Author Topic: Potential new Tunnel Port intake  (Read 11027 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7405
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« on: January 02, 2018, 02:14:17 PM »
At the PRI show I met a guy who is manufacturing Pontiac Ram Air V parts.  As some of you may know, that engine is a close cousin to a 427 Tunnel Port, and in fact I was told at the show that after Ford cancelled the tunnel port program, a bunch of the engineers at Ford who worked on it went to Pontiac and were instrumental in developing the Ram Air V.  Anyway, the topic has come up in the past about whether one of these Ram Air V intakes could be made to work on a tunnel port engine, using my tunnel port intake adapter.  The guy at the show is based in Indianapolis and was kind enough to bring me one of his single 4 barrel intakes, and let me take it home to check this out.

Over the new year's weekend I finally got a chance to look at this.  I have one tunnel port intake adapter that is a defect and not usable, because a big end mill came loose during the milling operation and gouged one side of the intake adapter pretty good.  But the intake adapter's basic dimensions were intact, so it was a good candidate for checking to see if this intake would be made to work with the adapter.  One thing that was clear at the show was that the adapter's mounting surfaces would have to be machined down, a lot, to have a chance for success at this.  Also, it looked like the Ram Air V manifold's mating surfaces would have to be machined as well.

Measurements I took over the past couple days showed that I needed to machine the maximum amount off the surfaces of the intake adapter.  So, I took 0.800" off each manifold mounting surface of the adapter so I could see where we were after that.  Here's a picture of this defective adapter, with the manifold mounting surfaces machined:




Of course if I went forward with something like this it would not look so rough, but I needed to machine it this way to see what the problems might be.  I was able to confirm that there was enough material in the intake adapter to allow me to counterbore a hole for the bolts that go into the cylinder head, although special low-head capscrews would probably be required.  One area of concern is the gasket area above the ports; there is only about 0.175" there and I'd feel better if there was more like 0.250".  But at this point, it looked do-able.

Here are a couple pictures of the Ram Air V intake.  You can see how much like a tunnel port it is:






Finally, the picture below shows the intake sitting on the intake adapter:




As I had determined at the show, in this position the manifold does not fit far enough down on the intake adapter; the port openings are actually above the valve cover rail.  The flange of the intake is a little over 0.500" thick, and to make the roof of the ports line up between the intake adapter and the manifold, the flange of the manifold would have to be cut about another 0.325", leaving a flange thickness of only 3/16" or so.  But I think that would be OK; I've seen flanges thinner than that before.  The other issue is the port alignment, which is pretty close but would require either some porting on the intake manifold, or a new port program for the intake adapter to shrink the ports down so that they would match up with the Ram Air V manifold ports.

What do you guys think of this combination?  Would it be worth pursuing?  I don't know what the market is like for the single 4 tunnel port intake manifolds, but it seems like you could get one for less than you'd have into one of my adapters plus this Ram Air V intake with the requisite machining ($779 for the TP intake adapter and ~$700 for the manifold, plus $85 to machine the flanges so it would fit).  You'd also have to make custom intake gaskets, because there's no room for an O-ring seal between the ports of the intake adapter and the manifold.  But if you really wanted to do it, you could...

Any comments welcome - Jay

Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

andyf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2018, 02:33:59 PM »
That is a nice looking intake the guy is casting. If it was me I'd modify either the intake or the adapter for injectors and run EFI. That way I wouldn't need to worry about sorting out the wet flow in the intake. It might work just fine or it might not but EFI would get rid of that variable. I assume that is a 4500 bolt pattern on the intake? So a big 2000 cfm throttle body would fit on there. Would be a very cool looking setup.

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7405
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2018, 03:02:21 PM »
That's actually a 4150 pattern on the carb flange, but there is enough meat to drill it either way.  I'm sure that that's an option with this intake...
Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

thatdarncat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2018, 04:33:19 PM »
I don't know how much of a market there is, but the timing of your post is good - Vintage Cylinder Heads just announced yesterday in the old FE Forum classifieds that they will have new Tunnel Port aluminum heads available in about 4 months. No word from them if they intend to market an intake manifold too, so demand for existing manifolds may increase. Details are a little slim yet on the new heads, looks like they will come with 2.09" & 1.66" valves, no word on if larger valves will be offered.
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

wcbrowning

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2018, 04:39:11 PM »
How well do tunnel port heads flow?

Katz427

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 443
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #5 on: January 02, 2018, 05:43:48 PM »
I will leave it to Blair Patrick as he has a good idea what happens with the pushrod tube and airflow. I think Jay's raised straight port with offset pushrod really is the best answer if you want a port with great flow.  It really is a tunnel port without the pushrod tube.

Dumpling

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #6 on: January 02, 2018, 05:56:54 PM »
If someone was putting together a TP engine, I'd think at this late time, with all the other options out there that perform as well or better, that they'd be building it with originality and 'correctness' in mind.  Putting together a Pontiac/Ford hybrid doesn't seem like it would be their goal, unless that is something they dreamed of doing since back-in-the-day.  JMO

mbrunson427

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 921
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #7 on: January 02, 2018, 06:03:55 PM »
If someone was putting together a TP engine, I'd think at this late time, with all the other options out there that perform as well or better, that they'd be building it with originality and 'correctness' in mind.  Putting together a Pontiac/Ford hybrid doesn't seem like it would be their goal.  JMO

I agree with this. You don't see too many people running tunnelport stuff for pure performance, more for the cool factor. I could see myself grabbing a set of those heads the guy is advertising on the other forum, but I'd be bolting on one of the original intakes.
Mike Brunson
BrunsonPerformance.com

Joe-JDC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1490
  • Truth stands on its own merit.
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #8 on: January 02, 2018, 11:08:22 PM »
Jay, what I would like to see is a lightweight intake manifold with small round/oval runners that flows in the 400 cfm range, and a slightly larger version that is lightweight that flows in the 475 cfm range.  That would keep the velocity up, and make it possible for a smaller engine to make great hp/tq/ci, and the larger intake would work with larger stroker engines.   It doesn't take a large port to flow those numbers if it is concentric, and has a slight taper.  When I say lightweight, some time check out a Streetmaster's weight vs a Victor 427.  Joe-JDC
Joe-JDC '70GT-500

machoneman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3853
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #9 on: January 03, 2018, 05:51:14 AM »
Now that is one very cool idea!  :)

But, on the other hand, demand is likely quite low...or maybe even extremely low. Something I'm sure you have thought of is running your 'ad' about this new idea and part in numerous Ford forums to get a handle on potential demand.

Although a seperate topic, JDC's idea has a lot of merit when it comes to weight. That spyder-looking and rather small exterior intake begs the question: can it be easily casted in some thermoplastic material ala' the OEM car manufacturers? Just a thought... 
Bob Maag

e philpott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 923
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #10 on: January 03, 2018, 09:22:58 AM »
In the past it seemed like intakes were everywhere and good cylinder was hard to find , no thumb print , wacked out port jobs and cracks were the common place , if heads become available then the Intakes will be needed eventually and this could be a real good alternative if that happens or just have some intake manifolds cast specifically for the Tunnel port , it would be neat if someone can snatch up Dove Molds and put to good use

JamesonRacing

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 361
  • 1966 - What a great year for FOMOCO
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2018, 02:57:46 PM »
The 2-4V tunnel-port intake is already such a cool piece, would seem to be counter-productive to regress to a hybrid single 4V setup.  Factory single-plane tunnelport intakes seem to be available if a person really wants one, at a decent price.  I ran a factory dominator 1-4V on my FE back in the day, and did well.  Now that really good heads are available for FEs, I can't imagine ever using tunnelport stuff for racing.

So, my opinion is that there's not a market out there worth pursuing for that combo.
1966 Fairlane GT, Silver Blue/Black 496/C4 (9.93@133)
1966 Fairlane GT, Nightmist Blue/Black 465/TKO (11.41@122)
1966 Fairlane GTA Conv, Antique Bronze/Black, 418EFI/C6
1966 F250 C/S, Rangoon Red, 445/T19
1965 Falcon Futura 4-door, Turquoise, EF! Z2363/4R70W

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7405
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #12 on: January 03, 2018, 03:40:59 PM »
I'm kind of in agreement with most of the folks on this thread that this intake may be a solution looking for a problem.  Nevertheless, I know now what needs to be done to make one work, so if anyone runs across this thread in the future and wants one of these setups, let me know - Jay
Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

andyf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #13 on: January 03, 2018, 04:46:33 PM »
Just because you can build it doesn't mean you should, or that anyone will buy it!

I get taught that lesson all the time in my business. I build a lot of custom parts for my own projects but when I add them to my website they don't always sell. Some do, some don't. Stuff I think is super cool is often too expensive for the average guy so sales are low. On the flip side, stuff I think is "run of the mill" is often priced low enough that it generates a lot of sales revenue. You just can't get too far ahead of the market..........

cjshaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4460
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #14 on: January 04, 2018, 08:49:06 PM »
I agree with the extremely limited market on this. Heads and intakes seem to be everywhere now, and good ones at that. What the FE community really needs is a good, readily AVAILABLE block. 390 strokers can only take so much and the BBM seems to be on a very limited basis. The Pond isn't really any better than the factory blocks and the Shelby is WAY out of most peoples price range.
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

Stangman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1698
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #15 on: January 04, 2018, 09:02:30 PM »
I agree with Doug and Im going to throw in intake manifolds also. I mean we are all waiting for the BT 2x4 intakes to get here and whats there gonna be 100 made with 300 people waiting, I mean just saying. Come on Jay
a nice Jay Brown 2x4 medium riser intake. PLEASE!!!!.  Just throwing it out there what do you think?

Joe-JDC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1490
  • Truth stands on its own merit.
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #16 on: January 04, 2018, 11:05:25 PM »
An RPM Air Gap 8V where you could mount the Holleys in line would be an excellent all around intake for the FE even though the BT looks like the Ford original.  Joe-JDC
Joe-JDC '70GT-500

Stangman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1698
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #17 on: January 04, 2018, 11:52:38 PM »
But you can’t right Joe.

mbrunson427

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 921
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #18 on: January 05, 2018, 10:34:10 AM »
But you can’t right Joe.

I fiddled around with this a bit because I was planning on machining out the whole top of the Edelbrock air gap intake and making an adapter plate (exactly the same as what Dove did when they made their removable top tunnel wedge intake). I was going to make a 3x2 top plate and a 2x4 top plate. The problem I ran into is the length of the top plenum is not long enough. If I remember right, it needed about an extra inch from the front to the back of the carb pads. By the time you space the carbs out, the front carb is further forward than front of the runner for port #1. It'd require cutting that runner and welding on more material which I wasn't interested in.

The only way I can see doing it is making an offset spacer that is between 1/2" and 1" tall (depending on how fast you care to transition). I didn't really care to do that either, so the idea was abandoned.

Here's a quick illustration of what I mean....


Long story short....I agree, it'd be nice if someone made this same dual plane intake with holley carb spacing and a removable top that a 3x2 or 2x4 plate would fit to. The tunnel wedge intake is too much for most street motors and they're almost impossible to find.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 10:49:49 AM by mbrunson427 »
Mike Brunson
BrunsonPerformance.com

andyf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #19 on: January 05, 2018, 11:39:41 AM »
If you use dual throttle bodies a lot of the spacing issues go away since you don't need the fuel bowls. Also, the throttle bodies tend to be shorter than carbs so there is more room for the air cleaner.

Stangman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1698
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #20 on: January 05, 2018, 12:32:07 PM »
I wonder if the new Fitechs would work. Is the edelbrock a medium riser port

fekbmax

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1458
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #21 on: August 23, 2018, 12:51:36 PM »
I don't know how much of a market there is, but the timing of your post is good - Vintage Cylinder Heads just announced yesterday in the old FE Forum classifieds that they will have new Tunnel Port aluminum heads available in about 4 months. No word from them if they intend to market an intake manifold too, so demand for existing manifolds may increase. Details are a little slim yet on the new heads, looks like they will come with 2.09" & 1.66" valves, no word on if larger valves will be offered.





Wonder what became of this ??
Keith.  KB MAX Racing.

C8OZ

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #22 on: August 13, 2020, 12:14:49 PM »
Old thread, I know.  :-\

Ran across this old project on a Pontiac group, and it got the wheels turning again.



Edit: Not sure if they're still making parts, but here was the source - https://www.dcimotorsports.com/products/dci-ram-air-five-parts/dci-ram-air-five-intake-manifold/
« Last Edit: August 13, 2020, 12:18:24 PM by C8OZ »

wayne

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #23 on: August 13, 2020, 05:45:31 PM »
 Offenhauser 5880 adapters should let you put holleys on a rpm air gap i am sure you will lose some flow.But factory air cleaner and linkage should work.

Joe-JDC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1490
  • Truth stands on its own merit.
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #24 on: August 13, 2020, 09:28:39 PM »
I have ported the RPM 8V Air Gap, and balanced the runners.  That manifold will out flow a ported MR 8V by a good margin.  I wish Edelbrock would cast one with Ford Carb spacing.  Nostalgia aside, Edelbrock has vastly improved their intakes the last few years.  Joe-JDC
Joe-JDC '70GT-500

wcbrowning

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #25 on: August 13, 2020, 10:51:31 PM »
How does the RPM 8V Air Gap compare to a Tunnel Wedge, both stock and with similar effort and prep?  Is there a big difference between a Ford TW and the BBM TW?

I have ported the RPM 8V Air Gap, and balanced the runners.  That manifold will out flow a ported MR 8V by a good margin.  I wish Edelbrock would cast one with Ford Carb spacing.  Nostalgia aside, Edelbrock has vastly improved their intakes the last few years.  Joe-JDC

wayne

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #26 on: August 14, 2020, 04:34:02 AM »
I have a 8v rpm air gap on a 308 ci small block with two 500 cfm edelbrocks and it runs the best it has.The big shock was how much low end its got over the old torker i had a victor jr and a f4b on it also it beats them all.The engine is not much just windser jr heads out of the box and a lunati 292-512 cam.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2020, 04:41:36 AM by wayne »

Joe-JDC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1490
  • Truth stands on its own merit.
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #27 on: August 14, 2020, 02:25:17 PM »
How does the RPM 8V Air Gap compare to a Tunnel Wedge, both stock and with similar effort and prep?  Is there a big difference between a Ford TW and the BBM TW?

Finding a stock Ford TW is nearly impossible, but the originals flowed ~380-390 cfm as cast, but ANY gasket matching caused the flow to jump to 410 cfm UP to whatever size you felt you needed.  However velocity dropped big time and torque went away to the tune of as much as 35 lb/ft on a 390 cubic inch engine.  The BBM is bigger as cast, and flow starts over 400 cfm, but I will not quote numbers.  Joe-JDC
Joe-JDC '70GT-500

Joey120373

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
    • View Profile
Re: Potential new Tunnel Port intake
« Reply #28 on: August 14, 2020, 06:09:41 PM »
The 8v rpm air gap with dual TBI set up looks promising, outside of the fuel injection complications. I imagine though, with a bit of clever wiring and the right controller, you could get the best of both worlds. Charge cooling And the ability to trim individual cylinders. This would require a TB that is just the throttle valve and injectors, not one of the fancy all in one self tuning jobs that are all the rage these days. Then wire each injector as you would for a sequential port injected motor. Glad to here Joe say that the rpm air gap is indeed a really good manifold, I wonder how much work it actually needs?
I have never seriously looked at that manifold because it forces you to use ( in my humble opinion ) pretty crappy carbs. Don’t get me wrong, those carbs have their place and for a gut that just needs a carb to get from point a to point b, they are fine.
Did anyone see the engine masters where that compared cheep carbs? The summit autolite clone did pretty well if I remember correctly, would that carb fit?