When I bought this thing I didn't know it had peanut port sized runners. Edelbrock says not to port them even when used on a large oval port head. That doesn make any sense to me. So, has anyone had any experience porting a Performer 2-O to large oval port heads?
I'm using this on a stock, low compression LS3 with headers and exhaust. I'm going to order a UD262 next week and I'm really debating on if I should port this thing while it's off. Or even ditching it in favor of an RPM, but I'm not sure that is worth the extra cash on such a mild engine.

I have one installed right now on my 402 motor. Port matching the intake runners made a huge difference.

The way I did it: lay the intake gasket against the ports and scribe with a pointed tip permanent marker. Open the ports up to the inside of the line made by the marker, blend up into the port about 3 inches. I compared 2 Performer 2-0 manifolds and both were cast off center. One side was high, and one was low. We probably had to remove close to 1/4" of material to open it up correctly. We ran the ported manifold on 2 different motors. In stock form on a 396 based motor with a Comp 280H, the power fell off at less than 5500, ported the power ran to 6000 - no other change.

Thanks for the info! I'm going to give it a shot. Hopefully with similar results smile.gif

Waste of time IMHO and experience.I have a ported Performer on my 454..soon I'll tell you the ET difference between it and an RPM intake.Interesting article in the latest issue of Hot Rod Magazine on all of the Edelbrocks BBC intakes being dyno tested on a 454 HO crate motor..the one with the aluminum oval port heads.Any way in stock form,the motor pulled 492 hp..bolted on the Performer,and the motor lost power..went down to 467 hp..the Performers torque peak is at a limiting 3400 rpms vs. 4000 for all of the other intakes,including the torker.
And the Performer was down about 20 ft./lbs of torque too,in fact at 4000,the torque numbers would fall off.With all due respect for Joe and myself porting our Performer intakes,the bottom line is this: On the mtor tested,an RPM was worth a staggering 29 more HP and 20 ft/lbs. tq over a Performer..so unless I can "make" that up with my diegrinder and dremel tool,I'll stick with an RPM.

Chris,
I agree that on a 500hp engine the Performer is going to be a turd. My 454 is very similar to yours, only my 215's are ported with 2.19, 1.88 valves, EX274 cam, and RPM air gap,. I wouldn't even consider a performer for that combo, even ported.
But, for this engine (402, 8.5CR) I'm not sure the RPM is worth the extra money. In stock form it only makes 240hp at 4400RPM. I'm guessing 300hp in the upper 4k range with the exhaust and cam. I was really questioning Edelbrock's reasoning in not porting the intake when the ports are 1/3 smaller then the heads.

OK, interesting about the peanut port Performer intake and reworked same Performer on a 454 motor..

Is it the same when you install the regular, large oval port Performer intake that I think E-brock makes in place of the peanut port Performer intake instead???

Or did all E-brock do was just stock port the peanut port Performer back like 3"s to large oval size as mentioned is being done to the peanut port Performer by us by hand??

pdq67

The Performer 2-0 that I started with was supposedly for the large ovals (I have not seen any other variety for a true comparison). The ports on mine were poorly matched to the heads as cast. A couple of hour with the die grinder was worth the effort.
However, I if I did not already have the Performer 2-0, I would not go out and buy one the them for anything over a 402 or a tow truck 454. The RPM is far better matched to a the biger displacement of the 454. I would seriously doubt that a 2-0 could feed a warmed over 454 at anything above 4000 rpm.