- 511 / 613
6400 -- 490 / 598 ---- 496 / 604 ---- 497 / 605 ---- 504 / 614
6500 -- 482 / 597 ---- 485 / 600 ---- 488 / 604 ---- 494 / 612
6600 -- 473 / 594 ---- 473 / 594 ---- 477 / 600 ---- 485 / 610
6700 -- 461 / 588 ---- 463 / 590 ---- 472 / 602 ---- 475 / 606
6800 -- 451 / 583 ---- 455 / 590 ---- 461 / 596 ---- 466 / 604
6900 -- 444 / 583 ---- 449 / 590 ---- 454 / 596 ---- 457 / 600
7000 -- 437 / 582 ---- 442 / 589 ---- 441 / 588 ---- 451 / 601

We did a lot more tests, but these are the ones that highlight the improvements seen in the intake mods (in the plenum only, not even port-matched) pictured below.

Test D vs. E is the difference from adding a 1" open spacer on the plenum-ported Victor:

TEST ----- D ------------- E ----
RPM -- TQ / HP ----- TQ / HP -
3500 -- 480 / 320 ---- 481 / 321
3600 -- 479 / 329 ---- 479 / 328
3700 -- 478 / 337 ---- 480 / 338
3800 -- 482 / 349 ---- 482 / 349
3900 -- 488 / 363 ---- 495 / 367
4000 -- 504 / 384 ---- 511 / 389
4100 -- 527 / 412 ---- 531 / 415
4200 -- 538 / 430 ---- 545 / 436
4300 -- 547 / 448 ---- 548 / 449
4400 -- 553 / 464 ---- 559 / 469
4500 -- 559 / 479 ---- 557 / 477
4600 -- 563 / 493 ---- 565 / 495
4700 -- 567 / 507 ---- 564 / 505
4800 -- 568 / 519 ---- 572 / 523
4900 -- 572 / 534 ---- 569 / 530
5000 -- 570 / 543 ---- 573 / 545
5100 -- 568 / 551 ---- 570 / 554
5200 -- 565 / 559 ---- 574 / 569
5300 -- 564 / 570 ---- 569 / 574
5400 -- 559 / 575 ---- 561 / 577
5500 -- 556 / 582 ---- 556 / 582
5600 -- 548 / 585 ---- 551 / 588
5700 -- 540 / 586 ---- 545 / 592
5800 -- 535 / 591 ---- 542 / 599
5900 -- 529 / 595 ---- 533 / 599
6000 -- 529 / 605 ---- 530 / 605
6100 -- 522 / 607 ---- 523 / 607
6200 -- 517 / 611 ---- 518 / 612
6300 -- 511 / 613 ---- 513 / 615
6400 -- 504 / 614 ---- 501 / 611
6500 -- 494 / 612 ---- 495 / 613
6600 -- 485 / 610 ---- 485 / 609
6700 -- 475 / 606 ---- 476 / 608
6800 -- 466 / 604 ---- 475 / 615
6900 -- 457 / 600 ---- 463 / 608
7000 -- 451 / 601 ---- 455 / 607


Oh, "D" using 1.5/1.5 rockers was the setup I had on the car when it ran 10.52 @ 126.5 MPH at 3755#s in full street trim (exhaust to rear bumper, pump 93 E10 blend, DOT drag radials, etc.) because there wasn't enough room under the hood to fit a spacer. I figured that was a 610-ish HP combination.

Anyone else look at those dyno numbers and think the Victor is too small for the 496? Don't know what the heads on it flowed either, so maybe it's not just the intake.