FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: Cyclone03 on January 24, 2020, 02:24:43 PM
-
Of the 2 common single plane intakes Edelbrock Victor and Trick Flows Trackheat(?) for the FE ,does one have better as cast flow balance than the other?
Does one have flow better than the other?
I'm running FAST ez2.0 TB injection on a Performer RPM with a 1” open spacer and the mixture distribution is noticeably uneven. Numbers 1&5 are leaner than 4&8 so high/low plenum doesn't appear to make a difference. The spacer helped this but it's still noticeable .
The engine is a 433” (4.70 x 4.125) with a set of Berry's Stage X Edelbrocks from about 10 years ago, they got freshened last year, 270@.600 . Hyd roller from Brent. I have no lack of low end with a 3.70 rear gear and TKO 5spd.
So oddly,to this group I'm sure, I'm not looking for max peak flow I'm looking for balanced flow,much in the same way balancing the flow on the old 5.0 intakes increased performance. I'm sure JDC had his hand in a few of those back in the day. It was a very popular mod here in San Antonio.
So I guess I'm asking which of those two have the smaller runner cross section.
-
Fuel distribution issues with an intake manifold may have nothing to do with the manifold flowbench numbers on individual ports.
-
What? That statement needs some explaining. I totally disagree! Joe-JDC
-
Joe, I worked for Rusty Mahan and had the opportunity to drive his 88 LX, I believe you ported the intake on it,picked up the flow on #5 (or #1?) something like 60%.
So knowing from my own testing that my TB injection works much better with an open spacer on a Performer RPM my thought was remove the plenum,but of course Jays excellent book has data that warns against that,but that’s with a carb. Soooooo cut out the plenum? Or switch to a single plane? I feel the better balanced intake would perform better with TBI,that is the recommendation on every SBC test with TBI.
So I’m back to my original question ,which of the modern FE single planes has the better port/port balance?
Thank all.
Lance Howlett
-
What? That statement needs some explaining. I totally disagree! Joe-JDC
Are you saying that an intake manifold that shows the same flow(balanced) on all ports will have no fuel distribution issues?
If so I have swamp front property to sell you. :) (Joke)
-
The RPM intake is not a balanced intake for flow. There is a difference of several cfm between the lower plane and the upper, but that does not keep the engine from using what is available to it. The TFS, Victor 427, Holley Street Dominator, Edelbrock Streetmaster are all good manifolds with a little work. Hood clearance would be the deciding issue as to which intake you choose, but a spacer will work on the RPM if you can round over the plenum divider and remove some of the turbulence caused by the sharp edges. On the RPM, ports #5 and #8 will be the lowest flowing, and need the most work to balance the flow. Joe-JDC
-
Fuel distribution issues arise when the fuel hits the plenum floor and is not directed in a clear path to a port. Just this week, I had the privilege of working two days on a dyno where we used single plane intakes, and dual plane intakes in comparison testing. The dual plane with ridges in the floor of the plenum did well in keeping the fuel in suspension, but the one with dimples did better, and had a better torque average as well as horsepower average. The single planes were the same manifold, but one was stock, and one I ported. The stock single plane had a plain floor, and at the top of the dyno pull, fuel was seen actually swirling and misting above the carburetor due to fuel bounce back on pulsation of the wave lengths. The ported single plane had dimples in the floor, equal flow in each runner within 4 cfm, and did not have any fuel mist or vapors swirling above the carburetor at the top of the rpm pulls. I am talking 7400 rpm, so it was not a toy. We made our pulls 3000 to 7400 rpm which is not normal, but stressed the engine to see how it would react. Headers, carb spacers, plenum work, valve lash, carb jetting all come into play when trying to maximize a combination, and I definitely am a proponent of equalizing manifold runner flow in cfm. After building engines for 57 years, I feel I can say this with confidence. Joe-JDC
-
Rather than attempting to make the 180° dual-plane intake function in the fashion you desire, I would switch to a single-plane 360° plenum intake, as this execution is going to prove more capable in the beginning, and easier in the end to accomplish your goals.
Yes the divider in the dual-plane is mostly there to aid in providing an acceptable signal for the betterment of the carburetor's function, which this intention is greatly negated with E.F.I. so it's removal (to some degree) may aid in the similar effect of as adding the open plenum spacer above, which is defeating this effect.
One would want to attempt to acquire equal flow numbers, port to port, as indicated by say a flow bench, but equal flow of air and fuel values to the functioning individual cylinders may still not be acquired as anticipated due to other intervening mechanical influences. But just understand, that having equivalent cross section in port dimension, or equal intake manifold flow numbers, although a good start, may still fail in proving "equal" sums delivered; experimentation within the entire induction system, as this effect is not only within the realm of the intake manifold, and even influences from the exhaust pluming must be considered, depending on how in depth ones' intentions.
Me, I think I'd buy the Edelbrock Victor intake,..........if it'll fit under the hood. ;)
Scott.
-
"I'm running FAST ez2.0 TB injection on a Performer RPM with a 1” open spacer and the mixture distribution is noticeably uneven. Numbers 1&5 are leaner than 4&8 so high/low plenum doesn't appear to make a difference. The spacer helped this but it's still noticeable."
I'll guess your uneveness is found by spark plug inspection? Or sensors in each exhaust manifold, unlikely as this may seem?
I ask since low rpm operation can play havoc with air/fuel distribution. Today's modern engines for some time now have direct port injection or, as with older V-8 designs, 8 manifold injectors designed to defeat, at least, uneven fuel supply at all rpm levels. Air supply, before the injectors, with these engines is still a challenge mainly due to under-hood packaging issues. With the need to use what are essentially carb-designed intakes, even a 4-hole EFI throttle as you know can't fully overcome some imbalance in air/fuel supply. You've raised an interesting topic here that few have explored.
-
The stock single plane had a plain floor, and at the top of the dyno pull, fuel was seen actually swirling and misting above the carburetor due to fuel bounce back on pulsation of the wave lengths. Joe-JDC
Don't want to distract from the main thread, but I'd like to know how you could see what you are describing. I've only dyno'd one engine and it was in the truck, so I am very curious what kind of setup you had to see the flow through the intake.
-
machonemane
Your last statement is the conversation I’m interested in...
Public,common,or conventional testing I’ve seen on the subject of TBI intake use has all been SBC centered.
Engine Masters just tossed the dual plane for a single and called it done. I’d hate to cut the divider away and end up worse with an intake that now requires machine work to reinstall the divider ,like Jay did for his Dyno test. Or weld in a replacement.
-
The stock single plane had a plain floor, and at the top of the dyno pull, fuel was seen actually swirling and misting above the carburetor due to fuel bounce back on pulsation of the wave lengths. Joe-JDC
Don't want to distract from the main thread, but I'd like to know how you could see what you are describing. I've only dyno'd one engine and it was in the truck, so I am very curious what kind of setup you had to see the flow through the intake.
GoPro or equivalent focused strait down the carb on an engine Dyno .
-
Joe, I'm interested in the dimples you tested. Would you have a picture? I take it that they're round? If so, what is the diameter and depth? Is there a pattern that works best?
Also, I take it that the ridges, in the one manifold are at 90* to the flow? What about the X hatch pattern manifolds, how do they compare?
-
Like Jay said, I like all the single plane intakes for a street build, especially if you do a little work in the plenum to turn the airflow into the ports. It is fairly straightforward, and easy with a carbide and die grinder. Port matching is not critical, but cleaning up the runners of any slag is. As for seeing fuel distribution issues on the dyno, I have been on hundreds of dyno sessions, chassis as well as engine dyno testing. You can see fuel coming back up out of the carburetor at certain rpm due to several reasons, one of which is the fuel slamming into the plenum floor and bouncing back because the plenum is too short. Fuel and air need room to turn effectively, and the deeper the plenum to a point, the better. The PI intake is a good example of a plenum that is too short to make the best power, and why a RPM is better. The RPM has a deeper plenum which gives the air more room to turn into the ports without fuel coming out of suspension. If you doubt my advice, next time you have your intake off the engine, spray a water hose directly into the plenum like the carburetor would, and you will get your insight awakened in a splash. Joe-JDC
-
Joe, looking at the RPM 5&8 deeper plenum,long runners and.....do those runners have to turn up to get to the intake valve ?
I’m thinking I need to jump on Jays Street Dom on eBay ....
-
Dimples seem to work quite well. I have pictures of a couple of intakes that have had them added, and they definitely added torque and hp in back to back testing. I don't have pictures of my FE intakes handy, but here are a couple of the Y I tested this week. I have seen the dimples from other builders that used a 1/4" drill bit, 3/16" drill bit, or 5/16" drill bit. Usually the depth is just to the flute breaking full circle. I like to place them in crisscross pattern, but straight rows seem to work, too. I placed mine ~ .250" between dimples. I have seen the dimples simply left as drilled, but I prefer to sand blast them with black diamond media for texture.
Below are three different manifolds with dimpling. The manifold with the divider cut down was run on my 595 hp engine, and it lost about 30 lbft tq, and 20 hp. The owner of that manifold did the same thing to the 289 RPM manifold that was on the 2nd place finisher in last year's EMC competition. He said the Victor JR made more horsepower, but the RPM had better torque average so they used it in the competition. Joe-JDC
-
Thank you, Joe
-
Fantastic information
All I was attempting to add to the OP question on single plane FE intakes was that there is much more than equalized flowbench flow.
Also very useful to flow/modify intake with the cylinder head to be used attached. There is information there.
Fuel distribution is certainly enhanced by plenum ribs or dimples.
Carb spacers (2") also aid with fuel distribution - air/fuel has more distance/time to turn.
Thank you Joe!
-
'Public,common,or conventional testing I’ve seen on the subject of TBI intake use has all been SBC centered.
Engine Masters just tossed the dual plane for a single and called it done. I’d hate to cut the divider away and end up worse with an intake that now requires machine work to reinstall the divider ,like Jay did for his Dyno test. Or weld in a replacement."
Well, a third way to experiment w/o welding in a divider involves machining two vertical notches in a spacer. A divider is easily fabb'ed from some aluminum plate in a T-shape, bottom of said divider closely matching the plenum's bottom. Sliding in the new spacer with and without the easily removeable divider provides easy experiementation. But yes, one must first take off the intake and remove the as-cast divider.
-
A comment I found interesting that made me think was,what works on an FE doesn’t work with other engines.
wave reflective tuning?....It seems the FE has a fairly long intake runner for its displacement ,even single planes have a fairly long runner. Talking cast intakes not tunnel rams.
For my discussion here I am in no way talking tip of the spear set on kill FE’s. I know we have some top engine builders here.
On road drivability ,low/mid range power is where it’s at for me. Brent specked my Cam last year and I would say the area under the curve is incredible . Here in TX we have a toll road that allows 85 MPH speeds. Last week I did some “tuning” (self tuning efi) From 80 (2600 rpm) I rolled into the throttle ,not a stab,to WoT (3200) then allowed it to pull I pulled to over 120! Ruled back out and down to 80 and repeated,how quick it picked up speed frankly surprised me!
With a 3.70 gear and TKO it spins the tires in 3rd gear,even 4th at 45mph!
Softening up a bit may not be a bad thing.
Im not really looking for more, the O2 sensor is in one collector so it averages the mixture , rich cylinders skew the lean cylinders even leaner. That it why balanced flow matters to me.
-
Funny thing that fuel distribution. I used to have a TunnelPort dual quad, I bought an intake at a swap meet that had a divider down the middle that was like a T. It walled off the rear two cylinders from the others and walled the left three front ones from the right three.
Ford must have done that for a reason. When you think about it, the carbs sit backwards, so the #4 and #8 cylinders only get fed of the primary barrels on the back carb and the other six get fed off the primaries of the front carb and when the throttle opens more get fed by then as well as the secondaries on both carbs. Must have been done to solve the rear cylinders running too rich.
I ran nitrous on a plate under the 1V carb on a 200 six. It would melt the #1 and #6 plugs. That long skinny flute of a built in intake manifold was terrible distribution.
-
I just ran that toll road two ways last week, all 90+ miles one way at the speed limit, and got passed by a few who were in a hurry. LOL Joe-JDC
-
I just ran that toll road two ways last week, all 90+ miles one way at the speed limit, and got passed by a few who were in a hurry. LOL Joe-JDC
It really is a great tuning road.
-
So Victor or TFS or Jays Street Dominator off eBay?
-
I have run dual plane and single plane intakes on a LOT of FE engines. Back to back.
On anything milder, and running under 6500 RPM, the dual plane wins on average power 90% of the time.
I see zero reason that the throttle body EFI would make much of a difference in that trend - if any.
It's not just distribution - or air flow - it's also runner length. The FE has long outer runners and really short center runners on single plane designs. Average gets shortened as a result.
It's an artifact of the paired intake valves in the center of the head. The dual plane "fixes" the difference somewhat and helps even things out. The center runners all get longer while the end ones remain about the same. On a dual plane an open spacer helps the carb (or TBI) "see" both sets of cylinders - make the engine think the carb is bigger. On some combinations it also evens out the side to side A/F ratio. If the combination wants/needs those items addressed it will pick up. With all that noted, there are huge differences in single plane intakes. The RPM out powered a PI on a recent build here by something around 40HP with everything else the same.
I might be wrong - won't know until you try - but on your build I bet the change to a single plane gets you close to nothing...
-
I might be wrong - won't know until you try - but on your build I bet the change to a single plane gets you close to nothing...
Remember, the O.P. was an inquiry of single-plane intakes and balance of flow values. This perhaps more of a theoretical concern, rather than an inquiry as to which design element actually would provide better realized performance.
I do not disagree with your statements of the value of the dual-plane, and yes with the fuel being presented early in the gas column (carburetor or T.B.I.) often much of the resultant evidence of deviation in the air/fuel mix delivery is masked; but consider that invariably with the complications in port runner configuration of the dual-plane, particularly as the density and velocity of this gas column is increased, the dual-plane is more likely to falter in values of an equal or balanced delivery of atmosphere, and fuel, as compared to the single-plane arrangement.
Also, with the use of T.B.I. one is effectively negating the difficulties often encountered with the 360° vs 180° plenum intakes, with the effective drafting of fuel from the carburetor; this perhaps also a consideration in the determination of selection. :)
Scott.
-
Fuel distribution issues arise when the fuel hits the plenum floor and is not directed in a clear path to a port. ................... The single planes were the same manifold, but one was stock, and one I ported. The stock single plane had a plain floor, and at the top of the dyno pull, fuel was seen actually swirling and misting above the carburetor due to fuel bounce back on pulsation of the wave lengths. The ported single plane had dimples in the floor, equal flow in each runner within 4 cfm, and did not have any fuel mist or vapors swirling above the carburetor at the top of the rpm pulls................ Joe-JDC
Interesting, but I am curious as to the effect of either the dimples in the plenum floor or equal port runner flow would have on the visible fuel vapor witnessed above the carburetor ("stand-off") in operation? Since stand-off is a resultant observation of the reversionary effects in the gas column initiated upon by the operation of the intake valve, and is carrying the fuel volume along for the ride. So if the dimples managed to place more fuel in suspension, within this air column, then more would be in motion, in both directions, perhaps? And perhaps the most one would expect from an imbalance in port flow sums might be a loss in resonance from port to port, perhaps if great enough, even dampening the observed effect?
Please note that I am approaching this with inquiry of others experience, for my own edification, and perhaps others. :)
Scott.
-
Although I dislike TBI and think that if you go injection it should port injection, I think the OP is asking the right questions.
"the mixture distribution is noticeably uneven."
"So I guess I'm asking which of those two have the smaller runner cross section."
Air flow is one thing but, when you add fuel to it, it's not the same. The following is the Approx weight of each:
Air = .0807 per cubic ft @ 68F (depends of the make up)
Gas = 46.9 per cubic ft @ 68F (ave of 2 sources)
So, gas is 581 times heavier and can't follow the exact same path as air will, by it's self, because of it's greater wt. Many manifolds have failed because of that problem.
But, if you can keep the velocity up, with smaller runners and with a straighter path, you have a better chance at keeping the mixture together.
Using that assessment I think a Street Master could help, at least at 3000 rpm and above. There may be better ones, both single and dual plane but, that one, I think is well designed.
Large runners and tight corners, won't work as well.
-
No ideas on flow of the modern single plane FE intakes?
I thought somebody here would have tested them.
-
Sorry that I don't have much to add to this thread but since we are in the technical section I'd like to expand on one of the tangents. ;)
The weight (lbs) per cubic feet numbers.... for air (vapor) and gasoline (liquid) do divide to 581 but that's exaggerated quite a bit. The only way I can think of to compare apples to apples (vapor to vapor) would be to recall that we want something like a 13:1 A/F ratio for max power. (Just picked a value - not making a claim) This is a ratio of air mass to fuel mass. So while still an over simplification (weight vs mass and an average per bank of cylinders) the 581 divided be 13 is more like 45. Still the gas is heavier and flow will differ. You get a "wet" intake with a carb/TBI but a dry intake with MPI since the fuel is introduced way downstream from the plenum. I don't know what to make of the wet vs dry intake condition other that a dry intake might be more prone to carbon build up. Can a MPI system with an O2 sensor in each header really adjust fuel per cylinder? Or is it limited to each bank of cylinders?
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but, no matter the ratio of each component, the molecular weight of each component, doesn't change.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but, no matter the ratio of each component, the molecular weight of each component, doesn't change.
No argument on that front. My point was that per the same unit of volume, an atomized fuel has less molecules compared to the fuel in liquid form. We can approximate the weight since we know the ratio of air to fuel.
-
Well, that's a lot of book learnin' but the more important state of matter is going from a liquid state -drops or atomized- to a vapor state. The mass doesn't change, but fuel expands 600 times, so if you have a lot of fuel reaching a vapor state in the manifold, you have to account for that volume in your flow assumptions. You would probably never build one or have anything to do with one, but some interesting reading comes from exploring the vapor cycle engine. You may have heard of this engine from references to the late Smokey Yunick.
Building a wet flow manifold presents some very difficult challenges since, as has been observed, you have to account for differences in mass and trying to keep a homogenized mixture. We know inertia makes that a nearly impossible task and this is where an intimate knowledge of the science and being able to animate the dynamics in your mind distinguish porting pros from pikers.
It has been said that the late Dale Earnheardt could "see the air." Yes, I know that isn't possible without a tattletail marker, but I believe you can have an intuitive sense for being able to dynamically process what the air is doing and will do. Maybe you don't have to be right all the time, but maybe a high percentage is good enough and you can then back that up with evidence of your results. This is where those pro porters come in. We have a hand full here who I believe can look at a port and come up with some pretty accurate conclusions on how it will perform.
The one thing I question is that if it is common knowledge of the deficiencies of some designs, then why don't the manufacturers incorporate revisions in their molds to correct the things that are not right?
-
Hood clearance and carburetors are no longer a priority for the industry. EFI is the new norm. If you take a look at the Parker Funnel Web intake, the LS intakes, the CHI intakes, you will see the best of the best carbureted intakes available today. Some of these questions are not pertinent about fuel weight, mass, speed, etc., in this forum. Joe-JDC
-
The one thing I question is that if it is common knowledge of the deficiencies of some designs, then why don't the manufacturers incorporate revisions in their molds to correct the things that are not right?
Simple!..............Cost vs. gains! ;)
Scott.
-
Hood clearance and carburetors are no longer a priority for the industry. EFI is the new norm. If you take a look at the Parker Funnel Web intake, the LS intakes, the CHI intakes, you will see the best of the best carbureted intakes available today. Some of these questions are not pertinent about fuel weight, mass, speed, etc., in this forum. Joe-JDC
Has anybody used a Funnel Web or CHI intake manifold with Jay's adapter on an FE?
-
So I’m back to my original question ,which of the modern FE single planes has the better port/port balance?
Thank all.
Lance Howlett
Tunnel ram. Problem solved :)
You didn't mention anything about hood clearance issues, it solves the flow distribution from unequal runner lengths, solves the fuel reversion from hitting the plenum bottom. Yep...tunnel ram.
-
Tunnel rams. The universal elixir for a happy life. ;)
-
Tunnel ram. Problem solved :)
You didn't mention anything about hood clearance issues, it solves the flow distribution from unequal runner lengths, solves the fuel reversion from hitting the plenum bottom. Yep...tunnel ram.
[/quote]
Yea I’d like to keep it under a Mustang hood....
Interestedly my friend ran a tunnel ram darn near under the hood of his 65 Falcon with a 302. With a pair of tuned VS 600 Holleys it ran very well both on the street and track and even got decent MPG. It was only cold start that gave him trouble because he didn’t use the choke.
Thank you everybody for keeping this conversation going .