FE Intake Adapter

[FErocious]

  Nice.    I see a perfect opportunity to incorporate a rev-kit for the engine that wears this lower intake. I wonder if a SBF rev-kit could be incorporated into the intake base , retrofitting the components?  The springs, lifters and lifter buttons can be used. The top plate is not needed, as it is already in the intake manifold base. A little machining for spring location cups  in the intake at the pushrod holes( bottom side) would be required as well as fitting the springs with a proper amount of tension. The component installation and maintenance should be fairly easy with the upper intake out of the way. I certainly would breathe a little easier knowing my solid roller lifters have a better chance of surviving the gruelling torture that street driving inflicts on the parts.
 Thoughts?

[jayb]

That is a very interesting idea, although I don't know how widely used rev kits are these days.  Without looking, I would say that machining the bottom of the intake for the rev kit springs would not be a problem in 14 of the 16 lifter positions.  But for the #1 and #5 exhaust lifters, the water jacket is right up in that area, and I'm afraid I might cut into that if I started machining a flat spot there.  I might give it a try though on one of my test manifolds, just to find out...   

[cjshaker]

Actually, I'm disappointed in the Comp 294s numbers. Really no better than the RPM cam, except it extended the range a little. And I've always seen the RPM cam as basically a fairly mild street cam. I would have guessed a better showing. For comparison, the Crane 238/248 that I had in my 427 made 505hp on the dyno with about the same lift as the RPM cam. I guess the medium riser heads (mine have 2.25 intakes) really made the difference.

I never really liked Comps cookie cutter cam lobes. As if one lobe design will work on all engines. I'm guessing with the increased flow on the intake, it may have benefited with some more exhaust duration. Blair uses a intake/exhaust % to determine his exhaust numbers, and even though the intakes were limited with the CJ heads I have to wonder how much of a difference it would have made. With medium riser heads, I think it would be even more of a benefit. It would be interesting to see the same intakes and a cam with about 7-10* more exhaust duration, especially with medium riser, FElony or Blue Thunder heads.

On the other side, that tunnel ram was pretty impressive since they have always been considered a "race only" intake. To make more torque across the board than the Torker was surprising to me. A nice showing. It all seems to beg for a more powerful head/cam combo to see what really sets them apart.

Thanks for all your work, and sharing it, Jay. Great info as usual.

[FErocious]

 

That is a very interesting idea, although I don't know how widely used rev kits are these days.  Without looking, I would say that machining the bottom of the intake for the rev kit springs would not be a problem in 14 of the 16 lifter positions.  But for the #1 and #5 exhaust lifters, the water jacket is right up in that area, and I'm afraid I might cut into that if I started machining a flat spot there.  I might give it a try though on one of my test manifolds, just to find out...   

[/color]


Many builders now see the advantage of these systems on hot street /strip solid roller applications. Less valve spring requirement at the valve end and less mass .  The pushrods do less work, also.  My intention is to use a rev-kit to place the solid roller lifter in full contact with the camshaft lobe, and to place the lifter lash towards the valve side . The spring tension would only need to be enough to take up the lobe's dynamic forces on the lifter at speed. The needle bearings/ bushings will live much longer, especially with limited oiling at lower engine speeds. There are failures even with pin oiling features and tighter lash settings until methods like this are utilized.

[jayb]

Actually, I'm disappointed in the Comp 294s numbers. Really no better than the RPM cam, except it extended the range a little. And I've always seen the RPM cam as basically a fairly mild street cam. I would have guessed a better showing. For comparison, the Crane 238/248 that I had in my 427 made 505hp on the dyno with about the same lift as the RPM cam. I guess the medium riser heads (mine have 2.25 intakes) really made the difference.

I was kind of surprised by this myself; I figured that the engine would pick up 10-15 HP with the 294S and the same intake.  The heads are really stockish, though. And the important thing to me was the ability to run to a higher engine speed without having valvetrain issues like I did with the hydraulic cam. 

Back when I did the solid vs hydraulic lifter test for my book I just plugged a set of solid lifters onto that Performer RPM cam, and picked up something like 10 HP over the next few hundred RPM.  The 294S was certainly no better than that, and cost some midrange due to more duration.  Go figure.  Results like this beg for The Great FE Cam and Head Comparo...

[jayb]

 
Many builders now see the advantage of these systems on hot street /strip solid roller applications. Less valve spring requirement at the valve end and less mass .  The pushrods do less work, also.  My intention is to use a rev-kit to place the solid roller lifter in full contact with the camshaft lobe, and to place the lifter lash towards the valve side . The spring tension would only need to be enough to take up the lobe's dynamic forces on the lifter at speed. The needle bearings/ bushings will live much longer, especially with limited oiling at lower engine speeds. There are failures even with pin oiling features and tighter lash settings until methods like this are utilized.

What you are saying does make a lot of sense; with lash on a solid roller, you have times when the lifter is not being forced into contact with the lobe, which has got to be more risky for the lifter than if it were kept in constant contact.  From a street perspective this is appealing to me; I like to run solid rollers on the street, and the more you can reduce the risk of valvetrain failure the better.  Thinking about this a little more, and depending on the height of the rev kit springs and spacers, I might be able to machine a plate that would bolt on under the intake adapter to support the top part of the rev kit springs.  That would avoid having to cut the manifold for spring pockets and potentially breach the water jacket.

Thanks for bringing this up; it is a very interesting idea from an engineering perspective, and I'll definitely look into it when I get the opportunity...

[482supersnake]

Jay,
 Do you think a 60mm throttle body would be able to fit at each port?

[machoneman]

The rev kit idea is a very good one, indeed!

Back in the day when valve springs (quality of metallurgy, q.c. in general) were iffy, many a racer (me too) ran them not only on rollers but flat tappet cams to keep spring pressures reasonable and avoid broken valve springs from being overstreesed. In fact, I'd venture that a rev kit would be ideal for anyone running a roller on the street for the reasons mentioned.

[cjshaker]

These are the reasons I have never made the switch to roller lifters. The idea that a lobe is literally beating directly against a roller bearing, and the carnage it does when it fails scares me away. But all my stuff is mechanical lifter and street driven and reliability is always my first thought.

There have been lots of tests done that show little or no power benefit to rev kits, but nobody ever addressed the "longevity" aspect of it concerning solid rollers, that I know of. That makes it interesting to me.

[jayb]

Jay,
 Do you think a 60mm throttle body would be able to fit at each port?

60mm is 2.4".  There is plenty of room up and down on the 351C face of the adapter, but side to side you would be pretty close to some bolt holes, specifically the counterbored holes.  I think you could make an adapter plate work, though.

[482supersnake]

Thanks. I picked up a throttle body from a 4.6 crown vic today at a pick and pull for cheap. Can't wait till my number comes up.

[427Fastback]

It would appear that the lifter baffle/tray should be left out in order to take full advantage of the window.It wouldn't really be needed anyways as the cover plate is actually the bottom of the manifold.

You could probably still pull the lifters with the tray in..and I believe it does control some windage and splash ...I will have to mock it up and have a look.......Cory

[cjshaker]

The tray does serve some purpose to help keep hot oil off of the bottom of stock intake manifolds, but since the adapter will utilize an intake that will create an air gap between the manifold and adapter, it really would serve no useful purpose to keep it, IMO.

[482supersnake]

I was looking at a 351c Engines Masters motor running one of these cast aluminum tunnel rams. http://www.racingjunk.com/Intake-Manifolds/1553816/SB2.2-SPLAYED-VALVE-SBX-CAST-TUNNEL-RAM.html
 It is for a SB2.2 chevy motor but would look cool on an FE. It is more expensive than a cleveland manifols bot looks like it sits lower and has more options for induction.

[NewFalconOwner]

Jay, on your tunnel ram did you cut the front and rear parts off when you did the lower tray or did you just cut the tray off and clearance the front and rear.

the tunnel ram that was listed on here awhile ago looked like it would be real cool on your adapter with the front and rear rails gone too, is that feasible you think to remove them and still keep the rigidity (?) of the tunnel ram?

edit: just looked thru the pictures again, and the front part is trimmed off. looks a lot better like that.. thanx