Backing up a little; if the intention is to manufacture an intake of your own design, then yes, I would incorporate similar under blower plenum to port runner transition as presented in the photo of the FE example.   

     But I'm not so sure that with the longer port runners torque increases would truly be the greatest benefit, as stated by another previously this is a positive displacement blower geared to the crank, so boost will come-up rather quickly with throttle opening even at lower revolutions; but rather I think the greater value would be to aid in the control of fuel drop-out, this being promoted due to the otherwise rather large box plenum area, that although the fuel may have been well mixed as passing thru the blower, without better directional coercement and considering the necessity to operate with a generally otherwise considered overly rich mixture, excessive unappreciated fuel puddling at the lower velocities is likely.   

     Also while engineering your manifold realize that typically over the decades it has been noted that there is a tendency for the fuel charge to present leaner mixtures toward the front and getting progressively richer as approaching the rear; this generally being attributed to the helix twist in the rotors resulting in their progressive displacement of area in their length. Remember, this was not a concern by Detroit Diesel in the original application as no fuel (diesel) was intended to pass thru the blower (direct in cylinder injection) not to mention the convoluted pathway from the blower discharge to the air box position on the side of the block to feed the cylinders port openings (two-stroke!     ) negated any such considerations; though still, due to reversion effects the air boxes were fitted with drains to remove the accumulation of oil and fuel liquid. The simplest solution to attempt to equalize the cylinder to cylinder fuel mixtures has generally been to move the blowers' mounting forward on the engine, when and if other concerns (what distributor?      ) in the fitment permit such; this somewhat akin to the adjustable/sliding carburetor spacer plates this allowing the carburetor to be moved forward & back to find the position providing the best performance.   

     As a side note: if one were going to have a billet crankshaft made for their MEL or Lima 385 motor, for an aggressive blower application, consider looking at the 1967-'68 front timing covers (for seal application) with the crankshaft snout mounted power steering pumps (just mimic the P.S. assembly's drive hub O.D.), as this engineering would permit a quite greater diameter crank-snout providing better support particularly considering the length in these engine applications!   

     Scott.

Jay can fix you up with adapter to put a 460 intake on a MEL. He has one on a CNC program.  It requires some re-plumbing  of the coolant but nothing too radical 

Up to about 5500 - 6000 I would trust the Stock MEL crank. I offset ground mine to 4.124 on a 524 inch and on a 475 inch, offset to 4".   The 475 never gave any trouble , but I am limiting the long stroke to 5500. I did these before the 460 crank idea came along..

 All MEL stock intakes suck.. Even the Super Marauder