|
By Y block guy - 4 Years Ago
|
    
|
|
By Joe-JDC - 4 Years Ago
|
All of them can work well if you get them ported properly and use good spacers. My preference for all out performance is either of these. Joe-JDC 
|
|
By Ted - 4 Years Ago
|
That manifold to the far left in your pictures looks to be the 1956 factory dual quad manifold. You can verify that by looking at the part number on its underside. The 1956 part number is EDB-C while the 1957 part number is ECG-D.
While the factory dual quad manifolds were well suited for the applications that they were originally installed on, either of these manifolds will fall short in an all out competition build when compared to the Edelbrock manifolds. From a performance standpoint the Edelbrock dual quad manifolds will outperform most of the other dual quad manifolds of that era with the FM255 being the better of those two. The rear carburetor being placed further rearward on the FM255 and being better centered over the rear ports makes it slightly better than the ‘257’ from a horse power standpoint. As you have also found, the FM255 is more conducive to fitting a pair of model 4160 Holley 4V carbs in a back to back fashion than the later model Edelbrock 257 intake manifold. As Joe brings up, the Mummert tunnel ram when properly ported is a great performance manifold with over a 600 horsepower capability on the Ford Y when all the T’s are crossed and I’s are dotted.
Here are links to dyno testing of the various dual quad intake manifolds on both the iron and aluminum heads in the event you haven’t seen these. This pair of articles was originally published in The Y-Block Magazine.
https://www.eatonbalancing.com/2014/01/15/y-block-ford-dual-quad-testing-on-iron-heads-part-i/
https://www.eatonbalancing.com/2014/01/17/y-block-ford-dual-quad-testing-on-aluminum-heads-part-ii/
|
|