Anybody here tried one of those Hughes ported intakes? What did you get for your money?

Hughes must not sell many of them.

I would like to see some back to back dyno tests done on them.stock vs deep port matched and deep port matched vs equalized runners.
I think there are gains to be had there.People have been fully porting manifolds for years but the average Joe doesent usually spend that kind of coin for an intake.

I had an Edlebrock aluminum sixpack manifold done by them a couple years ago. It was one just before they started advertising the deep porting on their website, and it's documented in their articles. I have the numbers here somewhere, but it was averaged from 30 to 50 cfm per port over stock. The motor ended up putting out just over 680 hp at 5500 rpm. There is also a comparison to a 4 barrel on the site under the Dyno section, but not between a non-ported and ported sixpack manifold.

They're expensive because it's all Hand Labor. To port a full range of manifolds and flow test them to market as Hughes is doing would be a huge undertaking. I applaud them for bringing this to the marketplace.

Ex: I've been hand porting Holley Street Dominators for 20+ years because you can make them flow from about 270 OOTB to between 310 and 320, there's a lot of new manifolds out there that do that now but none i know of that will fit under a stock B or E body hood.

With a high speed Carbide and a couple different bits I can do one in a little less than an hour, but that's only because the "CNC Program" is run straight out of my head from doing them so long. this is in part why only a very experienced head porter can still be cost competitive and still go toe-to-toe with what is typically charged for CNC work. But let's say if I wanted to entertain mass producing them for retail.... to teach someone else to do one would take a while at first and then I'd have to sell a number of them to get the skill up and the average time down make it worth while. Also there would be keeping inventory, some handling time, some samll factor for shop maintenence as well as QC/final inspection flow bench verification time,so even under best circumstances there's probably at least a few hours in delivering one back to a customer. And that's a single plane manifold, dual planes can be far more labor intensive as they have a lot more "nooks and crannies" and often times the 'dead flow' areas you need to wake up are the hardest to get at.

For Hughes to do it Profitably they're probably figuring at least 4 hours of labor in each because they probably (I would think/hope) bench test them as well. There's a lot more to doing them right and devivering them to your door than a lot of people might realize. What would be helpful for them might be for them to publish the individual before and after #'s along with a recommended head flow/cam/carb app where their particular modified manifold line would best shine.

The gains you can get from a well ported manifold can be pretty substantial and often times people are building motors with ported heads who'se power and torque are being limited (whether they realize it or not) by their choice of intake manifold. The choice is easier for Race motors because there are actually manifolds out there that can easily feed the port if you put enough carb on them and enough compression and carb that they can take WOT off the line with minimal pressure drop (which produces maximum torque and power). But on a street car to achieve maximum power up top a big flow race manifold may absolutely decimate part throttle torque to the point where your average torque/power in "real world" conditions can be down substantially, even though the motor may look impressive on a full throttle dyno pull. the real key to being happy with your motor project is to be 100% clear with what you want to have and conveying that to an experienced builder who can help you make the right choice of parts for your particular application.

Would still be nice to know some actual results from dyno, or even better frmo the track.

There was some writeup in a magazine maybe 2 years back where a "manifold man" did all this stuff to increase intakes flow numbers. Then they dynod a bunch of his ported intakes and the improvements on the dyno just didn't jive what I was expecting from having seen what head cfm improvements alone can do.

i am a dave hughes fan, but an intake still has to be port matched to the heads that it is to be used on.

A freind of mine got a victor from dave with a engine kit where he sent dave his RPM heads for CNC 496 roller cam and it makes a crap load of power.
4100 lb car and driver, through the mufflers power steering and all 10.9 wow!!!

http://www.hughesengines.com/TechArticles/602portedintakemanifoldsupdated08272007.php

http://www.hughesengines.com/TechArticles/600intakemanifoldsflowtestingportmatching3172006.php

http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/techarticles/mopp_0701_mopar_intake_manifold/index.html

some reading

We actually do flow test the intakes on our flow bench. We have a rig set up where we can flow the heads through the intake, just like it would be on your engine. A couple of years ago we spent months doing research on intake porting and how to properly flow them on the flow bench. We found that the intake, in general, had to flow at least 20% more than the head did or the head could not flow to it's full potentiel. You are correct that the it is best if the intake is actually matched to the heads it will be used with. When we port head the final intake port is always matched to a template we keep here in the shop. That way, if someone wants to order an intake later we can match it up exactly. That being said, we can still fully port an intake and get it pretty close to your heads. If a little minor matching has to be done on the customers end it is better than trying to port the entire intake itself. To do a full port on an intake and work with it to equalize the flow between the ports best as possible it is nothing for our porting guy to have 12 hours of labor in it. If any of you are going to be at the INDY trade show this weekend stop by and look at a fully ported Victor. It is really nice to look at and you can more appreciate the work that it takes to get one done.
Kevin @ Hughes

i cant tell u any hp numbers but i have a hughes perf rpm. and it seems to work very well. modifications seem to go farther than i can even see. my heads, cam, intake, etc all came from hughes and my truck runs right with trucks that it has no business competing against. i will always buy thier stuff.

so how much fora fully ported indy 440-3 ... and what will it flow...

i'd love to see some pictures of that six pack that was ported. i did a jimmy rig home port job on mine cause I ran out of money but the lure of the hughes ported intake has haunted me for quite some time.

BTT... plus some questions for the Hughes guys, if they manage to drop by again.

From the tech article section on their web site, I found some interesting (to me, at least) stuff:

"One of the more important findings was that the manifold must flow 16%-20% more than the cylinder head, when using gasoline, or it will become a restriction to the entire intake system."

...

Edelbrock Victor 440 Single PlaneStage 1

Stock average.......... 314 CFM
Stock scatter.......... 309-322 CFM (13 CFM difference)

Modified average....... 369 CFM
Modified scatter....... 351-379 CFM (28 CFM difference)

OK, so my MP Stage VIs on my bench flow 310 max and lose approx. 6% at peak port flow (the flow loss % increases w/ lift) w/ a stock Edelbrock Victor 440 intake mounted.

With one of your Stage 1 ported Victors flowing on average 19% more than the port alone (assuming we're talking relativey comparable flow readings), should I see NO flow loss with your ported intake mounted on my head?

And what sort of HP / Tq increase would be expected from getting back that "lost" 6% (18+ cfm) of flow? Would it be comparable to what I'd see for increasing the heads' peak flow 18 cfm from porting?

Not trying to be a PITA here... jut looking to set some reasonable expectations for the $$$ involved.

BTT (again)... hoping for some feedback from the Hughes rep.