logo
12 Port News - Features
12 Port History
Casting Numbers
Online Store
Tech Tips
Become a Member
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
#82815 10/29/14 03:55 PM
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 213
S
Contributor
OP Offline
Contributor
S
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 213
http://www.cliffordperformance.net/html_pages/news_pages/chevy_facts/chevyfacts.html
I find the claims of 120% more HP and tq. with a gain of 6mpg. a little crazy. I just do not see the gains, am I wrong? for $1389, that seems to be a good deal. But I just do not see it. MAYBE with a limp ported head and a big cam, but then economy would suffer, heck at that price I think going with a turbo would be a better bang for the buck. Am I missing something with the Clifford? I think it looks great, would be great on a old 33 Willys or 35 Chevy pickup with a open engine compartment.

Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 821
G
Major Contributor
Offline
Major Contributor
G
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 821
Don't know about the mpg gains. I think that has more to do with gearing than anything.

As to the rest: I easily gained 25hp with headers and a 2.5" single exhaust. Used Langdon but Clifford's should yield the same results. I'm now adding a 390 4bbl and a single quad offy intake. I'm hoping for another 15-20 hp.

Adding valves and a cam... maybe another 30 hp? I'd be happy with 225hp out of my 250. Without going turbo I don't see getting much more out of it.

Now for the price:

Headers: $270
Intake and air cleaner: $300
Carb (flea-bay): $190
2.5" Exhaust: $400
Muffler: $50
Misc: $50

Total into it so far: $1260. I imagine that head work is going to set me back at least that much to get another 30 hp or so. Is it worth it? Probably not. I might stop after I get the 4bbl on it.

...or I might just add a cam and stop...

Back to the mpg: adding the exhaust did nothing there. We'll see if the Holley 8007 does anything positive or negative in the next 2 weeks or so.

Last edited by gbauer; 10/29/14 05:10 PM.
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,554
Likes: 34
1000 Post Club
****
Offline
1000 Post Club
****
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,554
Likes: 34
Originally Posted By: straight axle 63
http://www.cliffordperformance.net/html_pages/news_pages/chevy_facts/chevyfacts.html
I find the claims of 120% more HP and tq. with a gain of 6mpg. a little crazy. I just do not see the gains, am I wrong? for $1389, that seems to be a good deal. But I just do not see it. MAYBE with a limp ported head and a big cam, but then economy would suffer, heck at that price I think going with a turbo would be a better bang for the buck. Am I missing something with the Clifford? I think it looks great, would be great on a old 33 Willys or 35 Chevy pickup with a open engine compartment.


Just changing the intake/ carbs is not going to provide a 120% increase in power. Consider this, a 250 is factory rated at 155HP, a 120% increase would put it at 341HP. Thats some good snake oil right there.

Simply not true.


Inliner Member 1716
65 Chevelle Wagon and 41 Hudson Pickup
Information and parts www.12bolt.com

Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 821
G
Major Contributor
Offline
Major Contributor
G
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 821
I'd guess 250hp, 280 ft-lbs. Just from my personal gut.

MPG gains? Negligible or negative because, well, you're human and if you've got more power you're probably going to use it more.

gbauer #82832 10/30/14 01:14 AM
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 213
S
Contributor
OP Offline
Contributor
S
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 213
Originally Posted By: gbauer
Don't know about the mpg gains. I think that has more to do with gearing than anything.

As to the rest: I easily gained 25hp with headers and a 2.5" single exhaust. Used Langdon but Clifford's should yield the same results. I'm now adding a 390 4bbl and a single quad offy intake. I'm hoping for another 15-20 hp.

Adding valves and a cam... maybe another 30 hp? I'd be happy with 225hp out of my 250. Without going turbo I don't see getting much more out of it.

Now for the price:

Headers: $270
Intake and air cleaner: $300
Carb (flea-bay): $190
2.5" Exhaust: $400
Muffler: $50
Misc: $50

Total into it so far: $1260. I imagine that head work is going to set me back at least that much to get another 30 hp or so. Is it worth it? Probably not. I might stop after I get the 4bbl on it.

...or I might just add a cam and stop...

Back to the mpg: adding the exhaust did nothing there. We'll see if the Holley 8007 does anything positive or negative in the next 2 weeks or so.

You are right in line with the combo that I have. Offy/390 with stove bolt header 2.25" duels with Hpipe and glasspacks. I am guessing I am at 200 tops, I do not really know. I find it hard to believe a intake carb and exhaust will give you 50 HP over stock. All I know it the car runs great it has plenty of power for a street car. I do not see how Clifford could make these claims MAYBE wit a lump ported head and a cam with 230*duration.

Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 213
S
Contributor
OP Offline
Contributor
S
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 213
Originally Posted By: tlowe #1716
Originally Posted By: straight axle 63
http://www.cliffordperformance.net/html_pages/news_pages/chevy_facts/chevyfacts.html
I find the claims of 120% more HP and tq. with a gain of 6mpg. a little crazy. I just do not see the gains, am I wrong? for $1389, that seems to be a good deal. But I just do not see it. MAYBE with a limp ported head and a big cam, but then economy would suffer, heck at that price I think going with a turbo would be a better bang for the buck. Am I missing something with the Clifford? I think it looks great, would be great on a old 33 Willys or 35 Chevy pickup with a open engine compartment.


Just changing the intake/ carbs is not going to provide a 120% increase in power. Consider this, a 250 is factory rated at 155HP, a 120% increase would put it at 341HP. Thats some good snake oil right there.

Simply not true.

Thought so but I saw it on the internet so it must be true....LOL

Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 8
C
Active BB Member
Offline
Active BB Member
C
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 8
Think about it though how much technology they did not have compared to what we have now. Basically back then car makers just put somethin together hoping it would run good haha. I don't think their claim is too far off due to the fact it lists on their website the machine work that is also necessary to get that kind of power just by headers, carbs and intake does it make %120 increase no. But with all the machine work and cam I really wouldn't be surprised if those claims are true. Just my two cents

Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 213
S
Contributor
OP Offline
Contributor
S
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 213
Originally Posted By: comicaltatertot
Think about it though how much technology they did not have compared to what we have now. Basically back then car makers just put somethin together hoping it would run good haha. I don't think their claim is too far off due to the fact it lists on their website the machine work that is also necessary to get that kind of power just by headers, carbs and intake does it make %120 increase no. But with all the machine work and cam I really wouldn't be surprised if those claims are true. Just my two cents

With everything listed maybe. They way it reads is the intake and carb will make that by its self. Some of what Clifford claims seem to contradicts what others say, like porting, they say nothing on lumps, wonder why?

Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 8
C
Active BB Member
Offline
Active BB Member
C
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 8
Yeah I get what ya mean, when I visited Clifford it does read that way for sure. I headed over to Tom Langdon's in their tech articles it explains stuff a bit more talks about those motors accepting a 254°-264°cam without any poor affect on gas mileage. Langdonsstovebolt.com-tech tips-carbs & cams great info on that site. I wonder with the portion if it has anything to do with the siamesed ports?

Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 213
S
Contributor
OP Offline
Contributor
S
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 213
Reading Tom's tech tips seem (to me anyway) to be for the 235 series engines and not the 194-292. He has a great bunch if info, much better than Cliffords. Tom ran the holeshot 6 car back in the 60's.

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 272
S
Contributor
***
Offline
Contributor
***
S
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 272
It is confusing rhetoric. I read it as being 120 percent of the stock hp which would equal 186 hp. As I say, confusing rhetoric. That 341 hp figure would get closer to the cubic $ category than carb change.


'38 Stude/292
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 213
S
Contributor
OP Offline
Contributor
S
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 213
Originally Posted By: Sam Welch
It is confusing rhetoric. I read it as being 120 percent of the stock hp which would equal 186 hp. As I say, confusing rhetoric. That 341 hp figure would get closer to the cubic $ category than carb change.

I agree.

Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 8
C
Active BB Member
Offline
Active BB Member
C
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 8
I also do agree


Moderated by  stock49, Twisted6, will6er 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 206 guests, and 32 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Skulptorchaz, Ryan Clark, chevy454, TCH54, beansprout01
6,778 Registered Users
Sponsored Advertisement
Sponsored Advertisement
This Space is Available
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5