FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => Member Projects => Topic started by: jayb on October 07, 2012, 03:37:28 PM
-
Thought I'd start a topic on this so that anyone who wants to see progress on this project can check in here. Since this product is an item I expect to sell in a few months, I'm not all that comfortable putting it in the Member Projects section; my initial inclination was to put it in the Vendor Classifieds. However, since the process is technically oriented and certainly qualifies as a member project, I thought I would put it here to start. If you guys object let me know, and I'll move it.
First step in the design process was to make a drawing of the intake adapter manifold that I wanted. I took a bunch of measurements off of several other manifolds since I didn't have any access to an FE intake blueprint, and did a two dimensional drawing of the part. Then I engaged the services of a local design consultant, who works a lot with castings. He used to work at a local casting company and is familiar with all the ins and outs of casting design, for example shrink of the casting after pouring, draft required to get the cores out of the molds, etc. He does his design work in Solidworks, which seems to be the program that most people favor for 3D CAD work these days. He took my two dimensional drawings and after a couple of revisions came up with the following 3D drawing:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/feintkadaptr.jpg)
This is a drawing of a partially machined casting, the ports are not finished and the pushrod holes and some of the bolt holes are not shown. The port configuration will depend on what manifold is run on the intake. For example, a standard 351C intake manifolds will get a certain port configuration, the Yates style manifolds will get a different one.
Through this initial design process several things became apparent. My original plan was going to be to make this manifold suitable for use as a medium riser or high riser (with the associated change in the valve cover rail), or have it be able to be machined as a tunnel port. First pass on the drawing showed that to be unrealistic. The reason was the weight of the casting and the machining time. In order to leave the port openings completely out of the casting (so it could be used for a tunnel port base), and to raise the valve cover rail so it could be machined as a high riser, the weight of the casting went up by nearly 10 pounds! This blew the financial side of the project out the window; I want to be able to sell these for right around $400, and the extra material cost plus the extra machining cost for the medium riser version (which I would expect to sell the most of) made this an impossible target. So, I decided to focus for now on the medium riser design, and do a separate (and more expensive) version that could be machined as a high riser or tunnel port later.
Another thing that became obvious after I purchased and measured several different types of 351C intakes was that all of them would need to be modified or machined in some way in order to fit on this adapter. In some cases the modifications are trivial and can be done with a hacksaw; for example, the Weiand 351C tunnel ram is this way. Others, such as the 351C intakes for Yates style cylinder heads, such as the Edelbrock 2991 and 2865 (Glidden Victor) will require a different bolt pattern and a thinner flange on the intake adapter, plus extensive machining on the valley area of the Edelbrock intake in order to fit. This is going to be a one at a time process for me, to develop the machining operations required on the intake adapter to make some of these manifolds fit. Also, since some of these will require extensive work on the manifolds themselves, I decided that I would have to offer that service for the manifolds also.
Along with the fit issues with the different intakes, there are also different port configurations. So, one port configuration in the intake adapter will definitely not fit all. This makes them a little bit less flexible; unless you go with the stock type 351C 4V intakes, you won't be able to swap a lot of intakes back and forth. When I looked into the 351C intake picture I was really surprised at how much variation there was; the small block stuff seems to have multiple port locations (raised ports in particular), plus more than one bolt pattern depending on the heads that are used.
The conclusion was that what this adapter really needs is a specific intake manifold designed to work with it, rather than trying to make some variety of 351C intakes work. Unfortunately that's a ways down the road; I need to get the adapter manufactured before I can think about making an upper manifold for it. But at this point I think a dedicated upper manifold or two would be a great addition.
Back to the drawing, which of course you can't bolt onto the engine. As a result, to check the drawing I decided to machine some billet plates with many of the key dimensions of the drawing machined in, to check the fit on a mocked up FE. I'm set up and running now on my new CNC machine, and am starting to get used to writing programs with it, but it still took me the better part of two weeks to write the programs and get the two plates machined. Made some mistakes along the way, but overall I got the key dimensions right. Here is a photo of the two plates, the second of which I just finished up last night:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/testflange1.jpg)
Today I got a spare block and set of Edelbrock heads mocked up, and bolted the plates on to check the fit. I needed to make a slight modification on the drawing with respect to the angle of the valve cover rail, but other than that there were no issues bolting the plates onto the heads:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/testflange2.jpg)
Finally I topped the setup off with the 351C tunnel ram to check port alignment and fit. This was a little more problematic, since I have limited data on 351C engines. I had to move around some of the mounting holes on the drawing to get them lined up with the intake. I also had to machine the thickness of the plates down somewhat, because the manifold originally sat too high on the plates. One of the complications here was the thickness of the 351C intake manifold gaskets. The Mr. Gasket versions were a full 0.110" thick, while the Fel-Pros were a little more standard .062" (like the FE intake gaskets). I don't know how to address this except to live with these tolerances, but I will probably recommend a specific gasket for best fit of the intake on the adapter.
Finally I got the thickness about right and was able to get the 351C manifold positioned on the adapter so it looked like it would fit. Here's a picture of the tunnel ram sitting on the engine:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/testflange3.jpg)
Next steps are to get the 3D drawing modified to reflect what the test plates have told me, then its off to the pattern shop with the drawings to make the patterns for the casting sand. That is about a 6-8 week process with the shop that I am going to use. After that, I should be able to get five prototypes cast, and then I can work on the complete machining program. We will see what happens as this projects proceeds...
-
Cant wait for the finished product 8)
-
I am digging that more every time I see it
-
Nice Job Jay on making up those machined test pieces. No matter what you do on paper or in CAD, there is always a surprise with the first physical pieces. It's nice to catch that stuff so early in the game!
Looking forward to more updates :-)
- Bill
-
Very nice....I look forward to the finished product.....Cory
-
The pieces look great Jay! Look forward to the first pics of the finished adaptor.
I did see that TMeyer over at the Cleveland Forum is engaged with making a new Track Boss 302 single plane intake. While a 351 Track Boss with the 9.2" deck height is what you'll need, note that Joe speaks about just how good the original TB was.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/119419/message/1350013331/A+little+FYI...
http://www.network54.com/Forum/119419/message/1350043371/The+B+%26amp%3B+A+Track+Boss+intake+is+one+of+the+best+flowing
http://www.tmeyerinc.com/B&Aintake.html
-
Jay that project is looking great!
If you have any need of it, I have a single plane intake for the old Motorsport C302 heads that I ran on a Clevor for years. If you could use it for paterning or anything just let me know.
Steve
-
Thanks for the offer Steve, I'll keep that in mind - Jay
-
Jay:
If you had to make a wild guess, how long bfore I could buy at any price, a raised port high riser base from you ? I am very frustrated since I built my 427 high riser with a Dove large plenum single plane raised port dual quad intake and now hav very little mid range power. I am in the process of raising the ports on my dual plane Ford 2x4 high riser intake and putting it back on to get my mid range back. I have a friend who can modify the Ford dual plane into a single plane like he runs on his Tbolt and I may try that if I can find another Ford dual plane 2x4 high riser to modify. If I can get one of your bases, I have a friend who has a CNC Mill and is a master at solid works and the mill and could make a top intake to fit your base that has the high riser carb centerkine spacing and would be the height I need to fit under my hood (it has an oval hole in it for the air cleaner to stick out) on my 66 Fairlane daily driver. If possible could you email me at mike.levin@mindspring.com with a phone number. I would love to talk with you in person. Thanks
-
At this point I would say next April or May for the high riser or tunnel port versions of the intake adapter. I'm hoping to have the medium riser version ready to go by March, and the HR/TP would come right after that. You can send me a personal message on the forum, or email me at jayb@fepower.net if you want to talk further - Jay
-
Very nice Jay! Glad to see someone making cool stuff for the FE! 8)
-
Things have gone WAY, WAY too slow on the project for my liking, but I'm finally to the point where the basic design is finished and I am currently out shopping it around to pattern shops and casting foundries. Here's a picture of the finished manifold 3D model. The parts colored in red, like the bolt holes and the machined groove for the O-ring around the center opening, will be machined, not cast. Also, all the surfaces shown in yellow will get an addition of 0.100" or so of material, to allow for machining to the final dimension:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FE Intake Adapter Rev 5a.jpg)
According to the CAD program the raw casting will be about 32 pounds, which is way heavier than I wanted it to be, but it turns out that those flanges that the 351C manifold bolts to add a lot of weight to the raw casting. Once the machining is done the manifold should come in around 25 pounds.
Shown below is the water jacket core, which turned out to be a lot more complicated than expected:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/Shell core A.jpg)
Lots of stuff going on around that part of the casting, including two sets of manifold bolts, port locations, and the distributor location, making it fairly complicated. But at least its done now and according to the 3D model everything fits.
While the designer was finishing up the 3D model I've been working on a machining fixture for the manifold castings. A couple months ago I purchased a big rotary table for my new CNC machine, that can be set up on its side and will rotate a part with 0.001 degree accuracy. I wanted to couple this with with a trunnion table, which bolts to the rotary table and turns with the rotary table. Once the manifold castings are bolted to the trunnion table, they can be rotated like they are on a spit, to allow drilling all the bolt holes at the various angles required by both FE and 351C intake designs, plus machining the mating surfaces on both sides of the intake adapter, machining the valve cover rail, CNC porting all the ports, etc.
There are tooling companies that will custom build one of these trunnion tables, but they are generally pretty expensive (~$3K). Rather than buy one, I decided to buy about $500 in steel and do it myself. I found some pictures of trunnion tables online and kind of used them for the basic ideas, then drew up the table in my CAD program. About four weeks ago I started machining this stuff. The material I selected was cold rolled steel, and the trunnion table itself was over 3 feet long. I found out right away that machining long sections of steel was rather tricky; for example, when I tried to face a 1" X 8" X 38" piece of cold rolled, just taking off about .020" from one side caused the whole thing to warp signficantly. I had to go back and forth, one side to the other, taking off a little less each time, before I finally got the piece reasonable straight within a few thousandths. As I encountered this problem I did a little more research, and found that I probably should have purchased cast iron for this job; cold rolled steel apparently has a lot of stresses inside from the rolling process, and as soon as you start machining it these stresses will start warping the material. Cast iron doesn't do that, and so would have been a superior material for this purpose. But finally after a lot of screwing around, and sizing down the original table thickness somewhat to allow for the machining requirements, I got the main table completed. I also had to machine some 2" X 1" steel bar in about the same length to use as supports for the bottom of the table; I wanted to be able to mount the manifold castings on the table, but also a vise for some operations, and so the table had to be very rigid.
Finally this weekend I got this project finished up. I have been machining on this thing in most of my spare time for the last several weeks, and am relieved that it is finally finished. I still have to mount it onto the rotary table, and then finish machine the top surface once it is mounted on the CNC machine. But the tough stuff is all done now; here are some photos:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/trunniontable1.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/trunniontable2.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/trunniontable3.jpg)
I'll post another picture of the whole thing mounted on my CNC machine in the next week or so. I plan to start using it right away, to machine the CVR water pump adapters for FE engines. On the FE intake adapter, I expect it to be another 6-8 weeks before the patterns are completed, and then I can have a foundry start pouring the first parts. That'll be fun :D
-
Nice work. Yes cold rolled steel is not so god for
long machined parts.There is a heat treatment
for eleminating most of the stresses but i dont
know the english name for it. maby its anealing.
But like you said cast iron is better and more rigid
and dampening vibrations
but a litle brittle in some cases
There have been a real evolution with all this
CNC and CAD. That was like sience fiction
when i was in school MR Gran the teacher
caled the digital calipers for those battery
powered toys
-
Very cool Jay! You'll have to post a video clip of that bad boy swinging around.
Good luck getting it all dialed in!
-
Nice machine work! Eat your wheaties when it comes time to set that baby up. ;D
-
Been a tough month for progress on this project, but heading into Christmas I finally have my trunnion table setup working and am starting to get some quotes on the patterns and castings for the manifolds. The trunnion table took me until yesterday to get it finished and working. This is because the rotary table I purchased for the CNC machine required a different driver amplifier than the one that was in the machine. The machine was built in 1996, and back then all of them came with brushed servo motors. Sometime in 1999 or 2000 Haas changed to brushless servo motors, which are supposed to be stronger and longer lasting than the brushed versions. But since my machine was a 1996 I figured it had the brushed servo motors and the associated drivers.
Unfortunately, when I plugged in the HRT-310 rotary table, it didn't work properly and gave me a bunch of errors. I scheduled one of the service techs to come out and take a look, and he informed me that all four axes on my machine had been converted to brushless servos at sometime in its life. Well, I was really happy about that, because they are better, but unfortunately I had purchased a rotary table with a brushed servo motor. So, I had to replace the fourth axis brushless servo amplifier in the cabinet with a brushed servo amplifier. $500 later, the rotary table was working fine.
When I finally got the rotary table working I hooked up the trunnion table I had machined and checked it seven ways from Sunday to make sure it was squared up and straight. The most I could measure was a half a thousandth runout over the full 36" of the table, with the rotary table end a little bit higher than the support end. I thought those were pretty good results, and hard fought too, given how much trouble I had machining this thing. I had purchased a 5" vise that could be bolted on the table to hold smaller pieces, so next I machined some slots in the trunnion table surface for the vise keys, to hold it square and centered on the table, and also drilled and tapped a couple of holes for bolts to hold the vise in place. Here's a picture of the machining operation in progress:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/hrt-310.jpg)
I got done with the machining yesterday, and bolted on the vise, and I was done. Here's a video of the trunnion table being rotated around through 360 degrees with the vise installed. When I machine the intake manifolds I'll be replacing the vise with a fixture that the manifolds will bolt to; this will sure make it much simpler to machine the manifolds.
http://youtu.be/bpVIlkU8v1Q
I've also been starting to get some quotes on the patterns and castings, and things have changed a little bit in this business since I first got the quotes back in April. One thing is that, believe it or not, the cost of casting sand has nearly doubled over the last 8 months. The foundries are saying that it is because of the fracking business; the oil companies are buying all the sand they can get for fracking operations, driving up the price for everybody else. So suddenly the price of the castings that I'm getting quoted has gone way up. I have more quotes coming, and I haven't started negotiating prices with anybody yet, so we'll see if the pricing will come back down to similar levels that I saw last April before I'm done. I'll know about that by mid-January, and about that time I should be pulling the trigger on the patterns. Most of the pattern quotes are coming in at a lead time of 4 weeks, which means I should have castings at the end of February. Looking forward to that...
-
That is a very kool mill Jay! 8)
I could do some whittling with that.
Mine has crank handles. ::)
-
Very cool....price increase or not....I am still in for one...but probably two.....Cory
-
That is a very kool mill Jay! 8)
I could do some whittling with that.
Mine has crank handles. ::)
Mine has cranks too... Would be cool to have something like Jay does, but then I would have to learn how to program it , think my brain hurts thinking about having to do that.
Still in for at least two manifolds unless price changes drastically, then will reaccess.
-
Thanks for the update, and excellent work on those fixtures. Should result in a high quality item! With many new discoveries being made in "unconventional" reservoirs it should drastically change our energy self-sufficiency for the better in coming years. These types of reservoirs have porosity but very low permeability so they must be stimulated or "fracked". Liquid with sand pumped at High pressure is used to hydraulically open up the permeability and the sand fills the openings created to keep them open so the oil or gas can be produced. Hopefully the producers of the sand used can react to this new demand and result in lower the prices over time. Btw, would love to see pictures of the pattern once its finished. They can really be works of art!
-
Jay you are the Dr Frankenstein of Fords LOL a monster creator indeed.
-
Well, it took a while, but I finally got my pattern shop and casting foundry picked out for this project, and got the ball rolling there. The whole pattern maker / foundry deal was rather interesting. I called several foundries in my area to see about doing this work, and also a couple of out of state foundries. Each foundry had a particular pattern maker that they prefer to deal with, so I ended up getting quotes on this project in pairs, one quote from the pattern maker and one quote from the foundry. As it turned out, I liked one particular pattern maker / foundry the best, because they had experience with automotive parts (the pattern maker had a casting of a flathead intake manifold on his desk that he had done the patterns for), and the foundry was relatively inexpensive on the finished castings if I bought in quantities of 100. I had previously set my financial break-even point on this project at 100 manifolds, so this dovetailed nicely with my previous estimates. As it happened the pattern maker was also the most expensive of the ones that I got quotes from, but his patterns were more production oriented than the others I'd seen, and were also designed to work with the tooling in the foundry. So I ended up settling on these two companies for the work.
One company that I'd had high hopes for was Edelbrock. They advertise their foundry services as a separate product offering from their aftermarket performance products, and I thought it would have been really cool to have my intake cast up by Edelbrock. But I was concerned about the intellectual property side of that equation, and wanted to have a standard non-disclosure agreement in place with Edelbrock before I revealed the details of the design to them. According to the foundry manager that I talked to, the main Edelbrock office handled that sort of thing, and he sent a request over to them for a non-disclosure agreement Unfortunately, it never came. I called the foundry manager back twice, and he finally had me send him an email asking for the agreement, and copying someone in the corporate office at Edelbrock who would be able to provide it. Nothing. I was really surprised and disappointed by this, because I'd heard good things about working with Edelbrock's foundry. But if after a month I couldn't even get a simple NDA, I had a bad feeling about going forward with them. So, I abandoned the idea of having Edelbrock do the castings.
Today I took the afternoon off of work and spent it at the pattern maker's shop. We went through the details of the model of the intake manifold, and the pattern maker made some changes to the model to add draft in certain spots, and remove some material in an effort to make the casting lighter. He will be providing full size plots of the revised design for me to check by the end of this week, and assuming they look good, I will have to write him a pretty big check to get him going on the master pattern for the intake, plus the core pattern for the water jacket passage and the core patterns for the ports.
Schedule is looking like another six weeks before the patterns are ready, and another four weeks after that before the first intakes will be cast. I'm going to go with an initial prototype run of 5 intakes, get them heat treated and develop the machining programs, and then place my production order of 100 manifolds. So it will be mid April before I have the castings, and probably the end of May before I'm ready to make the production order of manifolds. So it looks like the June-July time frame before the intakes will be up for sale. This is longer than I was hoping for, of course, but maybe it can get accelerated along the way; we'll have to see.
Also, now that I have the quotes for the work that I'll be going with, I have a pretty good idea of how the price is going to come out. The rising cost of sand over the last 6-12 months, plus some EPA regulations for disposing of the sand, are adding to my initial cost estimate. Sand price is up due to the huge demand from oil exploration using the fracking process going on around the country, especially in North Dakota. Plus, according to the foundry guy the cost of disposing of silica sand that has been treated with the binder chemicals needed for making casting forms is $0.18 per pound; disposing of the sand properly is an EPA requirement. These two cost increases add about $50 to the cost of the castings, so right now its looking like I'll be selling the medium riser versions of the castings for around $450 each, rather than $400 as I had originally anticipated. The high riser and tunnel port versions will be substantially more expensive, unfortunately, because I don't think I'll be able to sell anywhere near 100 of those, and so the cost of the patterns for those versions will have to be spread among much fewer manifolds. I haven't settled on pricing for those two versions yet, but I'd expect them to be in the $650 - $750 range.
I will post another update on this project in a few weeks when the schedule firms up a little more. Thanks again for all the interest in this project - Jay
-
Hats off to Jay for all the hard work. Good things come to those who wait. I was hoping to be racing one of the adaptors by mid May. Plan"B" will have to be a Perf. RPM.
-
Thanks for the up-date Jay..Glad to hear it is all still moving forward..I am still in for two of the M/R manifolds...
We have to pay at work to dispose of all the sand (garnet) from our water jet.It is considered contaminated because we cut S/S...If running full tilt the machine will use an easy 600lbs a day.....Just adds to the cost of things......Cory
-
i still want one. i have the Weiand tunnel ram and pair of 660's waiting for my 445. ;)
-
Scott Cook has a new design 351C 4500 series single plane intake almost ready for sale. This would look mighty wicked Jay on your adapter and better, would likely be one of the best single 4-bbl intakes on the dyno methinks.
http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=214422&page=63
-
Wow, that is a cool intake! Thanks for the heads up...
-
Any idea what the nobby things are for on the outside of the manifold? And I assume its an alum casting? Looks like it could be alum or composite, it's that nice!
-
Wow that is a monster. Looks like you would need a huge displacement to make it work.
-
Yep, big displacement and/or almost pure race engine, per developer Scott Cook.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/119419/message/1359767951/Air+Supremacy
Have no idea what those funny little bumps are, unless they were from a digitized image. Come to think of it, the finish doesn't seem consistent with cast aluminum...maybe it is a composite. I'm sure Scott will reveal all in the near future.
-
That would look sweet on a 500 cube cammer.
-
Real cool, cannot wait for the production pieces to be available.
Was wondering if a design incorporating a manifold supply that will probably diminish due to popularity fading(the 351C), vs. maybe making the adapter mate to a more likely long term candidate (say gulp :o, the LS from the bowtie boys) would be a better choice. Just a thought, either way I will own a couple.
Thanks Jay for all your efforts on this.
Hercamer
-
LS?! :o Actually, the plan is to do my own manifold tops eventually, that are specific to the FE and to this adapter, to make the whole package more FE specific anyway...
-
maybe making the adapter mate to a more likely long term candidate (say gulp :o, the LS from the bowtie boys) would be a better choice.
Heretic!, heretic!
Somebody get a torch! ;)
-
Eh me buckos, swing him from the highest yardarm....LOL!
Actually, the 351C engine design has seen a major resurgence in recent years for a host of reasons:
-the design in recent years has won numerous PHR Engine Masters competitions, so much so that E-M modified the rules (more than once and over the course of 3-4 years) to give other engines (read: SBC/BBC) a chance.
-two new engine blocks of the true 351C design (not Windsor based) are already being sold, all be it in limited quantities. By mid-2013 (my guess) both suppliers will be at full tilt and then can service any orders.
-the exciting CHI and AFD heads, let alone the Blue Thunder heads have breathed new life (all E-M winners used one of these heads) in the C design. More are on the way.
-Intake wise, a host of new 351C specific designs have already been released and more are on the way (Scott Cook's, CHI's house brand and the one below).
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/FORD-302-351-3V-CLEVELAND-TWIN-DUAL-4-BARREL-CARBURETOR-INTAKE-MANIFOLD-/310545513400?pt=AU_Car_Parts_Accessories&hash=item484df47bb8&clk_rvr_id=438517111710&clk_rvr_id=448433259852
Jay, note the pics near the end and the four special mounting bosses for a supercharger mounting plate. Pretty cool and food for thought I'll venture!
Btw, if anyone, me included, thought only 20 years ago we'd see such a resurgence today in new Ford engine parts for the old Boss, 351C, FE & 385 series engines......I would never have believed them.
-
I have been told by many that the Cleveland engines had many issues but I have heard the same about FEs and for me the proof is in the pudding. Although I have never owned a Cleveland either?
-
As has been said before...
Let me be clear. :)
I love the 351 Cleveland and have one in a 70 maverick bracket car. I would never run an LS engine in anything I own. >:(
I am all Fords and will always be.
But as far as intake options go..no comparison,
LS...(Edelbrock, PerformerRPM, Victor Jr. , Victor, Pro-flo EFI), (Holley, single 4, dual four and hi ram fuel injection),(Mast, EFI in many configurations including tunnelram),(FAST LSXR ram type manifolds)..plus many other mfg... blower intakes, etc. etc...
Generally because of the stinking bowtie less money..and like the cleveland no water in he manifold.
Not trying to change anyones mind here just looking at options, and asking questions that potentially could save money and development time for Jay.
As said before, Love the idea and appreciate the hel out of Jay doing it, can't wait for the result no matter what intake it uses, 351C or Jay's own designs, I will own a couple and put them to use.
Thanks, Kent
-
I think we were just giving you a hard time ;) I wonder how an LS intake would fit? Anybody know the bore spacing on an LS engine?
Edit: Just did a search and found the bore spacing for an LS engine is 4.400". A 351C bore spacing is 4.38". Looks like it actually might work. Am I a traitor if I buy an LS intake and test fit it? :-\
Edit 2: Looked at some of the LS manifolds on the Summit site, and it appears that they won't work because of the bank to bank spacing. The left bank on those engines is farther forward than the right bank, while on an FE, 351C, and other Ford engines the right bank is farther forward than the left. That's actually too bad, some of those LS intakes look real good...
-
LS intakes won't work, for one thing... the number 1 cylinder (front offset) is on the driver side bank, not the passenger side like a Ford. It would be a hell of a mismatch, not to mention the smaller bore spacing.
uh... just read the edit on Jay's post... looks like he treed me!
-
I guess I am the most evil of all mechanical loving creatures I will drive almost anything if it suits my needs and budget. Being a guy that never had a lot sometimes limited me as to what was available.
-
Chevy is sooo stupid they even build their blocks backwards ;D..good catch Royce, and Jay...
well it was worth a thought, it's all in the details as they say.
Kent
-
Hate to say it but the small block Chevy survived longer than anything out there. Simple, dependable and lasts for ever with maintenance. That is why it has always been a performance favorite. Parts are cheap due to popularity not because the engine was built cheap or designed improperly.
-
good catch Royce, and Jay...
Actually I am not Royce, just to avoid confusion...but, I do have a couple XR7's and I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
(http://i1279.photobucket.com/albums/y537/XR7gtcougar/sept12C_zps03055912.jpg)
-
I actually dislike all the new cars ford or not, all junk and nothing past the early 70s will ever be collectable. All just throw away junk once a major failure occurs they are not worth fixing unless it is still under warranty.
-
I have been told by many that the Cleveland engines had many issues but I have heard the same about FEs and for me the proof is in the pudding. Although I have never owned a Cleveland either?
Yes all experts know the 4v heads is to big no lowend bla bla bla
in fact if we compare a lets say 350 lt1 from gambia motors
every expert know that it got better lowend than a cleveland right?
when in fact the cleveland have higher torque from idle up to
about 3000 rpm and from around 4000
Yes the 302 boss with 4v heads have weak lowend but not compared
to a Z28 302 i have driven both and about the same the boss kicks
in a litle moore when it starts to rpm
In the 80s i switced from FE s to Cleveland and i loved those engines
biggest issue is exhaust ports if you are going to make real big power
but say 400 hp is no problem even with a 2v all it takes is a cam intake and
carb the heads flow so good so you dont need a radical cam
to big cam kills the lowend on Clevelands and most cams
are just sbc profiles and they dont work on a Cleveland
I have a 400 i want to trye some 4v heads on if i find
some better rods for it
sorry for highjacking the tread jay my rant is ower now :-[
-
Even the Windsor along with all other engines were killed in the late 70s with emissions and no compression, the fuel injected Windsors and throttle body Chevy's were gas guzzling dogs. Everything went down hill till the new modular V8s cane out. It was a dismal era of restricted heads, low compression, laden down with smog pumps and restrictive exhaust.
-
good catch Royce, and Jay...
Actually I am not Royce, just to avoid confusion...but, I do have a couple XR7's and I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
(http://i1279.photobucket.com/albums/y537/XR7gtcougar/sept12C_zps03055912.jpg)
GREAT picture, Thor...
-
Yeah the near bumper scrape is quite impressive. Can't do that in a focus LOL.
-
Yeah the near bumper scrape is quite impressive. Can't do that in a focus LOL.
^^ +1 ;D
-
How about in reverse? :o
-
Jay, please let me know when the intake adapter plates are ready for sale! I've been planning on making my own for several years using a Weind intake mating to a 351C 4V... Any finally bought a mill to do the job! However, your unit is just what the doctor ordered and may end up buying 2 from you for two separate builds.
I have a goofy idea of using a Weiand 351C-4V tunnel ram with six (yes six) Autolite 2100 1.02's sitting on top of an aluminum box... in a 64 galaxie... It may be goofy, but what the hey, I think it may just look goofy enough to be kool! The 2100's have the front shaved off so that they are "half-moon" with the fuel bowls facing out towards the fenders and three velocity stacks cut in half.
But then with the adapter plate, I can switch setups very quickly to a standard 4-barrel setup!
Also, Are you going to offer gaskets or, is that an "on-your-own" buyer DIY project?
Regards
Tim.
-
Jay, what about offering a "generic" casting and leave it to the buyer to have it machined on his own for his configuration? That cuts your cost down and, eliminates you having to fit all the various variations. Figure most are going to be using an 4-v heads and limit the casting to the most likely configurations.
For an additional cost, then offer a finished manifold that will bolt right in place for a specific setup!
Face it, 30 40 years ago anytime you bought non-oem parts there was always a fair amount of variation in the aluminum castings even fro Edel... and it was up to the buyer to get it to fit right.
I'm willing to shell out $400 to $500 for the adapter plate (saves me time and trouble) and accept that I will still need to machine it to adapt to my specific application.
My applications (prior post) - 351C -4C Weiand tunnel-ram and, a 4C- 4-barrel setup.
Regards
Tim
-
Hi Tim, you can just watch this thread for updates on this project. I'll be posting here when the intake adapters become available.
As far as gaskets, standard FE and 351C gaskets will work for most of the applications. If there is a specific application that requires a custom gasket, I will make the gasket available also. I've had good luck getting custom intake gaskets made at Cometic, so I would probably go that route.
In terms of the raw castings, I may do something like a partially machined version, where the intake faces are machined but the port openings are left as cast, to allow the user to do whatever they want with the ports. I suppose I could offer a completely unmachined version, but I think that would be a lot of work for somebody to start from scratch, and they would probably end up duplicating a lot of the machining that I would end up doing anyway. But I can certainly look at those kinds of requirements on a case by case basis.
-
Believed it or not I do not own a CNC machine or have the knowledge to run it so handing me a rough casting would not help me much. There might be others like me but I am a simple person I guess?
-
So, the pattern shop is making some progress after that check I wrote them ;D Here is the master pattern for the intake adapter:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/mstrpatt01.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/mstrpatt02.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/mstrpatt03.jpg)
Next up is the parting board, and then the pattern and parting board will be sent off to get the match plate made. The match plate is what the foundry uses to make the sand molds prior to pouring the parts. Getting closer...
-
Jay, what material is the pattern made from? I was thinking they still used wood... Thanks, Bruce
-
It's some kind of polyurethane plastic. They actually took three 2" thick sheets and glued them together to get the plastic thick enough for the pattern; you can see the different color shades of the plastic in the photos. The parting board will be wood.
-
Funny how a check clearing starts moving things along.LOL
-
Jay,
I may have missed it on previous posts, but wondering how the adapter will mate with Blue Thunder M/R heads with the raised upper portion of the intake port? Could it be made to work?
-
Yes, there is enough meat in the adapter so that it could be port matched to the BT medium riser heads.
-
I know projects like these take time however, just curious about when the adapters are expected to be ready for sale?
-
Right now it looks like the adapters will be available for sale in the June-July time frame. At this time the patterns are expected to be finished in less than a week, by April 18, and I hope to have the first prototype castings by the end of April. I will post photos of this stuff when I have them. We are getting much, much closer now...
-
Tooling for the manifolds is now complete and at the foundry. They are saying 2-3 weeks from today (Monday, 4/22) for the first castings. Here's a couple of photos of the match plate, which is used to make the major impressions in the core box, and the water jacket core. Sorry for the poor photo quality, these are off my cell phone:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/mplate1.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/mplate2.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/wjcore.jpg)
-
Wow! I guess this means you are really committed to finishing this project! Are you ahead of schedule and will be selling them sooner than you had said? Looks nice. Can't wait.
-
I still think it will be the July timeframe before I start delivering products. I will need a month at least to get the CNC programs written and tested before I can go to production status. And I am only starting out with five castings, because if it turns out the tooling needs some modifications I don't want to cast up a bunch of scrap parts.
So, let's say the first five castings by May 10, and first articles machined by June 10. Assuming we are a "go" at that point, I'll order the first production run of 50 castings from the foundry, and start delivering completed intake adapters in July. Wonder what will go wrong with that schedule... ::)
-
Jay, thanks for the update! Two questions: what are the match plates made of? Looks like they are cast from possibly aluminum? The water jacket cores are obviously machined from billets... And when you say articles machined, do you mean the real production pieces (not prototypes) for sale "in anger"?
Thanks, Bruce
-
The match plate is cast aluminum, Bruce. By the way, there is only one; the photo shows two different sides of the same match plate. The master pattern was machined from some kind of plastic, and from that a mold is made for the match plate, and the match plate is cast from that mold. For the first five manifolds, I will be keeping a couple of them for reference (so that I can measure them and compare them with future castings), and I figure I'll screw a couple of them up doing the machining as I'm developing the programs. I also have to cut one apart to look at the water jacket, and make sure that area has a lot of integrity and that I don't have any porosity or leakage issues. So the first five intakes won't be for sale; the manifolds for sale will come from the production batch of 50 that I hope to order in mid-June.
-
How about a TPI style intake? Is it a prospect as I am not in love with the victor. Also a big bore two plate body would be a nicer package all around..........Jon
-
I've actually been thinking about manifold tops for this base, and a TPI style is a possibility. But that kind of thing is a ways off; I need to get the base finished and in production first....
-
I am also a long way off myself, I would say this fall would be the soonest maybe?.....Jon
-
Do you think this trick flow 351 Cleveland intake would work for my 445? Thanks .....Jon
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/tfs-516b0116
-
It's a good bet that intake would fit, but I'd have to fit one up to be sure. Most of the 351C intakes will fit with some minor modifications.
-
Interesting to see how the"big boys" do it
i do some castings my self when i need
But not anything that complex
And my way is more .....old style
-
I would actually prefer a Chevy ram jet style but the port configuration is completely off. A Cleveland intake was as close as I could get. I wonder what the flow numbers are and would it feed a 445 stroker at 1000 CFM?.......
-
CHI has a ton of modern 351C based intakes. Just be careful as I think only the 9.5" deck intakes will work with Jay's new adapter. The 8.2 (302), 9.2 (Cleveland and Ford race blocks) and the Ford 400 tall deck intakes can't work IIRC. One might also Goggle "AFD Cleveland cylinder heads" for more.
http://www.chiheads.com.au/3v_manifolds.php
-
Things have gone WAY, WAY too slow on the project for my liking, but I'm finally to the point where the basic design is finished and I am currently out shopping it around to pattern shops and casting foundries. Here's a picture of the finished manifold 3D model. The parts colored in red, like the bolt holes and the machined groove for the O-ring around the center opening, will be machined, not cast. Also, all the surfaces shown in yellow will get an addition of 0.100" or so of material, to allow for machining to the final dimension:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FE Intake Adapter Rev 5a.jpg)
According to the CAD program the raw casting will be about 32 pounds, which is way heavier than I wanted it to be, but it turns out that those flanges that the 351C manifold bolts to add a lot of weight to the raw casting. Once the machining is done the manifold should come in around 25 pounds.
Shown below is the water jacket core, which turned out to be a lot more complicated than expected:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/Shell core A.jpg)
Lots of stuff going on around that part of the casting, including two sets of manifold bolts, port locations, and the distributor location, making it fairly complicated. But at least its done now and according to the 3D model everything fits.
While the designer was finishing up the 3D model I've been working on a machining fixture for the manifold castings. A couple months ago I purchased a big rotary table for my new CNC machine, that can be set up on its side and will rotate a part with 0.001 degree accuracy. I wanted to couple this with with a trunnion table, which bolts to the rotary table and turns with the rotary table. Once the manifold castings are bolted to the trunnion table, they can be rotated like they are on a spit, to allow drilling all the bolt holes at the various angles required by both FE and 351C intake designs, plus machining the mating surfaces on both sides of the intake adapter, machining the valve cover rail, CNC porting all the ports, etc.
There are tooling companies that will custom build one of these trunnion tables, but they are generally pretty expensive (~$3K). Rather than buy one, I decided to buy about $500 in steel and do it myself. I found some pictures of trunnion tables online and kind of used them for the basic ideas, then drew up the table in my CAD program. About four weeks ago I started machining this stuff. The material I selected was cold rolled steel, and the trunnion table itself was over 3 feet long. I found out right away that machining long sections of steel was rather tricky; for example, when I tried to face a 1" X 8" X 38" piece of cold rolled, just taking off about .020" from one side caused the whole thing to warp signficantly. I had to go back and forth, one side to the other, taking off a little less each time, before I finally got the piece reasonable straight within a few thousandths. As I encountered this problem I did a little more research, and found that I probably should have purchased cast iron for this job; cold rolled steel apparently has a lot of stresses inside from the rolling process, and as soon as you start machining it these stresses will start warping the material. Cast iron doesn't do that, and so would have been a superior material for this purpose. But finally after a lot of screwing around, and sizing down the original table thickness somewhat to allow for the machining requirements, I got the main table completed. I also had to machine some 2" X 1" steel bar in about the same length to use as supports for the bottom of the table; I wanted to be able to mount the manifold castings on the table, but also a vise for some operations, and so the table had to be very rigid.
Finally this weekend I got this project finished up. I have been machining on this thing in most of my spare time for the last several weeks, and am relieved that it is finally finished. I still have to mount it onto the rotary table, and then finish machine the top surface once it is mounted on the CNC machine. But the tough stuff is all done now; here are some photos:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/trunniontable1.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/trunniontable2.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/trunniontable3.jpg)
I'll post another picture of the whole thing mounted on my CNC machine in the next week or so. I plan to start using it right away, to machine the CVR water pump adapters for FE engines. On the FE intake adapter, I expect it to be another 6-8 weeks before the patterns are completed, and then I can have a foundry start pouring the first parts. That'll be fun :D
The water cross-over core would give a Patternmaker nightmares, ;). Why some many compound angles when 'radiusing' (such a word? LOL) would seem to be simpler. I understand the angles needed for the bolt bosses, but a Wood Model Moldmaker could 'whittle' a prototype if there weren't so many compound angles, especially in the 'tunnel' portion of the cross-over, just a thought from an old foundry worker who's seen a gazillion cores, lol, Rod. OOPs, maybe those lines represent radii, nevermind
-
I'm fired up today, because I finally got my hands on the first casting. This was the first one that the foundry poured, and it used their initial estimate of where the gates and vents in the mold should be. This one turned out to have an obvious defect on the top of the water jacket, but other than that it looks really good:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/rawcasd1.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/rawcasd2.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/rawcasd3.jpg)
The quality of the casting appears to be really nice, with a nice finish and no evidence of porosity that I can find. The only real issue is the void in the top of the water jacket. After pouring this first one, the foundry guys modified the gating and venting on the mold and tried again. Here is the second casting, just as it came out of the mold, with all the gates, risers, and vents still attached. With the modified gating and venting the problem at the top of the water jacket is gone:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/rawcast1.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/rawcast2.jpg)
It was a great feeling to see this stuff finally being implemented in aluminum! After cleaning up the first casting the foundry gave it to me temporarily, so that I could start work on developing the machining operations. They also gave me some of the sand cores they'd buit for the ports, and also one that they'd built for the water jacket. Here's a photo of the cores:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/coresnb.jpg)
So far there are just the two castings, but now that they've got the gating figured out, they will pour another four castings for me over the next few days. Then, next week the five castings will go to the heat treat place for the T6 heat treatment. Early the following week the castings should be ready, and I can start working on the machining operations in earnest. Hopefully by that time, using the defective casting that they gave me, I can have the fixtures ready to hold the castings for the machining operations.
This has taken a long time, but the end is definitely getting closer. Right now it looks like I'll have a finished manifold to test by early to mid June...
-
Give the man a cigar!
Nice work, Jay. It will be very satisfying to make noise with the first one of those.
-
Great! They must be a damned good caster with only the water jacket issue on the very first pour. Hopefully, a harbinger of more good news.
-
WOO-HOO!!!! :) It's gotta feel like 7 years old on xmas morning in your garage! We're all just as excited to see these Jay!
-
Jay, would you know if the adapter were mounted on the engine and the center cover was off, if there would be enough room to remove a set of comp cams solid roller lifters?
-
There should be plenty of room to remove solid roller lifters under the manifold. The only issue I can think of would be the set for #5, where the distributor might get in the way. I guess I will find out for sure when I get a manifold machined and try it...
-
That's cool Jay. The quality looks comparable to any Ed casting. You wrote that the foundry gave you the first casting "temporarily". I'm curious why they would want it back. Just for the aluminum?
-
Yes, they take any castings that have defects and remelt them; I could keep this casting, but why pay for a defect?
-
Very Kool Jay!
I'm not seeing any little casting logo.
Like a "Brown" or "JB" .
Years from now someone will be asking if it's a Brown. ::)
That's quite a piece.
So now the really big question.
Are you going to mill them at exactly 45*. LOL
-
LOL! Yes Howie, I do plan to mill the first one at 45 degrees and see how it fits. Also I plan to machine a little "FE Power" logo somewhere on the manifold, but not in a highly visible location. I think big logos on the parts tend to ruin their appearance...
-
:o Okay Jay, the obvious question is how do I get one of these manifolds once the become available? Granted I need to send you $$$, but I want to make sure I'm on your list for a manifold! I'm on plenty of peoples lists these days, but those are usually their lists that start with an S and and with a T... especially with my wife!...
-
Before I commit to delivering these I'm waiting until I have the machining procedures finished and have made the first couple of prototype intakes. When I'm holding a properly cast and machined intake in my hands, that to me is the green light when I can say that I will actually be able to deliver these. At that point I will start a list of people who are interested in the manifolds, and post an advertisement in the vendor classifieds asking for email addresses or phone numbers for anyone who is interested in purchasing one. About that time I will also be ordering the first production run of 50 intakes. As I get the production manifolds machined, I'll go down the list and contact everyone as I have a manifold available for them. Hopefully, I'll post the ad in about a month, and start delivering manifolds in July.
Also, I will not be taking deposits on these intakes. When I have a manifold ready to ship and contact someone on the list, they can send the money at that time. In the meantime if they've decided they don't want to buy one, they don't have a deposit hanging out there and they can just cancel the order. That's the way I prefer to be treated when buying parts, and that is the way that I will operate.
-
Jay
It is nice to see the project moving forward. Those castings look really nice in the photos. Too bad the ports are the wrong shape. ;D
-
LOL! You'll be glad to know that the high riser / tunnel port version is also in the works, although a couple of months behind the medium riser version...
-
;D Fair enough Jay, just as long as I get on the list for one of these intakes!!! Timing should be about right!
Tim
-
Jay,Cory has been recovering from a severe vehicle collision for the last month and will be out for another month at least.He wants you to know the manifold looks great and still wants at least 2 for sure. Thx Mary(his woman)
-
Wow, sorry to hear about Cory's accident! Please give him my best, and thanks for the update - Jay
-
Picked up the first five intakes today 8) Pictures tonight...
-
FE porn rules LOL....Jon
-
Here are some pictures of the first five castings:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/1stcast1.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/1stcast2.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/1stcast3.jpg)
As usual I'm a little behind schedule, but I think by Friday evening I'll have the machining on the fixtures I need done. Then I will have the whole Memorial Day 3 day weekend to start developing the machining operations and getting the first manifold machined. I think this process will take me a few weeks, but I'll definitely get a good start on it this weekend. We'll see how it goes; I'll post an update Monday night or Tuesday on how things are progressing...
-
Had a question? I can see everything lining up with a Cleveland or Boss intake except the distributor, how did you work around that Jay? Or is relocation of the hole on the intake part of the process, enquiring minds want to know LOL .....Jon
-
Hubba hubba! I can't wait for mine! I hope you can get the adapters to accept some of the sexy looking Nascar manifolds.....
-
My intention is a Trick Flow MPFI intake, they make them for Cleveland engines so it should go.
-
Very cool......I am sort of up and around now while i go through all my healing...I pretty much had a head on collision with another truck at a combined speed of around 100mph...I survived...he was not so lucky.I will post more later....broken but still here...Cory
-
WOW dude glad your OK, I see that a lot around here in the boonies. A blink of an eye and that is it, my nephew does fire rescues, sometimes not a pleasant job.....Jon
-
Had a question? I can see everything lining up with a Cleveland or Boss intake except the distributor, how did you work around that Jay? Or is relocation of the hole on the intake part of the process, enquiring minds want to know LOL .....Jon
Not sure I understand the question, Jon. The Cleveland intake doesn't have a hole for the distributor, so this intake adapter keeps the FE distributor in the stock position, and the Cleveland intake just fits in place on top of the adapter. No interference between the Cleveland intake and the FE distributor...
-
Very cool......I am sort of up and around now while i go through all my healing...I pretty much had a head on collision with another truck at a combined speed of around 100mph...I survived...he was not so lucky.I will post more later....broken but still here...Cory
Sounds like a brutal, life-altering experience. Glad to hear that you made it through, Cory.
-
I am very lucky...I dont really know how i came through it with out more "serious" injuries...I have numerous fractures including a broken pelvis (3 spots)..I had 2 dozen stitches to the right side of my face.I was literally beaten black and blue.....I am just starting to move around now...Sitting is still limited and bending is out of the question...My F-250 diesel 4x4 looks like it got hit by a train.....
I got hit so hard it tore the front axel out,pushed the transfer case right out of the truck and I flipped twice and landed on my side.The roof was cut off and i was heli-jetted to the hospital..
Built "Ford" tough...
Cory
-
Ah I see, I have never messed with Cleveland or modified engines. Is the distributor in the front cover?
-
No, it's part of the block casting.
http://image.mustangandfords.com/f/9295309/mufp_0606_01_z+351_cleveland_performance_engine_build+timing_seal.jpg
-
I am very lucky...I dont really know how i came through it with out more "serious" injuries...I have numerous fractures including a broken pelvis (3 spots)..I had 2 dozen stitches to the right side of my face.I was literally beaten black and blue.....I am just starting to move around now...Sitting is still limited and bending is out of the question...My F-250 diesel 4x4 looks like it got hit by a train.....
I got hit so hard it tore the front axel out,pushed the transfer case right out of the truck and I flipped twice and landed on my side.The roof was cut off and i was heli-jetted to the hospital..
Built "Ford" tough...
Cory
Cory - I too was saved by a tough Ford 4x4 truck in a 130+ mph (combined) head-on. Heal fast! Sorry you have to endure this pain. It will be a process but with your commitment and the support of your family / friends you'll be back!
-
Thank you sir......everyday is a new adventure in pain...I keep my head up and dont complain much as things could have been much worse........Cory
-
I had a accident, on 294 doing about 70 and got cut off by a semi. Tore the cab off the frame on my 68 was fresh paint and looking good then with my rebuilt 410. The broken glass ls my face, did not wake up for a week from that one.....Jon
(http://i1297.photobucket.com/albums/ag24/heintx/20130523_162839_zpsd6f62c65.jpg)
-
Yes I made a similar hole in the windshield of a 1995 F-150 4x4... with a seatbelt on! That's how hard the guy hit me. I guess I don't have to tell you how painful facial reconstruction surgery is...
That picture really makes me shiver! Seems like you came out of it OK though. Sorry about the demise of such a nice old truck, but that's small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.
- Bill
-
Actually the remainder of the truck is in the barn, looking for a body for it. I ran across a delivery panel body of the same year but have not pursued it yet. The face, I was ugly before so no biggie LOL.....Jon
-
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I am having a FABULOUS Memorial Day weekend. After starting this intake manifold project last April, it seems that for the last year all I've done is hurry up and wait. Wait for the designer to get done with the model, wait for quotes from the foundries and pattern shops, wait for the pattern shop to make the master pattern and match plate, and wait for the foundry to cast the manifolds. FINALLY, I have the first five intakes here and I don't have to wait for anybody anymore. It's been great to start working on the tooling required for the machining operations, and programming the machine to cut the first manifolds.
When I got the first five manifolds, one of the things I was concerned about was the finish. After the manifolds are solution heat treated to T6, they turn a little bit darker in color, as compared to a non heat treated part. Here's a picture showing three manifolds, two of mine and one Edelbrock. The darker manifold has been heat treated:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/3intks.jpg)
The Edelbrock manifold looks the nicest, and has the best shine. The adapter manifold that has not been heat treated still looks OK, and I was figuring on just going with that finish. But after heat treating the adapter manifold darkens up a lot, and I think it wouldn't look all that great on the car, especially with a shiny Edelbrock manifold bolted on top.
The solution is glass bead blasting the manifold castings, but my foundry doesn't offer that service. As it happens I have a cheap bead blaster in my shop, acquired back when I was buying manifolds for test purposes when writing my book (some of the manifolds I bought were so ugly that I didn't dare take pictures of them for the book without cleaning them up LOL!). So, I took one of the manifolds and bead blasted the surfaces that were not going to be machined. It turned nice and white again, about the same color as the Edelbrock manifold, but the finish was still a little bit different. The Edelbrock manifold looks almost sparkly, whereas the manifold I bead blasted is kind of a flat white color. Now, the glass beads have been in my bead blast cabinet for years, and as I understand it as glass beads are used they start to break and become finer. I think that Edelbrock's manifolds are probably bead blasted with a large size glass bead to get that finish. Anybody out there know on this? I think I'm going to buy some more glass beads this week, change out the ones that I have and try some new ones, but I don't really know for sure if I want a coarse (large size) bead or a fine (small) bead.
Anyway, on Saturday while I was glass beading the intake the CNC machine was happily working away on the first fixture for fixturing the casting. I bought some cast aluminum material called Alimex that is dimensionally stable and stress relieved, and specifically designed for tooling and fixtures, so that I could maintain decent tolerances and repeatability on the manifolds. First thing I did with the first block, which was 4" X 7" X 24" after squaring it up, was to cut the bottom side for keyways so that I could index the block on the grooves in the mill table. Here's a shot of the block in the machine:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/fixt1.jpg)
That is a big block of aluminum! After getting this done and installing the keys I flipped the block over and bolted it to the table, then finished the remaining machining operations. This took the whole rest of the day on Saturday, because there was a lot of material to be removed. Also, the holes for the steel pins that support the manifold have to be machined very precisely, so I had to take some time to sneak up on those dimensions. Finally around midnight on Saturday I got this done; here's a picture of the fixture block with the steel pins installed:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/fixt2.jpg)
Three of the pins have threaded holes in the top so that they can be removed after the intake is clamped in place on the fixture.
Saturday night after the machining on the fixture was finished I couldn't resist popping a manifold on there and seeing how it looked:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/intkfixt.jpg)
Note in this photo the bead blasted areas of the intake; they look a lot better after bead blasting. The clamp for holding the intake manifold at the back was able to be made up with pieces from the standard clamping sets that I have, but to clamp the manifold at the front it turned out that the standard clamping bars were not long enough. So, I had to machine one specifically for the fixture, out of 1.5" steel bar stock. Sunday I set that up to run on my other CNC machine, and while that was running I worked on writing the programs for machining the bottom side of the first manifold. Pretty much took all day to machine the steel clamp bar, but by around dinner time I was all ready to go. I got the first intake clamped in the fixture and started, very slowly and cautiously, to run the first machining operations. Here's a picture of the manifold being machined at this point:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/intkmac1.jpg)
One thing that I discovered pretty quickly was that the front right corner of the manifold had to be machined more cautiously than the rest of it, because of a lack of support in that area. I didn't want to clamp this area for fear of putting a twist in the intake during machining, so I had to go pretty slowly and sneak up on the final finished dimensions in order to get a good finish, but in the end it came out pretty well. I stepped through about half the machining operations before I went to bed on Sunday night, and the manifold was looking pretty good.
Today I got going again in the morning and finished up the machining operations by noon. Again I had to watch what was happening, as it was happening, and make some adjustments in the program as I went, but by noon I had the first manifold completed on the bottom; here's a couple of pics:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/intkmac3.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/intkmac4.jpg)
I am very, very happy with the way the bottom side machining operations have come out on this first manifold. It looks really good, and it feels great to be finally making some chips on one of these things. Today I'm working on the other fixture that I need, to mount the intake on the trunnion table that is hooked up to my 4th axis. Hopefully I can get that done by next weekend, so that I can start on the next machining operations next Saturday. I still think this will take me at least another two weeks to get the first manifold finished, but I'm looking forward to getting the first one done and bolted onto my 428CJ, currently waiting patiently on the dyno for its new intake... :D
-
Jay, foundries usually shot peen cast aluminum before releasing the castings to the customer. Sometimes stainless shot is used because steel shot may rust while not in use and stain the castings. If the foundry is close by they may agree to re-shot peen the castings. Or you could try the wheel cleaner stuff available at the local auto parts store but that would be a lot of work for 50 castings.
I don't think you could do your own shot peening at home with a siphon type blast cabinet.
Glass beading is usually not a good method to use on cast aluminum because it opens the pores and makes the surface more porous. And if there is even the smallest of pits on the surface it will open them up and could make your castings look bad. Shot peening does the opposite.
-
Both castings in the first photo were shot peened at the foundry, but the darker one was also heat treated prior to shot peening. So I think I need to do something to improve the appearance of the intakes, because as is they are too dark. I've never heard that glass beading opens up the pores and reveals defects on a cast aluminum part; are you sure about that Doug? Glass bead blasting has been done on cast aluminum parts like intake manifolds for years; I can't imagine there's any problem with it. After I glass beaded the one casting, its appearance improved dramatically and there weren't any defects visible from the process. In any case though, I don't plan on doing that kind of thing myself, my blast cabinet is definitely not up to that drill. I just need to find out what should be done...
-
Looking good Jay. There is a place in Northeast Mpls I go called Sterling Supply that seems knowledgable, maybe you could see what advice they have. I do know some guys absolutely do not want a manifold that has been glass beaded on their motor. They worry about imbedded glass coming loose later. And it seems like it would be a lot of work for you. Personally the difference in shade wouldn't bother me.
-
Chemically cleaning with alumi-brite for semi trucks works quite well and is cheap. It is quick and can be applied with a pressure washer nozzle or a pump sprayer for lawn and garden use. Afterword it leaves a cast blast sort of finish....Jon
-
WOW ! amazing talent you have jay !
Is there going to be a combo of this that will run under hood ? I would love to run something custom like this,but I would need it under hood.
-
There are a zillion Ford 351 Cleveland intakes to select from, I am going with the trick flow EFI intake for my 445 cube 390 with Edelbrock heads. I think Jay mentioned some others that could be made to fit also???....Jon
Speaking of which Jay are the plates pretty well going to be lined up with the 4v Cleveland pattern and I just port match or do I send the lower plenum to you to work your magic? I do not have the proper equipment at my disposal to do the work myself anymore.
-
Is there going to be a combo of this that will run under hood ? I would love to run something custom like this,but I would need it under hood.
The Edelbrock 351C Air Gap Performer RPM and the Edelbrock 351C Torker II come to mind as manifolds that will fit under the hood. Some of the Yates style intakes, like the Edelbrock 2991 and 2865 might also fit, depending on the hood clearance. The Weiand tunnel ram will NOT fit under the hood ;D
-
Jay, yeah, if the casting is crappy glass beading will make it worst. Way back in the day when I bought a new Offy Port-O-Sonic it was glass beaded and always stained badly with gas, etc until I learned to spray it with WD40 regularly.
If you find the right chemical, whether it is aluminum wheel cleaner, A/C fin cleaner used for roof top units, or toilet bowl cleaner, etc, maybe get enough of it to dip the whole intake. The heat treatment company must be using a solution heat treating, ask your foundry about that, maybe they are recycling it too much. Reminds when I took several Autolite 2100's to my local machine shop to run through their hot spray washer and they came out permanently stained dark - when I asked them about it they said did not have time to change the fluid (hot water with detergent) out for new stuff. BTW, the detergent they use is basically commercial dishwashing powder.
Some years ago their was a website that listed all of the 351C intakes available at that time, about 100. Except one intake that I have never seen but only heard about, DST made one with a removable top to convert it from a two, four barrel or trii-power. And since then, Edelbrock, some Australian companies and other have released more Cleveland intakes.
-
The green stay brite for outdoor coils is nasty stuff LOL don't leave it on too long, trust me it has a negative effect on anodized coils and will eat holes if not rinsed properly. But it does work good if used properly and mixed correctly. I just used some the other day to clean concrete off our BOB CAT UTV. The pink evaporator cleaner is much milder and mostly degreaser...Jon
-
Speaking of which Jay are the plates pretty well going to be lined up with the 4v Cleveland pattern and I just port match or do I send the lower plenum to you to work your magic? I do not have the proper equipment at my disposal to do the work myself anymore.
They are designed to bolt right up to the 351C 4V pattern. However, most of the manifolds will need some sort of modifications to clear the water passage at the front of the intake adapter. You can do this with a die grinder or a hacksaw in a lot of cases, and I will also be offering a machining service for some of the intakes if that turns out to be required.
-
Hi Jay. Maybe I missed it, but what kind of threads are you planning for where the upper manifolds bolts to the bottom manifold and the valley pan? Just tapped into the casting or some sort of steel insert?
-
I think I will send the base plate, it is a expensive part and you get one chance. The base alone is almost 500 bucks so it is not worth the risky business of possibly destroying the lower plenum....Jon
-
Hi Jay. Maybe I missed it, but what kind of threads are you planning for where the upper manifolds bolts to the bottom manifold and the valley pan? Just tapped into the casting or some sort of steel insert?
Right now I'm just planning to tap directly into the aluminum casting. I've heat treated the manifolds to T6 so the material ought to be strong enough to hold some torque. I may change that after I get the first one machined and tested. If the bolts in the manifold won't hold 40 ft-lbs, I will have to go to inserts.
-
Looking like a good solid start!! Best of luck getting the machining worked out.
You'll have to post some video of that trunnion table doing its thing while facing the head interface surfaces!
- Bill
-
I think this list has been on various forums before but some of you may not have sen it. It's not complete but it interesting to see so many at once.
http://mustangtek.com/FordIntake.html
-
As I am stuck at home healing from my accident I find all of this rather exciting....I need to start researching 351C manifolds......Cory
-
In the Mustangtek website, go to the literature section - there are at least three magazines with 427 SOHC articles, including, interestingly one with a clear valve cover.
-
Hey Jay how about flashing LED lights or scrolling letters like in the back of an RV inside your clear covers that would be like fast and furious LOL
-
The machined surfaces look great Jay! The cast surfaces look good to me also. But I'm more of a cosmetically challenged, chrome don't get ya home kinda guy.
Perhaps a coarse glass bead and a clear coat of VHT?
Back when cattle guards and cross walks were painted on, I used to get the cheap glass beads that were sprinkled in the wet paint. They were coarse and seemed to be tougher than the regular metal finishing glass beads.
Maybe for a slight upcharge you could offer a silver or clear powdercoat?
-
I would say fine grade black beauty would give the same effect, I use it for cleaning aluminum semi trailer parts that get really nasty then coat with clear auto paint in matte or flat. Turns out nice and is way cheaper than bead blast. Before I coat engine parts I run them through the dish washer to remove fine particulates then spray fairly quick before corrosion has a chance to set in......Jon
-
I use the beads that are in the White paint
on the roads and they give a Surface like
a new intake
If the aluminium parts is dirty i first blast them
with ......dont know what its called in English
but its some kind of crushed slag
it gives a wery White and coarse finnish
then i glasbead it and it kind of polish
the Surface and leave a Surface that easy to Clean
Its importand to Clean out the blasting cabinet
from all the slag beacuse if it mix with the beads
it destroy the Surface
I know a long bad spelled message but we have a heatwave
here and im totaly exhausted
-
Both castings in the first photo were shot peened at the foundry, but the darker one was also heat treated prior to shot peening. So I think I need to do something to improve the appearance of the intakes, because as is they are too dark. I've never heard that glass beading opens up the pores and reveals defects on a cast aluminum part; are you sure about that Doug? Glass bead blasting has been done on cast aluminum parts like intake manifolds for years; I can't imagine there's any problem with it. After I glass beaded the one casting, its appearance improved dramatically and there weren't any defects visible from the process. In any case though, I don't plan on doing that kind of thing myself, my blast cabinet is definitely not up to that drill. I just need to find out what should be done...
Jay, Just use a #4 glass bead and it will give you the exact finish you want.
I will get a item # but the stuff I have I was told its what Edelbrock uses in foundry . . .
-
Thanks, I'd like to have that item number. If Edelbrock uses glass beads on their manifolds, that's good enough for me. Although I have been investigating some chemical dip options over the last few days...
-
air pressure is key to not crushing/fracturing the glass beads, whatever size you use. It will take longer with less air pressure, but the finish is smoother, and no glass imbedded in metal to worry about coming off in the fuel wash down and ruining the valve job, or ring seal. Some steel shot will give a smooth and shiny surface, also if the size and pressure are correct.
Now when do we make the deposits? LOL. I still want 2 ea. If you make a boo boo on one, I sure would be interested in obtaining at least one side to use to make a venturi for flowing heads with. Will pay for it. Joe-JDC,
-
Thanks, I'd like to have that item number. If Edelbrock uses glass beads on their manifolds, that's good enough for me. Although I have been investigating some chemical dip options over the last few days...
The course beads give it kind of a sparkle~new appearance.
couple pics of my Tunnel Wedge after. Kind of poor photo's.
I have been in and out of hospital last few wks so will try to get the item number when I can.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v513/CalypsoCoralBoss302/1966%20F100%20482/Engine/IMG_0184_zpsc60f2a07.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v513/CalypsoCoralBoss302/1966%20F100%20482/Engine/IMG_0183_zps010723da.jpg)
-
Thanks guys, great info - Jay
-
Got my fixtures finished up today, a little behind schedule but still moving forward pretty fast on this. Here's a photo of the second operation fixture block mounted on the trunnion table. The top outline of this block fits inside the center access hole of the manifold, indicating it with respect to the fixture:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/OP2fixt1.jpg)
Here's the manifold sitting on this fixture:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/OP2fixt2.jpg)
And here's the manifold with the fixture "top" bolted in place. This is another aluminum piece that bolts to the bottom fixture, and sandwiches the manifold between them in order to hold it securely for machining purposes:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/OP2fixt3.jpg)
While the fixtures were machining I was busy writing the first programs to machine the manifold, so I will kick that off in the next few minutes. There's a lot of sub-programs to write, but I suspect I'll make a serious dent in the second operation machining procedures by the end of the day Sunday. More photos Sunday night...
-
Jay, I suspect your heat treater is using a 2 stage heat treat in air and a liquid quench at the end of the solution heat treat? That's the dirty option.
You could source a vacuum heat treat utilizing a helium quench. This would eliminate the post processing required for the look. Parts would come out of the furnace looking bright virgin silver. Cost will be higher, but that depends on the cost of blasting. A single furnace would do both heat treatments (solution and precip) required for T6 in a single run as well. For cost purposes, you would likely need a high number of parts to maximize the load.
Not sure what options you have where you are or near your foundry.
-
That's right Jim, its a T6 solution heat treat, so the parts are quenched at the end. My foundry outsources this service to a heat treat company, and they happen to be within a few miles of me. The cost I've been quoted to heat treat the manifolds in quantities of 50 is really nominal, about $7 per manifold. Any idea how much more expensive the helium quench heat treat would be?
One option for cleaning up the manifolds after the normal solution heat treat is a chemical dip; I've got one of the intakes at a local company now and they are looking at the options to brighten them up after the heat treat. Right now I'm thinking that the normal solution heat treat followed by a chemical dip might be the most cost effective option...
-
I see the project is proceeding as planned Jay, looks like you are getting close. I guess an intake, adapters and water pump manifolds are going to be my next project. This month's is getting some cash to Barry for my head upgrades, by the time you get it all worked out I should be ready to start sending you some cash......Jon
-
I don't think you could find a source for vacuum heat treating that could come close to $7 per manifold. I'm guessing 5x to 10x that number, depending on the size of the furnace, the age of the capital involved and the industry the source is in. That heat treat is common in my business (aerospace), but those guys get real comfortable charging aero dollars.
I think your current path is the most cost effective.
-
OK, that's kind of what I figured. Thanks for the input, Jim.
-
It has been quite the CNC weekend here, but this lump of aluminum is finally starting to look like an FE intake. I spent most of the day Saturday and all day today writing the programs and running them very carefully with the CNC machine, to try to catch any major mistakes before they happened. After writing the first programs yesterday afternoon, I set up to run the code and the very first thing that happened was I had a typo in the code, and didn't catch it until my 1" end mill just about bored through the rear end rail of the manifold >:( It was on a rapid downstroke of the tool and even though I had my finger on the Feed Hold button of the mill, I couldn't stop it in time. Just a cosmetic problem, but still... Then, a couple of operations later the same thing happened again, this time with a 1/2" end mill. Damn typos...
Despite these issues I made progress all day yesterday and today on the intake. I was going to put together a video of the manifold turning on the 4th axis, but I haven't had time to put that together yet. So here are some pictures. The first two pictures show the intake in the CNC machine:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/OP2_1.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/OP2_2.jpg)
Note on the second picture that the manifold has to be positioned directly under the carousel tool changer for some of the operations. Towards the back of the tool changer you can see a 1 1/4" roughing end mill, along with some fairly long drill bits. Those got in the way during various operations while I was machining the manifold. Fortunately I didn't crash the manifold into any of the tools, but several times I had to stop, reposition the tools in the carousel, and then re-write some code to allow for the change in tool position. There's a couple of operations where the manifold just barely sneaks between two of the tools that are hanging down, but as long as it doesn't hit them, there's no problem. The issue isn't relegate to the manifold hitting the tools, either; when the manifold is positioned upside down the trunnion table tends to get in the way. See the photo below:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/OP2_3.jpg)
Despite all this, and some other minor machining errors, I was able to get the manifold largely machined this weekend. In order to finish the head and 351C manifold surfaces of the intake I need a facing mill, and I don't have that yet; I should be getting it this week sometime. But by the end of the day today I wanted to test fit the intake on my mock-up engine, so I ended up machining the mating surfaces with a 1" end mill, and leaving .062" of extra material on each surface. That is the exact thickness of a gasket, so I figured I would test fit the manifold on the engine with no gaskets in place.
I finally got all the required machining operations done earlier this evening, and took the manifold off the fixture. Here's a couple photos of it sitting on the engine:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/onmtr.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/onmtr1.jpg)
It fits beautifully! Even the distributor dropped right in, and I have that hole tightly toleranced at the moment so I can move it around if necessary. I can't tell you how happy I was when I measured the height of the valve cover rails and found them all to be within .002" of the height of the rails on the head. I had been worried that there would be some major issue with fit, but thankfully those worries proved unfounded. I told my wife that I felt like I'd given birth, but she just shook her head and walked away :D
Just for grins I dropped a few of the 351C manifolds I have here onto the adapter to see how they looked. The first photo shows the Edelbrock Torker 2; you can see that the bottom of that manifold will have to be cut or machined in order to fit all the way forward, because the manifold base hits the water jacket passage of the intake adapter:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/torker2.jpg)
Next I put the Edelbrock 2991 351Y (Y is for Yates) intake on. This intake will require a slight modification to the machining of the intake adapter, because the ports are raised compared to a stock 351C port location. But there's plenty of room on the adapter for that. The intake will also require a different bolt pattern on the adapter; again, not a big deal.
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/Ed2991.jpg)
Finally I stuck the big dog, the Edelbrock 2865 Glidden Victor, on the adapter. I know a guy who has made over 800 HP with this manifold on a big 351C, so it is definitely capable of running the numbers. But you can see from the photo that this manifold will require even more machining on the adapter, and probably on the flanges of the intake too, in order to fit.
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/Ed2865.jpg)
For now I'm focusing on getting the machining operations completed for the intake adapter to mount the standard 351C manifolds. Next weekend I should get all the bolt holes and pushrod holes done, get all the flanges finish machined, and maybe start working on the ports. I'll post more pics as I get further along...
-
Is that last intake made for the 9.500" deck? Some of the newer 351 intakes are cast with extra thick intake flanges so they can be used on the 9.5, or milled down to use on the 9.2 Cleveland engines. I have one of them here that I am trying to make work on a Yates headed 427W. I would check the manifold before I would cut the adapter you are making. JMO, but check the specifications to see if it can be used both ways. Joe-JDC.
-
Thanks Joe, I think I bought that manifold for the short deck, but it sure is tall compared to the other Yates intake. You might be right about the flanges being machinable, because they are really thick on that one. I was figuring on doing that to minimize cutting the intake adapter...
-
Am I missing the boat again like when I thought a Cleveland intake had a distributor hole? What happens where the hole in the lifter valley is? Bear with me a Cleveland is a mystery to me, kinda like women well I know more about Cleveland engines than woman I guess. Engines have fuel and gas to make combustion to turn BTU into motion. Woman no clue LOL....Jon
-
No dist. hole or water in Cleveland intake thats one of the
good ideas with this adapter. Easy and fast to swap intake
Understanding woman is like fixing electronics on a 20 year
old Italian car. You cant think unlogical enough ;D
-
Am I missing the boat again like when I thought a Cleveland intake had a distributor hole? What happens where the hole in the lifter valley is? Bear with me a Cleveland is a mystery to me, kinda like women well I know more about Cleveland engines than woman I guess. Engines have fuel and gas to make combustion to turn BTU into motion. Woman no clue LOL....Jon
The big hole in the valley of the intake adapter is for an access panel; along with the manifold I will be providing a machined aluminum panel that bolts into place there, and seals with an O-ring. This is so you can pull the 351C intake, and then pull that panel to have access to the lifter valley. The hole at the back of the manifold is for a road draft tube or breather, and I'll also be providing a machined cover for that.
-
Got a question for you guys. I'm looking at more of the available 351C intakes, and some of them are listed for 9.2" deck factory block, while others are listed for 9.2" deck Dart, World, or SVO blocks. I was figuring a stock deck (9.2") block was a stock deck block; why would a 351C intake fit an aftermarket block but not a stock block, or vice versa? Thanks for any clarification on this - Jay
-
The dart,world,svo 9.2 block is is w type block not a c type
-
OK, thanks Chris. So please forgive my ignorance, but here is what I think I know about this. The W (Windsor) blocks are completely different than the C (Cleveland) blocks, and with respect to the intake manifold, have the water jacket running through the intake. Of course the Cleveland manifolds do not. I have been looking at the manifolds on the CHI site; see the link below. In the link, the first two intakes look like they could be made to work with my intake adapter. Now look at the fourth intake. This one says its for a Dart, World, or SVO block, but the manifold shown in the photo does not have a water jacket in the intake. Looks like I could make that manifold work with my adapter too. So is this just a bad picture on the web site? More to the point, is it correct to say that every intake manifold installed on a Windsor style block has to have the water jacket? Thanks for any clarifications.
http://www.chiheads.com.au/3v_manifolds.php
-
Looks like they may have used generic photos. I would think the winsor manifold would work, if it doesn't have the water cross over cast in it. The china wall on cleveland and windsor blocks have a different shape I think, which would not matter for what you are doing, unless it requires major surgery to clear the water cross over on the adapter. Rob
-
I am curious how the 351C gasket looks on the rectangular port...Can the base be blended on the top side to the oval port..?? Is the 2V port size a better fit...
I am looking for thoughts on dealing with the oval to rectangular port transition.I guess i need to lay a 351C 4V gasket on my Edelbrock heads and look......Cory
-
No i dont think its correct that every intake on 9.2 windsor style block has water. Some have water in the intake some have a external water crossover outlet. Thing i see on 9.2 windsor is you use sbf timing cover water pump and no water outlet on top of the block like the cleveland. I have build some of 9.2 windsor style block with cleveland style heads and i have always used external water crossover outlet but i have seen some with water in the intake at the track. I dont know how chi builds there intake but the pix do look generic. Different companies do different thinks i always have to call
-
O ya Jay there is no ignorance to forgive there is just so many different configuration of 9.2 windsor blocks and cleveland heads,and intakes its crazy it will make you pull your hair out. You have help me so many times,, i'm just happy to help out a little.
-
Click on this link Jay and look at my May 15, 2008 post.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/119417/thread/1210823674/Clevor+templates
The links denote Ford's recommendations on how-to adapt the Cleveland heads to a Windsor block. The part you need to see is where holes are drilled/plugged in the head's intake face and/or head side deck. In essence, whether it's an OEM "C" intake, aftermarket 9.2" intake or an intake for a 9.2" Dart, FRPP NASCAR block, etc.........one can pretty much use any such intake on any 9.2" block....given close attention to intake-to-block water transfer needs. That said, the same should be true for adapting pretty much any 9.2" intake to your FE adapter, again given close attention to water needs and some end machining.
'Course, now that I said that.....................LOL!
-
I am curious how the 351C gasket looks on the rectangular port...Can the base be blended on the top side to the oval port..?? Is the 2V port size a better fit...
I am looking for thoughts on dealing with the oval to rectangular port transition.I guess i need to lay a 351C 4V gasket on my Edelbrock heads and look......Cory
The plan is to handle the transition from FE port shape to 351C 4V port shape in the intake adapter. Depending on the 351C 4V intake, some port matching of the adapter or manifold may be required; not all of the aftermarket 4V intakes have a port shape that perfectly matches the 4V port. Some of them, like the Torker II, appear to be a little closer to the 2V port, although not quite that small, either. I'll have to kind of work that part out when I get to the CNC porting part of the machining operations...
-
Click on this link Jay and look at my May 15, 2008 post.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/119417/thread/1210823674/Clevor+templates
The links denote Ford's recommendations on how-to adapt the Cleveland heads to a Windsor block. The part you need to see is where holes are drilled/plugged in the head's intake face and/or head side deck. In essence, whether it's an OEM "C" intake, aftermarket 9.2" intake or an intake for a 9.2" Dart, FRPP NASCAR block, etc.........one can pretty much use any such intake on any 9.2" block....given close attention to intake-to-block water transfer needs. That said, the same should be true for adapting pretty much any 9.2" intake to your FE adapter, again given close attention to water needs and some end machining.
'Course, now that I said that.....................LOL!
Thanks Bob, that makes it a little clearer too. Looking at the CHI site I'll bet that their W and C manifold versions have the same runner design, and just use a separate water crossover to make the conversion to the W blocks. For me, that makes half as many intakes to worry about fitting to my adapter :)
-
I dont mind doing some port work.I do agree that each manifolds port is going to be some what different.I havent sat down and chosen a intake (351C) yet...I am still stuck in the house recovering from my injurys and thinking seems to be my new hobby as I cant sit in a chair for more than 5 minutes or go play in the shop....Cory
-
It may be a good idea to leave some port transition left un-machined. That way it can easily be port matched to any of the endless intake choices for Clevelands. Or at least maybe offer a "rough machined" version that allows the end user to finish hand blending and port matching...if you haven't already considered that.
Also, it occured to me that this would be an excellent starting point for a custom sheetmetal style or similarly made intake. The ports could easily be welded to the adapter or a simple flange made (another marketing idea) so it could be bolted on retaining access to the lifters without disturbing the rocker system.
Just a couple of random thoughts. I find this whole process fascinating.
-
Great minds think alike, Doug 8) I've already got plans to offer an unported version for anyone who wants to carve their own ports, and a sheet metal intake version which will feature straight out FE ports and a flange that bolts onto the intake which can be used as a starting point for a sheet metal manifold.
-
So last week I contacted a local metal finishing company, and took one of the manifold castings up to show them, along with a typical new Edelbrock intake. They took both intakes and said they would try to use one of their processes to brighten up my casting, so that it looked like the Edelbrock casting. Today I got the manifolds back; here's a photo of the dipped manifold, the Edelbrock, and one of the original castings:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/whiteman.jpg)
The dipped manifold is really, really bright, even brighter than the Edelbrock manifold. It almost looks like it got a coat of white paint! I didn't find it very attractive; what do you guys think?
When I picked it up I pointed out the differences between the dipped manifold and the Edelbrock manifold to the guy I talked to, and after giving the Edelbrock intake a good once over he pointed out that Edelbrock manifold looked a lot darker on the inside than it did on the outside. Kind of looks like the color of my heat treated manifolds inside, pointing to a shot blast or bead blast process to get that nice appearance on the outside. He didn't think that a chemical process could give the same appearance as the Edelbrock manifold, short of some kind of plating on the manifold. Of course I didn't want that.
This weekend a local friend of mine is coming over, and he happens to have some Alumi-bright, so he is bringing it along and I'll test that on one of the raw intakes. But I think that it may give the same appearance as the chemical dip on this intake. If that is the case, then shot or bead blasting the intake is probably going to be my best option to improve the appearance.
-
Hey Jay, I don't recall any brand names, but we have acidized dump truck boxes at work in the past. It WILL clean up any aluminum box/wheel/headache rack etc, but it does leave the bright white you describe. I would expect the same result from your buddie's stuff. It does look better than the dark gray though ;) Would powder coating be feasible? By the way, this project looks awesome so far. I could agree with the giving birth comment. Later, Travis.
-
The white looks terrible. I've seen some aluminum parts, automotive and non-automotive, in the past that had the same hue but I don't know what process caused it and failed to ask.
-
That looks like our tanker trucks after many washings with the acid that the wash guys use. It will eventually turn a polished wheel to a dull white color. Doesn't look to good, but will remove just about any thing that will discolor or stick to aluminum. My opinion is, I would rather have the dark finish, then the white color when the time comes to get one, and I do want one or two of those. :) Rob
-
Sorry to out your surprises :)
Bead blasting is great for appearance, but I've realized two things. First, the glass beading has to be clean or the discolored impurities will get embedded in the aluminum and cause the finish to be off. Washing won't remove it either. Second, it has to be thoroughly, completely and utterly scrubbed to guarantee that no beading has been left behind.
Given the smoother nature of shot, it doesn't carry the risk of embedding and can easily be blown out and washed off. It just doesn't leave the bright sparkly finish. Either way looks good though. In my opinion your raw casting looks like magnesium. It looks good, just not quite what people want in an intake.
-
Bead blasting is great for appearance, but I've realized two things. First, the glass beading has to be clean or the discolored impurities will get embedded in the aluminum and cause the finish to be off. Washing won't remove it either. Second, it has to be thoroughly, completely and utterly scrubbed to guarantee that no beading has been left behind.
I'm not too worried about leaving a glass bead residue on the manifold castings. For one thing, that is usually found to be a problem in a normal intake with runner passages that aren't easily accessible, and may contain grease or oil residue that could cause the beads to stick to it and come off later. Since this is a brand new casting, and every hole is completely accessible for cleaning after the glass beading process, that problem won't exist. Second, after glass beading the manifold will spend about six hours in the CNC machine, where it will be constantly soaked with coolant while all the machining operations are going on. If the intakes are glass beaded, there sure won't be any glass beads left after the machining operation.
Having said that, I think I'm going to try various media besides glass beads to clean up these castings. Maybe stainless steel shot or some of that black media would work as well or better than the glass beads. We will see...
-
Jay, if the black media your refering is a slag, it will leave a very ruff surface. Just a thought , how about walnut shells? I`ve seen manifolds blasted with the shells and it looks like the finish your looking for. No residue to imbed in the aluimium either.
-
A good point about the super short runner length and machining process and constant washing.
The drawback to walnut shells is the durability of the media. It breaks down very quickly. It is excellent for doing sheetmetal because of the lack of heat and warping tendancy of the other medias. I think steel shot will probably end up being Jays most cost effective route while still producing acceptable results.
-
Here's what a steel shot finish looks like on aluminum (Top of picture):
I CNC'd some intake adapters for a customer, and he went the steel shot route.
(http://i905.photobucket.com/albums/ac255/ottodyn/IMG_7040_zps302e68bb.jpg) (http://s905.photobucket.com/user/ottodyn/media/IMG_7040_zps302e68bb.jpg.html)
-
Thanks for the pics Bill. Did you do the shot blasting yourself, or have that done by somebody else? Nice machine work, by the way...
-
Hi Jay -
The customer did the blasting with stainless steel shot, in a standard blast cabinet. I was a bit sad to see my nice machined parts blasted, but he wanted everything to match the manifold.
This could be a viable option for your adapters.
- Bill
-
Was it the lack of a blasting step after heat treat that gave the Weiand and Offenhouser Manifolds thier look back in the old days ('80's LOL)?
Edelbrock intakes always LOOKED nicer hanging on the wall.
-
More progress this week, and in fact the machining operations are done, save the CNC port work. Also this week I had to develop a machining program to cut the bottom of the 351C intake, so that it would fit on my adapter. Here's a photo of the Edelbrock RPM intake in my smaller CNC machine, in the process of being cut, and another photo showing the modified manifold from a top view:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/cut351C1.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/cut351C2.jpg)
And here's a picture of the nearly completed intake adapter bolted by itself on the engine, and also a couple of shots of the 351C intake on top:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/feiamachined.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/351Cinstall1.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/351Cinstall2.jpg)
I still haven't finish machined the intake adapter flanges; I've been having some trouble getting the face mill to give me the right finish, so I have to work on that this week. Also I need to write the CNC porting programs and try them out; there will likely be some adjustments required there, after this first manifold is completed. But overall things are going reasonably well. Also this week I got together with a friend of mine who happened to have several different types of blasting media available, and also some of that Alumi-brite chemical, and we ran some tests on one of the manifolds. The Alumi-brite gave the same finish as the manifold I had previously had dipped, so I'm not going to go that route. For blasting we used some media called Black Diamond, which got the aluminum color back to the manifolds but left them looking more stockish rather than bright like the Edelbrock manifolds. We also tried something he had there called cut glass, and that got a little brighter, but the medium glass beads he had gave the best results. I have ordered some #4 glass beads from a blasting supplier and those should be here this week; we'll see how the manifolds look after that. I also got some stainless steel shot this week to try out, but it turns out that it is too heavy to be used in my siphon type blast cabinet, so I will have to find someone with a pressure pot cabinet to try that out. But based on the results from these tests, I'm confident that I can get a good finish on the manifolds with some blasting work. I also think I have a local guy lined up who can do it; it will add some cost to the manifolds, but probably only $20 or so.
At this point I am hopeful that by the end of next weekend I will have the machining procedures finished for the base casting, and can start machining a second manifold that will be usable on an engine. Also I need to get the machining programs written for the access hole cover, and for the road draft hole cover. At this point I think I can have the first usable intake finished in two more weeks. I'm looking forward to some dyno testing with one of these things :)
-
LOOKS WICKED ! cant wait to see some dyno pulls ...hopefully I can afford one !
-
I can see that the adapter is perfect for my purpose
I just have to make some short 45 deg. runners
to instal the throtle bodys
-
Jay, what is the carburetor flange height of this set up compared to the flange height of a FE RPM manifold?
Michael
-
Good question! Front carb height (Dimension A as defined by Edelbrock) for this setup is 5.875", and rear carb height (Dimension B) is 7.5". The FE Performer RPM is lower, at 4.875" and 6.0". From these dimensions the 351C manifold also appears to have a more pronounced slope to the carb pad than the FE Performer RPM.
As I get the Torker II and other manifolds modified to fit I will post those measurements also.
-
I started building a similar setup before Jay started this project. I cut the top off a Victor and added a 351c RPM airgap. The carb flange sits quite a bit higher than a standard RPM FE intake. I have a 67 Shelby hood on my Mustang and don't have much clearance under the hood scoop with a factory Hi-Po air cleaner and an extra short throttle body. It would not fit with a stock Mustang hood and carb. Jay's may be at a different height though. (http://i456.photobucket.com/albums/qq290/cyclonescott/100_4892.jpg) (http://s456.photobucket.com/user/cyclonescott/media/100_4892.jpg.html) (http://i456.photobucket.com/albums/qq290/cyclonescott/100_4891.jpg) (http://s456.photobucket.com/user/cyclonescott/media/100_4891.jpg.html) (http://i456.photobucket.com/albums/qq290/cyclonescott/100_5434.jpg) (http://s456.photobucket.com/user/cyclonescott/media/100_5434.jpg.html)
-
I know some guys that make heads.
The finish is from a combination of the alloy used - and stainless steel shot in a tumbler style machine.
Looking good BTW
-
Getting started on the CNC ports. I've worked on this all week in the evenings, and it has turned out to be much more time intensive than I figured it would be. I was hoping to be done with all the ports this weekend, but I'm still working on the first one today! Fortunately there are only four, as they are duplicates from side to side, but still it will take me longer than expected to get this done. Here is a shot of the first port, partially finished, still in the CNC machine. You can see at the lower side of the port where the roughing cuts were taken; the smoother cuts are working down from the top in this photo.
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/firstcncport.jpg)
-
Very nice....Is that the program to match up to the Edelbrock air gap .The Edelbrock 7564 air gap is the manifold I am thinking of using.....Cory
-
The port is designed to match up to the 4V Cleveland intake, but be undersized just a bit to allow some port matching if required. The Performer RPM is for the 2V heads, so the ports in the intake adapter are larger than the manifold's ports; the manifold may require some port matching. I am on the fence on that one, though; when I did all my intake testing it became very clear that unless you were really pushing the horsepower envelope, sometimes a port match doesn't do a lot of good, and may actually harm low end torque.
I'm interested in using that 351C intake too, so when I get the first intake adapter on the dyno I'm going to test it with the 351C Performer RPM, and may do a before and after test with port matching, depending on how the "before" test turns out.
-
Sounds good...I have only looked at the pics of the manifold.I was hoping it was somewhere in between a 2V and 4V port...I have a mild mannered 427 and don't think I need to go to a full size 4V port on the intake.Especially when I just have std size Edelbrock ports on the other side...The dyno testing should provide some interesting info....Cory
-
Two things you can always count on....
Figure how much a job will cost....then double it.
Figure how much time a job will take....then triple it.
That usually gets you in the ballpark >:(
-
Yep, funny how I keep having to re-learn that lesson LOL!
-
Looks great Jay. I have been away for a couple of weeks trying to figure out where to retire for good. On the CHI intakes, there are different bolt patterns for Cleveland and Windsor style heads used. You cannot interchance the Cleveland intakes because the bolt holes are located in different areas that will not allow slotting them to make them work. I just went through this with a Boss 185 3V intake/head combination and a regular CHI 185 3V head. The intakes are specific for the head and intended block usage. CHI made sure of that.
Are you going to test a stock Edelbrock RPM for the FE and a ported FE RPM against the Cleveland stock RPM and Ported Cleveland RPM? That would tell you lots about the viability of the intake adapter against stock FE intakes. Just more testing, LOL. Joe-JDC.
-
Joe, Thanks for the info on the intakes, looks like I'll stick with the Cleveland versions. On the testing I plan to run on my 428CJ engine first, because it is currently on the dyno and I'll be putting it in my "road test mule" soon. For that engine I have data on the port matched FE Performer RPM, but I'm not sure if I have tested that one with the unported RPM. I will at least test it with the unported 351C Performer RPM Air Gap, and maybe will port match that one too, depending on how the unported tests turn out. I also plan to test the 351C Torker II and 351C Weiand tunnel ram on that engine, although I don't expect to see big variations in the intakes because the engine is only 450HP engine.
Further on down the road I need to get some higher horsepower dyno mules on the pump to test more of the 351C intakes, but currently most of those engines need a little freshening up before they are dyno ready. Therefore most of the dyno testing will be a winter project. I'll be posting progress and results on the board as I progress on this, of course...
-
I just went through this with a Boss 185 3V intake/head combination and a regular CHI 185 3V head. The intakes are specific for the head and intended block usage. CHI made sure of that.
Joe, I'm the one who bought those heads from Brent while you were away. I'd like to pick your brain sometime on the combo.
Steve
-
No problem, just PM me at joedvick at swbell dot net. Joe-JDC.
-
I will have to send Jay my Cleveland Trick flow EFI intake anyhow for some machine work, maybe I will send the whole deal and he can check out the numbers on that combo also. I would be interested to see what he can come up with with that combo....Jon
-
I'm guessing that on my 428CJ that intake won't provide a big power boost over the others. The engine is cam and head limited; when I did all the intake testing for my book, on that engine all the good intakes were clustered at the top within 5HP or so of each other. The trick flow intake would probably be up there too.
Later on this year, when I get my 500 and 650 HP dyno mules back up and running, we might get a better indication of how the trick flow intake compares.
-
Here's some pics of the progress this week. The ports continue to take a lot of time to program, and they are kind of a cut and fit proposition to get them the way I want, but the last couple have started to look pretty good. First shot is a new tool that I needed to get around some corners with the cutting:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/lollipop.jpg)
Using tools like this I can do the porting without having a 5 axis CNC machine. Next is a photo of the manifold in the machine with the ports being cut, and finally a couple shots of the intake on the test engine with ports 1-4 done. Ports 1 and 2 have some errors, including breaking through into the pushrod hole in port 1, but ports 3 and 4 are pretty nice.
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/cutports.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/port3.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/ports1-4.jpg)
I need a couple more sizes of those special "lollipop" tools to finish up the ports, but I can get those this week. I also put port 5 in tonight, which was pretty easy because I could just mirror port 4 for that program. It looks like I will have to make a side to side adjustment on some of the 351C port openings in order to get both sides of the manifold to match up, but now that I have the first four ports programmed, making a modification like that is not too big a deal. Assuming I can get the tools I need this week, I feel pretty good about finishing up the ports next weekend, and that will basically cap off the machining operations. I've been modifying the programs as I go, so I should be able to plug another manifold into the fixtures and run the whole program after the ports are done. With luck, no further changes will be required and I'll be good to go with the machining operations. Without luck, which is more likely ;D, I may have to make a few more tweaks. But in any case, I'm encouraged by the progress. I'm thinking it won't be too much longer before I have a finished intake in my hands...
-
Look's great JAY ! Remember jay I got a Test Fe just down the street from you ! ;D
-
Nice job Jay. I could have used one of those lollipop mills for a four cylinder intake adapter job I did. I ran into similar undercuts, which had to be hand massaged after machining.
I'd love to hear more about how those tools work out.
- Bill
-
Neat how having the right tool speeds the process.
Do you intend to run the first one on an engine right away?
-
Neat how having the right tool speeds the process.
Do you intend to run the first one on an engine right away?
Yes, I have my 428CJ on the dyno, waiting for the first adapter. After I get done with the first one on the dyno, the engine is coming off and going into my '68 Mustang "rolling test bed", for road testing the intake adapter, the clear valve covers, and the CVR water pump adapters.
-
Cool! ;D
-
Nice job Jay. I could have used one of those lollipop mills for a four cylinder intake adapter job I did. I ran into similar undercuts, which had to be hand massaged after machining.
I'd love to hear more about how those tools work out.
- Bill
So far they have worked out really well. I bought a couple of much bigger ones several years ago, when I was doing the CNC porting work for the adapter plates I built for the high riser engine. Those had a ball diameter of 1.0", and a shank diameter of .375". What this meant was that I could effective cut a radius down to 0.5" and make an undercut of 0.3125". Since the corners of the ports in my high riser heads were 0.6" radius I was able to cut the whole port with them, and get a .300" slant to the port from top to bottom.
The small one shown in the photo of this thread is a .375" head with a .1875" shank. So I can cut down to a .1875" corner radius, which just happens to be the corner radius of the Edelbrock head ports (as mine measure, anyway). The downside is that I can only undercut up to .093" with this tool, and I have a 0.200" undercut that I have to make. When I bought that cutter I was a little concerned about how rigid it would be with only a .1875" shank, but the cuts I needed to make over the weekend showed that it was plenty rigid for my application. I'll be ordering a couple more cutters this week, with larger balls, to make the required undercuts all the way to .200". From the FE port to the 351C port the corner radius increases, from .1875" to .425" or more, so as the undercut gets larger, so does the radius, and the ball end of the cutter can get larger in diameter. I will need 3 different cutters to make the whole port, but at least it is possible without a 5 axis machine.
A bigger concern is that I'm up to 19 tools required for the operation with the manifold on the trunnion table. I only have a 20 tool toolchanger! Thankfully, I don't think I need any more...
-
Look's great JAY ! Remember jay I got a Test Fe just down the street from you ! ;D
Hmmm... Is your engine dyno-ready??
-
Ha Jay I have a new Wei/ 351 c tunnel ram with a common plenum & efi inj bunts welded in Your welcome to try it on your adpt. I Quit racing before i got to finish it Gord
-
Thanks Gord, I'll keep that in mind...
-
Just wondering, did you narrow the port at the transition, or did you move the pushrod bore over where it broke through? It would be a shame to lose cross section there, but as long as it can mate up to the widest FE cylinder intake port, I guess it wouldn't matter.
edit: Looking at the pictures closer, the pushrod hole seems fairly big, so hopefully you could just push it over a bit to still leave some blending area to mate with the head port.
You know, with offset rockers and lifters, coupled with a nicely set up runner system.....
Have you wondered about potential flow # increases? Or are you strictly looking at this from a "plenty of intakes to choose from" standpoint?
-
The issue with the pushrod hole was just a machining error. From the head, I wanted the port to come straight out about 3/4" before it started bending around to mate up with the 351C port. But on the first port I forgot about this, and just programmed a straight line from the inboard side of the FE port to the inboard side of the 351C port. So the straight line intersected with the pushrod hole and broke through. On the rest of the ports I didn't make that mistake, and the ports are the full width of the Edelbrock MR head port, less about .050" on each side left for port matching.
Since all the parameters of the intake can be adjusted via the CNC program, I could easily spread the pushrod holes apart to allow for a wider than stock port and offset rockers. Or, I could make the holes smaller to allow for a wider port. Or, I could deliver a custom manifold without any pushrod holes at all, and let the end user put them in where he needs them. All kinds of possibilities here...
-
What I would like to try/see would be a smaller pushrod hole that is elongated for pushrod travel, but just wide enough for heat growth. That would leave lots of room for angling the port for different intakes. Joe-JDC
-
If I am using the Edelbrock RPM gasket and a 4v intake would that be a good match with a stage x head ? Thanks Jay......Jon
-
Yes, that should match right up - Jay
-
Just a quick update on this project. Earlier this week I discovered, much to my chagrin, that ports 5-8 could not simply be mirror images of ports 1-4; the problem is that if you do it that way, the port 8 hole gets too close to one of the FE intake bolts, and overlaps the counterbore required for the allen bolt that is fourth back on the driver's side. So, basically the center of the 351C intake has to be shifted back just a little bit compared to the center of the FE intake adapter. This changes all the port configurations, on both sides of the intake.
So I spent the evenings and most of this weekend writing the code for the ports 5-8. I machined them today, and of course there's a few little tweaks that need to be made, and also ports 1-4 need to be modified so that the 351C manifold moves back. But the basics are done now; I just need to make some modifications to the programs and hopefully I'll be good to go. With the four day July 4 weekend coming up, I'm hoping to get the modifications made and the first "for-real" intake machined. I also need to get the center opening cover plate machined; working on that now.
Of course this is taking longer than I wanted, but maybe next weekend...
-
As Bill Conley mentioned to me via email this week, I am spending time now in G code hell LOL! Lots and lots of data entering and code debugging in order to get the CNC programs for this project just right. But having Thursday and Friday off this week really helped. I had more or less finished the programs for the whole manifold first pass, and needed to make corrections and get the remaining four prototype manifolds machined, so on Thursday I took the 4th axis off my CNC machine and put the first operation fixture back on, and started machining the bottom of the remaining four intakes. I made some changes to the code based on what I learned machining the bottom of the first intake, so the second prototype intake was the test, and it came out really well. On the other three prototypes I did some experimenting with tool selection and feeds and speeds, and finally settled on a production program that I think will work pretty well. I got all this finished up, and the last prototype manifold machined on the bottom, around noon on Friday.
At that point I needed a break from all this stuff, so I decided to start working on the access plate that covers the center hole of the manifold. I figured cranking out that program would be a 2-3 hour job. Unfortunately, it turned into a two day job, and I just got it finished up late last night. But the access cover and road draft tube hole cover that I built look pretty good; here they are bolted onto the first prototype intake:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/acccvr.jpg)
The picture doesn't really do them justice; they are nice looking billet aluminum pieces. I put the company logo in the middle of the access cover so that viewing the manifold by itself, it is visible, but when a 351C manifold is put on top, it is hidden. Here are some photos of the Torker, Weiand tunnel ram, and Performer RPM intakes bolted on with the access cover in place:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/acccvrtorker.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/acccvrweiand.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/acccvrprpm.jpg)
Today I'm working on finish machining the second prototype intake, which with luck will be usable on an engine. I doubt I will get it finished up today as I had hoped, but I should be able to get done sometime this week. The last thing I need to do is to make a couple more fixtures, one that indexes on the thermostat housing hole and provides a guide for drilling and tapping the holes for the thermostat housing and the water bypass hole, and another one that allows me to seal off the water jacket, pressurize it, and check for leaks. I'm hoping that I can get those fixtures built next weekend, and then I will have everything I need to be in production with these things. I'll post another update next weekend.
-
What seals the draft tube cover and the cover plate?
-
A big O-ring will seal the large access cover. I'm debating on whether I should also do that for the road draft tube cover, but if I do it might make sealing an actual road draft tube or breather a little dicey. I think I will be machining one of my prototype manifolds for an O-ring in this location and see how it works out...
-
Have you tried fitting a valve cover yet? Looks like it needs clearancing some for the lip of some of the cast valve covers. Maybe I am ahead of your program, but just a thought. Looks great so far! Joe-JDC.
-
You have a sharp eye, Joe, and you are absolutely right. When I test fit the first valve cover I realized that the rail needed to be cut into the body of the manifold more. I've already modified the code for that particular issue. All along as I have machined this first casting I've been test fitting and taking notes about what needs to be modified. I ended up with quite the list in the end, but hopefully the second manifold will get all those problems resolved.
-
Joe has an amazingly sharp eye to catch that!
It's looking really nice. That tunnel ram looks beautiful on there. Like it was specifically made for this application. I always thought FEs and Clevelands looked amazingly good with the open bottom tunnel rams. Coupled with the flathead, the 3 best looking engines Ford ever mass produced.
I think I would take a sawz-all to the center of that RPM though if I did it. It would look better and remove a couple more unneeded pounds, almost making it look like a dual plane tunnel wedge.
I'm not a huge fan of engines sticking out of the hood, but dang that tunnel ram looks sweet. I could easily see that sitting between the fenders of my '55.
-
One good thing about that Cleveland tunnel ram is that its relatively inexpensive. Made pretty good power in my dyno testing...
-
Will all this machine work need.to be done on any Cleave land intake or will a less radical intake take less work to mount?......Jon
-
I think every 351C intake will have to be modified to fit. The good news is that it isn't too tough, and you could easily do it yourself with a hacksaw and/or a die grinder. The issue is that the front rail of the 351C intake, that goes against the front rail of the 351C block, is in the way of the water jacket passage for the intake adapter. So it has to be cut out of there. You can modify the 351C intake yourself (which a lot of people have done over the years with the PSE intakes), or you can send it to me and I'll do it on the mill, probably for $75 or so. Haven't figured the time/price out yet...
-
Looking good Jay...I wonder if the bottom could be milled/cut off on the performer without worrying about the runners or bolt pattern moving.........
Still sitting at home healing up.....Cory
-
I think that I will speak for most of here when I say that " we can't wait for the dyno sessions to start."
-
Looking good Jay...I wonder if the bottom could be milled/cut off on the performer without worrying about the runners or bolt pattern moving.........
Still sitting at home healing up.....Cory
Hope you're doing better, Cory. I'm sure that machining away the Performer RPM bottom wouldn't be a problem; the casting isn't going to move much if that bottom tray is milled away. The issue is that there are two posts in the middle of the casting, between the underside of the manifold runners and the bottom tray of the manifold. So you can't just machine down both sides of the intake to remove the bottom tray; you also have to machine the bottom tray to remove the area over those posts. Probably not a big deal, but when I wrote the program to machine the intake I didn't bother to go that far. Maybe when I start doing the intakes for real I'll add that to the program...
-
Hi....I am slowly healing but doing ok..I was re-x-rayed last week and all the fractures in my pelvis look good.None of the other fractures affect my movement....I am walking around slowly and doing physio every day to build myself back up...I don't have the strength or desire to do much tho.....
I have looked at the performer as I will probably use one and am comfortable with removing the two rear towers...I will remove the floor as well.Between work and home I have all the equipment needed....The finished product would really show off your manifold....It will add to the WTF when people look....
I too am looking forward to seeing the dyno sheets on the manifolds.I'm not looking for HP but I hope the dyno says its a "happy" combo
Cory
-
I think that I will speak for most of here when I say that " we can't wait for the dyno sessions to start."
Me too, I only wish that I had a higher horsepower engine ready to go to test on. The 428CJ is going to be power limited because of the mild heads and cam. When I did all the testing on this engine for my book, all the real good manifolds clustered at the top within 5 HP or so of each other. I'd expect the same thing this time; it will take a 500-600 HP engine to really show off the differences in the intakes, and this engine is only about 430 HP. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to compare a standard FE intake like the FE Performer RPM with the intake adapter and the 351C version. Any power difference guesses out there? The standard FE Performer RPM will have an advantage in terms of the runners, because there is no port mismatch between the manifold and the head. Since the 351C Performer RPM uses 2V ports, there will be mismatch at the manifold and the intake adapter. Also the standard FE Performer RPM intake has a straighter shot at the FE head ports; the 351C manifold plus the intake adapter has a little bit of a jog in runners 1 and 8 because of the difference in port spacing between the two engines. On the other hand, the 351C intake plus intake adapter is taller than the standard FE Performer RPM, and it will be a true air gap design, rather than having the bottom of the runners exposed to the oil like the standard FE Performer RPM.
I'm actually looking forward to seeing how the Torker does; that design will not have a port mismatch since it uses 4V ports, and it is a nice medium performance single plane manifold. I'll bet it will make just as much horsepower as the Victor on this engine, and do better in the mid range. We will see...
The real fun will begin after I get my 446" 390 stroker freshened up this fall. I plan to do a whole bunch of 351C intakes on that engine.
-
For me, the big advantage is no coolant passages, pushrod, rocker assemblies, valve lash, timing, or distributor removal hassles.
=========
-
I maybe reading the pics wrong......What ports have you cnc'd in the manifold....The 351 RPM or the torker...
As you have everything there to view I will just ask.....What port will match up better with lower manifold ...2V or 4V....
I am using edelbrock heads with stock sized ports....
-
The manifold is machined for the 351C 4V port, not the 2V port. So the Torker, Weiand tunnel ram, and other 4V manifolds will be pretty close. The ports in the 351C 2V manifolds will be smaller than the ports machined into the intake adapter.
-
Thanks.....that's what I needed to know......Cory
-
I will need all the help I can get as I am loosing shop space and a place to work on things for now. Until I can arrange a place to rent everything is getting stored in a semi trailer. I am moving into an apartment so I am going to have to find a garage to rent when I move. I had a hard enough time convincing the building manager to let my dog in, I do not think big block Fords are.on the guest list LOL. Basically that means I will have to farm out operations that normally I would do myself bit I still have.my tools just no place to use them so Jay will get all the parts for dialing it in. He would know better how it all goes anyhow and a Trick Flow EFI intake is not a cheap part if you manage to screw it up.....Jon
-
That looks amazing Jay! I may not need my Dove Tunnel Ram after seeing this! LOL I can see another advantage to this as well. Look like you would be able to change out the lifters without getting coolant in your lower end. That would be nice! That 351 Tunnel Ram looks almost like the Dove with the D-shape runners in the plenum... Cool stuff!
-
That's the idea, Wes. You should be able to swap lifters without pulling the distributor or breaking the water jacket, and you can certainly take a look in the valley of the engine without even pulling the valve covers. And I've got a groove machined in the intake for a big O-ring, so that no sealer is required on the access cover plate. Also FYI on my 675 HP dyno mule the PSE intake + Weiand tunnel ram made the most peak torque, average torque, and average horsepower. It was down about 5 peak horsepower from the Dove manifold, but beat it in all other categories. And my manifold plus the Weiand tunnel ram will be cheaper 8)
-
Good to hear you got it all worked out Jay, now I need to save up for the intake and adapter. Also need un-drilled water pump adapters and I will be much closer......Jon
-
Very true Jay. Both are a great and unique intake to have. The Doves are just harder to find and very rare is all. Ill have to buy one of these from you Jay. Dove for the Falcon and yours for the 55 F-100.... Maybe if I ever buy a jet boat too LOL
-
The only real question I have is when can I get one...
-
Unfortunately the production date keeps shifting out because the development is taking longer than expected. Right now my best guess is that they will go on sale in September. Notice that this is my best "guess"... :-\
-
Looking good Jay! As always, nice writing and pictures of your progress on this project. I really enjoy it as others do I'm sure. Really like the valley tray, sure came out nice!
Any notes or info updates on the HR version? I know that is maybe a ways in the future... I'm in no hurry, but that would be the one I am most interested in. A semi finished version. ;)
-
Glad you like it, Thor. I will be pulling the trigger on the tooling for the high riser / tunnel port version when I order the first production batch of manifolds, probably mid-August. That would put prototype castings at the end of September, and it will take me a little time to get the machining programs worked out, but fortunately they will be mostly the same as for the medium riser version of the intake. I'm thinking maybe November for that version of the intake.
Are you interested in using the HR version as a start for a sheet metal intake, or did you have something else in mind?
-
Things didn't go exactly as planned this weekend, with a bunch of family stuff getting in the way of my work on the intake adapter. But I do have the second prototype machined up to the port section of the program, and decided to stop at that point for a test fit on the engine. I ran across a couple of problems that I had to address with some additional machining software. On the first intake I had not machined the valve cover rail wide enough, and the valve covers wouldn't quite push up far enough on the intake adapter to line up with the holes. I had fixed that in the program for the second adapter, but then ran across another issue. I was using Cobra Jet valve covers to test fit, and they have this little tab that helps retain the gasket in a couple of spots along the top of the valve cover rail; see the photo below:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/CJtab.jpg)
The tab sticks below the gasket, and when I tried to bolt on the covers the tabs kept them from seating all the way on the intake. The fix was to machine a little slot in the intake to allow clearance for this tab, as shown in the photo below:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/tabclear.jpg)
But now I'm wondering whether I shouldn't machine that slot along the entire valve cover rail, rather than just where the tabs on the CJ valve covers are. I kind of hate to do that because I wanted to leave as much room above each port in the casting as possible, to allow the port to be raised if necessary, but at the same time I have no idea if some of the other covers out there have these tabs, and if they are in different locations. I wouldn't want to had someone try to bolt on a pair of valve covers and not have them seal correctly. Right now I'm leaning towards machining the slot the whole way just to eliminate potential valve cover clearance problems. Any comments on that?
I also ran across a problem with getting my Crower roller lifters in and out of the lifter bores with the manifold installed. I had discovered this problem on the first manifold, and had made some changes to clear away some material under the manifold to address this issue, but first time through on the second manifold I hadn't removed enough material, so the roller lifters still could not be installed; the tie bar assembly got in the way. I made a modification to the program and took off some more material, and finally then everything worked. Here's a photo of the underside of the manifold, showing the stepped machined surface. The step that took more material off the manifold is what was required to make sure that the lifters could be replaced with the manifold installed:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/liftrclr.jpg)
I tried the Crower roller lifters in all positions, and could get them into place without much trouble, so I'm satisfied at least that the Crowers can be removed and replaced with the intake adapter installed. However, it is not clear to me that other brands of roller lifters will be able to be removed with the manifold in place; I'm going to have to do some test fitting on the manifold to find out. I think I have a set of Comp Cams roller lifters for the FE here, and I'll give those a try. Flat tappet lifters are no problem to remove, of course, but the roller lifters with their tie bars can have a clearance problem.
After getting the manifold installed on the test engine I also reassembled the valve train to check the pushrod hole location, and everything looks pretty good there. Right now the pushrod holes are 5/8" diameter holes, but I was thinking about elongating them, making them oblong, to give more clearance towards the rocker arm and towards the manifold. The downside of this is that if I did that, they would be difficult to sleeve. With the round hole, if someone was porting one of these manifolds and broke into the pushrod hole, they could just seal it up by sleeving the hole with a thinwall 5/8" OD brass tube. However, if I made the hole oblong, then sleeving it would be a much more difficult proposition. There'd be lots more pushrod clearance with an oblong hole, though. Any thoughts on the tradeoffs there?
Finally, today when I was installing the cam and lifters with the manifold in place I couldn't help but think about how much easier it would be to change cams with a two piece timing cover. I've been thinking about this as a follow on project to this intake manifold. At the risk of having Bob (machoneman) call me "Pro-Stock Paul" again, do you guys think I should pursue a project like that? With the two piece timing cover you would still have to pull the valve covers and valvetrain, and distributor, to get the cam out. You would also have to break the water jacket when you took off the water pump. But you wouldn't have to break the intake free and reseal it, and you wouldn't have to pull the harmonic balancer to get the timing cover off, you could just pull an access plate (that would seal with an O-ring) to get at the top timing gear and cam. Thoughts, good or bad, on this?
I keep thinking I'm almost done with this thing, but it keeps dragging on just a little longer. Maybe next weekend...
-
Pro Stock Paul 'Bob' sez......go for it! LOL
-
Jay the "Mad FE Scientist" B asks his assistants "Thoughts, good or bad, on this?"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH97lImrr0Q
====================
-
Jay - all is looking good. From my personal point of view I have 2 wishes. 1)enough meat on the top of the ports to be able to port match to B/T medium riser heads. 2) on pushrod hole location - (selfish view) my heads have wider valve spacing, so would LOVE to see the intake holes offset away from the port. realize this may not be in the best intrest of your programs - but maybe a "special" version available on request? HA!
-
I would prefer a 1/2" hole elongated for pushrod holes, but that is a lot programming. When you get to the point of selling the part, will it be possible to tailor the program a slight amount for those who want something different? Maybe a 9/16" pushrod hole? Stock port dimensions for custom porting? Joe-JDC.
-
Moving the pushrod holes around would take some programming but I would be willing to do custom versions of the standard manifold for specific applications. I could move the hole locations, or do a narrow pushrod hole, whatever. I guess I'll get the basic one done with normal 5/8" pushrod holes and then do custom versions depending on what people want.
Also I'm pretty sure there is plenty of meat around the ports to match up to the Blue Thunder heads.
-
As neat an idea as that is, especially coupled with your intake adapter, it would be so much more useful if they made upper cam gears that were adjustable like lower gears are.
-
Moving the pushrod holes around would take some programming but I would be willing to do custom versions of the standard manifold for specific applications. I could move the hole locations, or do a narrow pushrod hole, whatever. I guess I'll get the basic one done with normal 5/8" pushrod holes and then do custom versions depending on what people want.
Also I'm pretty sure there is plenty of meat around the ports to match up to the Blue Thunder heads.
Great! I would want one of the regular ones, and at least 1 custom with narrow pushrod tubes that are elongated, and uncut ports to try to match up to a set of BT heads, and another one for custom port. You are breaking my piggy bank! Joe-JDC.
-
Piggy bank LOL, my projects have me sleeping in my Comet with no seats.or floor......Jon
-
Wait until you get a hold of a belt drive :)
The two piece timing cover is a good idea that has been "considered" by others :)
I really like the nice, lightweight die cast OE cover - all the aftermarket ones (Shelby, Roush, Genesis) to date have been comparatively crude and heavy sand castings. I think we could possibly take a factory cover, put a window in it, and fab up a cover plate to access the cam sprocket. Factory covers are still pretty inexpensive.
The infinitely adjustable upper cam sprocket has been discussed with a manufacturer and is somewhere on the "gotta get moving on it" project list here.
-
What process is the factory molded by? Certainly too smooth for sand cast, and not sure if injection molding was used then.I'm not an engineer, so I have no idea. Maybe die-cast?
Keeping it realatively thin like originals is best, unless going the blower/crank snout support way or the alchohol/nitro pump mount way.
And the Danny Bee drive has always been appealing, just could never justify the cost for anything I built. I may consider it for my next project though.
-
What process is the factory molded by?
Yep, Die Cast
Die Casting a part that big = REALLY expensive tooling :o
-
Jay have you checked out these cough, cough Pro-Comp 351 intakes? http://www.ebay.com/itm/351c-FORD-DUAL-CARB-MANIFOLD-SATIN-ALUMINUM-RACE-STREET-1500-TO-6500RPM/120927830179?_trksid=p2045573.m2042&_trkparms=aid%3D111000%26algo%3DREC.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D27%26meid%3D84669823623284082%26pid%3D100033%26prg%3D1011%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D4%26sd%3D120927830179%26#ht_23wt_904
http://www.atracingworld.com/NEW-FORD-351C-PROCOMP-3V--4V-SHEET-METAL-MANIFOLD.html
-
Here are a couple more intakes for the 351C
http://www.atracingworld.com/NEW-FORD-351C-3V-PARKER-FUNNELWEB-STYLE-MANIFOLD.html
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/edl-7564/overview/make/ford
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/tfs-51600111/overview/make/ford
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/wnd-1994/overview/make/ford
-
I haven't really checked out any 351C manifolds to speak of yet. All of those above look interesting, and I also like the 3V CHI manifolds. I suppose I could spend a fortune on 351C intakes and try them all out, but I'm not planning to do that anytime soon. I'm really just focused on getting this first intake programmed (which, as it happens, I have just about finished up). I think there will be plenty of time to mess with the intakes later...
-
Last week Bill Conley was kind of enough to send me this reminder of where I've been for the last several weeks:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/G-Code Hell.jpg)
It dragged me out of GCH for about 30 seconds, which was nice ;D Then I went back in for more punishment. I finally emerged last night at 1:00 AM, when the first decent intake manifold came off the CNC machine. This one still has some problems; there are some lettering errors, one spot in the thermostat housing where I inadvertently ran a tool into the manifold, and some other things. But overall it isn't bad, and it would be usable on an engine. Today I spent some time doing detailed measurements on the manifold, checking the fit with some of my 351C intakes, etc. I made some minor program modifications around the valve cover rail area and in some other spots. And then at 3:30 this afternoon I loaded another casting onto the machine and punched the button. This one should run all the way through with no issues, and hopefully it will be perfectly machined when it comes out. Crossing my fingers...
Here's some photos of the one that came off the machine last night. This is the third manifold that I've tried; the first two have machining errors that make them unusable on an engine. Here's a shot inside one of the CNC ports, which really took me quite a bit longer to program than I had anticipated.
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/cncport.jpg)
I did discover one problem with the ports along the way. The position of the pattern for the cast port for cylinder 7 is off just a little bit; here's a pic of that port, where you can see the upper left corner is still as cast, rather than machined:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/coreprob.jpg)
In the immortal words of Maxwell Smart, "Missed it by THAT much!" Fortunately the port cores are about the simplest part of all the core parts, and I can get that core box modified before I cast the first production run of manifolds. In order to test a new core, I've taken some of the sand cores that the foundry gave me and modified them by sanding away that upper left corner. I'm going to get another two or three manifolds cast with these modified cores to make sure that they will fix the problem, and then I'll have the core box modified to reflect the change.
I've been really struggling the last few weeks over the pushrod holes. I wanted to make them work for low riser and medium riser pushrod spacings (2.0" and 2.10", respectively), but still leave a decent wall between the pushrod hole and the port so that people who are port matching don't inadvertently go through into the pushrod hole. I talked to Barry R and Blair P about this issue; I wanted to go with an oblong hole, but this would make it more difficult to sleeve the hole if you did happen to break through when porting. A round hole, of course, would be much easier to sleeve. Now in the past, I've actually done some sleeving with oblong tubes; in fact I built a special arbor a while back that would allow me to take an aluminum tube, squash it in the vise a little, and push it onto the arbor, which was an oblong shape. Then I was able to sleeve the oblong hole (that I had previously machined) in the manifold I was working on; I think it was the Victor I used in my Mach 1 back in 2005. You just tap the arbor in place with the pushrod tube installed on it, along with some JB Weld or Loctite or whatever, and the knock the arbor out from the other side. Anyway, the better fit to the pushrods with varying valve spacing that you get with the oblong pushrod hole won out; maybe I'll end up making an oblong arbor available for anyone who needs to sleeve these holes. And of course I plan to offer the pushrod holes in different locations for anyone who is running an offset rocker arm. So, maybe having to sleeve an oblong hole won't come up very much. Here's a photo of a few of the pushrod holes in the intake:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/prholes.jpg)
One good idea that came up on this forum a while back was to O-ring the road draft tube hole. I was already planning on O-ringing the center access panel hole, and had thought briefly about O-ringing the road draft tube hole too, but didn't really pursue that idea because I was concerned that the basket that fits into the road draft hole opening was too big to allow a decent O-ring, and still leave enough material to seal with a regular gasket outside the O-ring if necessary. But after it came up here I decided to look at this again, and it turned out that there was barely enough room if I used a 3.375" OD O-ring. So this manifold has been machined for one, and it looks like it will work out pretty well. Here's a pic of the manifold from the top, showing both O-rings in position:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/feia_top.jpg)
Finally here's another pic of this manifold with the covers installed. I ended up using button head capscrews on the covers because in one case, the 351C manifold interfered with the taller heads of the regular allen head capscrews. It's always something; thankfully the button heads solved the problem:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/feiacvrs.jpg)
The only thing I really have left to do, assuming the next manifold comes out of the machine looking good, is to build a fixture to drill and tap the thermostat housing holes and the water bypass tube hole. I should be able to get that done next weekend; then it will be time for the dyno...
-
Looking good! Sure looks like a lot of work! I hope it pays dividends on the dyno for you. What diameter is the oblong hole? 1/2", 9/16", 5/8"? I have squashed tubes before to make them work, also. Not an issue really if it is done correctly. Can't wait to see one for real. Joe-JDC.
-
I'm looking forward to having you stop by too, Joe, should be a fun night. The pushrod holes are 5/8" diameter, and extended in the middle 0.300" to get the oblong shape. I'm not looking for big numbers on the dyno, just hoping for parity with an FE specific intake. As long as I can get that, the advantages offered by the design of this intake will make it a pretty attractive option.
-
How do the oblong holes help with the wider valve spacing on MR heads when the oblong hole is vertical and not horizontal? Am I missing something obvious here? Also, the bolt holes look like they get real cozy with the number 1 & 8 port. Are you worried about being able to get a good seal there with high vacuum?
The finish quality looks great....and really shows what all manufacturers go through to produce a quality product. At least the ones that DO produce a quality product. I salute your unrelenting pursuit of perfection. It really shows in your finishing touch-ups. Once you get that code set, I think I would back it up on 3 external hard-drives, kept in a safe.....with an armed guard ;)
-
Doug, on the pushrod holes the situation is like this: Standard FE valve spacing is 2.00", and medium riser spacing is 2.100". Interestingly enough, my Edelbrock heads split the difference at 2.05". Anyway, I wanted to use the medium riser spacing for the pushrod holes because that would allow for the widest port. But this leaves the pushrods towards the inboard side of the holes for a standard FE head. This would be fine, except that as I'm sure you know, the pushrods don't stay in a fixed location during valvetrain movement; as the rocker arm moves, the pushrods move towards the top and bottom of the hole in the intake. With a round hole, and the pushrod moved towards the port, there isn't much room for the pushrod to move towards the top and bottom; it starts to hit the curvature of the pushrod hole.
However, if I make the hole oblong up and down, the pushrod can be biased towards the port side of the hole, and it will have more clearance when it moves towards the top and bottom of the hole. It is moving along the straight section of the oblong hole, rather than into a curved section of a round hole.
This is kind of hard to explain; I hope you see what I mean. It's all clear when the valvetrain is mocked up and you watch what is happening...
On the intake bolt holes, you are correct that the sealing area between the FE bolt counterbore and the 351C port is pretty small, but I think it is sufficient; it measures 0.110". There is not much to be done about that; the FE intake bolt hole locations are fixed, and the 351C 4V port locations are fixed. I have made the counterbore on those two FE intake bolts as small as practical, and in fact in those two positions the counterbores are oblong like the pushrod holes, in order to narrow them up and provide as much meat as possible between the counterbore and the port. Getting this dimension the same between the #1 port and the #8 port was a challenge, and I had to relocate the 351C intake bolt holes on the intake adapter a couple of times to make it right. One potential way to eliminate this as a consideration is to seal the intake bolt that goes into those two counterbored holes. If the head of the bolt has some sealer underneath and it prevents vacuum leaks into the bolt hole, then you would no longer be relying on the thin area between the counterbore and the port to seal; you would have the rest of the gasket area, which extends well around the counterbored area, as a seal.
Thanks for the kind words on the development work; it has taken quite a bit longer than I anticipated to get the machining programs right, but I think I am really close now. I've bought plenty of FE parts over the years that are substandard quality and don't fit, or leak, whatever, and I want to make sure that these intake adapters are better than that...
-
I see what you mean with the holes. I was picturing different valve spacing as needing a horizontal oblong. But moving the rounded part verticaly away from center effectively does the same thing, gaining additional clearance.
As for the bolt holes, as long as a stout gasket is used, it shouldn't be a concern. Also, I was picturing a very thin gasket in that area, which shouldn't be the case. Since the holes are countersunk, the gasket should retain its lateral thickness and strength in that area. Again, I wasn't thinking clearly about it. Maybe a small instruction sheet with suggestions thrown in with the delivered intake would help with any minor concerns.
-
Very nice work Jay. Big thumbs up for your persistence!
- Bill
-
We mortals peer out of our respective caves towards the mount and wonder if ever we dare such heights. Then we lower our eyes and shake our heads as reality sets in.
Congratulations on your achievement. It's really quite beautiful.
A bit dramatic but what the hell, you deserve it. ;)
-
Well, it sure has been a long time getting to this point, but finally today my efforts on this project culminated in some dyno data. The week started off inauspiciously enough, though, when my second CNC machine went down pretty hard on Tuesday. I needed this machine because my big one is set up to do the majority of the work on the intake adapters, and for the center access cover and road draft tube cover I'm relying on the smaller machine. Also, for the fixtures I need to drill the holes for the thermostat housing and pipe plug on the front of the intake, I had been planning on using the smaller machine. After troubleshooting it all week I finally figured out on Saturday that one of the servo motor driver cards had gone bad, so at least I know what is wrong now. But I didn't get the remaining access covers or the fixtures machined, of course. Next week I will have to see about getting a replacement motor driver card.
During the week when I was in the shop the big CNC machine continued to plug along on the fourth intake casting. Although the third casting was usable, I decided to wait for the fourth casting to actually put on the engine and dyno test, because the third casting still had some minor machining mistakes. But around 11:00 PM on Thursday, the machine finished the fourth casting, and it looked great. I pulled it off the machine, cleaned it off, and stamped it 001:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEIA_02.jpg)
Finally! I was really happy with the way it came out. Friday night I started the fifth casting on the big machine, and continued to work on the smaller one. But after I found the problem on Saturday, and realized that there was no way I would be able to machine the fixtures required to drill and tap the holes in the front of the intake, it seemed that I would have to wait another week to get the small machine fixed, build the fixtures, drill and tap the manifold with the fixtures, and then run the manifold on the dyno.
This morning when I woke up I decided I just couldn't wait that long. I decided to mark the holes in the manifold by hand, and drill and tap them by hand, just so I could get the manifold on the dyno mule. I was as careful as I could be and still got the 3/8" pipe thread in a little crooked, but the thermostat housing fit on the manifold so by noon today I was good to go. I decided to port match the manifold on the FE side to the Cobra Jet heads of the dyno mule, on the roof and the sides of the port, but not the floor. I test fit the manifold and marked it, and then did the port matching, which really involved only taking about .050" off one side of each of the ports. I also cleaned up all the CNC porting marks in the intake adapter ports with an abrasive roll; here's a before and after pic:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEIA_04.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEIA_03.jpg)
I decided to test the 351C Performer RPM first, and I knew there would be a big port mismatch at the manifold and intake adapter interface, since the intake adapter has ports sized like a 4V Cleveland and the Performer RPM has the 2V ports. I bolted the Performer RPM onto the intake adapter and flipped it over; here's a picture of the port mismatch:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEIA_05.jpg)
That is a pretty significant mismatch, and coupled with the other mismatch between the CJ low riser style ports and the medium riser ports in the intake adapter, I wondered how much this would affect the power production of this engine. The saving grace was that this engine is not really intake limited, it is cam limited, so I was hoping that despite these two big steps in each runner that the manifold would still perform well on this engine.
After getting done with the port matching and cleanup I installed the intake on the engine with some good sealer and gave it until 6:00 PM tonight to set up. Here's a picture of the intake adapter installed at this point:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEIA_06.jpg)
At 6:00 PM I hooked up the thermostat housing to the engine and filled it with water. This was cool, because with only the intake adapter in place I could look into the valley of the engine for any potential water leaks. Never been able to do that before LOL! Everything was sealed up nice so I continued with the assembly. Here's a few pictures taken along the way:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEIA_07.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEIA_08.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEIA_10.jpg)
When I got to the clamp holding the distributor down, though, I got an unpleasant surprise. The flat part of the manifold was not big enough for the clamp to fit like it does on a stock intake. Here's a picture:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEIA_09.jpg)
Dammit! A pretty minor issue to be sure, but still... What I will have to do is supply a custom billet distributor hold down with each intake. This will be no big deal; I can machine it at the same time that the access cover and road draft tube cover are machined, and there is room in the stock for the clamp. I suppose no one will object to a little more bling with their intake adapter LOL!
It was 7:30 and the truth was at hand. The engine was assembled with exactly the same parts as the last time I ran it in May, with the exception of swapping out the FE Performer RPM with the intake adapter plus the 351C Performer RPM. Timing, fuel, everything was the same. Even the atmospheric conditions were close. The engine started with no difficulty, and I warmed it up to the same water and oil temperature as the dyno pull in May, then ran the test. Here are the results:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEIAprpm.jpg)
Sheesh, you can hardly even tell the difference between them! I checked all the numbers and they look like this:
FE Performer RPM:
Peak Torque -- 483.9@3800 RPM
Peak Horsepower -- 431.3@5300 RPM
Average Torque 3000-5500 -- 458.9 lb-ft
Average Horsepower 3000-5500 -- 368.8 HP
FE Intake Adapter + 351C Performer RPM:
Peak Torque -- 485.2@3700 RPM
Peak Horsepower -- 427.3@5200 RPM
Average Torque 3000-5500 -- 459.4 lb-ft
Average Horsepower 3000-5500 -- 369.0 HP
These numbers are so close that I don't think you could tell the difference on the street or at the track. Boy, after all this if my manifold adapter had flopped on the dyno I would have been pretty unhappy LOL! But it did just about what I expected it to do, and maybe even a little better. Here's a picture of the engine taken after the dyno pull, with the 351C Performer RPM installed:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FEIA_01.jpg)
Next weekend I'm going to test the other two 351C intakes I have here, the Edelbrock Torker and the Weiand tunnel ram. I would expect to get similar results. In fact, I may do a cam change before I run those tests, because the hydraulic lifters really kill the power of this engine starting at around 5300 RPM, and it would be nice to see how it behaves up to 6000 RPM with the other intakes. Besides, I want to try changing cams without pulling the intake LOL! I have a Comp 282S and a Comp 294S sitting on the shelf. Decisions, decisions.
Also next weekend I'll post information on how to get on the list for purchasing one of these intake adapters, in case you are interested. Thanks to all you guys for the continued interest in this project!
-
That is incredibly awesome!
Josh
-
Pretty good numbers considering the port alignment (or lack of)...I look forward to the other tests...I still plan on buying two of them.....Cory
-
Woo-hoo!! Glad it all came together Jay :-) I bet that dyno data was gratifying to see. Very nice work. You can see the quality and attention to detail.
- Bill
-
Yeah, Jay! Hey, didn't know that the pushrod holes could be that big. Neat but I'd like to see one of those Parker Funnelwebs or really tall 351C single planes run up.
-
I'll get those manifolds tested, but not on this engine. This engine is cam and compression limited, and all the high power manifolds will look the same on it. You can see this if you look at the horsepower data for the 428CJ in my book. All the really good manifolds are clustered at the top of the list within a few horsepower of each other. So, there isn't really a good way to discriminate between them.
I need to put my 600 HP dyno mule back on the pump, and then start testing a variety of the 351C intakes. That would really tell us which manifolds work in a higher power application...
-
Thanks Jay. Yes, the motor under those intakes s/b pretty wild.
Have you thought about using a 351W or maybe a 351C ditzy hold-down instead?
They are only a tad longer than 1.25" or so.
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/mrg-9860?seid=srese1&gclid=CI20pbvP5rgCFSJqMgod7kEAGA
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/mrg-2502/overview/make/ford
Heck, a BBC unit might work too.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Moroso-SBC-BBC-Chevy-HEI-Distributor-Hold-Down-Clamp-/190826851758#ht_672wt_679
-
Thanks Jay for all of your applied knowledge and skill. I've been drooling over this adapter since you started the project. Keep testing and posting, and above all make sure I'm on the list for at least one! Rick Wanner
-
Thanks Jay. Yes, the motor under those intakes s/b pretty wild.
Have you thought about using a 351W or maybe a 351C ditzy hold-down instead?
They are only a tad longer than 1.25" or so.
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/mrg-9860?seid=srese1&gclid=CI20pbvP5rgCFSJqMgod7kEAGA
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/mrg-2502/overview/make/ford
Heck, a BBC unit might work too.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Moroso-SBC-BBC-Chevy-HEI-Distributor-Hold-Down-Clamp-/190826851758#ht_672wt_679
Those are good suggestions on the distributor hold downs, Bob, especially since I checked this morning and it turns out that I DON'T have room for adding a distributor hold down to the piece of aluminum I'm using for the access panel and road draft tube cover, like I originally thought I did. Thought I had more room than I do there; good thing I measured. So if I were to make a distributor hold down I'd have to start with a new piece of aluminum. I think I will order some of those parts for the other engines and see if they might work...
-
Looking good Jay. With the distributor hold down, is it possible to move the bolt hole a bit further toward the front of the adapter? That may give a bit more clearance.
Looking forward to further testing and also development of an adapter to work with BT HR heads.
-
Looking good Jay. With the distributor hold down, is it possible to move the bolt hole a bit further toward the front of the adapter? That may give a bit more clearance.
That is a really good suggestion; I'll look at that - Jay
-
Jay,
Any measurement taken on carb plate height of the 351 manifold fitted to your adapter?
Compared to FE rpm performer?
I think this adapter is fantastic, just hopping i can fit it under the hood!!
-
It is taller than a normal FE Performer RPM. Front carb height (Dimension A as defined by Edelbrock) for this setup is 5.875", and rear carb height (Dimension B) is 7.5". The FE Performer RPM is lower, at 4.875" and 6.0" So the carb would probably sit about 1 1/4" higher with the intake adapter and the 351C Performer RPM.
The 351C Edelbrock Torker may actually be lower than the 351C Performer RPM. I will measure it and also try to provide dyno test data on that manifold this weekend.
-
I am sorry I haven't read the whole 19 pages, but are you adding an oil fill tube for guys with no holes in their valve covers?? or will we need to get new covers.
I may still be interested in one of these :)
Rick
-
I was hoping to be able to put an oil fill tube in the intake, but there just wasn't room. Alternatively you could put a breather tube with a cap on the road draft tube opening, and fill the oil there.
-
sounds like a plan,, and a pcv valve too would fit there, thanx
rick
-
First, glad you got it going. Second, I'm pretty amazed that the port mismatches, which are substantial, didn't affect the power negatively. It kind of throws a hook in the whole "port matching" thing and makes you wonder if you're really gaining anything by doing it on most street engines. Obviously for bigger HP applications where you're pushing the intake tract flow it would be beneficial.
As for the hold down....if you machined a small simple flat spot where the rear of the hold down goes, wouldn't that work just fine? It only needs to be big enough to allow the tail to sit level. Maybe a 1/2" wide and .100 deep or less would do it I would think. It doesn't have to be clear down near the base, as the bolt will still hold the tension against the distributor. Or is the aluminum too thin to the water port there? Just a thought.
-
Besides, I want to try changing cams without pulling the intake LOL! I have a Comp 282S and a Comp 294S sitting on the shelf. Decisions, decisions.
Also next weekend I'll post information on how to get on the list for purchasing one of these intake adapters, in case you are interested. Thanks to all you guys for the continued interest in this project!
try the 294S with the tunnel ram,, I will be using my custom grind cam I got off Paul, which is pretty close to that cam when I build my stroker using your adapter and a tunnel ram :)
-
As for the hold down....if you machined a small simple flat spot where the rear of the hold down goes, wouldn't that work just fine? It only needs to be big enough to allow the tail to sit level. Maybe a 1/2" wide and .100 deep or less would do it I would think. It doesn't have to be clear down near the base, as the bolt will still hold the tension against the distributor. Or is the aluminum too thin to the water port there? Just a thought.
Machining a flat spot is another good idea; I'm worried about hitting the water jacket passage there, but I could sure try that on one of the test manifolds and see what happens. Maybe I've got room there...
To me, the port mismatch issue mirrors what Ford did on the 428CJ engines. They had a pretty large port mismatch at the intake, because the 428CJ intake had MR ports, while the 428CJ heads had LR ports. Despite all the theories about poor flow across a boundary like that, in some cases the engine just doesn't care. I would expect to see this be a problem on a higher HP engine, but not on the 430 HP dyno mule that I am currently testing on.
-
If it works, I'll just take an adapter in lieu of royalties ;D
-
You're dreamin', buddy ;D
-
So this weekend I was going to change cams in my 428CJ and run some of the different manifolds with it, but unfortunately I ran into a snag. I ran my DCR calculations with this engine and decided that my Comp 294S cam would be a perfect match for this engine, so I dug the cam out for installation. Then, I tried to dig out the lifters. But I couldn't find them! I looked high and low; I was sure I had another set of new solid lifters in my stash upstairs. But no joy, and an hour of searching yielded nothing. So, I will have to get lifters this week and save the cam installation and further dyno testing for next weekend.
With a little extra time on my hands I worked on the distributor hold down issue. Earlier this week I ordered a Mr. Gasket 351 and 429 distributor hold down to see if they would work. The Mr. Gasket 2502 for 260-351 engines worked, but it had to be mounted upside down to work. Not the ideal solution. Next I looked at moving the mounting hole, but in order to move it far enough to clear, the stock distributor hold down bracket was sticking pretty far over the front of the intake. Finally I looked at a machining solution, and this is the way I ended up going. I had been a little worried about hitting the water jacket by machining in this area, but it turned out I had a ton of room. This morning I wrote the program to machine the area near the clamp flat, and tested it on one of my practice manifolds. Everything looked good, so I put FE intake adapter #002 back on the CNC machine and did that one. Everything looked good; here are a couple of pictures:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/dhd1.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/dhd2.jpg)
This is a good solution, because I wanted the stock parts to fit the intake with no issues. Thanks to Doug for that idea; don't know why I didn't think of it myself LOL!
Also, now that I have this last issue resolved and all the machining operations finished up I am confident that I can produce these intake adapters. See the ad in the vendor classifieds for more information on when I will have them available, and how to get on the list.
Edit: Forgot to mention that I measured the intake adapter with the 351C Edelbrock Torker in place. It is actually a little shorter than with the 351C Performer RPM; measurements are 5.625" and 7.375". So, about 1/4" shorter overall.
-
I noticed on the 351C tunnel ram the floor is cut off,, guess that's needed for all of them?
-
Actually no, you don't have to cut the whole floor away to fit, just the front part. But that bottom finned part of the tunnel ram is kind of heavy, and it was a fairly simply operation on the CNC machine to just cut it off, so that's what I did when I modified mine. If you wanted to keep most of the finned area, should be no problem.
-
looks so much better without it there I think..
-
I noticed on the 351C tunnel ram the floor is cut off,, guess that's needed for all of them?
He just did that to show off his cool cover plate ;)
But it does look much better that way. And why keep the extra weight? With some careful trimming, I'd think you could shed quite a few pounds off of the Cleveland intakes for use on the adapter. The intake ports aren't going to shift or move if you did.
-
yeah, it does show off the cool plate on the adapter for sure. just might need to do that :)
-
So, after a lack of solid lifters last weekend stymied my attempt at a cam change, I got busy this weekend to git 'er done. The plan was to leave the intake adapter in place during the cam change, and check out this particular feature of the adapter. Once the cam was changed and broken in, I could dyno test a few more 351C intakes.
The cam change was more or less uneventful. Although the adapter stayed in place, I still had to remove the valvetrain and distributor, and also remove the water pump and timing cover of course. That two piece timing cover with an O-ring seal would have been nice here, and would have saved quite a bit of time. The water pump removal was kind of nice because I'm using the CVR pump with my billet aluminum adapters, and they are O-ringed, so no gasket to scrape or any sealer to deal with on re-assembly. Here's a photo of the engine taken apart and the old Edelbrock Performer RPM cam coming out:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/cam_r.jpg)
Before installing the Comp 294S cam I took the time to read all the directions that came with it and the lifters. There have been so many flat tappet cam failures over the last few years that I wanted to make sure to refresh my memory on exactly what I should pay attention to. I used the lube that came with the cam to coat the lobes and the bottoms of the lifters, and engine oil to coat the cam journals and lifter bodies. I also went out and got some Shell Rotella T oil, which was recommended in the Comp instructions, and added a bottle of their cam break-in lube to the oil. The cam went in with no trouble and degreed at 106 ICL on the first try, which was where Comp recommended that the cam was run. When I buttoned the engine back up I decided to forego the factory timing cover and use a spare Shelby timing cover that I had here; more bling is good, right? The whole cam change process took me about six hours, working fairly leisurely.
After a cam change you'd like to have the motor fire right away, rather than having to grind on the starter for a long time and potentially wipe all the lube off the lobes and lifters, so I made sure I had the timing set just right before the break-in process. The motor fired instantly, and I kept it at 2000-2500 RPM for 30 minutes as Comp recommended. Oil temp rose all the way to 230 degrees during the break-in period, but that was more or less expected. After the 30 minutes were up I let off on the throttle and the engine settled down into a decent idle around 950 RPM. Pretty much sounded like the cam I'd taken out.
The springs that had been in the engine with the Performer RPM cam were left in for the break-in because they were single springs with dampers, about 105 pounds on the seat and 300 over the nose. After the break-in I wanted to swap to a set of Comp 930 springs, which have a higher seat pressure (around 150) and open pressure (around 375). After the engine cooled down from the break-in I went about swapping the valve springs. I was originally only planning to pull the valve covers and valvetrain to do this, but it dawned on me while I was getting started that I could easily pull the intake (2 fuel lines, throttle linkage, and 10 bolts) and access cover plate (10 bolts) and look at all the lifters to see how they fared during the break-in process. That was an advantage to my intake adapter I had not previously considered. Ten minutes later the valley of the engine was exposed and I was pulling the lifters to look at them; here's a picture of one of the lifters coming out, with a magnet through the pushrod hole:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/liftr_r.jpg)
I was happy to see that all the lifters looked pretty much identical, with a nice shiny annular ring around the outside, indicating (I think) that they were rotating in the bores. I left the valley exposed as I went around changing the valve springs, and afterwards when I installed the rocker arm assemblies and pushrods I was able to make sure that the pushrods were all correctly seated in the lifters. Finally I reinstalled the intake and access cover plate, and the engine was ready to run again.
Today I got started a little late, but by 2:00 PM I had the engine running again. I warmed it up and then went around and lashed all the valves, double checked the timing, and started the dyno tests. First test was with the 351C Performer RPM, and was basically a cam comparison, between the Edelbrock Performer RPM cam and the Comp 294S cam. I expected the Comp cam to be down a little in midrange torque and up at peak horsepower. I also wanted to run the engine at some higher speeds, because with the hydraulic Edelbrock cam the power kind of takes a nosedive after 5300 RPM or so, and I wanted to see how long it would hang in there with the new cam. Here's a chart of the dyno results:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/Cams PRPMvs294S.jpg)
The Comp cam was definitely down in the midrange, but really wasn't up too much at the high end. But the fact that the Comp solid cam would actually hold power out past 5300 RPM was encouraging; the hydraulic Edelbrock cam would never do that.
Next, I swapped on the Edelbrock Torker II intake. This took me just a little less than 15 minutes. Sheesh, what a cakewalk; I should have done the Great 351C Intake Comparo. As a single plane intake I expected the Torker II to be down at the low end and up at the top end compared to the Performer RPM manifold. Sure enough, that's what we got; here they are on the same graph:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/PRPMvsTKII.jpg)
The dual plane intake is better up to about 4600 RPM, then the single plane takes over. Looks just like a standard FE Performer RPM vs. the standard FE Victor. Finally, I swapped on the Weiand tunnel ram. This took longer than the Torker II swap, because I had to dig out my 660 center squirter carbs, fab up some throttle linkage, extend one fuel line, etc. But it was still only an hour. I installed the Weiand manifold base first, then added the plenum and the carbs; here's some photos of the manifold going on the engine:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/weiand_1.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/weiand_2.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/weiand_3.jpg)
I have to say that tunnel ram looks pretty cool on there. When I tried to go into the first dyno pull, though, it was not cool; the engine went really lean and wanted to die. I didn't know what the jets were in the carbs, so I had to pull them off to check, and it turned out they were really small, 66 jets in the front carb and 59s in the rear! I replaced all the jets with number 70 or 72, and tried again. It still ran a little lean going into the pull, but it didn't want to shut off anymore, and holy buckets did it like the fuel! Horsepower with the tunnel ram peaked at 465, 20 HP higher than the Torker II and 35 higher than the Performer RPM. The tunnel ram made more power than the Torker across the entire RPM range; here's a chart:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/TKIIvsWTR.jpg)
Here's all three manifolds graphed on one chart:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/351Ccomparo.jpg)
Looking at this data, you would want to run the Performer RPM intake around during the week, and then swap on the tunnel ram for the weekend's festivities LOL! I think with a carb and linkage setup ready to go and already installed on the tunnel ram, you could do the swap in 15 minutes.
Finally, I made a video of the rear of the clear valve cover during a 6200 RPM dyno pull; Jim Whitton had asked about this in another post, wanting to know if the oil level got really high. I didn't think that it did, but then again I had no proof, because I don't normally stand in the dyno room and watch while the engine is screaming along during the pull ;D So, I set up the camera, zoomed in on the rocker arms for #8, and took this video:
http://youtu.be/9vcWvp_DIWA
The oil level doesn't make it up to the clear portion of the valve covers, indicating that the factory drainbacks should be able to handle the oil flow even if the intake manifold doesn't allow for oil return (like a Victor intake, for instance). My intake adapter does have openings to allow the oil to return in that manner, but it looks like from this test that they may not really be necessary if you restrict oil to the heads.
Within the next few weeks I hope to have the machine work done on one of the adapters for an Edelbrock 2991 Yates style intake, and also perhaps the Edelbrock 2865 Glidden Victor with the Dominator carb flange. I probably won't run those on this engine, though; I will wait until I have a stronger engine available to really wring those manifolds out. When I do, I will post it on this thread.
-
Do you think if you had a few more jet changes with the tunnel ram you'd see more HP? How much did the slightly lean, but "dyno-able" 70/72 jets leave on the table in your opinion? Absolutely awesome test results and changing manifolds in 15 minutes?....ugh, we all dream of this midway through any standard intake swap/install/removal. :-D
-
I think the curve might have smoothed out somewhat at the top end with a little more tuning, but I don't think there was a whole lot more HP there. A/F numbers were in the ballpark on that pull, around 13:1.
-
Thanks for the video Jay. I'm now confident that with my rocker setp and restrictors in place, no provisions are necessary for additional oil return.
Since I have the heads off, I'll likely just clean up the factory returns for insurance.
-
And as they say--"a picture is worth a thousand words", so is a video! I like those valve covers for the dyno. Great information. Keep up the good work. Joe-JDC.
-
Thanks Joe, I'm actually starting to develop a fair amount of confidence in the valve covers. That cover was on the engine during the cam break in, and with 230 degree oil it did not discolor or stain, or melt or anything like that. The acid test will still be in the car, but they are looking promising...
-
That tunnelram torque curve looks really flat. Which manifold has the better average torque figure from 3000-5500? It looks pretty close with the tunnelram losing on the bottom and holding the advantage at the high rpm..
-
Averages from 3000 to 5500 are as follows:
Performer RPM: HP 367.0, Tq 455.7
Torker II: HP 360.3, Tq 444.9
Tunnel Ram: HP 368.4, Tq 454.8
Just for fun, I also did averages from 3000 to 6000 RPM:
Performer RPM: HP 376.7, Tq 444.6
Torker II: HP 373.6, Tq 437.8
Tunnel Ram: HP 383.0, Tq 448.6
Who says tunnel rams aren't for the street LOL!
-
Maybe you could make a clear cover plate for your intake adapter to see what is going on in the valley. Then again maybe nothing is going on in the valley. Just thinking out loud.
Michael
-
Hi Jay, I can't recall if if you answered this before since this thread is so long. What is the carb pad height and fore/aft placement using the 351 intakes relative to a regular FE Victor? Thanks!
-
I haven't actually checked the front and rear measurement; I'll see if I can do that tonight. On the carb pad height, the Victor of course is flat while the 351C manifolds have a slope to the carb pad, so the comparison isn't exact. Front and rear measurements for the Victor are 6.5" and 6.5"; for the adapter + 351C Performer RPM they are 5.875" and 7.5", so it is probably an eighth to a quarter inch higher than the Victor at the center of the carb. The Torker II is a little lower than that, probably just about the same as the Victor at the carb center.
I'll edit this post with the carb setback numbers a little later...
Edit: Based on the carb setback dimension in my book (front of the intake to the front carb stud hole):
351C Performer RPM: 8.375"
351C Torker II: 8.125"
The FE Victor measures 8.125" for this dimension.
-
Thanks!
-
Very cool Jay! The 'look' of the tunnel ran alone is....bitchin!
-
Nice. 8) I see a perfect opportunity to incorporate a rev-kit for the engine that wears this lower intake. I wonder if a SBF rev-kit could be incorporated into the intake base , retrofitting the components? The springs, lifters and lifter buttons can be used. The top plate is not needed, as it is already in the intake manifold base. A little machining for spring location cups in the intake at the pushrod holes( bottom side) would be required as well as fitting the springs with a proper amount of tension. The component installation and maintenance should be fairly easy with the upper intake out of the way. I certainly would breathe a little easier knowing my solid roller lifters have a better chance of surviving the gruelling torture that street driving inflicts on the parts.
Thoughts?
-
That is a very interesting idea, although I don't know how widely used rev kits are these days. Without looking, I would say that machining the bottom of the intake for the rev kit springs would not be a problem in 14 of the 16 lifter positions. But for the #1 and #5 exhaust lifters, the water jacket is right up in that area, and I'm afraid I might cut into that if I started machining a flat spot there. I might give it a try though on one of my test manifolds, just to find out...
-
Actually, I'm disappointed in the Comp 294s numbers. Really no better than the RPM cam, except it extended the range a little. And I've always seen the RPM cam as basically a fairly mild street cam. I would have guessed a better showing. For comparison, the Crane 238/248 that I had in my 427 made 505hp on the dyno with about the same lift as the RPM cam. I guess the medium riser heads (mine have 2.25 intakes) really made the difference.
I never really liked Comps cookie cutter cam lobes. As if one lobe design will work on all engines. I'm guessing with the increased flow on the intake, it may have benefited with some more exhaust duration. Blair uses a intake/exhaust % to determine his exhaust numbers, and even though the intakes were limited with the CJ heads I have to wonder how much of a difference it would have made. With medium riser heads, I think it would be even more of a benefit. It would be interesting to see the same intakes and a cam with about 7-10* more exhaust duration, especially with medium riser, FElony or Blue Thunder heads.
On the other side, that tunnel ram was pretty impressive since they have always been considered a "race only" intake. To make more torque across the board than the Torker was surprising to me. A nice showing. It all seems to beg for a more powerful head/cam combo to see what really sets them apart.
Thanks for all your work, and sharing it, Jay. Great info as usual.
-
That is a very interesting idea, although I don't know how widely used rev kits are these days. Without looking, I would say that machining the bottom of the intake for the rev kit springs would not be a problem in 14 of the 16 lifter positions. But for the #1 and #5 exhaust lifters, the water jacket is right up in that area, and I'm afraid I might cut into that if I started machining a flat spot there. I might give it a try though on one of my test manifolds, just to find out...
[/color]
Many builders now see the advantage of these systems on hot street /strip solid roller applications. Less valve spring requirement at the valve end and less mass . The pushrods do less work, also. My intention is to use a rev-kit to place the solid roller lifter in full contact with the camshaft lobe, and to place the lifter lash towards the valve side . The spring tension would only need to be enough to take up the lobe's dynamic forces on the lifter at speed. The needle bearings/ bushings will live much longer, especially with limited oiling at lower engine speeds. There are failures even with pin oiling features and tighter lash settings until methods like this are utilized.
-
Actually, I'm disappointed in the Comp 294s numbers. Really no better than the RPM cam, except it extended the range a little. And I've always seen the RPM cam as basically a fairly mild street cam. I would have guessed a better showing. For comparison, the Crane 238/248 that I had in my 427 made 505hp on the dyno with about the same lift as the RPM cam. I guess the medium riser heads (mine have 2.25 intakes) really made the difference.
I was kind of surprised by this myself; I figured that the engine would pick up 10-15 HP with the 294S and the same intake. The heads are really stockish, though. And the important thing to me was the ability to run to a higher engine speed without having valvetrain issues like I did with the hydraulic cam.
Back when I did the solid vs hydraulic lifter test for my book I just plugged a set of solid lifters onto that Performer RPM cam, and picked up something like 10 HP over the next few hundred RPM. The 294S was certainly no better than that, and cost some midrange due to more duration. Go figure. Results like this beg for The Great FE Cam and Head Comparo... ;)
-
Many builders now see the advantage of these systems on hot street /strip solid roller applications. Less valve spring requirement at the valve end and less mass . The pushrods do less work, also. My intention is to use a rev-kit to place the solid roller lifter in full contact with the camshaft lobe, and to place the lifter lash towards the valve side . The spring tension would only need to be enough to take up the lobe's dynamic forces on the lifter at speed. The needle bearings/ bushings will live much longer, especially with limited oiling at lower engine speeds. There are failures even with pin oiling features and tighter lash settings until methods like this are utilized.
What you are saying does make a lot of sense; with lash on a solid roller, you have times when the lifter is not being forced into contact with the lobe, which has got to be more risky for the lifter than if it were kept in constant contact. From a street perspective this is appealing to me; I like to run solid rollers on the street, and the more you can reduce the risk of valvetrain failure the better. Thinking about this a little more, and depending on the height of the rev kit springs and spacers, I might be able to machine a plate that would bolt on under the intake adapter to support the top part of the rev kit springs. That would avoid having to cut the manifold for spring pockets and potentially breach the water jacket.
Thanks for bringing this up; it is a very interesting idea from an engineering perspective, and I'll definitely look into it when I get the opportunity...
-
Jay,
Do you think a 60mm throttle body would be able to fit at each port?
-
The rev kit idea is a very good one, indeed!
Back in the day when valve springs (quality of metallurgy, q.c. in general) were iffy, many a racer (me too) ran them not only on rollers but flat tappet cams to keep spring pressures reasonable and avoid broken valve springs from being overstreesed. In fact, I'd venture that a rev kit would be ideal for anyone running a roller on the street for the reasons mentioned.
-
These are the reasons I have never made the switch to roller lifters. The idea that a lobe is literally beating directly against a roller bearing, and the carnage it does when it fails scares me away. But all my stuff is mechanical lifter and street driven and reliability is always my first thought.
There have been lots of tests done that show little or no power benefit to rev kits, but nobody ever addressed the "longevity" aspect of it concerning solid rollers, that I know of. That makes it interesting to me.
-
Jay,
Do you think a 60mm throttle body would be able to fit at each port?
60mm is 2.4". There is plenty of room up and down on the 351C face of the adapter, but side to side you would be pretty close to some bolt holes, specifically the counterbored holes. I think you could make an adapter plate work, though.
-
Thanks. I picked up a throttle body from a 4.6 crown vic today at a pick and pull for cheap. Can't wait till my number comes up.
-
It would appear that the lifter baffle/tray should be left out in order to take full advantage of the window.It wouldn't really be needed anyways as the cover plate is actually the bottom of the manifold.
You could probably still pull the lifters with the tray in..and I believe it does control some windage and splash ...I will have to mock it up and have a look.......Cory
-
The tray does serve some purpose to help keep hot oil off of the bottom of stock intake manifolds, but since the adapter will utilize an intake that will create an air gap between the manifold and adapter, it really would serve no useful purpose to keep it, IMO.
-
I was looking at a 351c Engines Masters motor running one of these cast aluminum tunnel rams. http://www.racingjunk.com/Intake-Manifolds/1553816/SB2.2-SPLAYED-VALVE-SBX-CAST-TUNNEL-RAM.html
It is for a SB2.2 chevy motor but would look cool on an FE. It is more expensive than a cleveland manifols bot looks like it sits lower and has more options for induction.
-
Jay, on your tunnel ram did you cut the front and rear parts off when you did the lower tray or did you just cut the tray off and clearance the front and rear.
the tunnel ram that was listed on here awhile ago looked like it would be real cool on your adapter with the front and rear rails gone too, is that feasible you think to remove them and still keep the rigidity (?) of the tunnel ram?
edit: just looked thru the pictures again, and the front part is trimmed off. looks a lot better like that.. thanx
-
I'm going to cut the whole center out. It won't cause a problem. It's a casting, so there is no tension anywhere in the part to cause movement if it's cut. Not like a welded piece that places stress on certain areas.
If you cut the center out, the outer tubes will not move. I think it will look better, weigh less....and probably improve flow by at least 10%-15%. ;)
-
thanx :)
-
just saw this posted on ebay. 1/3 the price of a 427 dual 4 intake
http://www.ebay.com/itm/351c-FORD-DUAL-CARB-MANIFOLD-SATIN-ALUMINUM-RACE-STREET-1500-TO-6500RPM-/120927830179?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item1c27dc40a3&vxp=mtr
also have a blower adapter for that intake
-
Oh wow! that's interesting. Wonder if it flows worth a darn? wouldn't that be fun having a dual 4 intake to drop on in 15 minutes... Hmm So many possibilities! ;D
-
That is a cool looking intake, but it looks like it has a huge open plenum under the carbs. I don't know how well it would work but I'd be a little concerned that it would lack low end and mid range...
-
be a great blower manifold with their plate
(http://procompelectronics.com/ca/Imagesrepository/scplate.png)
-
Hey, you are right about that! I didn't know that plate was available...
-
As usual things are slightly behind schedule on this project, but today I was able to run off at my lunch break and watch the action at the foundry. What an education! It was really cool watching the guys in the foundry put together the sand molds for the manifolds and cast them. I only had about a half hour to watch, but they did one for me from start to finish so I could take a bunch of pictures. Unfortunately, the battery in my camera got weak after a few shots and I had to discontinue using the flash. The foundry is kind of dark inside, not the ideal environment for photos, and so after the flash went out the exposure times got long, and some of the following shots are blurry, with kind of a greenish cast to them. Figures that the camera picked today to run out of juice; oh well. You guys will get the idea from the photos below.
The machine in the photo below is the one they are using to make the sand molds for the intake manifold. I think it is called a Roto-Lift machine.
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/foundry03.jpg)
Here is a photo of the match plate, installed between two boxes to contain the sand. I think the boxes are referred to as flasks, or maybe as a cope and a drag, in foundry parlance. This assembly is positioned on the Roto-Lift machine so that the sand can be poured into the boxes and rammed in place.
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/foundry01.jpg)
The bottom of the intake manifold is done first. The Roto-Lift machine allows the match plate and flasks to be rotated together, so they are rotated upside down, with the bottom of the match plate facing up. Then an overhead trap door opens and sand is poured down into the top of the flask. You can see the sand pouring down into the flask in the photo below.
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/foundry06.jpg)
The operator doing this work was a guy named Mario. He explained what he was doing as he went along to help me understand the process. As the sand was filling in the box Mario was working with it, spreading it around and ramming some of it down by hand. Finally after a few dumps of sand he had the box completely filled up as shown in the photo below:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/foundry07.jpg)
Next Mario put a wood cover over the box in preparation for ramming the sand with the Roto-Lift machine. This process applies what I assume to be a very large downward pressure on the sand; this locks the sharp edges of the grains of sand together so that they will stay in place when the match plate is removed from the assembly. Picture below.
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/foundry08.jpg)
After the ramming process is finished the match plate and flask assembly is rotated 180 degrees on the Roto-Lift machine, so that now the top side of the match plate is facing up. The picture below is one of those long exposure pictures, but you can see the blur of the assembly as Mario rotates it 180 degrees, and then with the top side of the match plate facing up:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/foundry09.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/foundry10.jpg)
Next the same process is repeated on the top side of the sand mold. The picture below shows the top side of the assembly being rammed by the Roto-Lift machine:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/foundry11.jpg)
Next it is time to separate the match plate from the sand mold. The match plate is vibrated by the Roto-Lift machine to free any sticking sand, and then the top side of the mold is pulled straight up by the machine to separate the sand mold from the match plate. After separation the top half of the sand mold is rotated off to the left; see the photos below:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/foundry12.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/foundry13.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/foundry14.jpg)
Here's a photo I took looking up underneath the top half of the sand mold. You can see the impression in the sand from the match plate. I believe they told me that there is about 500 pounds of sand used for each of these molds, so that is 250 pounds of sand hanging up there in the air, maintaining the shape of the match plate. Unbelievable...
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/foundry15.jpg)
Next Mario repeats the same process where the match plate is vibrated to free it up from the sand, and then he uses the Roto-Lift machine to lift the match plate off the bottom sand mold. The second photo shows the match plate on the right and the bottom sand mold on the left:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/foundry16.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/foundry17.jpg)
Next the cores have to be put into the mold. The cores are made with a different process, and using a different kind of sand called no-bake or airset sand. This sand is bound together with some kind of a chemical binder. The sand used in the rest of the mold is called green sand. The green sand is re-usable; the airset sand is not. Further, the chemical used as a binder in the airset sand has to be properly disposed of for environmental reasons, and this gets pretty expensive with a 500 pound mold, so I elected to go with the green sand for the main part of the mold. The downside to green sand is that tooling for green sand is more expensive. Mario carefully placed the 8 port cores and the water jacket core into the bottom sand mold. Here are some pictures of the cores, which were pre-made by the foundry, and a photo showing all the cores in place in the mold:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/foundry04.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/foundry05.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/foundry18.jpg)
Next the two halves of the mold are put back together on the Roto-Lift machine, and then Mario uses a rotating crane with an electric lift to pick the whole mold assembly up and move it to the pouring area. They use three operators pouring at once to fill the mold; I apologize for the very poor quality of this picture, but I'm sure you get the idea:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/foundry19.jpg)
After pouring the casting is allowed to cool in the mold for a while; here's three of them lined up cooling, waiting to be broken out of the mold:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/foundry02.jpg)
And here's a photo of a few of the castings that have been broken out of the mold, and still have the risers attached:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/foundry20.jpg)
After they cool completely the castings are trimmed to remove the excess aluminum, and put in a box to get ready for shipment to the heat treat plant. Here's a box of the castings, with one on top so that you can get a better idea of what they look like at this stage:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/foundry21.jpg)
It sure was fun to see that whole process today. I believe that the first 50 castings are going out to heat treat next week, so once I get them back I can start machining them here. I'll post more photos when I get the castings back at my shop - Jay
-
That is very interesting stuff...Would love to have seen it in person...I find it kind of cool to know that two or possibly three of those are headed my way....Well done..........Cory
-
What feature is used on the casting for your machining datum? How does the casting process maintain the necessary features?
Great stuff, really eager to have one to install on my race car.
-
I'll add my "wow" also.
Thanks Jay, that is cool stuff.
-
What feature is used on the casting for your machining datum? How does the casting process maintain the necessary features?
Great stuff, really eager to have one to install on my race car.
You have to index the castings in three dimensions when setting them up on the CNC machine, so there are a combination of features on the top of the casting, and also the center opening of the casting, that are used for indexing purposes. The index points are selected during the design of the part to be in positions where the casting is expected to be stable. In addition, machine stock is added to all the surfaces of the casting that are to be machined. Enough is added to compensate for any variation from casting to casting in the index points.
-
Jay,
Thanks for showing us the process; I didn't realize it was so labor-intensive! The quality of the casting work looks first rate. I guess the heat treat process doesn't induce much distortion in the part, or is it something that is taken into consideration during design?
Brucez
-
So far I haven't seen any distortion in the castings from the heat treat, Bruce. The way the castings are racked in the heat treat oven has something to do with minimizing distortion, I'm told. And there is enough extra material in the castings that the distortion would have to be pretty extreme before it would make the castings unusable.
-
50 castings! Thats cool! What are the big honking weights doing on top of the sand? Trying to control the adaptors from warping up while cooling? Or are they soaking up heat?
-
The weights are to counteract buoyancy, just as if you had poured water in the molds - to keep the molds from deflecting upwards.
Foundry; hotter than hell in the summer, dirty, stinky, really heavy stuff to move, machines that can crush your hands, hot metal that splashes, cutting off the flash and risers with a big bandsaw, grinding and sanding off the flash, shot peening or tumbling the part in a big noisy machine, part art, part intuition, part experience to get the castings to come out right. Its a lot of fun - to watch.
-
very cool to see how they are done.
-
Hey Jay, I'm wondering when your going to dyno test your adapter on your 445 or 492? I'm interested in the Yates and the Glidden Victor. Curiosity is killing me! :)
-
Its going to be probably January or February before I get to that. The 492" engine is what I'm planning to do most of the dyno testing on, and I'm hoping to make it 700 HP capable for the tests, to really wring out the adapter with a bunch of different intakes. Right now I'm just getting going on freshening up the engine; I want to put a hone on it and install new rings and bearings, and then Joe Craine is going to do some headwork for me, to try to get 330 cfm out of the intake ports with the factory medium riser port size. That way the testing will show the adapter just as it's machined.
Looking forward to more intake manifold changes ;D ;D
-
At least those will be A LOT easier! :D
-
While waiting for the manifold castings to be finished up I've been working on a couple of different variations of this intake, for certain manifold applications. I have one customer who has a race engine with the water lines coming out of the front of the cylinder head on each side. He contacted me about getting a version of the intake adapter with the thermostat housing machined off, to give him more room at the front of the manifold.
This was something I'd already been thinking about, in preparation for the dyno testing I'm planning on doing on the adapter over the winter. There are a whole bunch of 351C intakes that I could test, and I'm sure not going to be buying one of every type, so I'm hoping to be able to borrow the manifolds for testing from various people. I've already gotten some offers on that, which is great. The problem is, to make the 351C intakes work on my adapter, they have to be machined to fit. However, if I cut the water jacket off the front of the manifold, welded up the holes, and then ran some AN fittings out of the front of the intake adapter casting to get the water out of the engine, then the 351C manifolds would fit without interference, and I could test them on the dyno without modifying them at all.
I also have in my possession at the moment a CHI 3V intake for the 351C. This intake is designed for use with the CHI cylinder heads, which are known to be really good units; I believe they won an Engine Masters contest at least once a few years back. Dave McClain was kind enough to send me his intake so I could work on a porting program to match it up to my intake adapter, but of course with all the adapters I have here at the moment, the manifold couldn't really be fit in place because of the interference with the water jacket. I really wanted to get going on this manifold program, because I was running late on it based on how long I told Dave I needed it.
So, with all that stuff in mind I sat down on Saturday morning this week and started working on a program to machine the water jacket off one of the intake adapters. I had to take three or four stabs at it to really get it right, but in the end it came out pretty well. Here's a photo of the front of the intake adapter that I machined, with the water jacket cut completely away:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/tstatgone.jpg)
I'll fit a 1/4" thick aluminum plate into each one of the water jacket holes, weld it up, punch a hole in the front of the adapter on each side and thread it for 3/8" or 1/2" pipe, and I'll be good to go on the dyno by hooking up an AN line to each side, feeding into a remote thermostat housing.
After I got this done, I put the CHI intake in place; here's a photo:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/chimanif.jpg)
That manifold sure LOOKS like it ought to make power LOL! The bolt holes in this intake line right up with the 351C intake bolt pattern already machined into the adapter, so there was no issue there. However, the CHI intake manifold ports are a lot smaller than normal 351C 4V ports. In order to see how they would line up, I cut a gasket to fit the manifold and then laid it on the adapter and traced the openings. Here's a photo of the openings outlined with a black Sharpie on the adapter:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/chiports.jpg)
This intake adapter has not had any porting work done to it; the ports are as cast. As you can see, there are going to be some parts of the cast openings which fall outside CHI manifold's port envelope. This isn't the end of the world; you could certainly run the manifold with those openings there, because as they approach the FE port in the head the openings will get smaller and smaller, and eventually disappear just before the port reaches the FE cylinder head. But if you were going all out with one of these intakes you'd probably want to fill those cast port openings with epoxy, or else weld them up, to make the transition to the FE port as smooth as possible. Just something to think about if you want to run one of these intakes.
I'll be working on the machining programs for this intake over the next few weeks; it will take a while to get this done. I'll also have to give the adapter a special part number for use with these intakes; using this adapter with a standard 351C 4V port would result in a very large port mismatch where the manifold bolted onto the adapter. But, it still might work OK like that; one thing I have learned with all this intake manifold testing is that sometimes the engine just doesn't care about stuff like this...
-
Will the ford distributor drop in with that CHI intake in place? Also, I have a 351C torqer intake that was used on a PSE adapter many years ago, that you can use for testing if you need it. It had a divider welded in the plenum to separate the halves of the intake, and I always wondered if that was a help or hinderance in horsepower or torque. I would be glad to send it to you if you're interested in testing/fitting/modifying/using it. It is not something of importance to me, so you could experiment with it. Joe-JDC
-
It would be interesting to test the Torker with the divider, so when the time comes I'll probably take you up on that Joe.
The FE distributor does fit, barely, in front of the CHI intake. So, I think it ought to work with any 351C intake. But for the dyno mule I'm putting together I think I'm going to go distributorless and run individual coil packs, so I'll just block off the distributor opening anyway...
-
Do you expect the fit to be similar with the Edelbrock 2863 intake for Yates heads?
I'd like to use that intake on my race engine if the adapter works out. I can purchase it ahead of time and send it to you if that helps the development.
Thanks for all your great work on this project!
-
I think the fit will be better with an Edelbrock 2863 or 2865, because the ports are more square, rather than oval like the CHI ports. I have a 2865 here and that is the next one I'm going to be working on. That one looks like the ports will be pretty close, but the 2865 manifold itself may require a little more machining. For some reason the flange is really thick on that one (0.800"), and I'm thinking I may have to machine the flanges back to 1/2" or so to get it to fit. But we'll see when I get into it a little more.
I don't know all the details of the differences between the 2863 and 2865; the 2863 might be an easier fit. David, I have you on my list as #31. When I start getting close to delivering your intake, maybe after I've delivered 20 or so, it would be a good idea for you to send me the 2863 intake, so I could make any adjustments to the program so it fits properly - Jay
-
Looking at posted pics of the two intakes, they look very similar, but the mounting bolt locations seem to be at different angles on some of the locations. I'm open to either the 2865 or 2863, the 2865 info states that the ports are 4.0 square inches, where the 2863 is 3.2 square inches. How does the port area on these manifolds compare to MR size intake ports? If the gaskets are 2.1x1.4, that comes up just shy of 3 square inches. Would the smaller manifold port, though still bigger than the head port, provide better velocity?
Further research....looks like the SC-1 head has the intake port (and exhaust) raised 0.400 over the C3 head.
-
That's interesting, my 2865 intake doesn't have anywhere near that much port area. The ports measure 1.25" X 1.7". It looks like they could easily be opened up to FE size, though. Are you sure about those port area numbers? Four square inches is a lot of port area...
My 2991 intake, which takes a 4150 carb, has port sizes of 1.375" X 1.9". And my intake adapter has ports just slightly smaller than MR size on the head side, to allow some port matching, at 1.300" X 2.075".
In any case, either the 2865 intake or 2991 intake, and probably the 2863, can easily be port matched to work with the adapter, once I have the machining operations for the bolt hole locations and height of the intake finalized.
-
Thanks Jay,
I don't know for any certainty about the port numbers, just going by the Ed catalog, so hard to tell what they're thinking.
"GLIDDEN VICTOR 351Y 4500 SERIES (5000-8500+ rpm) Designed in conjunction with noted Ford drag racer Billy Glidden for raised port aluminum C3 SVO (Yates) cylinder heads, #2863 fits 9.2" deck heights. #2865 is for 9.2" S/B Fords with Yates SC-1 heads. Victor Glidden 351-Y #2863 has 3.2 square-inch runners. #2865 has 4.0 square-inch runners and is intended for 400 cubic-inch and larger high output drag race engines. Both are perfect for all-out nitrous-assisted drag race applications. Carb mount flange and plenum are machined for 4500 Series carbs and require port matching and blending prior to use."
The odd thing to me is that neither Summit or Jegs list the 2865 as being available, only the 2863. I found a 2865 on Amazon, but not on ebay. Think I'll give Edelbrock a call and see what's going on.
-
I'll bet the port area they are talking about is at the entrance from the plenum, not the exit of the runners. The 2865 intake will definitely need some port matching. The 2863 intake looks like it has the same bolt hole locations as my 2991 intake. The 2991 intake is a much better fit to my adapter, so the 2863 intake might be an easier fit than the 2865. All these 351C intake variations can be confusing.
If you get a hold of anyone at Edelbrock, let me know what they say...
-
I talked to Ed tech this morning, they confirmed that the area mentioned is at the interface to the plenum. The gaskets available for the Yates heads are mostly 1.95x1.35", so the intake (2863) is probably no larger than that on the port flange as delivered. I guess that's good so any port matching to be done can be done on the intake side.
-
Please tell us more about the coil pack ignition ...
-
I'm going to use an EFI system, and just not run EFI on most of the manifolds. The Megasquirt MS3X has inputs for a crank sensor and a cam sensor, and 8 outputs for running individual coils. I've been buying these coils from DIY autotune:
http://www.diyautotune.com/catalog/ign1a-race-coil-p-394.html
You can run wasted spark if you just want to run a crank sensor, or in normal 1 spark per every other revolution if you put in a cam sensor. All timing is adjustable from the laptop computer hooked up to the MS3X. Individual cylinder timing can also be done. No need for a distributor or an MSD with this setup, although you do have to fabricate a "half distributor" to run the oil pump drive.
Then, of course, if I want to test any EFI manifolds I'll be all set :D
-
I'll bet the port area they are talking about is at the entrance from the plenum, not the exit of the runners. The 2865 intake will definitely need some port matching. The 2863 intake looks like it has the same bolt hole locations as my 2991 intake. The 2991 intake is a much better fit to my adapter, so the 2863 intake might be an easier fit than the 2865. All these 351C intake variations can be confusing.
If you get a hold of anyone at Edelbrock, let me know what they say...
I think you're spot on with the 2991 and 2863...since they fit the same heads, they should be interchangeable on the intake adapter. I really like the idea of the 351 manifolds that are open on the bottom; better to show off the adapter below it ;D
-
After a certain amount of physical exertion, the following stack of aluminum was settled into my shop this evening:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/stackin2.jpg)
That is a total of 57 intake adapters. The more I carried in, the heavier they seemed to get ;D But I'm afraid my poor truck took the brunt of the abuse:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/haulin1.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/haulin2.jpg)
First op machining starts tomorrow...
-
wow that's exciting :)
-
I hope you have a means to recover the aluminum scraps from the milling operations. You should be able to recycle/sale the scrap to help recoup some of the cost. That is a lot of work you have ahead of you. Looks exciting. Joe-JDC
-
Jay, is there enough 'meat' in those castings to be able to bore for injectors? Just a thought!
KS
-
I hope you have a means to recover the aluminum scraps from the milling operations. You should be able to recycle/sale the scrap to help recoup some of the cost. That is a lot of work you have ahead of you. Looks exciting. Joe-JDC
Yes, I recover all the machining metal, but it only fetches $0.35 per pound at the local metal recycling place. So its not a big cost reducer or anything...
-
Jay, is there enough 'meat' in those castings to be able to bore for injectors? Just a thought!
KS
Yes there is, Ken, although I haven't developed the machining operations for doing that yet.
-
Before starting the first machining operation on my production intake adapters, this morning I finished up "experimenting" with one of the adapters to make the Yates style intake manifolds work. I have not yet done any port programs for these intakes; I wanted to just cut the flanges of the adapter to see how they would fit, and get an idea of where the port location was. I had to take about .500" off the intake flange surface of my intake adapter to make the 2991 Edelbrock manifold fit. Here's a couple of photos of the manifold sitting on the adapter:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/Ed2991_1.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/Ed2991_2.jpg)
One issue that presents itself with these manifolds is that with the reduced thickness of the adapter, counterboring for the bolts in the adapter that bolt into the FE heads has to be increased, and the adapter can get a little thin in this area. I think I will have to supply special bolts, with reduced thickness heads, for intakes that are machined for these manifolds. With those bolts I can counterbore less. Also, the angle of the 1, 4, 5, and 8 ports in the adapter have to increase somewhat with the reduced thickness. FE cylinders are on a 4.63" center, and 351C cylinders are on a 4.40" center, so the outboard ports in the adapter have to be angled to match the FE head port up with the 351C head port. This is especially pronounced on ports 1 and 8. When you reduce the thickness of the adapter, the angles of the ports in the adapter get bigger. I'm going to be able to compensate for that somewhat, by reducing the width of the pushrod holes and sneaking the port a little closer to the pushrods, but there will still be more of an angle there than there is with the standard 351C intakes. Hopefully that will be more than compensated for by the improved performance of the Yates style manifolds; we will see at dyno time.
After the Edelbrock 2991 intake I worked to fit up the 2865 intake. This one was more of a challenge. Just plunking it on top of one of the standard intake adapter, it was way, way too high. I ended up machining my test adapter another .250" on the manifold surfaces to improve the fit of the 2865 intake. That was as far as I wanted to go with machining the adapter surfaces, but the manifold still didn't fit correctly. However, this intake has a very, very thick flange, just over .800" thick. The 2991 intake, like most others, has a 0.500" thick flange. After machining the adapter and test fitting the 2865 intake, it turned out that I can machine .300" off the 2865 intake's flange, and it will fit just about right on the adapter. So, if someone wants to run the 2865 intake, there will be some custom machining to the intake required, but I can certainly handle that if necessary. Here are a couple of shots of the 2865 intake sitting on the adapter; the flange of the intake has not yet been machined:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/Ed2865_1.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/Ed2865_2.jpg)
Developing the port programs for these two intakes will take some time, but I have a few weeks here before I have to worry about that, while all the castings get run through the first machining operation. Lots still to do... ::)
-
I like it....great work Jay
We need to get some 400 cfm heads to complement your intake design
-
I wonder how the fit would be with the D-3 head manifolds? They are designed for a 9.0" deck height, so they are likely a bit narrower. Manifolds like the Edelbrock 2827, 2879, SVO M-9424-D456. The SVO manifolds seem to be available at a great price on ebay, they aren't available in a 4500 pattern, but this could probably be fixed with some mill work.
That stack of castings is about the coolest pic I've seen this year. Eagerly awaiting your completion of the first 31 orders!
-
I wonder how the fit would be with the D-3 head manifolds? They are designed for a 9.0" deck height, so they are likely a bit narrower. Manifolds like the Edelbrock 2827, 2879, SVO M-9424-D456. The SVO manifolds seem to be available at a great price on ebay, they aren't available in a 4500 pattern, but this could probably be fixed with some mill work.
Obviously I don't know enough about the 351C variants that are available; I was not aware that a short deck manifold was even out there. I will have to look into that. Thanks for the heads up, David...
Edit: I just looked the Edelbrock numbers up on Summit's web site, and they don't look like they will fit. The 2827 has the water jacket crossover cast into the intake like a Windsor, and also has a different port configuration. The 2879 says its for a Toyota?? The SVO manifold looks like it might work, though...
-
Sorry, had one number wrong. They should look like this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Edelbrock-2829-Ford-351W-Intake-Manifold-For-D3-Cylinder-Heads-/251261257185?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item3a805685e1&vxp=mtr
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Edelbrock-2827-Victor-D-3-Intake-Manifold/200769344195?_trksid=p2045573.m2042&_trkparms=aid%3D111000%26algo%3DREC.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D18111%26meid%3D2120121633921104583%26pid%3D100033%26prg%3D8322%26rk%3D4%26rkt%3D4%26sd%3D380746803621%26
Update: The photo on the Summit webpage is not correct....some other application...BBC?
-
The manifolds are cast with a very thick flange to be used on anything from 9.500" deck down to 8.900" decks on some configurations. We have run the manifolds with the flange so thin that it needed a body washer to keep it from warping. It is better to mill the intake flange than the intake adapter. You can always use another intake on the adapter, but if you mill the adapter, then it becomes a "one only" adapter unless you mill another intake to mate to it at a later date. JMO, but I have seen the manifolds milled to "within an inch of their life" so to speak, and still work well. Joe-JDC
-
Thanks Joe, that's great information. If I did mill both intakes down to 0.25" for the flange thickness, that would minimize the milling I would have to do on the adapters, and allow more room for a straighter port. Plus it would minimize the amount of counterboring I'd have to do on the adapter. I will look into that on the next test manifold that I do...
-
Sorry, had one number wrong. They should look like this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Edelbrock-2829-Ford-351W-Intake-Manifold-For-D3-Cylinder-Heads-/251261257185?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item3a805685e1&vxp=mtr
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Edelbrock-2827-Victor-D-3-Intake-Manifold/200769344195?_trksid=p2045573.m2042&_trkparms=aid%3D111000%26algo%3DREC.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D18111%26meid%3D2120121633921104583%26pid%3D100033%26prg%3D8322%26rk%3D4%26rkt%3D4%26sd%3D380746803621%26
Update: The photo on the Summit webpage is not correct....some other application...BBC?
Thanks David, both of those manifolds look really good...
-
While I am in the process of machining the first batch of manifolds, the pattern shop is working on the high riser and tunnel port version. When this work was started last January, the pattern shop created a master pattern to use for making the match plate that the foundry uses to cast the manifolds. After modifying the CAD model to my specs for the high riser and tunnel port versions, the pattern shop took the old master pattern and modified that for use in making the high riser and tunnel port match plate. Here's a couple of photos of the modified master pattern:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/hrmstr1.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/hrmstr2.jpg)
Notice that there are no ports in this version of the master pattern; because of the differing port locations of the high riser and tunnel port, it wasn't possible to put port cores in this adapter. Also notice how much higher the valve cover rail is, and also the face of the manifold where the intake will sit. All this extra material adds a bunch of weight, over ten pounds compared to the standard medium riser adapter. But, most of that will get machined away as either a high riser or tunnel port adapter is put together. I'm particularly interested in this manifold adapter, because I can replace the machined parts on my high riser engine with one of these at some point, making it easier to experiment with different port sizes.
With luck the master pattern for this manifold adapter will be done by mid November, so hopefully I will have castings of this version to play with by early December.
-
Looks cool Jay.
With the difference in port location on a tunnel port will the scallops at the bottom of the manifold leave enough room for the port openings?
-
Yes, I checked that before I made the design changes. The bottom of the tunnel port ports are actually a little higher than the bottom of a medium riser port.
-
I wonder how well a HR port will transition from a Cleveland port? It's a pretty short transition area within the adapter and it's a pretty drastic change from an oval to a narrow tall port. The TP port seems like it would transition pretty nicely, although a 385 series intake seems like it might be even better. Haven't messed with them in years though so I have no idea about port spacing or other issues.
I'm certainly no flow expert though. Just basically thinking out loud.
-
My plan on the high riser port is to basically use the medium riser port, but move it up on the adapter so that the roof of the medium riser port in the adapter matches the roof of the high riser port in the head. If somebody wants to then port the adapter for the full high riser port, all the way to the bottom, then they can do that, but the vast majority of the flow is at the top of the port, and of course there is some advantage to keeping the port small. The Yates style 351C intakes ought to really work well on the high riser adapter, because they won't have to be cut as much, or at all, to fit. So I anticipate some demand for that combination.
Unfortunately the tunnel port port locations would require an extreme angle of the port in the adapter to make a 351C intake fit, so that is probably out of the question. My plan for the tunnel port version is just to have it available for anyone who wants to build a custom intake; starting with the adapter would make that job a lot easier.
I wonder if a 429-460 intake could be made to fit on the high riser version? I'll have to see if I can get a hold of one of those intakes just to take a look. It would be neat to have one of the Kaase spider intakes work on a high riser FE...
-
I like to see progress on the HR/TP version! Looks great! Most 429/460 intakes will not line up very well, they have a bank to bank offset for some reason that is way off, maybe because it is a symmetrical port and the port opening is left or right of center etc.
I have a couple of the latest Nascar intakes before they went to the FR9 engine. My plan is to cut one or both in half down the middle sideways.... like between 2-3 and 6-7 and then add in a .500 to .750" thick spacer and then have it welded up, then I will blend it in. That will help with the front to back and left to right jogging/offset whatever you want to call it of the port line ups. Reduce the compromise if you will. In reality, you need to cut it in 1/4 as there is some bank to bank offset that s\"stacks" up on you, from the bore spacing difference. I will buy a non-ported version and do my own port match.
The FE is 4.630 of course, the SBF is 4.380 (not 4.400 Jay), and the 460 is 4.900. Our FE's have two lefts and two right hand chambers/ports, so with the entry angle etc. between the two center cylinders have a 4.900 spacing. That is what hurts with the SBF intakes (not mirror ports). With the A460 intake (I have dummied one up!) the center two are pretty damn close and the outer two come in from the outside a little but could be matched up good and would have a good line of sight to the heads port entry angle.
That is the good news...! The new style A460 intakes look like they would work pretty well. The "flange" on the adapter for the "upper" will have to be milled down to near the valve cover rail for it to work, sort of like what you did with the high port intakes. The A460 intakes (Trick Flow) have a big single 4 dominator flange and a tunnel ram bottom with choice of single 4 pent roof top and dual dominators. Also the old style SVO A460 A and B intakes will work, a little smaller runners and plenum and lower carb flange (I have an un-molested B460 intake and that looks like it would be easy to adapt, without and weld or epoxy). The new A460 port as cast was something like (going from memory here....) 1.700x2.300 or so... not sure now. The ports are up a little and would run through the valve cover rail on a MR adapter/head. On a HR (I don't have one yet, but will) I think it would line up just about right. The plenum might be a little big, but it can be reduced in height, and have some "fill" install if needed (epoxy). It would also possibly need a little epoxy on the outer runners but I think that could be blended in the adapter. It would have to be a "bad hombre" HR engine underneath to use it. It would sure be interesting to bolt one on a dyno/ drag strip test. There are a lot of 800+ 460 engines (a lot are 557 and 598 CI using this intake... it is a big seller. Of course there have been 1000+ even 1100+ engines using these as well. The A460 heads flow about 390 out of the box, and can go up to 439 very easily, CNC programs have got up to 500 cfm from the "big name" builders.
I will add some images later!
Thor
-
The FE is 4.630 of course, the SBF is 4.380 (not 4.400 Jay), and the 460 is 4.900.
Thor
Thanks for the correction on that, Thor. I made the assumption that they are 4.400" bore spacing because all the manifolds I've got measure that from port to port. Maybe my measurement was off, or maybe they spread the ports out somewhat, but in any case its good to know the real number.
I'm looking forward to further details and pictures on the 385 series intakes...
-
Two things: I have modified a 460 Victor to work on a PSE adapter in the past, and it flowed over 500 cfm with ease. Second, why not use a 351W Super Victor on the HR for fitment ease. Moving the ports up should work like gang busters with a W intake. Just a thought. If you did not want the water passages, just mill them off. There are a few 9.5" deck manifolds available that you could use, also. "It is only money" LOL. I wll try to send a picture of a few possible candidates for a higher placement on the HR intake adapter. Joe-JDC
-
Here are some of the 9" and 9.2" deck height, D3 Nascar intakes I spoke of....
(http://i1279.photobucket.com/albums/y537/XR7gtcougar/BPTDEQ2kKGrHgoOKiEEjlLmfk0BJzSDehrg_12_zpsdebe55ce.jpg)
(http://i1279.photobucket.com/albums/y537/XR7gtcougar/36b9_12_zpsa478528f.jpg)
(http://i1279.photobucket.com/albums/y537/XR7gtcougar/0-yroush-yates-intakelr_zpsa8c89060.jpg)
Here are some of the 9.5 deck SC1 (high port)
(http://i1279.photobucket.com/albums/y537/XR7gtcougar/f31c_1b_zps87429407.jpg)
(http://i1279.photobucket.com/albums/y537/XR7gtcougar/EDL-2860_zps7e45e688.jpg)
(http://i1279.photobucket.com/albums/y537/XR7gtcougar/BT4_zps5956ef63.jpg)
Here are the A460 intakes
(http://i1279.photobucket.com/albums/y537/XR7gtcougar/tfs-54400111_zps02ee588d.jpg)
(http://i1279.photobucket.com/albums/y537/XR7gtcougar/a460tunnelram_zps18fb3ebe.jpg)
(http://i1279.photobucket.com/albums/y537/XR7gtcougar/TFSA-460Intake003_zpsf44d9463.jpg)
Here is similar to what I might "attempt"
(http://i1279.photobucket.com/albums/y537/XR7gtcougar/IMG_20130621_132925_224_zps3bdf8cb9.jpg)
I don't think I want to go this far....
(http://i1279.photobucket.com/albums/y537/XR7gtcougar/IMG_1344_zpse82ac655.jpg)
(http://i1279.photobucket.com/albums/y537/XR7gtcougar/IMG_0168_zpsfcc52517.jpg)
-
I guess my pictures are too large, and/or too many. The links are there if you want to look.
-
I guess my pictures are too large, and/or too many. The links are there if you want to look.
You just needed the image tags around the links; I put them in for you; for future reference they are the square brackets around the letters img in front of the link and /img at the back of the link:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/imagpost.jpg)
Some of those manifolds are really cool. The idea of running an intake like those on an FE is really enticing. Hopefully I can get my adapter to work with some of them...
-
OK Thanks for fixing the post and the instructions. That is easy enough!
-
Jay, if you could get one of the Trickflow A460 tunnel ram intakes matched to your HR adapter, I'd definitely be in for one of them.
-
Some of those manifolds are really cool. The idea of running an intake like those on an FE is really enticing. Hopefully I can get my adapter to work with some of them...
Jay
You already own a Marcella intake - you just did not know it. John did that Victor you have. Kid can weld like nobody on this planet... He's done a couple of those cut into little pieces projects for class cars where they mandated a "cast" intake but have no rules on modification. He'll be working on one of your adapters as soon as it arrives....
-
I remember, Barry. I'm going to use that manifold, along with a few other FE specific intakes, as benchmarks to test my intake adapter against on the dyno. If I can match the performance of Marcella's intake with one of the 351C intakes and my adapter, I'll be a happy camper...
-
Jay, if you could get one of the Trickflow A460 tunnel ram intakes matched to your HR adapter, I'd definitely be in for one of them.
I don't want to get too far ahead of myself here, but sometime soon I hope to be making my own tops for the intake adapter, to allow all the ports in the adapter to be straight, rather than having to bend the outboard ports to match up with the 351C port spacing. A manifold top similar to that A460 tunnel ram is one that I want to do.
-
If I explained to you what John "wants" to do with an FE head it'd have your mind spinning...... :o
-
I wonder how close these intakes would be for the tunnel port adapter? http://lmc3470.wix.com/ramairv
-
I don't want to get too far ahead of myself here, but sometime soon I hope to be making my own tops for the intake adapter, to allow all the ports in the adapter to be straight, rather than having to bend the outboard ports to match up with the 351C port spacing. A manifold top similar to that A460 tunnel ram is one that I want to do.
Sounds good, I'm in no rush.
-
I wonder how close these intakes would be for the tunnel port adapter? http://lmc3470.wix.com/ramairv
Wow, they look like they'd be close! Thanks for that link...
-
Hey Jay, its getting cold and dark here in Wisconsin, the only thing we have to look forward to (especially since Aaron Rogers was injured) is fresh pics and testing results on the intake adapters. Anything to share? Parts ready by Christmas so there's something under the tree? ;D
-
I've been meaning to post an update; sorry for the delay. It took me until this last weekend to get the first operation machining done on the intakes. Everything that could go wrong did, including broken tools, machine errors on both CNC machines, etc. (I was just comiserating with Barry R tonight about all this...)
In fact a couple weeks ago I was so frustrated with how things were going with my smaller CNC machine, the one that is doing the center cover plates and road draft tube covers, that I started hunting around for another CNC machine to replace that one >:( As luck would have it, a machine showed up on ebay that fit the bill perfectly, and the motivated seller gave me a pretty good deal on it. So now, I have more work to do; I have to move my smaller CNC machine to a different location in my shop, and get the shop ready for the new machine. Hopefully the new machine will run better.
Back to the manifolds, I am machining the first one on the second operation tonight. Hopefully it will be finished by tomorrow, then it has to be leak checked, have the thermostat housing holes and water bypass holes drilled and tapped, etc. I'm not counting on ANYTHING at this point, because the problems I've had over the last month have far exceeded what I expected. But hopefully, the finished manifolds will start to come out now. We will see. Thanks to you David, and everyone else on the list, for your patience on this - Jay
-
Jay
I believe I am number 62 and 63 on the list
You have not even touched or seen my adapter yet. A one man operation takes time along with dealing with mechanical and machine failures. You are going about this the right way in giving updates. Just keep plugging away as my 482 stroker is not done yet and I have not come up with a Cleveland Tunnel Ram yet. On a side note how much extra for an autograph on my adapters.
-
Thanks Joe, I appreciate the support. The move to production has been more problematic than I expected, but I will definitely get through this and start delivering the intakes soon. Autographs are free, unless you want it machined into the casting ;D
-
While struggling through the machining issues, I got good news today from the foundry. They have taken delivery of the match plate for the high riser / tunnel port version of the intake. Pictures below:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/HRMP01a.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/HRMP02a.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/HRMP03a.jpg)
The additional material required for this design the increases the weight of the raw casting by 12 pounds! The foundry is busy with other stuff at the moment, but sometime in the next month I should get the first five prototypes. They will get the same machining operations on the bottom as the existing castings, but then it will be starting all over again to develop the machining operations for the top, sides, front and back, for both versions (tunnel port and high riser). Should be fun...
-
Looking good! 8) Nice to see progress on your HR base.
Just curious, what does the MR raw casting weigh and also the finished product (without the tray and breather block-off... bolt on parts)??? I know your making chips! Keep plugging along... but don't work too hard and get "burned out"! However, with as much work as you get done on a normal basis... that phrase is probably not in your vocabulary!
Thanks for the update, definitely good news on the HR deal.
-
The MR raw casting weighs 33 pounds, and is down to 25 pounds after the machining operations. The HR/TP raw casting will be 45 pounds (!!), but will also lose more weight in machining than the MR casting. Don't really know what it will weigh completed though...
"Burnout" is not in my vocabulary ;D
-
That match plate is a work of art... so are these adapters... or lower manifold... or manifold base.... im still on the fence about which version I should ask for though... keep up the fight jay... your doing great things for the FE world...
-
Jay, just picked up an Edelbrock 2863 intake manifold for use with the intake adapter. When would be a good time to ship it your way for fit up?
Thanks!
-
There appears to be an incredible amount of machining and (especially) polishing in that match plate. Very big bucks expense to add to the process! I was told, mold polishers lose much feeling in their hands after years of work.
-
Jay, just picked up an Edelbrock 2863 intake manifold for use with the intake adapter. When would be a good time to ship it your way for fit up?
Thanks!
Let's wait until I've delivered the first 10-15 intakes, David. Otherwise it will just be sitting here doing nothing for a while. I'll email or PM you when I'm ready for it - Jay
-
Jay,
That match plate is truly a work of art. OH yeah I'm definitely in the market for a High Rise adapter now for my ProCharger build. So please put me on your list for one of those too.
Good luck getting the new machining center up and running and getting the other ones running smoothly. Is that chicken coop getting full yet? :)
-
Ran across this ad on ebay:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-Edelbrock-Yates-9-200-Intake-2861-Svo-Roush-Nascar-/261000913578?pt=Race_Car_Parts&hash=item3cc4dde2aa&vxp=mtr
Looks like a good deal on a 351Y intake if you are using a 4150 carb. These seem to be a good choice as they don't have the bottom plate to mess with.
This manifold looks quite a bit like the 2863 except for the carb flange. Would look great on top of one of Jay's intake adapters.
-
Some pics of the Edelbrock 2863 intake - looks like the intake will need to be opened up a bit at the head and the adapter will need to curve in a bit.
-
Another pic
-
Overall pic
-
Some pics of the Edelbrock 2863 intake - looks like the intake will need to be opened up a bit at the head and the adapter will need to curve in a bit.
That's a good looking manifold. The standard adapter ports also curve in somewhat, especially on ports 1 and 8, to match the port spacing of a standard 351C 4V manifold.
-
The latest SCM (Scott Cook) 351C intake just made 796HP on a 427 Cleveland headed, Arrow/Cleveland blocked engine. The Arrow btw is a Aussie- sourced improved copy of Ford's OEM iron "C" block.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv-OYJbegQg
I think I had posted a pic of this wild looking intake before but IIRC it was not accompanied by dyno results. Seems a natural for a big inch FE with Jay's adapter ;D
-
Please excuse me for venting a little bit in this post. Many of you know about the CNC machine issues I've experienced over the last month and a half; why the machine has picked this time to start giving me trouble is anybody's guess. The last thing that went wrong was that my rotary table, used as a fourth axis, gave out, and I had to take it in for repair at the end of November. Finally got it back and installed on December 21st. By the 24th I was finishing up the first intake in the production run, when out of nowhere, the spindle of the machine started making a bunch of noise! I had to shut the machine down, two ports shy of the first completed intake >:(
After talking to some people about this on the 24th, the potential culprits are a spindle bearing or a transmission bearing. I won't know for sure until I have a technician out to check the machine, and due to the holidays I wasn't able to schedule that until January 2.
My level of frustration on this is through the roof at this point. If, after taking delivery of the castings in October, someone had told me that I would not have delivered even the first production intake by the end of the year, I would have told them they were crazy. But various issues have continued to crop up and stop me in my tracks on this. I've recently told a couple of people that I would be delivering intakes by the end of the year, barring any unforeseen problems, but Murphy's Law continues to apply and the unforeseen problems keep coming up >:( I know a lot of people are waiting for these intakes, and I feel like I am letting them down with these continued delays, but there is just nothing I can do except work through every problem as it appears. Hopefully this is the last one.
So, I appreciate everyone's patience on this. I remain committed to the project, and hopefully the latest problem can be resolved quickly so I can finally start delivering the manifolds in the next couple of weeks. For what it's worth, the first intake to be finished, which is two ports away from being done, looks really good...
-
Thanks for the update. Sucks to have your equipment fail you like that.
I wouldn't sweat the schedule; I'm still personally amazed that you've undertaken such an ambitious project and are as close to delivering finished products as you are. I'm really eager to see how the Yates head variant works out, and am relishing my first trip to the track sporting the two-piece intake!
-
Same here man. You have enough on your plate with your machines giving you shite, don't sweat the delivery times on my part.
-
Jay,
I think you deserve some slack by being up-front with everyone and by giving assurance you're still committed to the project. I have no doubt they will be worth waiting for.
Happy Holidays to you, and to all the FE Forum!
Bruce
-
Same as the other guys.....don't sweat it. And certainly don't let it ruin your holidays! We all know the old saying "$%#@ happens"......but what most people don't readily know is the rest of the saying....."when you least want it to" ;)
Just use the time to work on something else you've been wanting to.
-
just means you have more time to spend with family and friends.. :)
-
Jay I was going to email you to ask how the manifolds were coming, but you posted so I won`t ask. I feel like the others and will just wait till you get them done. I know how you feel about the flustration, my computer gave up in mid october and I had to wait till my Tecky came home for thanksgiving to get me back up and running!
-
Jay -
Sorry to hear about the troubles. Man you're catching a raw deal on this one!! Hang in there. We're pulling for ya!
- Bill
-
Sorry to hear that Jay.
Do you have any more manifolds available on first run?
-
Thanks for all the kind words guys, I appreciate it. This whole situation kind of reminds me of how production went with my book. After working my butt off to collect all the dyno data and get the book written, the first batch of printed copies came back looking terrible. I had to return them to the printer and wait for them to be re-printed, which took another three months. But in the end it all worked out pretty well; in fact, I'll be doing a second printing sometime in the next 6 months. Hopefully I can look back at the manifold project in a year and be satisfied with how it all turned out.
I do have 18 spots left on the list for the first 100 intake adapters.
-
Well....I lost 6 months due to my accident and I am still not running 100%....We have a cnc quick drill at work and last year it ate all the spindle bearings in the middle of a job..I spent over a month doing the repairs and upgrades...Seems the spindle was getting flood coolant in it...Not great for precision highspeed bearings....
Shit happens and yes its frustrating...It will all work out in time....And we soon forget about the pain and agony..
Cory
-
No problems with the delay..I know it must be frustrating on your end. You'd think problems might have come up in the earlier stages of development but not now! It will be worth the wait on our(my) part so don't stress....
-
Jay if you run into a problem with the CNC program and it messes up an adapter, I would be interested in one bank/side to possibly use for flowing heads on the bench. I could put a radius on the port, and just bolt it up to a head for quick turn around on a flow check. I would pay for the part. Just a thought to salvage one if it is not fit for sale. Joe-JDC.
-
As a person who makes his living working on CNC and Robotic machines, I am all too aware of the "When it rains it pours" scenario. It can be VERY frustrating. >:(
-
Jay if you run into a problem with the CNC program and it messes up an adapter, I would be interested in one bank/side to possibly use for flowing heads on the bench. I could put a radius on the port, and just bolt it up to a head for quick turn around on a flow check. I would pay for the part. Just a thought to salvage one if it is not fit for sale. Joe-JDC.
Thanks Joe, I will keep that in mind...
-
As a person who makes his living working on CNC and Robotic machines, I am all too aware of the "When it rains it pours" scenario. It can be VERY frustrating. >:(
Sheesh Alan, I wish you lived closer. You could moonlight at my place ;D
The tech guy is finally coming tomorrow to look at the machine, but I have taken the front cover off the head and listened with a mechanic's stethoscope to find the source of the noise, and it appears to be coming from the transmission. It is a 2 speed box, just a high and low gear. Revenge of the Powerglide ::)
-
It is a 2 speed box, just a high and low gear. Revenge of the Powerglide ::)
LMAO!!! First thing I thought of when you said a 2 speed.
-
It is a 2 speed box, just a high and low gear. Revenge of the Powerglide ::)
LMAO!!! First thing I thought of when you said a 2 speed.
Yeah it sounds like a pretty simple bearing fix, unless you munched a tooth. Let's hope not! Of course, nothing is simple or cheap with these machines...
-
Yeah it sounds like a pretty simple bearing fix, unless you munched a tooth. Let's hope not! Of course, nothing is simple or cheap with these machines...
According to Haas, the transmissions are not repairable; they should just be replaced. I didn't believe that at first, but then I called a local service guy I know, who is not affiliated with Haas, and he confirmed it. So it looks like a new transmission...
-
Ouch! That can't be cheap. Sorry to hear that.
-
Jay, just to put all this in perspective, it might be worthwhile to do a 'Red Green' retrospective and think about the uses for duct tape. " I'm pullin' for yah'! :)
KS
-
Oh man that sux. There used to be a website called haasplus.com that sold rebuild kits for the transmissions.
The website appears to be shut down permanently. It seems the evil overlords put them out of business!
-
Hey Mr.B......any word on what is wrong with your machine (mill). Cory
-
Yes. Last Friday I had the service guy out at my place to listen to the machine and debug the problem. He agreed that it sounded like the transmission, but wanted to run the standard test procedure. This involves taking the motor and transmission loose as a unit, removing the cogged belt that connects the transmission output pulley to the spindle input pulley, and running the motor again to see if the noise was still there without the spindle connected. He did that, and the engine and transmission together were quiet as a mouse. He said this pointed to the top spindle bearing as the culprit.
Next he checked the oiling system on the mill. The machine has an automatic oiling feature, so that while it is running every 30 minutes or so it squirts oil out into 16 little "meters" that oil the ways, the ballscrews, and the spindle bearings. These meters are kind of like jets, with really small orifices. Only one of the meters goes to the spindle bearings. The service guy disconnected the oil line going to the spindle and put a little test tube on the end of the line. Then he gave me a program to input that ran the mill table across a repetitive motion so that the oiling system would work with the spindle not running, and told me to run it for four hours like that, and then measure the amount of oil in the test tube. It was supposed to have 2-3 ccs of oil in it at the end of the test. He was suspicious that the meter was clogged and that the spindle bearings were not getting oil, and he was right. After the four hours of the oiling test were up I looked in the test tube and it was pretty much bone dry. Looks like that $10 clogged meter cost me a spindle.
The local service place did not have the correct replacement spindle cartridge, so the service guy got that lined up to ship from Haas in California; it is supposed to be here tomorrow. They are going to call me to confirm that it came in and arrange to install it. I'm hoping that they can get somebody out here on Saturday so that I can be up and running again this weekend, but if not I will have to take a vacation day one day next week so they can put it in. Then, finally, I can get back to machining the manifolds.
I think I mentioned previously that I had purchased another CNC machine to take the load off my old Milltronics machine; this one is another Haas machine, a smaller one called a VF-2. It has many of the same systems as my VF-4, and is about the same vintage. Over the weekend last weekend I thought it would be a good idea to check the spindle oil meter on that machine too. What do you know, it was also clogged! It was not completely blocked like the one on my VF-4, but the 4 hour test that was supposed to result in 2-3 ccs of oil resulted in less than 1 cc. So I had the service place order a new meter for that machine also, and I put that in earlier this week. Now both machines give the correct amount of oil to the spindle during the four hour test.
One positive out of all this is that I have learned a whole lot about how these machines work and how to fix and diagnose problems with them. When the service guy was here he was really helpful in answering all my questions and explaining his answers thoroughly. He seemed like he really knew what he was doing, which I suppose makes sense since he works primarily on Haas machines. The learning curve for me reminds me of when I got started with working on cars. Over time the mysteries of how everything on a vehicle works peeled away, and I got very comfortable doing just about anything to my cars. I need to get there with the CNC machines too...
-
Well you learned something and found the problem..Its all good..We have a small "First Mill" at work.I went to use it last week and was trying to move the table back and forth by hand and it was pretty much seized.Seems the automatic oiling doesn't work anymore or plugged so everyone just uses the automatic feed to move the table.Apparantly there is no need to tell anyone.....I guess I will be fixing it soon....
Glad to hear you will be making chips again..
Cory
-
Certainly no expert here on Haas machines! Yet, I wonder why or how such sophisticated machines have such a weak spot on a seemingly low tech part (the oiling function). I'm sure Jay you can't be the only user that has had this problem yet I'm slightly surprised Haas hasn't come up with a long-term fix. Is it metal chips that clogged the orifice? From flying off the spindle or do the chips somehow contaminate the oil supply? Any thoughts on a home-grown fix to avoid this issue for good? Just thinking out loud.
-
Well, one thing is that both my machines were originally built in 1995; maybe they have revised the oiling system so that this is no longer a problem now. However, a local friend of mine who runs a production floor with a bunch of CNC machines has told me that this is a common problem. His suggestion was to have the spindle in my machine repaired, rather than replaced, and repair it by putting in new bearings that are grease packed rather than bearings that rely on the oil supply. He told me that the grease packed bearings have about 30% less life than the oiled bearings, but that they don't fail if the oil supply dries up. That would have been a cheaper option for me too, but I had another concern with my spindle anyway, which was that the taper that the tool holder fits into was a little scarred up, and sometimes the tools would stick in the spindle and the machine would then stop and give an alarm when trying to do a tool change. So a new spindle cartridge kills two birds with one stone for me.
The oiling system is isolated from the chips in the machine and I don't think that chips can get into the lines or the meters; I think that they clog mostly from varnish buildup over time, or else dirt that gets into the lube tank when it is filled up. I'm actually giving some serious thought to replacing all 16 meters on both machines, just for peace of mind...
-
Glad you got to the bottom of it Jay! It's still a PITA you're dealing with. I know the spindle oiling is working fine on my Haas because I'll typically see a small amount of spindle oil on the table or vise under the spindle after setting overnight. (As you describe, this only happens when the machine has been running for a while.)
Hopefully you get both machines up and running soon. If you get much more equipment running in that barn you probably won't have to heat the place anymore!
- Bill
-
Just a quick update here, my machine is back up and running, and so far the performance is really improved with the new spindle. No more sticking tools, no more spindle orientation problems, etc. I will have the first three intakes of the production batch (#3, #4, and #5 on the list) finished this weekend, with more done next week - Jay
-
Congrats on that. 8)
-
Jay; thanks for the update, I'm amazed by your abilities, not to mention your tenacity.
Take your time on the adapters so as not to fall behind on your personal projects/builds.... Rick Wanner
-
Maybe this type of 351C intake has been around for a while and I've never noticed. But I think it's a neat deal from a porting standpoint. Besides porting I can't feature why you would want to split an intake in half. Maybe Mr. Craine will chime in.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ford-302-351C-Cleveland-3V-4V-w-Tongues-Fusion-High-Rise-Intake-Manifold-Satin-/171220765691?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item27dd8d8bfb&vxp=mtr
-
I think it probably is primarily for porting purposes. Machoneman posted a picture of a similar manifold earlier in the thread. I like the idea; if I end up making a dedicated single 4 intake for the adapter, I'll probably do it like that...
-
I better go cash in my bottles and food stamps.Sounds like my numbers are up in the next week or so..I look forward to seeing the manifolds.It will motivate me to get my heads finished...I will wait a bit before I buy a 351C intake and see what the dyno says.....Cory
-
Maybe this type of 351C intake has been around for a while and I've never noticed. But I think it's a neat deal from a porting standpoint. Besides porting I can't feature why you would want to split an intake in half. Maybe Mr. Craine will chime in.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ford-302-351C-Cleveland-3V-4V-w-Tongues-Fusion-High-Rise-Intake-Manifold-Satin-/171220765691?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item27dd8d8bfb&vxp=mtr
Actually, that is the only reason (porting) for the 2-piece intakes as only high-end, specially cast single planes get this treatment . IIRC, the first one I heard about some years ago now was for a (surprise!) SBC.
Apparently, some smart guy fed up with trying to maximize the flow of a single plane intake decided to take a bandsaw to an existing intake to experiment with and voila! Neat idea and very handy for the race engine guys.
-
that's great your back up and making them. theres a few guys around here that might be interested in some when they see the one I get. I just might be the only one in atlantic Canada with one, for awhile anyways :)
-
I was at the foundry today, taking a gander at the first prototype high-riser casting. Now that the standard intake adapters are running fairly smoothly in production, I can start thinking about doing the programs for this bad boy:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/HRcast1.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/HRcast2.jpg)
This casting has not yet been heat treated and is still covered with some casting sand; it will be a couple of weeks before I get my hands on it. It is also a full 20 pounds heavier than the raw medium riser casting!
This one is going to be trickier to machine than the medium riser casting, just because of it's size. Right now, when the 4th axis on my CNC machine spins the castings around and moves them into position for the various machining operations, the casting itself comes very close to hitting some of the tools in the toolholder. The high riser casting would definitely hit some of them if run through the same operations, so I may have to split the machining into a few different operations, with limited tools in the toolholders. I have to admit I'm kind of looking forward to that challenge. Meantime, I have a couple of weeks to just continue running the medium riser adapters, and try to get some work done on my SOHC project...
-
How many adapters are you able to complete each week now with your machines running well now? How long until you'll be able to look at the programming for the Yates manifolds? Eagerly waiting at #31 :) I have the Edelbrock 2863 manifold boxed up ready to ship your way whenever you'd like to see it. Really excited to get the intake installed on the race car for the upcoming season.
Thanks for the update, keep the chips flying!
-
I'm running at about 4 per week at the moment, David. I'm working on #10 now (or I should say the machine is working on it ;D) I'll probably have you send me your intake in a couple weeks - Jay
-
Your HR adapter looks great Jay! I have been very curious about the HR progress lately and was sure happy to see an update. I have been biting my tonque! Didn't want to ask, (bug you) about that...
-
I was at the foundry today, taking a gander at the first prototype high-riser casting. Now that the standard intake adapters are running fairly smoothly in production, I can start thinking about doing the programs for this bad boy:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/HRcast1.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/HRcast2.jpg)
This casting has not yet been heat treated and is still covered with some casting sand; it will be a couple of weeks before I get my hands on it. It is also a full 20 pounds heavier than the raw medium riser casting!
This one is going to be trickier to machine than the medium riser casting, just because of it's size. Right now, when the 4th axis on my CNC machine spins the castings around and moves them into position for the various machining operations, the casting itself comes very close to hitting some of the tools in the toolholder. The high riser casting would definitely hit some of them if run through the same operations, so I may have to split the machining into a few different operations, with limited tools in the toolholders. I have to admit I'm kind of looking forward to that challenge. Meantime, I have a couple of weeks to just continue running the medium riser adapters, and try to get some work done on my SOHC project...
That's my baby LOL... Thinking about doing rubbings of the flanges on my ported Dove HR heads and the injectors to send to you, to see how they match up
-
No hurry on that, because I won't be able to do much with them until I get some of the basic machining operations programmed. But at some point down the road it would be good to them, to see how they match up with a raised medium riser port.
-
you should look into making a cheaper alternative set of crossbolted mains,, :)
-
No hurry on that, because I won't be able to do much with them until I get some of the basic machining operations programmed. But at some point down the road it would be good to them, to see how they match up with a raised medium riser port.
They might match up pretty good, as these Dove HR's have been cut for race T&D's, which didn't leave much of the roof, and then the roof was filled slightly with Devcon
-
this intake looks interesting
(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxNjAw/z/KbQAAMXQlgtSuJZJ/$_57.JPG)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/131103200485?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2648
-
Do you think that a speedmaster intake#SKU-147.1082 will bolt to your adapter???if so I could use a bird catcher on it and run myfavorite fuel!!!!
-
I don't know, I've never seen that intake. But if it fits a factory 351C 4V head, it should fit my intake adapter. If it is for an aftermarket 351C head, it may still fit, but perhaps the adapter will need special modifications. Do you know where I can get more info on that intake?
-
seems its the one I posted a picture of above
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ford-302-351C-Cleveland-3V-4V-w-Tongues-High-Rise-Intake-Manifold-Satin-/171198370469
-
It says "3V Heads" in the ad. Not sure what that means; the only 3V heads I know of are the ones from CHI, and they are different from a standard Cleveland port configuration...
-
;DJust received my adapters, and they look great! Question. Did you drill some for Windsor bolt patterns? One of mine has two sets of bolt patterns. If so, that means I can get physical with my flutes on a Victor! Joe-JDC
-
Joe, the 13003 adapter is drilled with the second bolt pattern so that you can bolt a plate onto the flange and fabricate an intake starting with the plate if you want. I thought that this would be easier for somebody, rather than trying to use the 351C intake bolt holes, which of course are at an angle to the flange. The plates that I made up for the 13002 adapter (shown in the ad in the vendor classifieds section) will bolt right onto the holes in the 13003 intake also.
Glad you like the adapters, it was a long road to get there but now that they are moving off the CNC machine at a steady pace I think it was all worth it - Jay
-
Jay where did you get the clear valve cover on your test mule?!! 8)
-
I made those myself. If they stand a summer of abuse this summer, I'll probably start making them for sale. Here's a link to a thread on them:
http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=1036.0
-
Please note that as of this date and time (February 16, 2:30 Central US time) all 100 of the first batch of intake adapters have been spoken for. I will continue to add names to the list after the first 100, and at this time I expect to continue to build the product, but I will not be quoting delivery times on the intakes past the first 100. Also, starting with intake #101 there will be a significant price increase. The price increase is being driven primarily by the foundry, which has had to increase the casting price because of a change in the way they are casting the intake adapters, to minimize their scrap rate. I will post a new price for the adapters as soon as I get a finalized quote from the foundry. Thanks to everyone who has expressed interest and supported this project - Jay
-
It says "3V Heads" in the ad. Not sure what that means; the only 3V heads I know of are the ones from CHI, and they are different from a standard Cleveland port configuration...
That intake might work OK - no way to know until it runs on an engine. But it appears to be shiny, but horribly crude inside.
I have a couple of the adapters - which look awesome. One belongs to a customer, the other to me. I have plans for mine that might look something like this...
http://v8tvshow.com/forum/index.php/topic,2016.msg3488.html
-
I have plans for mine that might look something like this...
Oh that is so damn sexy Barry. Envy meter is pegging.
-
It says "3V Heads" in the ad. Not sure what that means; the only 3V heads I know of are the ones from CHI, and they are different from a standard Cleveland port configuration...
That intake might work OK - no way to know until it runs on an engine. But it appears to be shiny, but horribly crude inside.
I have a couple of the adapters - which look awesome. One belongs to a customer, the other to me. I have plans for mine that might look something like this...
http://v8tvshow.com/forum/index.php/topic,2016.msg3488.html
Man, that guy does nice work...
-
He must be an alien, no human can weld that "perfect"!
-
Alien or not, that is a work of art!
-
Wow, CRAZY welding skills :o
I think that guy is going places. I wouldn't even venture to guess his prices!
-
You ain't seen nothing...John is not from this planet...
You'd also be amazed to find out how young he is - just a pure natural.
I had his N/A Pontiac motor on my dyno last year - darn thing had 24 injectors and made way north of 1000....no power adders!
Here are some more...some of these feel like they're almost illegal to look at...
http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=127750
Check out post #784, or #790...
-
Being a tig welder myself I can really appreciate that quality of craftsmanship. I have been tig welding for 20 yrs and I wont lie I am not that good!But then again I dont do that day in and day out!
-
Those radius' on the entry to the runners is what I have been trying to get folks to produce for years when they make a sheetmetal intake. The Hogans that I have seen are terrible in that area, and don't flow well. You also need a space between the entry and a wall, which John apparently has. Great looking work. Joe-JDC
-
wow
http://www.headerflames.com/forum/view_topic.php?id=2202&forum_id=5
-
That's the Swartz Racing version of an FE intake adapter. It is beautiful, machined completely from billet, but they have to be bolted together and cost about $2000.
-
$2000 makes me go "wow" too!
A cool piece, but REQUIRES a special made intake (more big money) and still doesn't allow for easy access to the lifter valley like Jays adapter does.
-
Hi Jay, Just curious, what number manifold are you up to ?? ( just want to make sure I don't miss your Email :o ) Thank's John
UPDATE.....Just answered my own question by reading the post under Vendor classified's , can't wait to get one of these manifolds.... ;D
-
heres my adapter sitting on my motor
(http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff267/new_falcon_owner/falcon/002-11.jpg)
(http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff267/new_falcon_owner/falcon/003-10.jpg)
(http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff267/new_falcon_owner/falcon/007-5.jpg)
im rebuilding the carbs this weekend, hopefully cam swap and find a single 4 intake to break the cam in, then put the tunnel ram back on for a photo op and video to follow if things go well..
Totally happy with the adapter. thanx a lot for all your hard work Jay.
-
Glad you like it Rick, that tunnel ram sure looks good on there... 8)
-
Jay B. Jay I still want a MR manifold. Do you have any left? Just need an address and cost of the unit. I think I had my name added to your list way back. Rick L.
-
.....that tunnel ram sure looks good on there... 8)
I have to agree, it looks great on there! Looking good, Rick (NewFalconOwner).
-
thanx. :)
-
Jay B. Jay I still want a MR manifold. Do you have any left? Just need an address and cost of the unit. I think I had my name added to your list way back. Rick L.
Rick, I have you on my list at #87. I'm only in the mid 20s for building the intake adapters, so it will be a few months before yours is ready. No money required until your adapter is ready. Email me at jayb@fepower.net and let me know what version you want. Thanks, Jay
-
So about a week ago I finally got some CAD files finished up that I could forward to some interested parties, who wanted to build a custom intake top for use with my adapter. These are 3D CAD files that only show part of the intake adapter, the area where the intake bolts on, and the center section showing the thermostat housing, distributor hole, road draft tube hole, etc. One of the interested parties was Borla. They are making some pretty cool EFI setups for various engines. A few days ago I sent them the CAD drawings, and they have already got an EFI crossram setup drawn up on the 13002 intake adapter. They sent me some screenshots of the intake they want to build for the adapter. It is really, really cool:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/Borla Test Assembly 1.JPG)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/Borla Test Assembly 2.JPG)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/Borla Test Assembly 3.JPG)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/Borla Test Assembly 4.JPG)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/Borla Test Assembly 5.JPG)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/Borla Test Assembly 6.JPG)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/Borla Test Assembly 7.JPG)
This is just the kind of thing I was hoping that my intake adapter would inspire. I don't have a lot of details on this setup yet, but I will pass more of them along as I get them...
-
I'm curious about why they have the butterfly shafts pointing up-down instead of sharing a common axis. With a common shaft they'll stay in adjustment once you get them set up.
What could be the advantage of this, unless you want to tune opening rates individually for different cylinders (??)
-
Wow. I don't know if that bad-boy would fit under the hood of my cobra, but if they make it, I'm sure as hell going to find out. Glad I'm on the list for one of your adapters, Jay!
-
I'm curious about why they have the butterfly shafts pointing up-down instead of sharing a common axis. With a common shaft they'll stay in adjustment once you get them set up.
What could be the advantage of this, unless you want to tune opening rates individually for different cylinders (??)
I think I know the answer to that one. On the Hilborn injector setups I use on my SOHCs, there is a common shaft for the butterflies. Every time you re-install the manifold you have to re-set the butterflies, because they will stick in the injector bores. If you put a turn on one of the manifold bolts, you have to reset them because it puts a little bit different twist into the manifold. After the engine has run for a while, and the gaskets take a set, you have to re-set them. I find that I am constantly pulling the stacks, loosening the two screws that hold each butterfly in place, and re-adjusting so that the throttle doesn't stick. I'll bet that the individual shafts with an external linkage prevents that problem.
-
That's exactly right Jay, they did so to avoid the sticky butterfly situation. The common shaft is not a big deal on a dedicated race engine but, as noted, a pain in the rear on street driven car >:(.
-
Here are some more details on this setup:
- Butterflies are 50mm (about 2") in diameter.
- Runner length from the flange to the top of the airhorn is around 15". The airhorns can be machined to different lengths to vary that overall runner length somewhat.
- Unfortunately a standard distributor won't fit; either an offset distributor, or a distributorless setup, will be required.
-
Would that system still work on the 13001 manifold ?
-
Here are some more details on this setup:
- Butterflies are 50mm (about 2") in diameter.
- Runner length from the flange to the top of the airhorn is around 15". The airhorns can be machined to different lengths to vary that overall runner length somewhat.
- Unfortunately a standard distributor won't fit; either an offset distributor, or a distributorless setup, will be required.
Are you sure that a distributor would not work with this system? Maybe they can make sure the final drawings would accomodate a stock/MSD style distributor. Looks great! Joe-JDC
-
Would that system still work on the 13001 manifold ?
Well, it would with some modifications. You'd have to port the 13001 to fit and you'd have a pretty big port mismatch on the inboard side of each port; you might want to fill that for best performance. You would also have to drill and tap the intake adapter so it had the same bolt pattern as the 13002. So it could be done, but it would be a lot of screwing around...
-
Are you sure that a distributor would not work with this system? Maybe they can make sure the final drawings would accomodate a stock/MSD style distributor. Looks great! Joe-JDC
Well, that's what they told me, and they've got the CAD model. Maybe you could make one work with some mods, but until you had one of those intakes in your hands, it would be pretty tough to say for sure...
-
Maybe a crank trigger- shorty distributor? This one is for a Windsor but maybe a BBF or BBC could be modified. Trouble is they use an unusually wide cap that alone may blow the deal. Just a thought.
http://www.jegs.com/i/MSD-Ignition/121/8378/10002/-1?parentProductId=
-
next item for mass market??
http://www.ebay.com/itm/427-FORD-FE-PRO-STOCK-ENGINEERING-POLISHED-ALUMINUM-TIMING-COVER-HAS-CAM-PLATE-/121289858076?pt=Vintage_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item1c3d705c1c&vxp=mtr
-
Funny you should mention that. Watch for an upcoming thread...
-
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Cool
-
Funny you should mention that. Watch for an upcoming thread...
definitely be waiting for this thread :)
-
I finally found a PSE timing cover last year and was lucky to get a NOS one..It is pretty much obscured by the water pump but between it and the new intake my engine will be much easier to work on...I like the idea of it being redone......Cory.....
Everytime I try and post a pic it tells me my file is to large..I didn't think that rule applied here ??
-
Everytime I try and post a pic it tells me my file is to large..I didn't think that rule applied here ??
That's strange, I don't know why that is happening. There is no limit on size in the software package that I can see. Have you tried hosting the pictures on a web site like Photobucket? I know for sure that you can put any size picture there, and link it to make it show up in the post here.
-
I am just importing them off my computer but as I have a photobucket account to put pics on the FE site I will try it here.....This is what I read on my reply page
Attach: (Clear Attachment) (more attachments)Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 192KB, maximum individual size 128KB
-
A 2 piece timing cover would be cool. My question is who makes an adjustable (two piece) cam gear, so you can make use of it to advance or retard the cam timing quickly, for fine tuning. Is there one available? I don't see an advantage if you can only adjust the crank gear, like so many timing sets have, and would require removing the damper (I don't think that is the idea?).
At one time, I think Barry was talking about doing some timing sets up with an adjustable cam gear, maybe if he does that, and Jay makes available the two piece cover (casting), we'll be in business?
-
We've done a cam driven distributor already, and used a fabricated "spud" to turn the oil pump.
I've talked to Jay briefly about timing covers, but do not know where he's headed on that project yet.
I "need to get to it" on the adjustable timing set - just have not had the time.
Anybody interested in self adhesive gaskets for oil filter adapters, timing covers, water pumps????
Remember this engine?
(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e135/Barry_R/October212010021.jpg)
-
Cloyes makes a timing chain called a Hex-adjust that is adjustable at the cam gear, but it looks like it will only go +/- 6 degrees. I don't know if it is crank degrees or cam degrees; if it is cam degrees then +/- 6 might be enough. And I don't know if they are any good, because I've never used one.
I have a design for a timing chain arrangement that uses steel pins to move the timing, which is more positive than an analog adjustment mechanism like the Hex-adjust or the Danny Bee setup. But it is just a design at this point...
-
From all that I have read, the Cloyes Hex-Adjust has issues with maintaining precise alignment. I have not tried one though. Lunati now seems to be making an adjustable cam gear set-up for the FE that uses a +/-6* cam gear along with a 3 position crank gear for a total of 10* adjustment....
http://www.jegs.com/i/Lunati/638/95105/10002/-1?CAWELAID=1903726174&catargetid=1784159720&cadevice=c&&cagpspn=pla&gclid=CKWBoc-thr0CFchFMgod6BgARQ
But I have not tried it either and have not heard or read any feedback from people who have.
It would be fairly straight forward to have multiple locating pin holes drilled in a cam gear for increased adjustment, but the measurements for the holes would have to be precise and is beyond the average builders ability.
-
It would be fairly straight forward to have multiple locating pin holes drilled in a cam gear for increased adjustment, but the measurements for the holes would have to be precise and is beyond the average builders ability.
That's what CNC is for ;)
-
Hello, Just learned of your new manifold. Great idea, one of those "Why didn't I think of that?". I saw or read an article that someone was fabricating a manifold that would mate the small Cadillac V8 composite fuel injection manifold to a SBC. That was my first thought with your manifold and a 4.6 or 5.4 adaptation. The FE may be to wide or narrow, I'm not positive there. Look forward to future posts on your progress. Thanks.
-
Help me out here fellas!
I remember an old Super Ford magazine article (do I miss that rag!) where I thought it was MPG, the firm that makes crank scrapers, also was offering a BBF 429-460 based externally adjustable (no misprint!) crank gear and cam sprocket. No timing chain cover removal needed! With only the turn of three capscrews at the balancer one could advance/retard the cam's timing a bunch. Does anyone remember this one or have experience with it? John V. would remember I'm sure.
It would be fairly straight forward to have multiple locating pin holes drilled in a cam gear for increased adjustment, but the measurements for the holes would have to be precise and is beyond the average builders ability.
That's what CNC is for ;)
-
That would be Cam Research, here is a link. They make them for FE's also! Kind of a interesting design, but I know nothing about it, good or bad. $850 starts to gets close to the cost of a belt drive... sort of!
http://www.camresearchcorp.com/shop/parts/cam-drive/
-
Hey, that's it! Still, I'd rather see a JB designed belt drive system with the new 2-piece cover to bring the FE into the 21st century.
-
I received my intake adapter and it is a beautiful piece. ( Standard adapter ). I've been looking at lot's of 351C 4V intakes other than the Edelbrock Torker.
I found 2 offered by Trick Flow Specialties that seem to be ideal, part numbers are: 51600111 and 51600113. Has anyone already stumbled on to this possibility?
I think the 51600111 would likely be better for smaller cubic inch engines using the adapter, whereas the 51600113 appears to have larger external runners maybe allowing for better port matching.
I'm going to call TFS and talk to the tech dept. If I learn any more info I'll pass it along. Rick Wanner
-
My plan is the Box R with a port job from Fox Lake.
-
heres my plan for my adapter
(http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff267/new_falcon_owner/falcon/013-2.jpg)
-
GM tpi? Not sure tell me about it. I would like to hear more
-
it is GM :( but the harness I plan to use (FAST #302000 harness and self learning ECU) uses a TPI or LT1 throttle body and GM sensors. I picked up a cheap LT1 complete intake to rob parts off of. I will be using 42lb injectors and a 1000cfm (58mm) throttle body once its complete. Hopefully this way I wont have to change over to a single 4 for daily driver duty and switch over to the tunnel ram for shows/racing. Hopefully in the next few months it will be up and running. Plus I can keep my scoop I made and not have to have the tunnel ram sticking over the hood 7 inches (wife wont go in it with the thing sticking out over the hood).
-
How far off are the ports? There have been discussions about adapting tpi but some were saying placement was wrong on the FE
-
I got aftermarket bungs and rails, the LT1 or TPI rails are wayyy off. Only thing I used on the LTI intake is the throttle body with TPS and IAC sensor, MAP sensor, and the vac. fitting for the adjustable pressure regulator. rest I thru on ebay. I made my own plate on the tunnel ram top to mount the throttle body.
I had to do abit of modifying to the front of the tunnel ram top to be able to still be able to bolt it down as the throttle body plate is right on the base of it. I countersunk each corner and used 5/16x3/4" allen head bolts (cut down 1/4") and the other 6 are allen head bolts still 3/4". The front allen head bolts now fit flush with the top of the top plate and I can then bolt on the throttle body without a problem. I used a 1/2" thick chunk of alum, drilled and tapped for the throttle body mounts. I could take a picture of that if you wanted to see what im trying to say lol.
(http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff267/new_falcon_owner/falcon/035.jpg)
(http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff267/new_falcon_owner/falcon/004-7.jpg)
-
Pretty ingenuous, I was thinking of doing the same with an Edelbrock RPM air gap dual quad and two throttle body's. I scrapped the idea though to use an intake that was already set up for the Cleveland. The box R comes stock with the same claimed CFM as the ported Edelbrock head from Barry so with a good cleanup I should be in nice shape.
-
what is a box R?
-
I had previously posted about the TFS Track Heat single 4V intakes for use with the Standard adapter. I spoke with the TFS tech dept and the 51600111 and 51600113 manifolds are actually the same, except the 113 is applicable to Clevors and even though they are typically for 9.2" deck blocks he thought the 113 manifold might be wider (?). The picture of the 51600111 is actually a drawing giving the illusion of slightly smaller OD runners.
I ordered the 51600111 from Summit, I've received it and I believe it will be about the easiest port match ever to the adapter. The runners are larger than the Ed Torker, the TFS casting is really nice and the ports are really pretty too. It is tall though.
After I mod the manifold to fit the adapter, I'll know way more. No I don't work for TFS, Rick Wanner
-
after install, would you mind posting some pics and measurements in height at the aft china wall and other points at the back of the engine? With a truck, I have no real worries about height to the hood, just about the firewall right below the cowl. the quote is from a thread back in Jan
Mine is a little different and here is why, I have a 76 F250 with a 390 4V and C6. I am an aircraft mech and sometimes gypsy around following the contracts. I need a truck that is dead-nuts reliable and starts every time with a tool box and other necessary sundries loaded in the bed or trailer or both up to 4 or 5 tons. It has to be powerful enough to cross country and efficient enough I wont have to work three or four months just to pay the gas bills. My thoughts start with a mirror 105 block and a possibly a 428 crank for 410 ci (I am thinking a 445 stroker inhaling 445 ci of air uses more fuel than a 416ci inhaling 416 ci of air, even at cruise). Using an Al head with modern combustion chamber characteristics for efficiency ( the FElony head sounds like it fits the bill) and a hyd roller cam with all necessary machine work on block and oiling sys as required. Compression ratio will need to match with induction choices as follows, a properly sized turbo blowing through an intercooler (the '99 era Powerstroke Diesel intercooler seems to fit the dentside radiator support according to members of the FTE Forum) into a bread box type upper (like the old Cartech) on a dual 4V manifold or Jay Browns 351C adapter with a tunnel ram under the bread box. Fuel to be supplied by injection using a 5.0 computer with a reprogramed MAF and supplied using the Edelbrock 3605 - Edelbrock E-Street EFI Systems (if compatible). To maintain streetability on street gas, use a Snow Performance water/meth injection kit If all of this plays well together, then I would slide an E4OD tranny behind that with a tank for the water/meth solution in a 7 or 8 gallon tank mounted behind the spare tire in the bed.
-
what is a box R?
?? ???
http://www.trickflow.com/pressreleases/intakeford351/ (http://www.trickflow.com/pressreleases/intakeford351/)
-
cam break in with Jays adapter and a Torker intake and 600 Holley
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqpUe2H2SoM&list=UUsc5TLeHZAnqtt-8J1EeMkg
open headers once broken in.. still need to put in the inner springs and time it,,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTUgzy5YtnM&list=UUsc5TLeHZAnqtt-8J1EeMkg
-
My adapter arrived today 3 Days from jay to sweden a week to clear customs >:( >:( >:(
Maby they liked it so much they had a hard time to let go of it.
Even my wife thought it was beautyful
Thanks Jay a real quality product
-
Glad you like it! Post some pictures of the intake manifold that you build on top of it when you get it finished, I'd like to see that...
-
Yes i will
Im meassuring and thinking and trying different
throtlebodies right now....There is the easiest way,
an 1.5 inch thick plate and bolt the tb,s to that
and drill for the injectors
the most impressiv looking way, 8 cromed stacks through the
hood and probably the
best way,Long straight tuned runners. I just have to combine those 3 ::) ::)
-
Well I'm into matching the previously posted Trick Flow Track Heat 4V Intake # TFS-51600111 to my standard adapter. I have discovered that the ports on both are for all intents and purposes identical in size and shape ( 2.15" H X 1.540" W) ,except for the height . The manifold to the adapter needs to be raised a total of .1875" . The Trick Flow gasket #TFS-5160021 fits the adapter port perfectly if the bolt holes are very gently trimmed on the bottoms, the gaskets measure .062" thick.
So my question is does anybody make a thin ( approximately .075" ) spacer? If so I could use 2 gaskets sandwiching the spacer and achieve perfect port alignment. If I glued 3 gaskets together it would likely be so close as to make a spacer unnecessary. I have never glued 3 gaskets together and worry that the center gasket might pinch out over time. Does anyone make a double thick gasket? That might work also if I glued one standard gasket to it.
Should I make my own spacer?
-
Mr. Gasket makes a double thick 0.125" gasket. If that won't work, I'd take some thin aluminum and using the gasket as a template, just cut your own spacer.
-
I have made shim gaskets from copper sheet for projects. It is stable enough to use a thick shim and soft enough to seal with a little aviation sealant . I have also used it dry with no issues, trimming is easy enough with a rotozip. Best thing is you can reuse it with no leaks.
-
Well I'm into matching the previously posted Trick Flow Track Heat 4V Intake # TFS-51600111 to my standard adapter. I have discovered that the ports on both are for all intents and purposes identical in size and shape ( 2.15" H X 1.540" W) ,except for the height . The manifold to the adapter needs to be raised a total of .1875" . The Trick Flow gasket #TFS-5160021 fits the adapter port perfectly if the bolt holes are very gently trimmed on the bottoms, the gaskets measure .062" thick.
So my question is does anybody make a thin ( approximately .075" ) spacer? If so I could use 2 gaskets sandwiching the spacer and achieve perfect port alignment. If I glued 3 gaskets together it would likely be so close as to make a spacer unnecessary. I have never glued 3 gaskets together and worry that the center gasket might pinch out over time. Does anyone make a double thick gasket? That might work also if I glued one standard gasket to it.
Should I make my own spacer?
Cometic has aramid gaskets up to .188" thickness. I'm sure they can cut some for you with your TFS gasket as a template.
http://www.cometic.com/custom-gaskets.aspx
-
Bump to the top! ;D
Wondering how the HR adapter is coming along Jay. I know you have been busy... but any kind of progress report on where this project is at currently. I know you had a few raw castings a while back, new programs to sort out, etc.
Thanks.
Thor
-
Thor, I haven't made much progress since the Drag Week thrash began a few months ago, but the HR intake adapters are at the top of the list at the moment. I'm shooting to have them finished by the time the PRI show rolls around in December. We will see what happens...
-
any news on the timing cover production? :)
-
After evaluating the first prototypes I had to have some minor modifications done to the tooling on the timing cover to make everything work. Next prototypes are due next month, and I hope to have production parts ready by December.
-
Thor, I haven't made much progress since the Drag Week thrash began a few months ago, but the HR intake adapters are at the top of the list at the moment. I'm shooting to have them finished by the time the PRI show rolls around in December. We will see what happens...
Where are you at on the standard Intake Adaptors? If I remember correct my # is mid to high 80's
-
I'm machining #67 now; I haven't done much in the last 8 weeks because of the Drag Week thrash, but am now getting back to the normal production rate. If you are in the mid 80s I should have yours done in November.
-
I keep reading the updates but I have apparently missed the pricing and ordering info. Is there some other way to communicate with you on this? Email perhaps? I have 427 hi riser heads on mine. I believe I have read somewhere that you have an adapter to fit these. Am I correct? I am wanting to use a weiand tunnel ram on this. Is that workable with your adapter? My name is Randy Kuhnhoff and my email address is rkuhnhoff@fspp.com if you would like to respond that way. Thanks!
-
Randy, the pricing and ordering info is at the link below, in the Vendor Classifieds section:
http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=1249.0
You can also email me at jayb@fepower.net if you want to talk directly.
For the high riser heads, I can machine an adapter so that the standard 351C intake will fit, but the tops of the FE ports in the adapter will be below the tops of the high riser ports in the heads. This is kind of counterproductive from a flow standpoint. A better solution would be to move the ports in the adapter up so that the roof of the port in the adapter matches the roof of the port in the head, but then the problem is that the ports are positioned wider apart on the adapter, so the manifold will not just bolt into place. The solution would be a spacer plate, that would go between the tunnel ram and the adapter, but I haven't machined anything like that yet. In fact I'm still kind of in the middle of developing the machining operations for the high riser version. I might be interested in doing a spacer plate to make a 351C intake work. I'd suggest you just email me and get on the list for one of the high riser adapters, and then we can figure out how to proceed as I come to your adapter. Thanks for your interest in the product - Jay
-
Thought you folks would like to see one of Jay's adapters in process over here. Making it fit onto a set of Blue Thunder medium riser heads with the large intake port. Adapter was originally intended for a different port - so we have to change things a bit. That's where John Marcella - the intake welder - comes in.
He added material to the floor of each runner to allow us to blend up into the higher position of the Blue Thunder port. We had already port matched the Cleveland tunnel ram outlet to the adapter - so the weld is a built up "ramp" that is +/-5/16 tall right at the exit. The welds are darn near smooth enough to tootsie roll....
Then he added material to the top of each runner to give us a place for the gasket to seal - the BT heads have a higher roof opening that - while "port-able" would have not allowed any sealing surface up there once done.
The tunnel ram has its own short story. Before we cut the extra stuff away we decided to have Marcella weld some supports in between the runner banks. The thought was that the intake might "spring apart" some once we removed all the metal connecting the sides. John cannot make anything simple - not in his nature - so the welded in front and rear struts have arc shapes so they look sexier...
Overall looking pretty cool and wanted to share. Milling the welded flanges flat again, and then finish porting at the head end...
(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e135/Barry_R/20141112_1749221_zpsfab14eab.jpg)
(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e135/Barry_R/20141112_1747551_zpsc34a13ba.jpg)
(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e135/Barry_R/20141112_1753341_zpsf18aca07.jpg)
(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e135/Barry_R/20141112_1750411_zpseaed6e01.jpg)
-
The only comment I can come up with is dirty, very dirty.
Really cool Barry.
-
Wow! Looks great. All I can say is.....it takes a lot of balls to take a brand new part and do that much welding to it! 8)
-
Looks pretty good, Barry. Just as an FYI, I recently completed one of the high riser castings for high riser customer #1, who also has the BT medium riser heads. Using the high riser casting there is plenty of meat available over the top of the Blue Thunder ports, and I did the CNC porting program to match. Basically, I machined the high riser casting as a medium riser, but with 0.300" over the BT medium riser ports, and the BT medium riser port sizes on the head side of the adapter. See the pics of this particular adapter at the bottom of the first post in this thread:
http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=1249.0
Also FYI I've cut several of the Weiand tunnel rams, removing the bottoms, and have not seen any evidence that they spring apart. But the welding on yours looks pretty cool, probably worth it for bling factor alone LOL!
-
I had the same thought about the intake warping once cut out, my intension is to leave some webbing between the front and back. I am also considering removing the material between the ports on the side for better air circulation, I am thinking that leaving some webs there would not hurt either. I would imagine with welding on all that will require some milling to true it up also so am not going to remove all the welding as my ports will end up being Cleaveland 4V sized in the end. Fortunately the Trick Flow Box R base is already set up for the 2V/4V port already so a little port work is all I need to make the transition. The nice thing about the arrangement is that later when I get the heads ported the intake and adaptor is already sized for the larger port.
-
I would post pictures of my intake but can`t figure out how to post the picture?
-
OKay, The wife came to my rescue for posting pictures. This is manifold # 60 with a Weiand tunnel ram. Notice no braces, it didn`t move when I cut the bottom off. These manifolds appear quite stout. I thought I`d try out the looks of two different air cleaners. The carbs are modified 3310 Holleys. Still working on linkages. I`m kinda thinking of running this setup on my 63 Galaxie for next yrs FE reunion, but who knows. It would hafta be hoodless if I do.
-
Pic 2
-
Pic 3
-
Pic 4
-
Looks awesome!!!! I want to take the same open approach with my base, like carving a pumpkin LOL.
-
ive cut and modified my weiand tunnel ram and it hasnt moved at all. it is pretty strong and the runners havent moved after all my torture to it
(http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff267/new_falcon_owner/351%20C%20tunnel%20ram%20fuel%20injection/006-3.jpg)
(http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff267/new_falcon_owner/351%20C%20tunnel%20ram%20fuel%20injection/20140919_192121.jpg)
-
That looks good Barry, thanks for posting those pictures and info. John sure can weld aluminum better than anyone I have ever seen.
Also Jay, your BT MR adapter sure came out nice, good job on that, using the HR base to start with (and lots of machining!). Those BT MR port are BIG! Two solutions for the same issue/application, kudos to both of you.
-
I would like to build something like this for my adapter.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/LS7-LS-SBC-CHEVY-FABRICATED-ALUMINUM-BLOWER-MANIFOLD-FOR-671-871-/380684305625?pt=Race_Car_Parts&hash=item58a28d84d9&vxp=mtr
-
Blue thunder and Dyre's Blower Service have them already made up.
-
Although I often say it to myself, I think I also need to say here that you and your efforts are 'cooler than spats on a duck'!
KS
-
This isn't the first test Ive seen that a Tunnel Ram outperformed the other Street Style Intakes ( Car Craft did it with a Big Block Chevy Years ago ) , BUT what is missing here and the other tests were the street Manners ( kind of like no reason for a Dist recurve for racing ) your tests Start above what most street combos cruise at 3000+, This is where you don't drive a Dyno analogy fits , If You hook a tunnel ram to most combos ( that are truly street cars ) Not Drag Week participants ( no offense meant ) and they will be Dogs, Lazy under 5mpg under 20mile trip fairground cruisers, 4000+ Stall Converters and gearing really needed for That intake to work well ------ With That said I love your adapter ;D, I have been looking for a Blower intake for a Cleveland , These Tests are Great , saves the rest of us Dyno Time , Thank You Jay 8)
-
Don't know where I was when you dyno'd the 351C manifolds on the adaptor but I missed it...Was the performer port matched or left with the slightly smaller ports...I found the video with the clear valve cover interesting...Not as much oil as I would have thought....Cory
-
This isn't the first test Ive seen that a Tunnel Ram outperformed the other Street Style Intakes ( Car Craft did it with a Big Block Chevy Years ago ) , BUT what is missing here and the other tests were the street Manners ( kind of like no reason for a Dist recurve for racing ) your tests Start above what most street combos cruise at 3000+, This is where you don't drive a Dyno analogy fits , If You hook a tunnel ram to most combos ( that are truly street cars ) Not Drag Week participants ( no offense meant ) and they will be Dogs, Lazy under 5mpg under 20mile trip fairground cruisers, 4000+ Stall Converters and gearing really needed for That intake to work well ------ With That said I love your adapter ;D, I have been looking for a Blower intake for a Cleveland , These Tests are Great , saves the rest of us Dyno Time , Thank You Jay 8)
Glad you like the tests, Faron. I like them too, because they are so much fun to run ;D I wish there was a way I could run a dyno test down to 1000 RPM to address issues like low RPM performance of a tunnel ram. I think there's a lot that can be done with carb tuning to crutch a tunnel ram's performance down low, and I also think that if you convert it to EFI with the injectors down near the ports nearly all the disadvantages at low engine speeds go away. No way to prove that out on the dyno, though...
-
Don't know where I was when you dyno'd the 351C manifolds on the adaptor but I missed it...Was the performer port matched or left with the slightly smaller ports...I found the video with the clear valve cover interesting...Not as much oil as I would have thought....Cory
The Performer RPM was NOT port matched, and since the adapter has medium riser ports and the engine has CJ heads, there are two dramatic port mismatches on this setup; one between the adapter and the head at the port floor, and the other at the intake and the adapter at the side and floor of the port. It amazes me that the Performer RPM did that well with those mismatches in place...
-
I think there's a lot that can be done with carb tuning to crutch a tunnel ram's performance down low, and I also think that if you convert it to EFI with the injectors down near the ports nearly all the disadvantages at low engine speeds go away. No way to prove that out on the dyno, though...
when my tunnel ram is finished did you want to test it? I could send it out? lol
-
Interesting as the torker II port is very close to the port you supply the adaptor with.I think the performer port is about .100 narrower and .400 shorter...The difference in torque has me thinking about using a performer as my car is strictly street driven.....Cory
-
I wonder if this would fit on the tunnel port adapter?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/151431234926?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
Too bad the ports are rectangular where they meet the heads.
-
Hmmm, probably a longshot...
-
At 37 pages, this has probably been put out there but this might be an interesting setup.
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/tfs-516b0118/overview/make/ford
-
Jay, any progress updates on the high riser version of the adapter?
-
Hmmm, probably a longshot...
(http://i456.photobucket.com/albums/qq290/cyclonescott/_57_zpscz6t8ygb.jpg) (http://s456.photobucket.com/user/cyclonescott/media/_57_zpscz6t8ygb.jpg.html)
Add an upper like this and you would be good to go. (http://i456.photobucket.com/albums/qq290/cyclonescott/MMR%20Navigator%20manifold_zpsha7imgfg.jpg) (http://s456.photobucket.com/user/cyclonescott/media/MMR%20Navigator%20manifold_zpsha7imgfg.jpg.html)
-
The Rover intake is to small. Its to short not wide
enough and it have tiny ports. The engine was only
215 cuin to start with.
-
Jay, any progress updates on the high riser version of the adapter?
Back in January, my existing foundry said I would have the high riser castings in March. In March, they said that the high riser castings would be delayed until May. I contacted them again at the beginning of this month, and they said July. Seeing a pattern? >:( >:(
So, I took back the high riser patterns from my existing foundry and brought them to a new foundry at the beginning of this month. They seem much more motivated to make this happen, and I'm hoping that they can resolve any quality issues quickly. They have promised me two prototype castings by June 15. If those look good (crossing my fingers), I should be able to get my production castings shortly thereafter.
As I have said here before, getting a good quality casting, on time, has been very difficult with the two foundries I've worked with so far. This latest foundry appears more professional, and I think they're hungry for work, so maybe they will deliver when they say...
-
Cool- I just sold my two 40 Ford pickup projects, proceeds to help finish the Falcon :P
-
Mean Gene, I have only seen a couple pictures of your Falcon, but I was impressed. If you get time maybe you should start a thread on it in "members projects". A stout HR should make that thing fly. I was going to say "lightweight bundle of tubes", but that doesn't sound right. Is it moly 25.3 chassis or something... or "just" a 7.50 cert? What trans will be going in it?
-
Joe Craine just sent me pics of the heroic effort he put into my intake adapter and Edelbrock 2863 Yates/Glidden dominator top. Eager to get the manifold back and installed and see how well the engine likes the new found air flow!
(http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq183/dajameson/DaJam-496-JB-ED%20036%20web_zps7hhtxcwl.jpg) (http://s446.photobucket.com/user/dajameson/media/DaJam-496-JB-ED%20036%20web_zps7hhtxcwl.jpg.html)
(http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq183/dajameson/DaJam-496-JB-ED%20040%20web_zpsakmfkllt.jpg) (http://s446.photobucket.com/user/dajameson/media/DaJam-496-JB-ED%20040%20web_zpsakmfkllt.jpg.html)
(http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq183/dajameson/DaJam-496-JB-ED%20035%20web_zpsnrxslkaw.jpg) (http://s446.photobucket.com/user/dajameson/media/DaJam-496-JB-ED%20035%20web_zpsnrxslkaw.jpg.html)
(http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq183/dajameson/DaJam-496-JB-ED%20032%20web_zpsaz5gwaop.jpg) (http://s446.photobucket.com/user/dajameson/media/DaJam-496-JB-ED%20032%20web_zpsaz5gwaop.jpg.html)
(http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq183/dajameson/DaJam-496-JB-ED%20030%20web_zpsv8lksnvy.jpg) (http://s446.photobucket.com/user/dajameson/media/DaJam-496-JB-ED%20030%20web_zpsv8lksnvy.jpg.html)
(http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq183/dajameson/DaJam-496-JB-ED%20028%20web_zpstzlesi6g.jpg) (http://s446.photobucket.com/user/dajameson/media/DaJam-496-JB-ED%20028%20web_zpstzlesi6g.jpg.html)
-
Oooohhhhh, aaaahhhhh! Can't wait to see that one installed. :D
-
They are some great airflow numbers, the intake certainly won't be the choke point. Also looking forward to seeing it on the engine, and seeing how it performs.
-
I was wondering how you were coming along with that, David. Looks awesome!
-
I tried the setup with just rough blending from the adapter to the manifold, and the car probably slowed a bit from the previous setup. Joe worked his magic on the intake and found an additional 70cfm, so it now surpasses the flow capability of a well-worked Victor dominator intake. Hope to have it back on and back to Byron in several weeks to see how the engine likes the changes. This pic is what the plenum looked like prior to Joe's work:
(http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq183/dajameson/DaJam-496-JB-ED%20009%20web_zpsztiy5ri1.jpg) (http://s446.photobucket.com/user/dajameson/media/DaJam-496-JB-ED%20009%20web_zpsztiy5ri1.jpg.html)
-
Wow! 8) Looks a hell of a lot nicer than the hatchet job I'm doing to my 2863. Admirable work Mr Craine! I'm curious what the flow was before porting? Thanks for posting David.
-
The intake and spacer had already been worked on before I started. Those intakes move a lot of air as cast, ~400 cfm on the end ports, and ~430 for the center four ports. Working the plenum is a major hurdle with getting the air to turn into the port without turbulence, and getting #1 and #8 ports entry cleaned up to flow well. The port is plenty big, just the dominator divider needs a lot of blending to get the airflow around it and to balance the flow within a few cfm. That intake has ~.024% variance which is a lot better than initial. Joe-JDC
-
Nice pictures, thanks for the post and progress info, keep them coming! I have a few questions, are those flow numbers the manifold only or manifold with the adapter attached? Did you by chance do both?
Also isn't the 4500 Victor capable of close to 500 CFM with mods as well? I'm really curious which would run quicker at the strip, any plans for a back to back comparison or at least under like weather/track conditions?
The big inch SBF guys building 800-900 HP engines seem to like the 2868 intake better than the 2863 or 2865. I know it has a different bolt pattern at the flange and also may be wider for the raised port heads it is meant for, have you ever ported and/or flowed one of those Joe? Are they way too wide without cutting/welding to work with Jay's adapter?
-
Got my adapter today. Thanks Jay. Looks nice. Should have my heads back from Kuntz by the end of the week next week. Looking forward to getting out in the shop and do some port matching and blending to fit the intakes (funnel web and modified tunnel ram with fabricated plenum) and heads.
Things are slowly starting to fall in place.
-
The big inch SBF guys building 800-900 HP engines seem to like the 2868 intake better than the 2863 or 2865. I know it has a different bolt pattern at the flange and also may be wider for the raised port heads it is meant for, have you ever ported and/or flowed one of those Joe? Are they way too wide without cutting/welding to work with Jay's adapter?
The 2868 is designed for a 9.5" deck block, and the standard Cleveland is 9.2", so if I had to guess I'd say that it may be too wide to fit the adapter. You'd have to actually put one on top of the adapter to know for sure, though. The picture of the 2868 on Summit's web site looks like it does not have the port surfaces machined, so it is probably designed to be machined to fit. If there's a bunch of extra material there, you might be able to make it work...
-
Nice pictures, thanks for the post and progress info, keep them coming! I have a few questions, are those flow numbers the manifold only or manifold with the adapter attached? Did you by chance do both?
Also isn't the 4500 Victor capable of close to 500 CFM with mods as well? I'm really curious which would run quicker at the strip, any plans for a back to back comparison or at least under like weather/track conditions?
The big inch SBF guys building 800-900 HP engines seem to like the 2868 intake better than the 2863 or 2865. I know it has a different bolt pattern at the flange and also may be wider for the raised port heads it is meant for, have you ever ported and/or flowed one of those Joe? Are they way too wide without cutting/welding to work with Jay's adapter?
The adapter after tweaking to match the 2863 is not a bottleneck, it is difficult to flow just the adapter, but to suffice to say that that opening will only pull to about 24" or 25" on the manometer for the 600 tells me that it can flow well over 600 cfm.
A Victor 427 ported to the MR gasket size will flow ~485 cfm if the plenum is prepped properly, and if you wanted to go to one of the CNC port sizes, it will go over 500 cfm if you take it out to the head size. You will need to make the port taller than the MR port opening, but 540 cfm is not out of the question. The problem is keeping the port small enough to keep the velocity at its highest for a given port size. David's intake uses a 1247 gasket sized opening, but he also has 496 cubic inches to feed, so it should work well.
The 2863 style intakes can be ported even larger, but I was trying to keep David's as small as possible to match up to the adapter, yet give me some area to work with if the flow was not what I expected. The only way to make this work remotely better would be for Jay to use an adapter that has not been CNC'd and mimic my initial work for a CNC program to keep the adapter round/oval at the upper opening, and taper it to whatever head was going to be used. Somewhat similar to how a sheetmetal intake would be welded together to match the adapter. Oval/round ports flow better than rectangular ports with same cross sectional area. Joe-JDC
-
Nice work. It'll be interesting to see how the combo responds.
One question, what are the small brass pins used for? I'm guessing they're used as locators to precisely line up the intake to the adapter so that there is no offset on the ports. Is that correct?
-
Nice pictures, thanks for the post and progress info, keep them coming! I have a few questions, are those flow numbers the manifold only or manifold with the adapter attached? Did you by chance do both?
Also isn't the 4500 Victor capable of close to 500 CFM with mods as well? I'm really curious which would run quicker at the strip, any plans for a back to back comparison or at least under like weather/track conditions?
The flow numbers are for the manifold and adapter together. I'm told the 4500 Victor will get close to 500 cfm, so there probably isn't a large difference between the two setups. I only own the 2863/FEpower adapter; the Victor manifold belongs to somebody else, so no back-to-back testing is possible. Will be a great relief to get the manifold back onto my 496 and see how it likes it. Last year could only muster a 10.40@128 at Byron using an old 1050 on gas. Hope it will pick up some from that.
-
Nice work. It'll be interesting to see how the combo responds.
One question, what are the small brass pins used for? I'm guessing they're used as locators to precisely line up the intake to the adapter so that there is no offset on the ports. Is that correct?
The brass pins are welding rod that I cut for staking the intake/gasket/spacer so that I can get the placement to repeat and stay in one location. David had left two studs in the spacer for shipping, and the old gaskets that he had used were there. I had the Fel Pro 1253-3 gaskets for my spacer/project, and I used a new pair to get the desired shape and size so that I could make it look professional. He can remove the pins after installing the studs and torqueing the intake in place for use. Joe-JDC
-
Thanks to all who took the time to answer my questions. I appreciate it. It would be nice to see a few more updates like this.
-
Was able to make a couple passes to try out the ported intake adapter and yates top. Picked up some, plus it just sounded better!
https://youtu.be/LZGHEyqveMA
-
Sounds great David! :D I would have been there, but it was raining around me so I figured the track would have been washed out too. Who'd a thunk. :P Maybe next time.....
-
Nice David
You always give me something to shoot for.
-
Awesome! Sounds fantastic...
-
Jay, I realize this was some time back, and you may not remember, but I would like to ask you something about this.
When you tested the torker against the RPM, what was the brake fuel specific doing in the range indicated? Were the torker BSFC numbers lower than the RPM, then climbing as they got closer to the spike at the end of the range indicated?
-
I don't remember what the BSFC numbers were doing in that range, but I may have saved the data. I will take a look at my archived dyno data when I get a chance and respond back here...
-
Thanks Jay. :)
-
Intake adapter (MR to C302 Yates/Glidden intake) seems to be working well. Posted a new best time of 10.01 @ 132mph at the Meltdown drags, carrying an extra 40 lbs in vintage wheels. Carb is an old 1050 that I picked up from a racing buddy (was on his 496BBC) Replacement C4 seems to be working flawlessly now.
Balance of engine:
Genesis block 4.31 bore
Scat 4.25 cast crank
MGP 6.7 aluminum rods
CP pistons
Pat Burke prepped Ed heads 2.25Ti/1.75 valves
T&D race rockers
Old Lunati super stock CJ roller cam
Isky redzone lifters
Innovators West balancer/crank trigger
-
10.01! Almost time for a full cage...
-
Very nice! With an extra 40 lbs it kinda throws the conventional wisdom out the window. Are you going to limit the car to 10's to avoid a full cage?
I'm surprised you use aluminum rods. A couple questions, how high do you zing the motor, how long have you ran them and how often do you check them? Obviously that adapter is working!
-
Very nice! With an extra 40 lbs it kinda throws the conventional wisdom out the window. Are you going to limit the car to 10's to avoid a full cage?
I'm surprised you use aluminum rods. A couple questions, how high do you zing the motor, how long have you ran them and how often do you check them? Obviously that adapter is working!
Would really like to have at least one nine second timeslip, but otherwise don't really want to go to the next level on jacket, cage, certification...by running consistent nines. Makes me wonder what 40lbs less rotating unsprung weight would have done for that pass. One funny thing at the Meltdowns was that two inspectors looked at my Simpson harness to check the date (they rarely check normally at Byron). Both people said my belts were good to go. They are actually four years old now, so I'm glad they saw whatever they did!
Pat Burke built the engine around 2002, and it hasn't been apart yet. I'm only up to 34 passes on the engine, so it doesn't have much actual run time on it. I shift at 6700, through the lights around 7000. Mike from MGP told me that the rods should last a very long time with a 7000 max rpm and the very light CP pistons that I'm using. I went with the aluminum rods to keep the bobweight to a minimum so there would be less stress on the cast crank. The low cost forged cranks weren't available at the time the engine was being built.
-
Jay ,
How much higher does the RPM air gap manifold sit up with the adapter compared to a FE RPM manifold ?
Just thinking about room for hood clearance with my 66 Fairlane
Do have 427 hood too
-
Chris, I sent you a PM, but earlier in this (very long) thread there is some info on this:
http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=683.msg10796#msg10796
-
Thank you Jay
-
Jay Brown adapter with
RPM Air gap
Ported and base trimmed off
-
Looks great, Chris!
-
Jay Brown adapter with
RPM Air gap
Ported and base trimmed off
Did you port match the RPM air gap ????I am going to use the same set up but didn't match the RPM up..
-
Yes !
Lots of porting
-
OK..thats just fricken weird...I have the same valve covers as well and I also have a T-sump canton pan but a rear sump...
Do you have any pics of the porting on the intake that you would share..It would be some creative and time consuming dremel work..
My engine is 100% street....no drag racing..