Fair point, I tend to forget the efi intakes have longer runners. Yeah the smaller port heads would be a better idea.

 

Yea, we are kinda spoiled with expectations when it comes to modern engines....cams that would make a 350 sbc run like ****, super long intake runners that flow great and have a small footprint, cam phasers, etc. I have wondered what modern engines would be like if they designed them to have 50 less peak hp and more off-idle hp. It would be more suitable for the application but they wouldn't be able to make hp claims vs one another (and they also have to "compete" internally with the diesels that now come with well over 400 hp).

 

I think you should reconsider the efi. The efi intake will make better torque (longer runners), give you better mileage, and be much more reliable. That is as long as you pay attention to how you build it, and it's not all that complicated to learn how to diagnose electrical issues. In fact, efi has infinitely fewer issues than carbs. I'm 64 years old and have been running machines since I was a kid on the farm. I'd never go back to a carb if I had an option.

BTW, I have an '89 Bronco II with a 5.0 swap. If you're running trails, you don't need high rpm power. Keep it low end.

Just my $.02

 

In the days of the SBC you had a 2,48:1 1st gear. The 727's were 2.54. Motors had to make off-idle torque because of that. It's just not needed any longer. 6R80 and 10R80 have 4.16:1 and 4.7:1 respectively. These were ratios relegated to dump trucks back then. Modern trucks outperform old trucks at any speed today because of the sum of all the parts.

 

Yea I agree with all that, however, one thing that drives me insane about modern gassers is the need to downshift while at speed. That's where I came up with the "i wish they'd build an engine with 50 less peak hp to improve low end" philosophy. If we are talking about relying on gearing of a 6, 8, or 10 spd transmission in 1st gear creeping, then yea, it's doesn't matter much.

Another disadvantage of the sacrificing of low end hp on the trails, even with modern combos, are situations where you need wheel speed of "the next gear" but can't get it because it bogs instead of sings. If we are just talking about creeping around on hard dirt in 1st LOW, yea, obviously the power band is irrelevant.

 

Ford's three-speed trans used 2.40 First, 1.45 Second and of course 1:1 Third. Ford's first OD transmissions also used those gear ratio, but added the 0.67 OD gear.
THEN for got rid of the SBF in cars and used weak 3.8L V-6 and the 4.6L V-8 mod motor. 281 inches? Yeah, not much torque there. Ford quickly came out with the 4R70W with the W indicating the Wider gear ratios than the AOD-E it was based on. That gave the 4R70W a 18% lower First gear to 2.84, the 1.55 Second, 1:1 Third, and a 0.70 OD.

 

4 speed autos............