Looking for tunnel wedge to work with large intake ports

[6667fan]

I have a set of Barry’s CNC heads from the ‘18 EMC. The port width is 1.75”. Looking for a tunnel wedge intake to marry well with those heads. Hoping to avoid manipulating an intake to get this done. Perhaps there is something out there ready to bolt on?
Thanks,
JB

[Joe-JDC]

Just so you know, opening up a tunnel wedge, whether Ford, or BBM, that will lower the velocity, and hurt the lower rpm torque and horsepower.  A better idea would be to keep the tunnel wedge ports small, and just install the manifold as cast.  The Ford manifold will flow 390+ cfm as cast, and the BBM is larger as cast.  Joe-JDC

[Gregwill16]

I've got a factory Ford TW for sale on the FE Forum. Best I remember it has had some port work so will check and let you know.

[6667fan]

I get the velocity part, it is our friend. But the as-cast Ford and Dove pieces are too small. There has to be some middle ground between port size and velocity? ( I'm asking, not telling). I ran a 1 x 4 Victor that I got from Jay that had been modded a lot to work with some large port heads. The mis-match between the Barry"s heads and Jay's intake was .125 on each side IIRC. That seemed to work very well. An unmolested TW will probably be double that but I can't confirm right now. I will confirm later.

Thanks,
JB

[6667fan]

The width on my Dove TW ports is 1.250-1.312. The head port width is 1.75. Should I be embracing a 7/16” mis-match?
JB

[Joe-JDC]

Do you have the capability to grind the intake to whatever size you think you need?  Just opening up a TW to the Medium riser port size will guarantee you lose 20 lbs or more torque below 5500 rpm.  Think of what I said in a post above.  The TW flows 390 cfm or more as cast.  How much does the Survival heads flow?  Unless they flow over 390 cfm, you will not need to open the TW port any.  The TW increased velocity with a smaller opening will actually help your Survival heads perform to their full potential if the cubic inches and camshaft lift can use them.  I you just clean up the exit with a cartridge roll but don't increase the port dimensions, you will be fine.  If you are building a 500+ cubic inch engine and wanting 800 or more horsepower, then by all means do a gasket match.  Joe-JDC

[pbf777]

I get the velocity part, it is our friend. ..................... There has to be some middle ground between port size and velocity? ( I'm asking, not telling).
Thanks,
JB

     Just remember: generally to gain in velocity, one much increase the resistance to freedom of flow.       

     And, in answer to the question:  yes!  And this is a trade off that must be established for best effect for each instance; hence why no one engine build combination works best in all instances.       

     Scott.

[Joe-JDC]

Well, I personally have the first set of Survival heads sold, and another set I acquired last year, and have ported several sets for folks over the years.  My Survival heads flow over 350 cfm, and have the same intake port size as the Craft Stage II heads, so I am quite familiar with their size and flow capabilities.  I also have an original Ford TW, and BBM TW, so I know what they flow.  I raced a 452 MR for many years with a TW, so I have personal experience with them.  I also have a friend who races a TW, and he did the gasket match on his engine thinking he was going to wake up his combination, and when they dyno'ed it, it had lost 35 lb/ft torque.  Lesson learned in the real world.  Joe-JDC

[CaptCobrajet]

I think I could help you.  I keep a good stock of BBM tunnel wedge intakes here.  Depending on your engine size, camshaft, how you use it, etc.  Some work on a new BBM manifold with plenty of stock to work with, and possibly some work on the heads to increase velocity are what I am thinking.  If you want to send me a PM, we might come up with a plan that helps.  When I started doing my Street Pro Ports, the main reason was to design a high flow, high velocity head, with a slightly raised roof, while keeping the sides narrow.   The idea was to avoid major relocation of the pushrod tubes.  Over the last ten years,  I have been finding a little here and there chipping away at the port design, while keeping the narrow entrance at the flange.  The latest version being better than some radically moved ports, which is something I wouldn't have expected fifteen+ years ago.  The point being......I think a little manifold work, and a little head work (possibly filling the port some with epoxy) would help it.  I wouldn't use epoxy in heads for the street, but for the track, or very limited street use, it can really help.

[6667fan]

Thanks much for the real world data MSgt. My application,(95 per cent street), does not need to be engineered for strictly WOT concerns. I’m not looking for a total match on the ports but figured getting closer than what I have would be important. I can trim some 1247-S3 gaskets to match the head ports and put it together. Three sides of the gasket are close but the inner vertical edge of each port is 7/16” narrower. I either let the side of the gasket hang or trim it back. I’m assuming I should trim it. The blue bead will be gone of course but the 1247-S3 should still have enough material left to seal.

I wish I could post some pics of the mis-match but I just can’t manage it from my phone.

[plovett]

I have your intake manifold, but you have my heads.  Dang.

paulie

[6667fan]

That’s funny Paulie,