Gain extra benefits by becoming a Supporting Member Click here find out how!
Classic Performance Products Classic Parts
Ciadella InteriorsAmerican Auto Wire Classic Industries
Chevs of the 40sDanchuk Catalog
Hellwig Products IncPerformance Rod & CustomEcklers AutoMotive
Octane LightingNu-Relics Power Windows
Impala Bob's Bob's Chevy Trucks Bob's Chevelle Parts Bob's Classic Chevy

Username Post: ZZ4 intakes        (Topic#344118)
PHROG 
Forum Newbie
Posts: 4

Age: 71
Loc: Amarillo, Texas
Reg: 02-14-17
04-18-17 10:35 AM - Post#2687148    

I would be interested in a fact based opinion on preference for ZZ4 intake between as delivered versus original Edelbrock Performer. My prime consideration is torque/fuel mileage below 75mph cruising speed @2500rpm. This will be in a 34 Chevy @3100lb.

THANX

34 Master 5 wdo, 64 Corvette roadster, 64 4x4 Suburban, 72 C10 Highlander,


 




IgnitionMan 
Valued Contributor
Posts: 3177

Reg: 04-15-05
04-18-17 11:07 AM - Post#2687152    
    In response to PHROG

NO comparison, keep the ZZ manifold.



 
grumpyvette 
Senior Chevytalk Moderator -- Performance Subject Matter Expert --
Posts: 17077
grumpyvette
Age: 69
Loc: FLORIDA USA
Reg: 03-16-01
04-18-17 05:20 PM - Post#2687217    
    In response to IgnitionMan

without knowing the cam,lift & duration and LSA,cylinder head flow rate, engine displacement and compression, and the specs on the headers , and the exhaust system back pressure at 3000 rpm, being used you can,t reasonably predict the engines potential power curve, with out the rear gear ratio, tire diameter and transmission gearing your can,t predict the engines potential, useful torque in the intended rpm range. .
and if your only really concerned with the torque curve below 3000 rpm I doubt there's much to be gained with an intake manifold swap, between those two intakes

IF YOU CAN,T SMOKE THE TIRES AT WILL,FROM A 60 MPH ROLLING START YOUR ENGINE NEEDS MORE WORK!!"!
IF YOU CAN , YOU NEED BETTER TIRES AND YOUR SUSPENSION NEEDS MORE WORK!!


Edited by grumpyvette on 04-18-17 05:23 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

 
IgnitionMan 
Valued Contributor
Posts: 3177

Reg: 04-15-05
04-18-17 06:03 PM - Post#2687227    
    In response to PHROG

My response was based on the intake being bolted to a ZZ3/ZZ4 engine. "ZZ4 intake, as delivered".



 
1983G20Van 
Super Senior Member
Posts: 3627

Loc: Bedford, Texas, USA
Reg: 11-13-02
04-20-17 01:07 PM - Post#2687488    
    In response to IgnitionMan

I have had very good luck with the Performer RPM spreadbore intake and a Q-Jet. My old 1983 G20 van knocked on 20 mpg more than once with a 350 HP 350 backed to a 700R4 and 3.08s. 1,700 rpm @ 70 mph. I later put a 454 TBI unit on the engine and regularly pulled down 22 mpg highway in lean cruise at 16.5:1 afr.


1983 G20 Van, 350 TPI, Ported 906 Vortecs, Edelbrock 3817 Base, ASM oversize runners. Reed Custom Roller cam, 700r4, 12 bolt with 3.08 gears, Doug Thorley Tri-Y headers, true duals


 
Rick_L 
Honored Member
Posts: 27187
Rick_L
Loc: Katy, Tx, USA
Reg: 07-06-00
04-20-17 05:38 PM - Post#2687518    
    In response to 1983G20Van

Nobody pointed out why not to change to the Performer from the ZZ4 manifold.

My guess is that the Performer is not better or worse, it's essentially the same. So you run either one, or the one you have.

Maybe someone can verify this, as I've never owned a ZZ4 manifold.

I do know that while a Performer RPM manifold should produce more peak power at the expense of low end compared to a Performer, the real world difference is pretty small.



 
65_Impala 
Very Senior Member
Posts: 3824

Reg: 12-29-02
04-21-17 09:55 AM - Post#2687598    
    In response to Rick_L

The ZZ4 seems to fall between the Performer and the Performer RPM.

Data I have seen points to the Performer RPM working not losing any low end power compared the Performer, at least not down to where you'd expect to actually run the engine in practice.



 
1983G20Van 
Super Senior Member
Posts: 3627

Loc: Bedford, Texas, USA
Reg: 11-13-02
04-21-17 09:59 AM - Post#2687599    
    In response to 65_Impala

  • 65_Impala Said:
The ZZ4 seems to fall between the Performer and the Performer RPM.

Data I have seen points to the Performer RPM working not losing any low end power compared the Performer, at least not down to where you'd expect to actually run the engine in practice.



I ran that induction setup on the stock 305 when I put a small 204/214 rv cam into it for over a year. It pulled hills better than it did stock with less downshifting. The stock intake and cam should have made more torque on paper but in the real world it did not.

With the Q-Jet the performer rpm had very sharp part-throttle response and did not require alot of throttle to get rolling. I had Thorley Tr-Y headers and 2 1/4" dual exhaust with a X-pipe on that as well.

CarCraft tested the performer and performer rpm on a similar LG4 305 back in the day and found that the RPM made more torque and hp. I wanted the power in the heavy G20 van and used that as my basis to run that induction setup.


1983 G20 Van, 350 TPI, Ported 906 Vortecs, Edelbrock 3817 Base, ASM oversize runners. Reed Custom Roller cam, 700r4, 12 bolt with 3.08 gears, Doug Thorley Tri-Y headers, true duals


Edited by 1983G20Van on 04-21-17 10:06 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

 
1983G20Van 
Super Senior Member
Posts: 3627

Loc: Bedford, Texas, USA
Reg: 11-13-02
04-21-17 10:02 AM - Post#2687600    
    In response to 1983G20Van

Double post


1983 G20 Van, 350 TPI, Ported 906 Vortecs, Edelbrock 3817 Base, ASM oversize runners. Reed Custom Roller cam, 700r4, 12 bolt with 3.08 gears, Doug Thorley Tri-Y headers, true duals


Edited by 1983G20Van on 04-21-17 10:02 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

 
IgnitionMan 
Valued Contributor
Posts: 3177

Reg: 04-15-05
04-21-17 10:14 AM - Post#2687601    
    In response to PHROG

The biggest problem with the ZZ engines is, NOT the intake manifold, it is the really bad ignition setup as far as curves, namely, using ported vacuum for the vacuum advance, and allowing it to provide way too many degrees, along with making the mechanical curve need to be slowed way down, to allow the ported V/A.

There is a simple procedure to rectify that, proven to work by one heck of a lot of people on their ZZ, and other Chevrolet engines, it is free, available from:

gmvacuumadvancemodificati ons@gmail.com

Then, a SENSIBLE 600 cfm Holley carb, good combo.




 
1983G20Van 
Super Senior Member
Posts: 3627

Loc: Bedford, Texas, USA
Reg: 11-13-02
04-21-17 10:55 AM - Post#2687604    
    In response to IgnitionMan

SMI Q-Jet is the only carb to run for fuel economy. No reason to choke it down with a 600 cfm carb when the Q-Jet can deliver better economy and flow up to 795 cfm on demand.

1983 G20 Van, 350 TPI, Ported 906 Vortecs, Edelbrock 3817 Base, ASM oversize runners. Reed Custom Roller cam, 700r4, 12 bolt with 3.08 gears, Doug Thorley Tri-Y headers, true duals


 
56sedandelivery 
Dedicated Enthusiast
Posts: 5165
56sedandelivery
Age: 66
Loc: Everett, Wa.
Reg: 02-26-08
04-21-17 04:22 PM - Post#2687648    
    In response to 1983G20Van

Cost VS Cost. IF there were any kind of improvement, how long would it take in manifold/gasket/labor terms ($$$) to justify the change? I'd keep what you have already, and it should have a Bowtie on it to show support, of the Bowtie. Any time a magazine does "tests", I have to wonder just how un-biased they really are. Got to be some $$$ exchanging hands somewhere, even if it's in ads, placed by the maker of the product being tested. $$$ is what makes the world go round', and everything possible. IF you had a choice of the 2 manifolds, sitting new in front of you, most guys would probably pick the Edelbrock, no matter what the magazine reports say. JMO.
I am Butch/56sedandelivery.




 
LUVmachine 
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 1453
LUVmachine
Age: 35
Loc: Redding Ca
Reg: 10-02-14
04-22-17 08:55 AM - Post#2687722    
    In response to 56sedandelivery

  • Quote:
Cost VS Cost. IF there were any kind of improvement, how long would it take in manifold/gasket/labor terms ($$$) to justify the change? I'd keep what you have already, and it should have a Bowtie on it to show support, of the Bowtie. Any time a magazine does "tests", I have to wonder just how un-biased they really are. Got to be some $$$ exchanging hands somewhere, even if it's in ads, placed by the maker of the product being tested. $$$ is what makes the world go round', and everything possible. IF you had a choice of the 2 manifolds, sitting new in front of you, most guys would probably pick the Edelbrock, no matter what the magazine reports say. JMO.
I am Butch/56sedandelivery




I would agree with that minus the last part about picking the Edelbrock. That's just a personal preference though.

71 Chevelle BBC powered
71 C-10 454 with weiand 177 (SOLD)
72 406 sbc powered Chevy LUV sleeper (SOLD)
2010 GMC Sierra crew cab 4X4
http://s626.photobucket.com/user/GJohnson81/libra r...


 
gchemist 
Senior Chevytalk Moderator
Posts: 24047
gchemist
Loc: Austin, TX 78748
Reg: 05-09-00
04-23-17 04:59 AM - Post#2687862    
    In response to LUVmachine

Unless you want replace it for looks, the ZZ4 intake is fine. I swapped a stock on one for looks. Afterwards, I had to customize a throttle bracket for cruise and TV cables. If the engine is out, remove the bolts one at a time. The intake bolts will leak oil. I used Form-a-gasket aircraft sealer to reduce oil seepage. If you take the intake off, a thicker and factory RTV bead will seal the front and rear block lips. The oil pan will leak around the corners. A little RTV or form a gasket will stop oil leaks. I used sealer on both gasket sides. After 10+ years, oil leaks are minimal or none.

'95 Jimmy SLT (Bought @131,814)
'83 Silverardo XST - ZZ4 powered
'96 GMC Jimmy LS Ret. @236651 miles


 
Jim McCall 
"7th Year" Platinum Supporting Member
Posts: 873
Jim McCall
Loc: Billings Mt
Reg: 02-18-10
04-24-17 08:20 AM - Post#2688032    
    In response to PHROG

Below is a photo of the ZZ4 in my 33 Ford. The intake is a Edelbrock endurashine manifold. The engine with this intake has Great performance. I have to admit I'm into shiny engines in my cars.

Jim McCall



33 Ford 3-window
34 Ford Roadster
51 Belair
55 Belair
55 Belair
57 Buick
68 Camaro SS427
69 Camaro Z/11
71 Camaro Z/28


http://s1124.photobucket.com/albums/l573/Jims2751/

Click on Show Albums & Stories on left


 
gchemist 
Senior Chevytalk Moderator
Posts: 24047
gchemist
Loc: Austin, TX 78748
Reg: 05-09-00
04-24-17 08:45 AM - Post#2688036    
    In response to Jim McCall



Attachment: Picture_039.jpg (127.66 KB) 5 View(s)


Might as well show off mine when it was cleanly installed.


'95 Jimmy SLT (Bought @131,814)
'83 Silverardo XST - ZZ4 powered
'96 GMC Jimmy LS Ret. @236651 miles


 
Jim McCall 
"7th Year" Platinum Supporting Member
Posts: 873
Jim McCall
Loc: Billings Mt
Reg: 02-18-10
04-24-17 09:37 AM - Post#2688044    
    In response to gchemist

Nice

33 Ford 3-window
34 Ford Roadster
51 Belair
55 Belair
55 Belair
57 Buick
68 Camaro SS427
69 Camaro Z/11
71 Camaro Z/28


http://s1124.photobucket.com/albums/l573/Jims2751/

Click on Show Albums & Stories on left


 
1983G20Van 
Super Senior Member
Posts: 3627

Loc: Bedford, Texas, USA
Reg: 11-13-02
04-24-17 04:04 PM - Post#2688092    
    In response to Jim McCall

[IMG]http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff172/Fast355_ album/6341720093_large_zp srjxazty7.jpeg[/IMG]

This was mine years ago with my own clone of a 310 hp TBI marine engine. GM built them from 1996-1998ish with the ZZ4/L98 heads and the 395' Marine cam. Ran a performer rpm like manifold and a 2" bore TBI unit. Mine had a 46mm TBI unit on a Holley Projection adapter on an RPM. Was not pretty but had no problem pushing around my old G20 van.

1983 G20 Van, 350 TPI, Ported 906 Vortecs, Edelbrock 3817 Base, ASM oversize runners. Reed Custom Roller cam, 700r4, 12 bolt with 3.08 gears, Doug Thorley Tri-Y headers, true duals


 
PHROG 
Forum Newbie
Posts: 4

Age: 71
Loc: Amarillo, Texas
Reg: 02-14-17
04-25-17 08:32 AM - Post#2688191    
    In response to 1983G20Van

First I would like to thank everyone that replied. Now I think a little more info might be in order. My ZZ4 is one I pulled from a El Camino passing thru my hands about 10 years ago w/approx. 2200 miles. It is presently sitting on my engine stand being resealed to be on the safe side prior to install. I have a new Performer on the shelf, so cost is not a consideration. I will be using a Q-Jet that is presently on the current engine in the car which is a stock 71 pu engine that has reached an oil consumption level of 400 miles per qt. The Q-Jet will be setup again w/an exhaust gas analyzer. I also will be using Doug's Tri-y headers. The main reason for my consideration of the Performer is the elimination of the EGR & Choke stove block-offs on the ZZ4 intake, but don't want to lose performance,as stated, due to looks.

THANX

34 Master 5 wdo, 64 Corvette roadster, 64 4x4 Suburban, 72 C10 Highlander,


 
gchemist 
Senior Chevytalk Moderator
Posts: 24047
gchemist
Loc: Austin, TX 78748
Reg: 05-09-00
04-25-17 08:46 AM - Post#2688192    
    In response to PHROG

EGR and choke removal were why I swapped intakes. The smaller L98 valves limit its HP. If larger valves were installed, the ZZ4 can go up to 400+ HP.
Another weakness are the rocker arm nuts. Since the engine is out, install short poly locks. Go here to see them installed: http://www.chevytalk.org/fusionbb/showtopic.php?ti...

With a zero lash requirement, it's easier with the engine out.

'95 Jimmy SLT (Bought @131,814)
'83 Silverardo XST - ZZ4 powered
'96 GMC Jimmy LS Ret. @236651 miles


 




Icon Legend Permissions Topic Options
Report Post

Quote Post

Quick Reply

Print Topic

Email Topic

1339 Views
FusionBB
FusionBB™ Version 2.1
©2003-2006 InteractivePHP, Inc.
Execution time: 0.218 seconds.   Total Queries: 18   Zlib Compression is on.
All times are (GMT -0800) Pacific. Current time is 08:21 AM
Top