FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: frnkeore on October 26, 2020, 02:16:54 AM
-
Can anyone ID this intake? These are the only marking on it.
I assume it's a '63 but, off a 406 or 427?
-
A full picture would help, but I assume it’s a single 4 barrel? I believe the date is actually 1961 March. That would make it from a ‘61 390 high performance. It’s totally normal for those early aluminum intakes to just have the date & Ford logo, and no casting number. By the time the ‘63 & ‘64 427 LR aluminum intakes came around it was more common for Ford to put a full casting number on them.
-
Agree March 3, 1961
Whether 352 or 390, would leave to the experts of what is out there for the old stuff. 390 hipo from the era certainly seems logical, hard to see in pics but would be a Ford logo and relatively low rise design.
-
Thank you, that does make since.
-
X3,The 352HP and 390HP intakes are so similar I've always used the date to identify them,supposedly they increased the port volume slightly from 352 to 390 to 406 but I don't know if anyone has tried to measure them,it wouldn't surprise me if it was baloney.
-
X3,The 352HP and 390HP intakes are so similar I've always used the date to identify them,supposedly they increased the port volume slightly from 352 to 390 to 406 but I don't know if anyone has tried to measure them,it wouldn't surprise me if it was baloney.
First I’ll say if Jay is reading this thread he’s probably chuckling, because both the original question and this one would likely have been answered with a copy of his book “The Great FE Intake Comparo” lol. By the way, the book is an excellent resource, everyone here should have a copy ;D
Jay tested a 390 HP intake and has a picture of it in the section. The one he tested even had a “1B2” date, just a month before Frnkeore’s intake, although I don’t think Jay went into detail on the date codes, but the date code is noted in the book.
There are a few unique differences between the earlier 1960 352 HP aluminum intake and the later 390 HP, I learned those when I volunteered my ‘60 352 HP intake for Jay to test for his book, and folks from the old FE Forum identified it and pointed out the visual differences. The ‘60 352 HP intake can be identified by the flat carb pad, the later carb pads are angled. Also the #5 & #8 intake runners “disappear” into the deck of the intake, the runners on the later intakes extend closer to the carb pad. And the firing order on the ‘60 352 HP intake is on the rear of the intake.
And Jay did measure the port volumes of all the intakes tested for the book, and yes the volume was increased - the ‘60 352 HP intake measured 2675 cc, and the ‘61 390 HP intake measured 2950 cc. There was also a corresponding performance increase in the dyno test.
I don’t know if anyone has documented any differences between the ‘61 390 HP aluminum intake and any of the subsequent 406 & 427 LR versions? Other than the casting number eventually appearing of course.
Here’s a picture of my ‘60 352 HP intake so anyone following this can see the unique identifying features of the early intake. The intake is also pictured in Jay’s book.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wvrfC7yv/4598-C1-BB-0-FB8-48-C2-8-DBD-2-A6-B351-CE2-A7.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/G8kxY3jw)
-
Thank you, all.
I don't have it in my hands yet, it's being shipped so, I can't tell what other porting it's had done, besides the rough looking carb pad. This is a picture of the top. I got it for a mild (224/230 FT) 410 I'm building.
How did it fare in Jay's tests?
-
It wasn't that great, unfortunately. Better than the 352 HP manifold though...
-
X3,The 352HP and 390HP intakes are so similar I've always used the date to identify them,supposedly they increased the port volume slightly from 352 to 390 to 406 but I don't know if anyone has tried to measure them,it wouldn't surprise me if it was baloney.
First I’ll say if Jay is reading this thread he’s probably chuckling, because both the original question and this one would likely have been answered with a copy of his book “The Great FE Intake Comparo” lol. By the way, the book is an excellent resource, everyone here should have a copy ;D
Jay tested a 390 HP intake and has a picture of it in the section. The one he tested even had a “1B2” date, just a month before Frnkeore’s intake, although I don’t think Jay went into detail on the date codes, but the date code is noted in the book.
There are a few unique differences between the earlier 1960 352 HP aluminum intake and the later 390 HP, I learned those when I volunteered my ‘60 352 HP intake for Jay to test for his book, and folks from the old FE Forum identified it and pointed out the visual differences. The ‘60 352 HP intake can be identified by the flat carb pad, the later carb pads are angled. Also the #5 & #8 intake runners “disappear” into the deck of the intake, the runners on the later intakes extend closer to the carb pad. And the firing order on the ‘60 352 HP intake is on the rear of the intake.
And Jay did measure the port volumes of all the intakes tested for the book, and yes the volume was increased - the ‘60 352 HP intake measured 2675 cc, and the ‘61 390 HP intake measured 2950 cc. There was also a corresponding performance increase in the dyno test.
I don’t know if anyone has documented any differences between the ‘61 390 HP aluminum intake and any of the subsequent 406 & 427 LR versions? Other than the casting number eventually appearing of course.
Here’s a picture of my ‘60 352 HP intake so anyone following this can see the unique identifying features of the early intake. The intake is also pictured in Jay’s book.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wvrfC7yv/4598-C1-BB-0-FB8-48-C2-8-DBD-2-A6-B351-CE2-A7.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/G8kxY3jw)
I was aware of the different placement of the firing order but had never noticed the flat carb angle or the differences in the #5 & 8 runners,most of the early single 4 HP intakes I saw over the years were so caked with oil and dirt I would just brush by the thermostat housing to get the date in an attempt to not get my clothes dirty,its unbelievable how many of those old intakes wound up swapped onto old pickups with 352's and 360's.Does the book you reference talk about later intakes too?I've got one of the Holman Moody C5HM single 4's and was curious if it was a variation of the older HP's or more like the later PI's.That intake was found on a late 60's 360 pickup engine that had been swapped into a 64 Galaxie that had been sitting in a field for god knows how long.
-
The book covers about 40 performance oriented intake manifolds, Ford and aftermarket. The C5HM intake you reference is probably just like a mid 60s 427 MR 4V intake. One of those is covered in the book - Jay
-
That makes sense given the time frame,though when I installed the intake on my Starliner years ago it didn't strike me as having a MR port opening but I didn't measure it so that doesn't mean anything.I'll post some pics I took of it this morning but you can't see much being installed.Also do you have any idea how much higher the air cleaner mounting surface on a holley on a high riser single 4 will be versus that of a 428CJ?Where is the book you guys are talking about available?
-
427John your HM intake looks similar to mine, here’s a full picture you can compare.
The Great FE Intake Comparo is available right from the same website as the forum here, Jay Brown the forum administrator is the author. Here’s the link:
http://www.fepower.net/GFEIC.html
(https://i.postimg.cc/FH9Lq3cr/18-F28-C32-2774-4540-AE41-C1-CF1-D3196-C6.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/HVhn8JBR)
-
Yeah that's pretty much it,I had heard that they were made both with and without casting numbers.How long has this website been around?I was big into FE's years ago and the only website back then was the old network 54 site,I drifted away working on my old 64 Chevy K20 and now that I am close to getting the stroker 348 finished for it,I want to get back to my 69 Cyclone CJ and make some progress on that car.I'd like to run the high riser heads and intake on the planned 482 sideoiler and am trying to determine what I need to do to retain the ram air whether it be fabricating a lower base,increasing the peak of the hood or a combination of both.
-
Kevin, on that HM intake what are the 4 small tabs next to the VC rails used for? One of them has a small pan head screw in it. I've never noticed that before. Thanks.
-
Those four tabs originally were machine stops for milling the manifold, but some folks cut them down and use long bolts/studs for an air cleaner hold down, or ram air tray. May be a different use on his manifold. Joe-JDC
-
Did they have their own line of intakes?
Doesn't look like an F427 at all, and enough differences from a 428PI (although closer) to say they aren't that either
Neat intake
-
Kevin, on that HM intake what are the 4 small tabs next to the VC rails used for? One of them has a small pan head screw in it. I've never noticed that before. Thanks.
I don’t know what the purpose of the tabs are, but they’re actually on most original Ford FE aluminum intakes, or the Ford based ones like that H/M. The tabs are on that ‘60 352 HP intake, they’re on these M/R & P.I. intakes, and they’re even on this SOHC intake. Maybe Jay can comment if he thinks they serve a casting or machining purpose. What’s noticeable on that H/M intake is that they’ve been drilled. I don’t know if there was a purpose for the drilled holes? I bought that intake at a swap meet about 35 years ago and that’s how I got it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/RVvdyfGg/A49-A8329-229-B-4-F4-F-8812-38-EB052440-B0.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/mh67FPv9)
(https://i.postimg.cc/PqbNgLSM/60-A512-EA-2974-4-F95-9-CC4-B83118540-B3-C.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/HJxp5LDJ)
-
Did they have their own line of intakes?
Doesn't look like an F427 at all, and enough differences from a 428PI (although closer) to say they aren't that either
Neat intake
Back then Ford and Holman Moody were such a cooperative effort it was hard to tell where one ended and the other began.The intakes were cast at the same places and in some cases such as some small block intakes they had intakes that were nearly identical sporting different logo's such as Shelby,Ford,Cobra,Tiger,and H/M.There were examples of parts being branded from one source and not the other,but Fords full line of performance parts were available thu H/M.
-
I think Joe is correct on those tabs, it looks like they are used to index the raw casting on the machining fixture, while leaving other surfaces open to be machined.
-
I always figured they were for the prybar to get the valve covers off
-
I always figured they were for the prybar to get the valve covers off
Me too ! They do come in handy !
-
Something that appears to be consistent on the C5HM intakes that typically aren't seen on unmodified Ford intakes is the 3 barrel notch on the plenum divider,the time frame is about right for the introduction of the 3 barrel.The earliest 3 barrels were seen on Mopar 426 track hemis with Lemans bowls and I don't think Mopar had the same exclusive deal for a year that Ford had with Holley when they supposedly subsidized the development of the Dominator.The 3 barrels appeared to be available to all the manufacturers almost immediately.
-
Well, back to this 390 intake.
After posting this, I bought Jay's book (got it in just 2 days :) ) and it looks like this intake will be a good option for the engine, I'm building. It's a 361 Edsel Block, bored .040, with a Eagle 428 crank. It will have the machined original, machined combustion chambers, too so, a 419 ci engine. A little smaller than the 410 hp, 433 in the book and the 410 hp engine, is right where I want my tq & hp, to be for this mild, everyday type driver.
Comparing average, 2500 - 5300 rpm hp for unported intakes, this intake gives 429 tq & 317.4 hp. With a 382.1 max hp. It's comparable to the 390 Performer's 432.5 tq & 319.8, 379.9 max. It's down 3 lb tq & 5 hp, to the RPM Performer, 6 & 6 to the street Master, almost dead even, with the C4 manifold and beats out, the PI manifolds 426.8 tq & 317.2 hp even, the Ford Tri Power's 422.5 tq & 314.8 hp. The holley Street Dominator, had really good numbers though @ 438 tq & 326 hp.
I didn't think the SM & SD would give as good of low rpm tq as they showed and maybe below 2500 they aren't a good option. I had always heard they weren't a good low rpm manifold. I used to have a SM but, sold it years ago. I always liked the design for a single plane.
Something that I was surprised at though, was the lack of tq at 2500 compared to the SM and C4 both had 19-20 more tq than the 390. I don't understand that, at all.
This manifold has been severely ported in the plenum, all hand work and a little crude so, I set it up and bored the 4 corners to 1.75" diameter and milled the divider straight, to the floor. I think this should raise the upper curve and maybe max hp by ~10 hp? I would like opinions on how they stepped the divider. Will it be a problem?
I will be trying 2 carbs on this manifold, both 4160's. One is a standard 3310-3, 750 cfm and the other is a fairly rare, Mopar 4218, 725 cfm with 1 9/16 primary and 1 3/4 secondary throttles, not a spread bore though. It's one of the reasons I bored the manifold to 1.75, the other to have a clean, symmetric plenum.
I would also like opinions on how much of a radius to put on the runner corners, out of the plenum.
-
Thank you, all.
I don't have it in my hands yet, it's being shipped so, I can't tell what other porting it's had done, besides the rough looking carb pad. This is a picture of the top. I got it for a mild (224/230 FT) 410 I'm building.
How did it fare in Jay's tests?
Dont misunderestimate that 390HP intake on a tall-geared car!
I did a GTECH shootout of 4 intakes:
Ed RPM
428PI
390HP
Z-iron LoRiser
Engine was a 434CID, CJ heads, shorty iron, 427-8v cam and also Comp 270S (ie 427-4v) cams.
Tall dog: 4400 lb curb, stock stall c6, 3.00 gear. No tire smoke, but very consistent launches with a couple extra truck tires in back.
Up thru 330ft and 60mph, the 390HP intake won both shootouts. I was surprised. Loses a little on top but lots of low and midrange with a stock 1" 4hole spacer, which made it the same height as the taller intakes.
-
Someone wanted to know what this 4218 carb looks like.
No opinions on the overall plenum, divider or the radius into the runners?
-
Someone wanted to know what this 4218 carb looks like.
I had a friend give me one of those off his Dodge Charger 383 car. He never could get it to run right. Neither could I. Ended up putting an AFB on it. I'm sure they worked fine before nuckleheads like myself got ahold of them.
-
No opinions on the overall plenum, divider or the radius into the runners?
Be more aggressive on the transition radius of the vertical plenum bores in transition to the horizontal port runner roofs, if the material sum is there. ;)
Scott.
-
Thank you, Scott,
There seems to be plenty of meat on both the upper and lower runners, to do that, although getting to the back side of the lower runner, will be hard to do. I was hoping for a ball park radius to try to try to attain.
Should I make the rest of the divider, all one height?
-
I will go against the current marketing of dividers, and say that if it were my intake, I would fill in the divider and blend everything with good radius into the ports. You will have fuel distribution problems with making that slot wider, and turbulence into the upper plane for all rpm but all out WOT. You will also lose some bottom end torque. BTDT on the dyno, and every time there is a weird curve in the torque as it hunts for clean airflow. Joe-JDC
-
I was in the shop with John Corrunker one night several weeks after we took delivery on the 'one-of-the-first-dozen' '68 CJ Mustangs. Jack Roush and Al Buckmaster from 'Triple E' came in, bringing with them a then brand new Sidewinder manifold. It was newly machined and had been cast in the little experimental Foundry close by Gate 4 at The Rouge. It didn't have any markings at all on it, as I remember, except the firing order which was in front of the carb mount pad on top of the runner.
We were told that it was intended for a 427, but with some rework it would be significantly better than the factory-installed piece. And lighter too.
We were to add metal at the bottom inner sides of the runners so as to have enough metal to cover the ports at the gasket interface. And, since we were running a C6---the car was a Super E Auto---the missing fore-'n'-aft divider would have to be filled in. As cast, the manifold was intended for a stick car.
The plenum, as delivered, looked very much like what is pictured above.
John had most of the work done, but by the time we got it back, it had been found that something else was better for class racing, and it went on a shelf to gather dust.
The better part of a year later, I put a 427 together to go in my '67 Cougar XR7 GT. John knew I was scrounging for some of the parts, and he offered me the manifold. It was ready to install except for where the material was added to hold the gasket properly. Although it had been faced off on the gasket face, I had to do a quick hand porting job to remove the material inside the runner. I used a gasket for a pattern and removed everything that would hang out into the passage. I got a carburetor from Harold Droste that was designed for a road-race Cobra. Since I was using a C6 in the Cougar, the divider was just the ticket. I agree with Joe, if you're running an automatic.
KS
-
Frank, on big inch motors, I typically like a plenum divider notch. I do not make the divider go away, I think of it more as a damper. Regardless, for yours I agree with Joe, that it could be a good idea to fill in, but not sure I would because I tend to be a bit more lazy and my alum spool gun still has a sloppy guy behind it...
However, I would listen to Joe and 427John, stick your finger everywhere and you should have no sharp or even 90 degree edges, even if those edges don't seem to be in the flow path Specifically the roof of the plenum of the top plane and the transition of the bottom plane vertical wall into the runners. Roll those nice and round, or at least get a good 45 on them, and if there is meat on the lower plane, raise that wall a little for a little more room to take the corner, but be careful and make sure you aren't trying to make a vacuum port :)
Think of those sharp edges in the plenum turns like water on a roof peak on a windy day, you don't want the a/f to separate and create droplets and a mess as it tries to take a corner, in addition to the turbulence it causes.
ON EDIT: With that last comment in mind, if you do keep the cut divider, blunt everything up, there is no place for a sharp edge anywhere IMHO, those jagged areas on what's left of your divider won't help you at all. My experience says it will act like one of those people who spits while they talk LOL
-
There seems to be plenty of meat on both the upper and lower runners, to do that, although getting to the back side of the lower runner, will be hard to do. I was hoping for a ball park radius to try to try to attain.
Generally in an instance like this, as conservative in area presented by the plenum and as the ports are in dimension, the answer would to be as aggressive as possible with the casting material provided, but also maintaining and or bettering a balance in the access to the carburetor port to port. :)
Should I make the rest of the divider, all one height?
I would probably not recommend cutting the divider down, and would think that generally in this type of intake it would be better without the relief currently made; but testing is recommended at this point, as a simple piece of sheet metal could be fabricated to raise this notch recreating the 180° effect and simply added and subtracted for testing, as there are many reasons for the mixed experiences with this subject. :-\
Also, if your handy at tig-welding aluminum, I have in the past filled in all of the waisted void in the carburetor pad deck surface and milling flat for a better relationship to whatever meets up to this surface.
And don't hesitate to experiment with the addition of different carburetor spacer plates coupled to the associated carburetor tuning modifications that may be required in order to capitalize on any generated effect. ;)
Scott.
-
Making a divider could be an option, just go thick if you do, it's more violent there than you think.
If you could plunge a slot on each end, true the current diver and add a 1/16 or thicker plate, it could be removable and allow you to test, assuming you will dyno it
The other option is to fit a spacer with a tongue, slightly easier machine work
That being said, I'd still likely square off that current setup and blunt the edges, then let her rip
-
Thank you, all for helping out.
The the pictures I've outlined in red the areas that I want to work on.
For the divider, I'll weld in a piece of 1/8 aluminum, to raise it to the flange, my question on it, is will a 3 bbl, slot help, at all?
I have 2, 1" spacers to use. A open phenolic and a tapered 4 hole. If I use the open, I shouldn't need a 3 bbl slot. If I use just the tapered one, will a 3 bbl slot help balance the vacuum? Would using both be better, if I have enough hood clearance?
The areas that I outline in the runners are what I would like to know how large a radius would be the best shot. I have enough material to get a 3/8" radius, although on the lower runners, it will be hard to get a full 3/8 on the back side of it.
I'll get pictures of my spacers, before the day is over. It's raining like hell right now.
Scott, I can't fill all that with weld but, I will fill it with epoxy. Good idea.
-
These are the spacers I have, to use with this manifold. The numbers are the taper, top to bottom.
-
On picture 2 and 3, don't just blend the corner where you drew red, round every sharp edge along the wall, it isn't a static flow to a port. There is reversion from every port and pulsation from even the closing of the valve, like I said, if a sharp edge can be felt with a finger, blunt it, round it, blend it, whatever you want to call it.
At worst belnding a corner with minimal flow doesn't help, but more than likely at some throttle position or rpm a sharp edge will wick some fuel and create turbulence at some other time
-
What's with the three barrel carb.? I don't think this manifold would lend itself to this unit. ???
You only have one carb. spacer,..........the four hole, as the open isn't going to provide a good match-up (or sealing?) without the welding I mentioned and ported dual oval or double "D" shaped presentations at the carburetor pad to be proper.
Yes, go ahead and fill the separation wall between left & right plenums, leave out the three-barrel notch, and it probably will respond well to having the carburetor moved up from the upper port runner set, so why not use the four hole spacer.
And again increase the radii as you have indicated as much as is reasonably possible with the material available, particularly the lower runner set, but be aware that the floor of the upper runner crossover is going to limit what can be done. Ideally, the intention here would be to attempt to create the effect of drawing the lower runners upward shortening the distance to the carburetor, making it more equal to the upper runner set; and for the upper set since we're planning on the spacer, start the radius at the carburetor pad ending symmetrically at 90 degrees of the port runner roof; and port-match the outside perimeter of the spacer to match the intake presentation so that the spacer acts as a true extension of the intake manifold. :)
And, "epoxy" can prove questionable in the long term, but if it's the best we can do well................ ::)
Scott.