FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: jayb on January 18, 2018, 10:49:20 AM
-
I'm currently working with a customer who is having me adapt some Ford Racing 351C intakes to my intake adapter. These are for Yates-style heads, so we are using my #13006 intake adapter for this. He sent me the intakes to machine to fit on the adapter, and I have been pretty impressed with their appearance. The part numbers on these two intakes are M-9424-BT58 and M-9424-C58. I'm curious if anyone knows what heads these were designed for, or anything else about them. The first three pictures below are for the -BT58 manifold, and the last one is of the -C58 manifold. They are very similar, but they have different part numbers, so I'm wondering if they are for two different types of heads:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/M-9424-BT58-1.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/M-9424-BT58-2.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/M-9424-BT58-3.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/M-9424-C58-1.jpg)
Is it possible that the "BT" in the one manifold's part number indicates that it is for a Blue Thunder head? Since both the intakes have a 4150 carb flange, I wonder if they were designed for use in NASCAR?
The outlet of the ports on these two intakes is pretty small, and they will be requiring some significant porting to match up with the #13006 intake adapter. However, these manifolds are both also VERY heavy for what they are, so I'm guessing they are designed to allow some serious porting work. I will be sending them down to Joe Craine along with the adapter for a porting job. Then, my customer has graciously allowed them to be sent back to me, so that I can test them on my dyno mule when I get it back on the pump in February or March. I think I'm going to have to use a 4150 to 4500 spacer on these so I can get enough carb on the engine; should be a very interesting test.
-
Would be interesting to see Dyno results before porting.
Any idea what cubic inch motor they're going on?
-
Those are NASCAR intakes for the D3 head on a 9.00 deck block. The date on the one gives you an idea on the timeline, 07-08ish, I think on the C58 the date is under the plenum. On the other one I had that I can't remember the exact number at this time, it was designed for all aluminum 400" dirt late model engines. They do look good as far as an intake runner and plenum, for high RPM power, and show some evolution of the single 4 spider, shorter and straighter outside runners, taller plenum, etc.I bought those as possibles for my HR adapter, but decided not to use them as the Pontiac manifold fit way better for me, at least on the HR adapter, but probably would not work without more mods on a MR adapter.
Those intakes are small as cast for the interior of the ports, thick and heavy, and designed for CNC porting, even on 358" & 400" engines. It will take a TON of work to get them sized correctly for an FE stroker, not to mention the ports don't line up very well at all, especially on #1 and #8. I figured I would have to cut into at least 4 pieces, and then a bunch of welding to make it a real good intake (plus the porting). That is not to say it won't work without any cutting and welding, I just prefer a little better port alignment on all 8 cylinders, not just 2 or 4 "ish"...
-
http://rxspeed.com/ford-racing/engine-intake-manifold-m-9424-bt58/
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/fms-m-9424-c58
Nascar for both as XR7 stated. Mainly C-3 heads.
-
I am working on the Edelbrock version of that exact manifold(2831) right now for a set of D-3 heads that flow ~415cfm, and going on a 417 cubic inch 9.2 deck drag race engine for a local racer. He is shooting for 4s in mustang NA. Joe-JDC
-
Joe, can you explain the differences in the two intakes and what you'd expect? The C-58 from the pictures looks to have more plenum volume. How do you anticipate it playing out?
-
#3 and #4 have a nice entry angle. The #1 and #2 have quite a dogleg. If I were working with that manifold, I would look for ways to minimize the bend, even if it meant putting a slight bend in the back two in order to help the front two. Just offering a suggestion......
-
That is a CRAZY amount of work. Pretty much trying to mate an apple to a banana.
-
I talked with the owner, and will probably port one for small, fast ports, and one for maximum flow and maximum horsepower. Hopefully I can accomplish that without killing too many carbide flutes. The Edelbrock version has a better plenum, IMO, and better entries into the ports. Definitely a lot of aluminum available to be ported to just about any size. One that was used on an engine in the 2016 EMC, was TOO big, and would not take a load at 3500, but had to move the starting point up to 5500 rpm. Kept falling on its face because the port sizes were so large that the airflow was lazy until it hit 5500 rpm. I don't think there will be a problem getting 430 cfm with small ports, or 450+ cfm with larger ports. I know the Edelbrock will go 500 cfm without increasing the ports size a great deal. Just have to remember that the FE heads available to most folks today are limited to ~370cfm with CNC porting, and you don't need to have a 600 cfm intake on those ports. We need the velocity to fill the ports, and smaller is better for that if the shape is correct. Joe-JDC
-
I guess it depends on the combo, and what the owner's application and usage is for sure... that was never mentioned. I always laugh at the EMC dyno pulls RPM range, for a drag car, 3500 RPM means nothing, why they don't have a challenge for engines in the 5500 - 8500 or so range I don't understand (doesn't sell magazines and/or sponsor parts), even though most EMC engines are not "street" engine builds most could duplicate, or intended for any specific use other than dyno scores in that exact RPM range.
I am curious what Edelbrock manifolds you mentioned (number) is exactly like the FORD intakes pictured, I was not aware that Edelbrock had them available. If you are thinking the 2860 and/or 2868 intakes (I am not saying you are, but the only ones I can think of), they are not the same, not even close. I do know that Edelbrock does have part numbers for some intakes that were produced for Ford Motorsports, and I haven't seen them all, just never seen any exactly like these here.
I would also be curious what the C58 and BT58 intakes flow out of the box. I know you usually flow them before, during, and after porting, so hopefully you can share.
There is a new manifold available recently that might be the best single 4 cast intake for a canted valve SBF. I think that would be the best intake for a MAX effort engine (SBF or FE with Jay's adapter), but not the best choice for a street engine or average flowing heads, etc. Have you seen the CID SBF intake?
https://www.cidheads.com/collections/small-block-ford-sc1-gv2-d3-racing-intake-manifold
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1216/1582/files/Ford_manifold_with_logo_ff7e2015-6bea-4093-a1ee-ac858f60fd7d_grande.jpg?v=1490448450)
Thanks for your comments (to all).
-
If you didn't like the EMC, then Race Engine Challenge in Charlotte NC will be starting this year with 15 engines that will be 370-470CI, and pull from 4000-7500, 12.5, .775"max, no vacuum pumps, no dry sumps, and just about anything else goes within reason. No exotic fuels. Anyway, check out the new RCE Series for specifications and rules. Anyway, the EMC did use 7500 rpm for a while. It is all about competing within a set of guidelines to see who can build the best combination. When there are no rules, then money always wins. Joe-JDC
-
Jay asked if the BT58 was for Blue Thunder heads, and if these intakes were for different heads. From what I could find, they are both for D3 or D35 heads on a 9,200 deck block. They were the "current" intake for Nascar FORD's in 08. The BT intake was designed for the Nationwide and truck series engines (rules, RPM range, carb size, etc.) and the C58 was the "open" (non-restrictor plate tracks) intake for the Cup series engines. Interesting that the C58 was double the price of the BT58 intake.
Blair mentioned moving the manifold forward to help with port alignment. That would help but because of the bore space difference between the FE and SBF, if you move on side (bank) forward, the other bank is off farther the opposite direction. If you cut the intake down the middle lengthwise, and moved each bank to the best location compromise, the plenum lineup would now be offset double the amount... something like 3/4".
The other intake I have in addition to the C58 is the D456, a few years newer, but not for NASCAR, they were designed for 400" dirt late model engines. Similar looking intake, and although lighter weight, still cast with small ports and plenum, designed for complete porting to match different port programs (size and location) before use.
I think these were the last "legal" manifolds for the D heads before the FR9 engine was introduced and accepted, became standard in .... 09.
-
There is a new manifold available recently that might be the best single 4 cast intake for a canted valve SBF. I think that would be the best intake for a MAX effort engine (SBF or FE with Jay's adapter), but not the best choice for a street engine or average flowing heads, etc. Have you seen the CID SBF intake?
https://www.cidheads.com/collections/small-block-ford-sc1-gv2-d3-racing-intake-manifold
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1216/1582/files/Ford_manifold_with_logo_ff7e2015-6bea-4093-a1ee-ac858f60fd7d_grande.jpg?v=1490448450)
Thanks for your comments (to all).
I've talked to John extensively about manifold design in general and his new intakes from CID. He's a very sharp bloke. Can't say I've ever heard anyone talk about putting more thought and r&d into a manifold design. A lot of the design work was done on CAD. He has said that although the intake was designed for higher level builds, they have also performed very well on lower power level pump gas type builds. Better than expected. I think it would be my first choice for a SBF intake.
-
Still a fan of the now older Parker Funnelweb intake. Jay did test same some time ago IIRC but it didn't do as well as expected. Forget right now why.
On edit: now I'm unsure if Jay actually did test one!
http://parkerracing.net.au/funnelweb.html
-
Wasn't the Parker labeled as being for "3V" heads? Might have been a cork on a larger-displacement FE engine?
-
Initially 2V and 4V. Didn't check their website. May have now a 3V Funnelweb. Btw, hard to find here as the Aussie parts are very pricey to ship.
Bill Mitchell has what appears to be a near copy btw:
https://www.billmitchellproducts.com/products/bill-mitchell-products-intake-manifold-ford-small-block-9-500-4150-carb-flange-063415.html ???
-
I think I'm going to have to use a 4150 to 4500 spacer on these so I can get enough carb on the engine; should be a very interesting test.
Interesting indeed! The -C58 with a Dom adaptor will look like a tunnel ram. Hopefully it will work as well. Lots of volume there.
Did you have to flycut the flanges a similar amount to the Ed 2863? I can't remember if it was for the C3 head or not. Just curious.
-
I cut both manifolds so that the roof of the ports in the manifolds matched up with the roof of the port in the intake adapter. For the BT58 intake this was taking off 0.350", same as the Edelbrock 2863. For the C58 intake I only had to take 0.250" off.
-
Still a fan of the now older Parker Funnelweb intake. Jay did test same some time ago IIRC but it didn't do as well as expected. Forget right now why.
On edit: now I'm unsure if Jay actually did test one!
http://parkerracing.net.au/funnelweb.html
I did test the Funnelweb, and you are correct that it didn't do that well. However, it was not port matched to the intake adapter, and the port openings were quite small compared to the openings in the intake adapter. I think it would have done better with a good porting job.
When I get these two intakes back to test, after porting from Joe, I think they may give an indication of how a ported Funnelweb would do.
-
Well, as coincidence would have it I got an email today from one of my customers who is running the #13006 intake adapter and an Edelbrock 2991 intake on his 68-1/2 Cobra Jet Mustang. The 2991 intake is similar to the Edelbrock 2863, but uses a 4150 carb flange instead of a Dominator flange. My customer has this combination working pretty well; video of the car is below. I'm hoping the Ford intakes work just as well.
https://youtu.be/BzTvAidbTrs
-
Test: Couple of pictures of Edelbrock 2831 version of those two intakes. The stock manifold flowed ~343 cfm, and I attempted to show just how much a small amount of change in the size of the port makes in airflow. The ports are still smaller than the scribe mark the owner wanted me to open the manifold up to. The heads are D-3, and they flow 415 cfm with 2.135" intake valve. I have ported several sets of heads for him over the last 30 years. Joe-JDC