adapter/Cleveland performaneb.

[Dave Eames]

Hello all, not looking for controversy but does anyone have a real world performanc results from using Jay's adapter with Cleveland manifolds? I'm asking because I'm considering getting in line for the adapter.
Tia, Eames.

[jayb]

Nice to see you here, Dave.  I don't have as much dyno data as I'd like on the adapter, but there are some results from the 351C Performer RPM, Torker, and Weiand tunnel ram at these links, from the Member Projects board:

http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=683.msg10758#msg10758

http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=683.msg11018#msg11018

I do have some more intakes to test, waiting on getting a dyno mule together to do the testing.  Hopefully very soon...

I don't hear back too much from people who are running them, unfortunately.  I have one on my '68 Mustang and will post some drive results on that as soon as the insurance turns on in a few weeks. 

Anybody running one, please feel free to chime in, good or bad.  Thanks, Jay

[fekbmax]

I think it's going to be every bit as good as the old PSE adapters , if not better in most cases. I had a PSE in decent shape but it had been worked several times for different things and I felt like the FE power adapter would be a fresh clean slate to start with for the new Kuntz heads and my two manifold choices that are a dead match on the intake side (to each other) thanks to wizbang Bob and his awesome Hand porting skills. I have gotten the intake side of the adapter laid out to that configuration and will be doing the head side very soon so I can let him all his magic on the adapter. I have no doubts that I will be very pleased, its a top notch part and with proper port matching and work I see no reason it can't = or out preform the older PSE parts. I'm hoping to get another adapter in the future and build a fabricated manifold for it, just need to be sure which heads I'll be using.
Thanks for a great part Jay. I'm excited to see how it performs and like you I would love to hear from others.

[Falcon67]

Hey Jay - how much port mis-match is there between your adapter and the 351C Wieand T-ram?  I'm planning to run the same intake on my 351C dragster using AFD heads.  There is a bit of mis-match in the bottom of the ports with the AFDs and I may want to fill that in a bit, or maybe not - not sure.  Thanks.

[jayb]

Really not too much mismatch at all, maybe 0.050" all around or so.  The intake adapter port is smaller so it can be sized up to the tunnel ram port size if desired.  Both the 351C Edelbrock Torker and Weiand tunnel ram have ports that are very close to the same size, so I used those as the baseline for the porting dimensions I cut into the intake adapter.

[Falcon67]

Thanks, that helps.

This is what the ram looks like with the AFDs


Torker

[machoneman]

It's a little hard to tell but that Torker looks mighty close save the bottom of the port. Surprised the AFD head isn't a lot closer 

[Heo]

Those AFDs looks to be closer to 2V ports

[fekbmax]

351c weiand tunnel ram on my FE Power adapter .  the tunnel ram had a bit bigger ports than my funnel web so I matched my funnel web to it  so either intake can be used on the adapter. As you can see it's pretty close with most of the mis match at the bottom. I like what Jay did by leaving a little extra so the adapters can be sized to a variety of 4v intake manifold's.
I also think those Cleveland heads look like 2v or 3v port configuration. Maybe a 2v manifold would be a better match once the manifold was ported to match your heads. Jmo.

[fekbmax]

Also Jay If you happen to see this, I know I had ask before but could you remind me again how much thickness we have between the intake port and the pushrod tube ? I believe you said .050 but I can't remember.  Thanks.

[Dave Eames]

Thanks, will look there.
Eames

[jayb]

Also Jay If you happen to see this, I know I had ask before but could you remind me again how much thickness we have between the intake port and the pushrod tube ? I believe you said .050 but I can't remember.  Thanks.

It is 0.050", Keith.  Thanks, Jay

[JamesonRacing]

My 496" Fairlane ran its best time with Jay's adapter and an Edelbrock Yates dominator top.  Unfortunately I don't have a controlled experiment where the only change was the manifold.  Joe Craine ported and flowed my combination and it would move more air than the ported Victor that was on the car.

An Edelbrock Victor 427 is a really good intake, so I doubt you're gonna pick up three tenths just by moving to the adapter and Cleveland intake.  Keep in mind, many people smarter than me have expressed the power an engine makes isn't necessarily equal to the sum of the parts; its having the right combination of parts that work well together.

I like the improved ease of maintenance and flexibility that the adapter provides, plus my engine seems to like it, and it looks freakin' cool!

[Falcon67]

Those AFDs looks to be closer to 2V ports

They match a 4V Funnelweb almost exactly.  I'd run the Funnelweb, but the wife has dibs on that and it's in her car. 



Why I'm asking about port mis-match - the intended target of the Torker and ram 

[JamesonRacing]

Here's what looks to be a good deal on a Yates top to use on one of Jay's adapters:

http://tricities.craigslist.org/pts/5476210296.html