Thread: Performer-EPS

Tweet

I mentioned this on two other threads but got no comments so maybe we can devote a thread to it. I originally bought an Edelbrock Performer-EGR for my mild SBC 350. I am interested in low rpm torque and mileage to some extent with a goal of 20+ mpg using a 700R4 with a 3.55 rear gear. The cam is a very small Crane street cam with 196/204 degrees duration at 0.050" and I believe the lift is a very modest 0.397"/0.410". I will be using 1.5 ratio roller-tipped rockers on the intake and 1.6 roller rockers on the exhaust in trying to get more low rpm torque. Since I expect the '29 roadster with me in it will be about 2500 pounds I should still get some pretty good acceleration with the low gear of the 700R4 and pretty good mileage with the OD 4th gear. So when I had the car in the shop to change over the rear from a 2.79 to a 3.55 the mechanic said he could trade in my Performer-EGR for a non-EGR-Performer at the cost of only installation so I said OK. When I got the car I found he had installed a Performer-RPM which I think is too large a manifold for my conservative cam. So I asked for advice of the tech guy at Edelbrock and he said I should have a Performer-EPS which is the later version (non-EGR) of the Performer. So here is my question: If I keep the Performer-RPM will it bog down at low rpm as in 1800 rpm in OD? And does anyone have experience with the Performer-EPS? The Edelbrock guy says it give a little more torque than the 2101 Performer at low rpm. Comments?

http://edelbrock.com/automotive/

Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder

Don, I dont think You have a problem. I would certainly try it to see if you like what you have before going to the trouble and expense of changing it again.I cant help with the EPS, have no experience there. You can always change it later on if it does not suit you.

DennyW, I have an Edelrock 600 cfm carb, but I don't which of the several they make. Tech1, thanks. Thats my feeling about it too. I was able to recover about 90% of my mistaken investment on a TH350 when I bought the 700R4 so I should be able to sell off the Performer-RPM and the retail for the Performer-EPS is about $135 so at this point that is peanuts compared to the rest of the parts. Maybe I can get $85 for an unused Performer-RPM and get the slightly added torque from the Performer-EPS. In addition I want to take another look at the lifter that was snug. I am also going to check the pushrod clearance on the 1.6 ratio exhaust rockers, but I am hoping that with the slight cam lift of only 0.410" there may not be a problem with the pushrods on the exhaust valves. I have read that the stock stamped rockers rated at 1.5 ratio are really more like 1.4 so maybe with the 1.5 roller-tipped rockers on the intake I will still get a little more intake lift without having the pushrods rub on the holes in the 882 heads and with roller tips on all the rockers it will run a little cooler. Tech1 there are certainly several really experienced folks on this Forum, but I appreciate the continuity of your comments as you say from the git-go of my build. Referring to an old thread where I worried about the NSRA tech-inspection and the problem of bolts on the 4-bar links, John York was able to tighten them up with an air wrench better than I could by hand/arm AND upon my request he drilled holes through the tightened bolts and inserted cotter pins through the bolts to the frame. We did not do that to the ends attached to the axle bat wings or the rear because they are easily inspected and maybe removal is more frequent there, but when I take it back to John York for help with the wiring I will ask him to put cotter pins in the other ends as well. Well thanks to quite a few of you for your help. I should be able to wire up the car myself, having done electonics in my career, but I want to use the Camaro steering column I rebuilt and John York says he regularly uses them in his Cobra builds and knows them inside out so he can be a big help. I was not even aware of state inspection rules about the high beam indicator and other wiring details so I will save up and try to work out a deal with John York. Considering he builds turnkey Cobras for about $50K, he has been quite decent with me so far.

Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder

Just to follow up, I ordered the Performer-EPS yesterday and I will put up the Performer-RPM for sale in the local Trading Post.

Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder

Denny,

I am fighting off a bad cold and the carb is covered with tape but all I can see is the numbers 1406-195 on the passenger-front side of the carb and it has a black plastic cover on what looks like an electric choke. At the moment I have misplaced the papers that came with the carb for the exact model so all I know is it is an Edelbrock 600CFM with an electric choke and the numbers 1406-195. I did find the papers for the Performer-RPM and it recommends a 750CFM carb so the combination was not right for a 600CFM. It may be a day or two until get over this cold and can get into the garage to swap the manifolds, so if you find out something else I should know tell me.

Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder

Tech1, well I had originally thought of rebuilding the original Rochester Q-jet but when I got the car to the John York shop he wanted to push on as far as possible toward getting the car running. His way of thinking is mostly to build 351 Windsors with a five-speed manual and a 3.7 rear gear, although he has built other cars with SBC drivelines, so I guess he is used to building for higher rpm. That's when I let him proceed to installing the manifold with an Edelbrock carb. He originally wanted to install a 750 CFM carb which would be right for the Performer-RPM but way too big for my cam but he called Joe who installed the cam and then changed to a 600 CFM carb. Anyway I am pleased with the other work he did and compared to some other wild cowboys I have dealt with in auto repair this just falls into the category of a correctable misunderstanding. Anyway, I have the 600 CFM carb now which is a much more expensive item than the manifold so if it will work with the Performer-EPS I will stay with it just because I have it. Thanks for your other advice. If I find the present carb will simply not work I will try to exhange it somehow but that may not be easy. I had originally considered a carb in the 550-590 CFM range anyway for snappy performance in the low rpm range so 600 CFM looks good to me now.

DennyW, thanks a bunch for checking this for me. It looks like I have lucked out and can keep the 1406 carb. I was really fortunate to find this Forum, there are some real experts here with hundreds of person-years of practical experience. I note the price for the older 2101 Performer is about $120 compared to the Performer-EPS at $140 (including tax) so it looks like the Performer-EPS is the "improved Performer" and with this little adjustment I will end up with a good street setup.

Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder

I currently use the Performer EPS manifold on my Chevy van with a .060 350 and a mild 211/226 @.050 cam. When I had it on the #882 heads I was happy with the performance especially accelerating such a heavy vehicle and towing a trailer. Currently I'm in the process of tuning my setup with the Performer RPM heads, a new AVS 650 carb., and Jacobs ignition. I'd be happy to let you know how it turns out.

I agree the RPM manifold is too much for your cam.

I also installed a 2" 4-hole spacer on the EPS manifold later on and that seemed to help torque.