Author Topic: Potentially dumb FE question number 2 for today.  (Read 388 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mark Bliss

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Potentially dumb FE question number 2 for today.
« on: September 02, 2026, 05:29:22 PM »
Intake manifolds. (Yes I own and have extensively studied JB's book.)
Part one:
I have run a 'Sidewinder' with a Holley 780 vac of similar vintage since forever on a warmed over 390. It fell into my possession sometime about 1979 or so.
My discussion with Edelbrock tech years ago had them insisting the RPM was a far better manifold. They insisted the Sidewinder runners/plenum were too big for the application. But this engine was built by an enthusiast (me) who was young and was just beginning to grasp bigger isnt always better. Stuff happens. (Noting, as far as I am concerned, it worked pretty well)
Yet Jay's testing on similar engines showed it to be far closer than I expected.
I have seen it said cylinder distribution was less than ideal. But then isnt it a bit of a comprimise for every intake design?
I guess I am asking... Am I wrong to feel it's probably not a $700+ improvement?
This build is long overdue for some updates and changes, but I am always looking at the total value of the available choices.

Part two: simply rhetorical...
Studying the data in Jay's book, I was struck specifically by the Dove tunnel ram. Totally unexpected broad and flat power curve that impressed me.
I am not interested in a tall two carb rig, but I was left wondering why no one ever seemed to pursue mimicking the obsolete manifold. It did what it did pretty well.

thatdarncat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1960
    • View Profile
Re: Potentially dumb FE question number 2 for today.
« Reply #1 on: September 02, 2026, 08:48:09 PM »
Intake manifolds. (Yes I own and have extensively studied JB's book.)…

Part two: simply rhetorical...
Studying the data in Jay's book, I was struck specifically by the Dove tunnel ram. Totally unexpected broad and flat power curve that impressed me.
I am not interested in a tall two carb rig, but I was left wondering why no one ever seemed to pursue mimicking the obsolete manifold. It did what it did pretty well.

As far as a FE Tunnel Ram is concerned, FE intake manifolds have always been more complicated to cast & machine, compared to most other popular engine families, casting & machining a FE Tunnel Ram I would guess is considerably more involved, and probably more so years ago before CNC machines became common, likely had a lot to do with why there weren’t companies jumping into manufacturing them. Add to that by the ‘70’s many manifold companies were more focused on the emissions & pickup truck market. But yes, multiple tests Jay had done and posted shows a good Tunnel Ram design often shines, which was a big reason his FE Power intake adapter & Weiand 351C combo was so popular. Too bad we’ve lost that option now.
Kevin Rolph

1967 Cougar Drag Car ( under constuction )
1966 7 litre Galaxie
1966 Country Squire 390
1966 Cyclone GT 390
1968 Torino GT 390
1972 Gran Torino wagon
1978 Lincoln Mk V

Mark Bliss

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Potentially dumb FE question number 2 for today.
« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2026, 05:46:50 PM »
Yeah, I understand that.
But in a modern day of 3D scanning and manufacturing potential, I would think it might outweigh the cost of an adapter and Cleveland option.
Though a very limited potential consumer base aggravates the situation.

That big flat torque curve though...

cjshaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4588
    • View Profile
Re: Potentially dumb FE question number 2 for today.
« Reply #3 on: September 03, 2026, 09:52:32 PM »
The RPM may technically be the better intake, but I doubt anyone could tell a difference unless it was in hundredths on a drag strip. I know Rory used to run a sidewinder for years, and he ran pretty good. Maybe he'll see this and chime in. If you have a Ford sidewinder, and it's good, I wouldn't change it. I certainly don't think the change is worth $700, and I'm not a fan of the colored flag on their new intakes. Just looks a bit tacky, or not as cool anyway, as original Ford intakes, or even Edelbrocks older ones. That's just my opinion though.
Doug Smith


'69 R-code Mach 1, 427 MR, 2x4, Jerico, 4.30 Locker
'70 F-350 390
'55 Ford Customline 2dr
'37 Ford Coupe

mike7570

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
Re: Potentially dumb FE question number 2 for today.
« Reply #4 on: September 03, 2026, 10:34:22 PM »
If you have deep pockets just about anything is possible.




Mark Bliss

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Potentially dumb FE question number 2 for today.
« Reply #5 on: September 04, 2026, 04:08:09 AM »
Yeah Mike, I saw that before.
Very nice, but I'm a member of the "trying to break 500 up with an FE club" not 1000.  8)

Thanks for the reassurance Doug, that's what I was looking for.
My correspondence with Edelbrock was way back when they originally released their FE heads, and we discussed my combination, their dyno testing with what I would call "inappropriate" headers, (iirc they used a set of 2.25 dyno headers on a mild 390 to test the heads) and why they never offered a Victor Jr. appropriately proportioned to such builds, etc.
But more on that another time perhaps. Things have changed since then.