Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - WerbyFord

Pages: [1]
1
FE Technical Forum / Looking for dimensions, iron 2bbl intakes
« on: August 22, 2021, 08:57:56 AM »
The recent threads here (Brent's 352JJ and Cheeser's 68 Cougar 390-2v) got me hunting for dimensions of the "newer" (1966-up) iron 2bbl intakes.

http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=10390.0;all


Since these were basically scrap iron in our day, I only have measurements on one early c3ae-a 2bbl but have nothing on the many 66-up 2bbl intakes we scrapped.

I usually record the following:
* Port height & width
* "A" and "B" as Edelbrock (and Jay in TGFEIC) describe it, from carb pad plane down to china wall front & rear.
* Volume in cc's (LOL, who would bother??? Not me!)
* I also measure "C" and "D", which I define as the distance from the carb pad down to the bottom of the plenum. Kind of a short cut to guessing volume but mainly, easy to measure.
* Pictures help too - sometimes those are around on the web but not the measurements.

I’ve found several post-1966 2bbl intakes. Most of the pictures I see have a Big T on them (like the Big S on the 4bbl "390GT and Friends" intakes.)
But I don't know if they all have the Big T or not.

Any known dimensions (ports or “A” & “B” or even volume or "C" & "D") much appreciated!

Anybody have any 2-barrel intakes out in the scrap pile they can measure?
C7TE-F pictures show a “T”
C7TE-G NHRA listed for 1968
C8TE-A NHRA listed for 1969
C9AE-B pictures again show a “T”
D3TE-A1A pics looks like low “early” version, cant tell if it has “T” or not

MPC lists only 2 service intakes for those years:
C6AZ-D 1965-66 2bbl (Muscle Parts says 1.16 x 2.75 ports. Unless it’s a HiRiser 2bbl I think they mean 1.16 x 1.75)
C9AZ-E 1967-71 2bbl (Muscle Parts says 1.16 x 1.82 ports.)
I dont know which casting numbers these "AZ" part numbers refer back to.

Muscle Parts also lists the C9AZ-E 2bbl and the C9ZZ-A 4bbl (390 IP?) as “Equal Length” intakes, along with the C6AZ-M Sidewinder. I found that an interesting comment, hadn’t noticed it in all the years I’ve seen that table.

Any help in measuring appreciated - all our 2bbl iron is long gone.

2
Recently over on the old/new fordfe.com, a question came up about the Blue Thunder (BT) intake vs the Ed RPM intake. The OP decided to go with a BT, due to the torque loss with the RPM intake at eg 2500rpm in TGFEIC.

https://www.fordfe.com/which-blue-thunder-intake-for-a-390-gt-motor-c6ae--t161264.html

I hadn’t taken that much note of the issue, because I usually use 2000rpm as the Gonkulator’s “Bottom”, since that is in the range of stock FE converter stall. But on going back and looking at all the Torq in TGFEIC at 2500, some very interesting and hard to explain stuff seems to be going on.

For example, here is a list of the 2500rpm Torq as reported, for the good old 428cj410hp engine/mule.
UP=Unported
PM=PortMatch

406   Ed F427 PM
401   Holley SD UP
399   Ford “Z” c4se-a
398   Ed SM-PM
397   BT-UP ******************************* versus:
396   Ed F427-UP
396   Ed SM-UP
395   Ford “S” c6ae-g
392   Offy POS-PM
389   Ed Perf
385   Ford MR-8v-UP
385   Ford LR-8v-UP
384   Offy POS-UP
380   Ford 390hp
379   Ford Sidewinder-UP ********************* -18
379   Offy360-UP
377   Offy DP-UP
376   Ford 428cj-iron
376   Ford 428pi-alum
373   Weiand 7282-UP

343   Ed RPM ****************************** -54
333   Ford MR-4v-PM to LR heads ************* -64

Note that the average of all these intakes is about 390 ftlb at 2500rpm.
The BT intake does better than most at 397 ftlb.
But then there is the very popular Ed RPM intake way down there at 343 ftlb, a loss of 54 ftlb at 2500rpm.

Of course, for the RPM’s intended use, this doesn’t matter too much, as it is intended for combos that will never see full throttle much under 3000rpm where this intake comes to life. Still, at 2500, why does the RPM lose so *badly* compared to other intakes, whether dual or single plane?

It has been suggested that this loss of low end is due to lack of taper in the RPM’s intake runners. I don’t have a better explanation, so let that be the proposed cause. As we know, above 3000rpm the Ed RPM comes to life and is among the best street/strip single quad intakes. OK, problem solved, I guess.  ;D

MUCH HARDER TO EXPLAIN is the dual plane Ford Medium Riser 4v (MR-4v) intake. It is the worst of the bunch at 333 ftlb at 2500rpm, down 64 ftlb vs the BT intake. And it is also down 48 ftlb versus its near sister, the even larger volume Sidewinder, at 379 ftlb. The MR-4v also loses badly to other near twins, the 428pi and 428cj intakes, both up there at 376 ftlb.

What’s going on with this intake? All I can figure is that as Jay notes in TGFEIC, this intake was “port matched” to the big somewhat lazy low riser head ports as received for testing. Still, it doesn’t seem like that would explain a loss of 50 ftlb give or take, but maybe it does. But other than “port matching”, all those Ford intakes look so similar, and they all put out near the same torq at 2500, except the MR-4v which is WAY down. :'(

Comments/Explanations? Jay?  ???


3
This started out as a thread on intake weights but evolved into the old "428cj vs 428pi" intake battle.
I learned a lot in terms of reconciling what all folks have seen over the years. TGFEIC was mentioned a lot of course as well as Muscle Parts, which has less data than TGFEIC but makes up for it with way more groovy colors. And that book is only $1.00. Oh wait.

Does anybody really know how the tests were done in Muscle Parts, which data are real and which are ballparked?

http://www.network54.com/Forum/74182/thread/1518317635/last-1518584028/View+Thread

4
I'm setting up a pair of 1405s on a Ford 2x4v LoRiser, 270s cam.
Wondering what jets/rods you ended up with in your TGFEIC dyno testing & how you got there, I cant find it in the book.
Big reason- Edelbrock advises jetting them pretty lean for their 2x4v air gap intake.
Stock 1405 per Edel
100 pri
70x47 rods
95 sec

1405 when used on AirGap 2x4v
100 pri
73x52 rods
77 sec
That is A LOT leaner as you can see. I talked to Ed tech line and they confirmed this, but said its engine dependent. So I thought I'd see what you saw on the dyno.

Do the 2x4v Holleys like to "go lean" vs single 4v jets?

Pages: [1]