BTW, there is plenty of hood clearance on a Formal to do any combination of carb/intake/air cleaner setup's.
A question about fitting a 1406 Edelbrock to a Formal
- Thread starter imperialman
- Start date
imperialman
Active Member
And to be clear since I started this thread (and in the past asked about the linkage adapter) I always do search this site first before asking
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
I understand that you did your research. Not your problem. I have been complaining since Day 1 about the gawd awful POS Search engine this forum uses. Not the Forum's owner's fault. It's just the sucky search engine of the software package.
MarPar
Meat Man with a Hat
what's the widest tire that would fit....
Years ago, when I first upgraded to a Holley Z-line intake on my 77 Camaro, the intake instructions said I needed that flat plate to use a square-bore carb. I looked at it and used a OEM 4-hole thick carb base gasket. It sealed fine across the back, although somewhat narrow, but it was reliable for over 100K miles, so no metal plate and additional gaskets related to it.
It might not be an issue with the '74+ model years, but hood clearance COULD be an issue on the earlier model years, that additional build thickness of the adapter and related gaskets might raise the air cleaner enough to cause issues with the hood insulator pad.
The repro "Road Runner" air cleaner would look good under there, but does not recess over the carburetor as the GM-look aftermarket "Corvette" air cleaner does. The OEM Corvette air cleaner does recess over a the 780cfm Holley it was designed to fit a full INCH lower than the aftermarket item does.
ALSO, pay attention to the air cleaner stud HEIGHT!
The TQuad is a taller carb than the AFBs or Holleys, so the additional thickness of the adapter might not be than critical.
I know this group likes the 1406, but my gut still likes the TQuad for its perceived "better" spreadbore design. Anybody ventured off into Street Demon land, which for similar costs, requires no adapter AND has the TQuad look, if desired?
CBODY67
It might not be an issue with the '74+ model years, but hood clearance COULD be an issue on the earlier model years, that additional build thickness of the adapter and related gaskets might raise the air cleaner enough to cause issues with the hood insulator pad.
The repro "Road Runner" air cleaner would look good under there, but does not recess over the carburetor as the GM-look aftermarket "Corvette" air cleaner does. The OEM Corvette air cleaner does recess over a the 780cfm Holley it was designed to fit a full INCH lower than the aftermarket item does.
ALSO, pay attention to the air cleaner stud HEIGHT!
The TQuad is a taller carb than the AFBs or Holleys, so the additional thickness of the adapter might not be than critical.
I know this group likes the 1406, but my gut still likes the TQuad for its perceived "better" spreadbore design. Anybody ventured off into Street Demon land, which for similar costs, requires no adapter AND has the TQuad look, if desired?
CBODY67
Im late to the game here, but found this post doing my research. Im trying to determine which Edelbrock intake to buy to go with the 1406. It looks like from your post, the spreadbore Performer 2186 comes with an adapter. the Performer RPM 7186 is a higher rise, but is already squarebore. does the adaptor on the Performer 2186 or the higher rise on the 7186 ever cause clearance issues? The engine Im going with isn't in the car, so I have no way of knowing. Thanks=Lee
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
Go with the low rise dual plane Edelbrock Performer or better yet keep your stock manifold and use the adaptor. There's nothing wrong with the stock manifold on a C-body street machine.
Stock manifold it 2bbl, that's why Im switching carbs/intakes. What makes the low rise 383 perfomer a better option than the Performer RPM? in the Hot Rod magazine article Mopar intake shoot-out, they bragged on the dual plane RPM. Thanks
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
You want the low rise for air cleaner clearance. The high rise requires the ugly 2" filter.
I don't know anything about the article but I am pretty sure the NUMBERS they produced wont translate to your real world seat of the pants performance.
No, I'm not pretty sure. I am sure...
Similar threads
