Posts: 30
Threads: 15
Joined: Dec 2010
Is anyone out there using the Edelbrock performer 2750? I would love to get some opinions on that intake as a friend gave me one and what carb would you recommend or are you running on it?
Thanks!
Mike
Posts: 4,181
Threads: 46
Joined: Jan 2011
Sorry I can't give you any advice on that question yet. I am looking to make the same modification hear in the near future so I will be interested in what you find out. I lean towards the Holley for the carb choice but I hear that the Summit carb is a good alternative. I would really like to do fuel injection, http://www.summitracing.com/parts/PFS-70026/, but that is a bit high for my budget.
Posts: 59
Threads: 13
Joined: Feb 2011
Mike
I am going to get the same intake and i am getting the edelbrock Thunder AVS 650 carb for now.
I have a 351C 2v also.
Down the road i will switch to the air gap intake and will put edelbrocks heads specifically for the 2v on with a cam change also and will keep the AVS 650.
Did some research on the net about the performer and seemed to get good reviews on it. It might be 6 months till i have my mach running again. Hopefully sooner. Then will be able to do an evalutation.
I was told the AVS series can be tuned more and better than their performer series.
Posts: 130
Threads: 12
Joined: Apr 2011
I am using the performer intake on my 351c 2v motor and have had good luck with it. But if i had to do it again I would probably spend the extra money for the air gap intake. I am also running a 700cfm holley double pumper. I did have to use a 1 inch spacer under the carb to get my stock air cleaner to clear the msd pro billet distributor. I like having the stock air cleaner on there to hide all that stuff. (kinda like a sleeper) Had extensive work done to the heads. Hours of porting to both the intake and heads also running nice stud mount roller rockers (harland sharps) . But the intake is a good intake for the money, but i have run alot of airgaps on my other motors and really liked them.
Posts: 5
Threads: 1
Joined: Mar 2013
Hi,
I have a 2750 Edelbrock on my 351C in a 1968 Torino GT Fastback. I can't say anything negative about it , unless someone wants to be Nit Picky about OEM Vs. Aftermarket parts for judging purposes.
The price difference between the Performer Vs. the Air Gap Intake is a relative thing. If you have an Engine built to make tons of HP and operate frequently at or above 1500 RPM...The AIR GAP is worth it. Should you be looking at a more "Streetable Set-Up" and cost and engine mods are relatively humble? The Performer is more than stock performance , tons less weight and it happens to look pretty darn nice IMHO.
Let Your Ultimate Goal and Wallet do the talking in harmony...Rome was NOT built in a day.
You guys might think I'm nuts?..and that's OK , but I like a fix and forget Carburetor that I don't constantly have to fuss with...but then again I'm a Street Driver , not a weekend warrior at the track , so bear with me in respect to that.
I learned some great things from the 428CJ guys whom wish to stay OEM as much as possible. My 1968 Torino GT is a 390 4V S-Code. It's been tweaked up with a hotter cam , an Aluminum Factory correct 428 Police Interceptor Intake and Long Tube Headers. The 68 stock had a Manual Choke which I cannot stand.
I opted for a Motorcraft/Holley 735 CFM Carb that is in all respects flawless in my opinion. The 1969 OEM Numbers are as follows.
(1) C9AF-M ( Casting #) Holley List # 4279 for Manual Transmission
(2) C9AF-N (Casting #) Holley List # 4280 for Automatics
MY Choice was the Service Replacement Unit for both Manual/Automatics
(3) C9AF-9510-U ( Casting #) Holley List # 4609
I use this with both my 390GT and the 351C 72 Mach 1 Five Speed .
I was able to buy these Carbs for about $200 a piece (1 from Craigslist and the other from a car show)
Professional Rebuild Costs including Finish of the metal ran $150 each. Money well spent so far. The only long range problem I can see is possibly todays blended fuels , but that can cause problems with anything vintage after enough time or even over /under usage.