Author Topic: FE Intake Adapter  (Read 326832 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

cjshaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4460
    • View Profile
Re: FE Intake Adapter
« Reply #285 on: August 12, 2013, 07:32:00 PM »
I noticed on the 351C tunnel ram the floor is cut off,, guess that's needed for all of them?

He just did that to show off his cool cover plate ;)

But it does look much better that way. And why keep the extra weight? With some careful trimming, I'd think you could shed quite a few pounds off of the Cleveland intakes for use on the adapter. The intake ports aren't going to shift or move if you did.
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

NewFalconOwner

  • Guest
Re: FE Intake Adapter
« Reply #286 on: August 12, 2013, 08:20:27 PM »
yeah, it does show off the cool plate on the adapter for sure. just might need to do that :)

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7405
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: FE Intake Adapter
« Reply #287 on: August 18, 2013, 07:07:51 PM »
So, after a lack of solid lifters last weekend stymied my attempt at a cam change, I got busy this weekend to git 'er done.  The plan was to leave the intake adapter in place during the cam change, and check out this particular feature of the adapter.  Once the cam was changed and broken in, I could dyno test a few more 351C intakes.

The cam change was more or less uneventful.  Although the adapter stayed in place, I still had to remove the valvetrain and distributor, and also remove the water pump and timing cover of course.  That two piece timing cover with an O-ring seal would have been nice here, and would have saved quite a bit of time.  The water pump removal was kind of nice because I'm using the CVR pump with my billet aluminum adapters, and they are O-ringed, so no gasket to scrape or any sealer to deal with on re-assembly.  Here's a photo of the engine taken apart and the old Edelbrock Performer RPM cam coming out:



Before installing the Comp 294S cam I took the time to read all the directions that came with it and the lifters.  There have been so many flat tappet cam failures over the last few years that I wanted to make sure to refresh my memory on exactly what I should pay attention to.  I used the lube that came with the cam to coat the lobes and the bottoms of the lifters, and engine oil to coat the cam journals and lifter bodies.  I also went out and got some Shell Rotella T oil, which was recommended in the Comp instructions, and added a bottle of their cam break-in lube to the oil.  The cam went in with no trouble and degreed at 106 ICL on the first try, which was where Comp recommended that the cam was run.  When I buttoned the engine back up I decided to forego the factory timing cover and use a spare Shelby timing cover that I had here; more bling is good, right?  The whole cam change process took me about six hours, working fairly leisurely.

After a cam change you'd like to have the motor fire right away, rather than having to grind on the starter for a long time and potentially wipe all the lube off the lobes and lifters, so I made sure I had the timing set just right before the break-in process.  The motor fired instantly, and I kept it at 2000-2500 RPM for 30 minutes as Comp recommended.  Oil temp rose all the way to 230 degrees during the break-in period, but that was more or less expected.  After the 30 minutes were up I let off on the throttle and the engine settled down into a decent idle around 950 RPM.  Pretty much sounded like the cam I'd taken out.

The springs that had been in the engine with the Performer RPM cam were left in for the break-in because they were single springs with dampers, about 105 pounds on the seat and 300 over the nose.  After the break-in I wanted to swap to a set of Comp 930 springs, which have a higher seat pressure (around 150) and open pressure (around 375).  After the engine cooled down from the break-in I went about swapping the valve springs.  I was originally only planning to pull the valve covers and valvetrain to do this, but it dawned on me while I was getting started that I could easily pull the intake (2 fuel lines, throttle linkage, and 10 bolts) and access cover plate (10 bolts) and look at all the lifters to see how they fared during the break-in process.  That was an advantage to my intake adapter I had not previously considered.  Ten minutes later the valley of the engine was exposed and I was pulling the lifters to look at them; here's a picture of one of the lifters coming out, with a magnet through the pushrod hole:



I was happy to see that all the lifters looked pretty much identical, with a nice shiny annular ring around the outside, indicating (I think) that they were rotating in the bores.  I left the valley exposed as I went around changing the valve springs, and afterwards when I installed the rocker arm assemblies and pushrods I was able to make sure that the pushrods were all correctly seated in the lifters.  Finally I reinstalled the intake and access cover plate, and the engine was ready to run again.

Today I got started a little late, but by 2:00 PM I had the engine running again.  I warmed it up and then went around and lashed all the valves, double checked the timing, and started the dyno tests.  First test was with the 351C Performer RPM, and was basically a cam comparison, between the Edelbrock Performer RPM cam and the Comp 294S cam.  I expected the Comp cam to be down a little in midrange torque and up at peak horsepower.  I also wanted to run the engine at some higher speeds, because with the hydraulic Edelbrock cam the power kind of takes a nosedive after 5300 RPM or so, and I wanted to see how long it would hang in there with the new cam.  Here's a chart of the dyno results:



The Comp cam was definitely down in the midrange, but really wasn't up too much at the high end.  But the fact that the Comp solid cam would actually hold power out past 5300 RPM was encouraging; the hydraulic Edelbrock cam would never do that. 

Next, I swapped on the Edelbrock Torker II intake.  This took me just a little less than 15 minutes.  Sheesh, what a cakewalk; I should have done the Great 351C Intake Comparo.  As a single plane intake I expected the Torker II to be down at the low end and up at the top end compared to the Performer RPM manifold.  Sure enough, that's what we got; here they are on the same graph:



The dual plane intake is better up to about 4600 RPM, then the single plane takes over.  Looks just like a standard FE Performer RPM vs. the standard FE Victor.  Finally, I swapped on the Weiand tunnel ram.  This took longer than the Torker II swap, because I had to dig out my 660 center squirter carbs, fab up some throttle linkage, extend one fuel line, etc.  But it was still only an hour.  I installed the Weiand manifold base first, then added the plenum and the carbs; here's some photos of the manifold going on the engine:







I have to say that tunnel ram looks pretty cool on there.  When I tried to go into the first dyno pull, though, it was not cool; the engine went really lean and wanted to die.  I didn't know what the jets were in the carbs, so I had to pull them off to check, and it turned out they were really small, 66 jets in the front carb and 59s in the rear!  I replaced all the jets with number 70 or 72, and tried again.  It still ran a little lean going into the pull, but it didn't want to shut off anymore, and holy buckets did it like the fuel!  Horsepower with the tunnel ram peaked at 465, 20 HP higher than the Torker II and 35 higher than the Performer RPM.  The tunnel ram made more power than the Torker across the entire RPM range; here's a chart:




Here's all three manifolds graphed on one chart:



Looking at this data, you would want to run the Performer RPM intake around during the week, and then swap on the tunnel ram for the weekend's festivities LOL!  I think with a carb and linkage setup ready to go and already installed on the tunnel ram, you could do the swap in 15 minutes.

Finally, I made a video of the rear of the clear valve cover during a 6200 RPM dyno pull; Jim Whitton had asked about this in another post, wanting to know if the oil level got really high.  I didn't think that it did, but then again I had no proof, because I don't normally stand in the dyno room and watch while the engine is screaming along during the pull  ;D  So, I set up the camera, zoomed in on the rocker arms for #8, and took this video:

http://youtu.be/9vcWvp_DIWA

The oil level doesn't make it up to the clear portion of the valve covers, indicating that the factory drainbacks should be able to handle the oil flow even if the intake manifold doesn't allow for oil return (like a Victor intake, for instance).  My intake adapter does have openings to allow the oil to return in that manner, but it looks like from this test that they may not really be necessary if you restrict oil to the heads.

Within the next few weeks I hope to have the machine work done on one of the adapters for an Edelbrock 2991 Yates style intake, and also perhaps the Edelbrock 2865 Glidden Victor with the Dominator carb flange.  I probably won't run those on this engine, though; I will wait until I have a stronger engine available to really wring those manifolds out.  When I do, I will post it on this thread.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2013, 10:38:05 PM by jayb »
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

   

drdano

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
Re: FE Intake Adapter
« Reply #288 on: August 18, 2013, 08:44:07 PM »
Do you think if you had a few more jet changes with the tunnel ram you'd see more HP?  How much did the slightly lean, but "dyno-able" 70/72 jets leave on the table in your opinion?  Absolutely awesome test results and changing manifolds in 15 minutes?....ugh, we all dream of this midway through any standard intake swap/install/removal.  :-D

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7405
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: FE Intake Adapter
« Reply #289 on: August 18, 2013, 08:55:31 PM »
I think the curve might have smoothed out somewhat at the top end with a little more tuning, but I don't think there was a whole lot more HP there.  A/F numbers were in the ballpark on that pull, around 13:1.
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

   

jwhitton

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: FE Intake Adapter
« Reply #290 on: August 18, 2013, 09:06:05 PM »
Thanks for the video Jay. I'm now confident that with my rocker setp and restrictors in place, no provisions are necessary for additional oil return.
Since I have the heads off, I'll likely just clean up the factory returns for insurance.

Joe-jdc

  • Guest
Re: FE Intake Adapter
« Reply #291 on: August 18, 2013, 09:18:51 PM »
And as they say--"a picture is worth a thousand words", so is a video!  I like those valve covers for the dyno.  Great information.  Keep up the good work.  Joe-JDC.

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7405
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: FE Intake Adapter
« Reply #292 on: August 18, 2013, 09:39:08 PM »
Thanks Joe, I'm actually starting to develop a fair amount of confidence in the valve covers.  That cover was on the engine during the cam break in, and with 230 degree oil it did not discolor or stain, or melt or anything like that.  The acid test will still be in the car, but they are looking promising...
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

   

fetorino

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
  • Tunnelport Cobra
    • View Profile
Re: FE Intake Adapter
« Reply #293 on: August 18, 2013, 10:44:27 PM »
That tunnelram torque curve looks really flat.  Which manifold has the better average torque figure from 3000-5500?  It looks pretty close with the tunnelram losing on the bottom and holding the advantage at the high rpm..
« Last Edit: August 18, 2013, 10:46:04 PM by fetorino »

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7405
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: FE Intake Adapter
« Reply #294 on: August 18, 2013, 11:06:15 PM »
Averages from 3000 to 5500 are as follows:

Performer RPM:   HP 367.0, Tq 455.7
Torker II:  HP 360.3, Tq 444.9
Tunnel Ram:  HP 368.4, Tq 454.8

Just for fun, I also did averages from 3000 to 6000 RPM:

Performer RPM:   HP 376.7, Tq 444.6
Torker II:  HP 373.6, Tq 437.8
Tunnel Ram:  HP 383.0, Tq 448.6

Who says tunnel rams aren't for the street LOL!
« Last Edit: August 18, 2013, 11:39:10 PM by jayb »
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

   

mmason

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
Re: FE Intake Adapter
« Reply #295 on: August 19, 2013, 07:17:22 AM »
Maybe you could make a clear cover plate for your intake adapter to see what is going on in the valley. Then again maybe nothing is going on in the valley. Just thinking out loud.

Michael
Michael Mason

afret

  • Guest
Re: FE Intake Adapter
« Reply #296 on: August 19, 2013, 10:40:38 AM »
Hi Jay,  I can't recall if if you answered this before since this thread is so long.  What is the carb pad height and fore/aft placement using the 351 intakes relative to a regular FE Victor?  Thanks!

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7405
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: FE Intake Adapter
« Reply #297 on: August 19, 2013, 11:43:20 AM »
I haven't actually checked the front and rear measurement; I'll see if I can do that tonight.  On the carb pad height, the Victor of course is flat while the 351C manifolds have a slope to the carb pad, so the comparison isn't exact.  Front and rear measurements for the Victor are 6.5" and 6.5"; for the adapter + 351C Performer RPM they are 5.875" and 7.5", so it is probably an eighth to a quarter inch higher than the Victor at the center of the carb.  The Torker II is a little lower than that, probably just about the same as the Victor at the carb center.

I'll edit this post with the carb setback numbers a little later...

Edit:  Based on the carb setback dimension in my book (front of the intake to the front carb stud hole):

351C Performer RPM:  8.375"
351C Torker II:  8.125"

The FE Victor measures 8.125" for this dimension.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 07:15:38 PM by jayb »
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

   

afret

  • Guest
Re: FE Intake Adapter
« Reply #298 on: August 19, 2013, 01:43:55 PM »
Thanks!

machoneman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3853
    • View Profile
Re: FE Intake Adapter
« Reply #299 on: August 19, 2013, 07:11:03 PM »
Very cool Jay! The 'look' of the tunnel ran alone is....bitchin!
« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 07:16:49 PM by machoneman »
Bob Maag