FE Intake Adapter

[jayb]

Thanks Joe, that's great information.  If I did mill both intakes down to 0.25" for the flange thickness, that would minimize the milling I would have to do on the adapters, and allow more room for a straighter port.  Plus it would minimize the amount of counterboring I'd have to do on the adapter.  I will look into that on the next test manifold that I do...

[jayb]

Sorry, had one number wrong.  They should look like this:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Edelbrock-2829-Ford-351W-Intake-Manifold-For-D3-Cylinder-Heads-/251261257185?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item3a805685e1&vxp=mtr

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Edelbrock-2827-Victor-D-3-Intake-Manifold/200769344195?_trksid=p2045573.m2042&_trkparms=aid%3D111000%26algo%3DREC.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D18111%26meid%3D2120121633921104583%26pid%3D100033%26prg%3D8322%26rk%3D4%26rkt%3D4%26sd%3D380746803621%26

Update: The photo on the Summit webpage is not correct....some other application...BBC?

Thanks David, both of those manifolds look really good...

[jayb]

While I am in the process of machining the first batch of manifolds, the pattern shop is working on the high riser and tunnel port version.  When this work was started last January, the pattern shop created a master pattern to use for making the match plate that the foundry uses to cast the manifolds.  After modifying the CAD model to my specs for the high riser and tunnel port versions, the pattern shop took the old master pattern and modified that for use in making the high riser and tunnel port match plate.  Here's a couple of photos of the modified master pattern:





Notice that there are no ports in this version of the master pattern; because of the differing port locations of the high riser and tunnel port, it wasn't possible to put port cores in this adapter.  Also notice how much higher the valve cover rail is, and also the face of the manifold where the intake will sit.  All this extra material adds a bunch of weight, over ten pounds compared to the standard medium riser adapter.  But, most of that will get machined away as either a high riser or tunnel port adapter is put together.  I'm particularly interested in this manifold adapter, because I can replace the machined parts on my high riser engine with one of these at some point, making it easier to experiment with different port sizes. 

With luck the master pattern for this manifold adapter will be done by mid November, so hopefully I will have castings of this version to play with by early December.

[482supersnake]

Looks cool Jay.
 With the difference in port location on a tunnel port will the scallops at the bottom of the manifold leave enough room for the port openings?

[jayb]

Yes, I checked that before I made the design changes.  The bottom of the tunnel port ports are actually a little higher than the bottom of a medium riser port.

[cjshaker]

I wonder how well a HR port will transition from a Cleveland port? It's a pretty short transition area within the adapter and it's a pretty drastic  change from an oval to a narrow tall port. The TP port seems like it would transition pretty nicely, although a 385 series intake seems like it might be even better. Haven't messed with them in years though so I have no idea about port spacing or other issues.

I'm certainly no flow expert though. Just basically thinking out loud.

[jayb]

My plan on the high riser port is to basically use the medium riser port, but move it up on the adapter so that the roof of the medium riser port in the adapter matches the roof of the high riser port in the head.  If somebody wants to then port the adapter for the full high riser port, all the way to the bottom, then they can do that, but the vast majority of the flow is at the top of the port, and of course there is some advantage to keeping the port small.  The Yates style 351C intakes ought to really work well on the high riser adapter, because they won't have to be cut as much, or at all, to fit.  So I anticipate some demand for that combination.

Unfortunately the tunnel port port locations would require an extreme angle of the port in the adapter to make a 351C intake fit, so that is probably out of the question.  My plan for the tunnel port version is just to have it available for anyone who wants to build a custom intake; starting with the adapter would make that job a lot easier.

I wonder if a 429-460 intake could be made to fit on the high riser version?  I'll have to see if I can get a hold of one of those intakes just to take a look.  It would be neat to have one of the Kaase spider intakes work on a high riser FE...

[XR7]

I like to see progress on the HR/TP version! Looks great! Most 429/460 intakes will not line up very well, they have a bank to bank offset for some reason that is way off, maybe because it is a symmetrical port and the port opening is left or right of center etc.

I have a couple of the latest Nascar intakes before they went to the FR9 engine. My plan is to cut one or both in half down the middle sideways.... like between 2-3 and 6-7 and then add in a .500 to .750" thick spacer and then have it welded up, then I will blend it in. That will help with the front to back and left to right jogging/offset whatever you want to call it of the port line ups. Reduce the compromise if you will. In reality, you need to cut it in 1/4 as there is some bank to bank offset that s\"stacks" up on you, from the bore spacing difference. I will buy a non-ported version and do my own port match.

The FE is 4.630 of course, the SBF is 4.380 (not 4.400 Jay), and the 460 is 4.900. Our FE's have two lefts and two right hand chambers/ports, so with the entry angle etc. between the two center cylinders have a 4.900 spacing. That is what hurts with the SBF intakes (not mirror ports). With the A460 intake (I have dummied one up!) the center two are pretty damn close and the outer two come in from the outside a little but could be matched up good and would have a good line of sight to the heads port entry angle.

That is the good news...! The new style A460 intakes look like they would work pretty well. The "flange" on the adapter for the "upper" will have to be milled down to near the valve cover rail for it to work, sort of like what you did with the high port intakes. The A460 intakes (Trick Flow)  have a big single 4 dominator flange and a tunnel ram bottom with choice of single 4 pent roof top and dual dominators. Also the old style SVO A460 A and B intakes will work, a little smaller runners and plenum and lower carb flange (I have an un-molested B460 intake and that looks like it would be easy to adapt, without and weld or epoxy). The new A460 port as cast was something like (going from memory here....) 1.700x2.300 or so... not sure now. The ports are up a little and would run through the valve cover rail on a MR adapter/head. On a HR (I don't have one yet, but will) I think it would line up just about right. The plenum might be a little big, but it can be reduced in height, and have some "fill" install if needed (epoxy). It would also possibly need a little epoxy on the outer runners but I think that could be blended in the adapter. It would have to be a "bad hombre" HR engine underneath to use it. It would sure be interesting to bolt one on a dyno/ drag strip test. There are a lot of 800+ 460 engines (a lot are 557 and 598 CI using this intake... it is a big seller. Of course there have been 1000+ even 1100+ engines using these as well. The A460 heads flow about 390 out of the box, and can go up to 439 very easily, CNC programs have got up to 500 cfm from the "big name" builders.

I will add some images later!

Thor

[jayb]

The FE is 4.630 of course, the SBF is 4.380 (not 4.400 Jay), and the 460 is 4.900.
Thor

Thanks for the correction on that, Thor.  I made the assumption that they are 4.400" bore spacing because all the manifolds I've got measure that from port to port.  Maybe my measurement was off, or maybe they spread the ports out somewhat, but in any case its good to know the real number.

I'm looking forward to further details and pictures on the 385 series intakes...

[Joe-jdc]

Two things:  I have modified a 460 Victor to work on a PSE adapter in the past, and it flowed over 500 cfm with ease.  Second, why not use a 351W Super Victor on the HR for fitment ease.  Moving the ports up should work like gang busters with a W intake.  Just a thought.  If you did not want the water passages, just mill them off.  There are a few 9.5" deck manifolds available that you could use, also.  "It is only money" LOL.  I wll try to send a picture of a few possible candidates for a higher placement on the HR intake adapter.  Joe-JDC

[XR7]

Here are some of the 9" and 9.2" deck height, D3 Nascar intakes I spoke of....








Here are some of the 9.5 deck SC1 (high port)







Here are the A460 intakes







Here is similar to what I might "attempt"



I don't think I want to go this far....

[XR7]

I guess my pictures are too large, and/or too many. The links are there if you want to look.

[jayb]

I guess my pictures are too large, and/or too many. The links are there if you want to look.

You just needed the image tags around the links; I put them in for you; for future reference they are the square brackets around the letters img in front of the link and /img at the back of the link: 



Some of those manifolds are really cool.  The idea of running an intake like those on an FE is really enticing.  Hopefully I can get my adapter to work with some of them...

[XR7]

OK Thanks for fixing the post and the instructions. That is easy enough!

[ToddK]

Jay, if you could get one of the Trickflow A460 tunnel ram intakes matched to your HR adapter, I'd definitely be in for one of them.