Is there any conclusive evidence / testing (Doc?)

That the fat pak made more power torque etc vs a regular chrysler or Dutra cast Hyperpak intake?

Just doing some research.

Thanks!

Greg

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/hyperpack

What's the fat pak intake?

74

_________________
Where ever you go there you are!

It was a variation of the original Hyperpak that Doug made that had larger runners in it.

To answer your question. Mine hung on the wall for 15 years or so and never made any more power than the 1 barrel it hung beside! Good question though. I bet Doug has the answer!

_________________
2 Mopars come with Spark plug tubes. One is a world class, racing machine. The other is a 426 CI. boat anchor!

12.70 @ 104.6

IIRC, and this is from conversations had years ago, the Fat Pak had 0 low end.

I think Venables or Mater still has one.

_________________
Official Cookie and Mater Tormentor.

Wasn't a dude going to do some manifold testing.
He asked for some intakes to do the testing.
I guess I missed if it was done.

_________________
Hyper_pak

I can agree with Rick... That Fat Pak that hung on his wall has been collecting dust in my shop for a few years now as well... next to the Hyperpak... and several other intakes... A side by side comparison of all those intakes (1,2,4 barrell, Fat, Hyper, Aussie, Clifford, Offy, Lynx, etc) indicates no performance advantage for any of them...

_________________
Rob

I’m Mater
The Kentucky Poser

Probably the best way to make a comparison would be to flow a normal hyper pac intake and a fat pac intake on the same cylinder head on a flow bench.

My bet is that it would take one super flowing slant head for the intake manifold to be the controlling factor.
In other words, I would think the cylinder head would control the flow rate regardless of the intake.

_________________
Doo Ron Ron and the Duke of Earl are friends of mine.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX8Nj8ABEI8

That is true. Just because it flows a lot of air doesn't mean it won't have driveability issues.

Reality is, the Hyper Pak isn't that good unless it's on a stick car.

_________________
Official Cookie and Mater Tormentor.

And...The engine is operating in a very specific rpm envelope.

Traded my hyper-pak for a fat-pak some years back. It's still hanging on the wall...

CJ

_________________
Part of Tyrde-Browne Racing

I bought one of Doug's fat packs many year ago and used it for several seasons around 2004. Car ran in the low 13's then I pulled the engine and transmission and made a bunch of changes that put the car into the 12's with a Aussie Speed intake. So I have no data to compare. All I know is that the ports where really,really big and no need to port match. The ports where bigger then the gasket. Mine is also hanging on the wall with the rest of my intakes.

Thanks for the thoughts.

I am quite sure I have engines and drivetrains setup for this I might have to do some of my own research to be conclusive.


@Dave M..
What was your car's weight/ axle ratio, compression etc. etc.. in the car you ran with the fat pak?

Greg

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/hyperpack

It seems like the general consensus is they make great wall ornaments.

_________________
Official Cookie and Mater Tormentor.

I have 1 bbl intakes for that purpose.

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/hyperpack

+1

_________________
Part of Tyrde-Browne Racing

Greg

Had to go find my notes from many years ago but did find them

69 Valiant post
weight 1485 front 1075 rear total 2560
8 3/4 rear with 4.30 gears and 28" tall slicks
904 trans with 8 " TCI converter
.030 over with some really old Venola pistons 10.8-1
Mopar over sized intake and exhaust valves with my handy dandy port work
MSD ignition
Fat Pack with mech 600 Holley
Crane cam I .560" 258* E .563" 264*

13.40 @ 95.20 mph

Dave