Dyno Mule to Test 351C Intakes on the Intake Adapter, Carb and EFI

[machoneman]

Color me very puzzled. 

In the Cleveland world, the Funnel Web and the Strip Dominator are *it* when it comes to hipo single plane intakes.  The Torker is always found to be lacking.

Me too Brent. I'll venture Jay doesn't peruse the 'C' sites which would verify what you stated. I also can't understand why the Torker here did so, so well yet the usual 'stars' of the C world were found lacking. Very puzzling and begs of course the question: why? 

[Royce]

Let me float this question since I am not really a C or FE guy, but it would seem to me that the length of the runners with Jay's adapters are influencing the results vs on a C engine. This coupled with different cross sectional area of the runners could account for the differences. The Torquer with the adapter seems to have hit a sweet spot.  Remember back to Jay's FE intake test.  We were all amazed how well the small runner single planes performed against manifolds with a bigger reputation for power production.

[jayb]

Color me very puzzled. 

In the Cleveland world, the Funnel Web and the Strip Dominator are *it* when it comes to hipo single plane intakes.  The Torker is always found to be lacking.

I was surprised by this too, but I'm sure it has to do with the entire induction tract, rather than just the intake.  The FE heads plus the intake adapter plus the Torker are what this engine wanted.  I have no doubt that on a normal 351C build, the Funnel Web and the Strip Dominator would be better, just based on other's experience.  But I'm running these tests to try to determine the best combination for an FE with my intake adapter, and the Torker appears to be it for a single plane intake. 

FYI, I had my friend Kevin bring the Funnel Web back over last night so we could look at how the ports line up to the adapter.  They are nearly a perfect match on the roof and on the sides, but the floor of the Funnel Web is quite a bit higher than the floor of the intake adapter port.  Just doing some quick airflow math, the 504" engine at 6500 RPM would be equivalent to a 351" Cleveland at 9300 RPM; maybe there's just not enough cross sectional area in the Funnel Web ports to support the airflow this engine wants, given the intake tract constraints.  Of course, that doesn't explain the performance of the Strip Dominator, which does have the larger ports.  Again I'm just speculating, but maybe those two intakes deliver the air in a way that the Cleveland head ports can use to their advantage, while on the FE + intake adapter this approach is not right.

I was so surprised by these results that I plan on re-running the tests using the Dominator carb and the adapter you are sending me.  I won't re-run the Strip Dominator, since I want to conserve oil    But I think I will run the Torker without the vacuum pump, then with the Dominator, and also the Funnel Web with the Dominator, to try to flesh out these differences a little more.

This whole series of tests reminds me a lot of the initial testing I did on FE intakes back in 2006.  Back then I tested a Performer RPM, a Blue Thunder intake, an Edelbrock F427, a Ford PI intake, a Ford 428CJ intake, and the Edelbrock Streetmaster.  When the Streetmaster came out on top, no one could believe it (me included).  But, the data doesn't lie.  Sure is an interesting result...

[fekbmax]

Ill be interested in seeing the results with the funnel web + dominator + adapter as thats the combo i have, along with the port matching.

[jayb]

Maybe one of the factors to remember is this is a 504 with a big cam sucking a lot of air so the single planes are working well.
It was obvious to me (a casual observer ) that the dual plane RPMs just couldn't give that big engine what it needed. Even though they did well.
What puzzles me is that the porting didn't gain anything and actually gave up a bit in the low range.
As Mr. Craine always warns, "be careful".

Edit:
One other thing from "Jay's soap box". The carbed RPM would not idle well below 1300 rpm. The efi RPM idled beautifully at 1000 rpm. After every pull with the efi manifold the engine returned to idle like it was no big deal and the starts were no fuel button pushes. Pretty impressive.

Marc, thinking about the results of port matching the Performer RPM, I'd guess that there is a bottleneck somewhere in that manifold, probably where the airflow turns into the runners from the plenum, that is holding the manifold back.  Port matching did not address this bottleneck, and so did not show a power increase.  However, port matching did increase the volume of the intake port, slowing port velocity in that area.  Apparently smoothing the transition between the intake and the adapter did not trump the increase in volume, so a little power was lost at the low end.  My advice to you would be to leave that intake as is, and don't port match it - Jay

[blykins]

I have had pretty good luck with using a Dominator to 4150 spacer adapter.  I think the way the Super Sucker is made really picks up the velocity. 

Jay, what would it take to make the Strip Dominator fit on your adapter?  If it would just take a little milling, I'd loan you my intake to use. 

[afret]

Hi Jay.  You can go ahead and do what it takes to make that Strip Dominator intake fit if you have the time and don't mind doing the work.  It doesn't have to be pretty.   

BTW, any idea how a FE Victor would compare to these Cleveland intakes with adapter?

[jayb]

Thanks Earl, I may go ahead with that.  It would be nice to test that intake with the crankcase under vacuum.  Also, thanks for being so patient with me on this, I'll bet its been two years or more since you sent me that intake for testing LOL!

I will be testing a Victor and a tunnel wedge for an FE at the end of this whole process, but probably that's a couple months down the road.  Should be an interesting comparison...

[jayb]

I have had pretty good luck with using a Dominator to 4150 spacer adapter.  I think the way the Super Sucker is made really picks up the velocity. 

Jay, what would it take to make the Strip Dominator fit on your adapter?  If it would just take a little milling, I'd loan you my intake to use.

Brent, it sounds like Earl is OK with me modifying his intake.  I will probably do that and re-test.

[turbohunter]

Marc, thinking about the results of port matching the Performer RPM, I'd guess that there is a bottleneck somewhere in that manifold, probably where the airflow turns into the runners from the plenum, that is holding the manifold back.  Port matching did not address this bottleneck, and so did not show a power increase.  However, port matching did increase the volume of the intake port, slowing port velocity in that area.  Apparently smoothing the transition between the intake and the adapter did not trump the increase in volume, so a little power was lost at the low end.  My advice to you would be to leave that intake as is, and don't port match it - Jay

I'm curious how it would react with a smaller (I'm thinking of my 440 here) engine.
While it was obvious that it couldn't supply the needs of your mule I'm thinking it would be a better match with less air demand.
As far as the porting I'm with you there but again I wonder again how a smaller engine would react.
Damn, I need my own dyno and the time and money to play with it.

[Joe-JDC]

Jay, I sent you a Torker with a divider welded in it.  Do you think now would be a good time to compare it to your Torker test?  Joe-JDC

[jayb]

Ha, I completely forgot about that one until you just mentioned it!  It's still sitting here in the box.  Yep, I will be doing that one this week too, Joe.

[blykins]

Go Strip Dominator, Go!!!!

[Joe-JDC]

When porting an intake, whether it is a Single Plane (SP), or Dual Plane (DP), I usually flow it to find out where the runners are for flow, and start with the plenum in making changes.  If I get the plenum and entry to all the ports the way I like them, then I flow every port again to see what change the work made.  Then I go into the ports, and lastly the last few inches at the head.  That is the ideal way.  When you simply gasket match an intake, you will pick up flow, but now the high speed velocity point will have moved back up the runner, and the velocity will not be as high at the gasket match, even though the flow will be up.  You need to keep the velocity up all the way to the back side of the valve, and ideally the fastest part of the port is going over the backside of the valve, not the short turn.  It is the old principle of the garden hose, squeeze the end of the hose, and it will squirt the water a long ways out from you, but release the end, and it will only pour at your feet.  Same amount of water, just not as useable in most circumstances.  Joe-JDC

[turbohunter]

Thanks for that Joe.
So if I understand you correctly there is a kind of a Venturi effect built into the ports. And I'm guessing here that the engine didn't care about the atomized fuel traveling into a larger opening from the manifold to the adapter, in fact it may have atomized the fuel even better?
Sorry if I'm bothering you guys with this, I'm just fascinated.