Trickflow Tunnel wedge intake

[blykins]

Saw a test of the TFS tunnel wedge on power nation. They put it on 445 from a prior episode. Strange part is it only made about 5 hp more peak than the TFS 4V intake. Have wonder if something was amiss with the efi?

Here is with the Tunnel wedge and efi.
https://youtu.be/rGQehVU55_g

Here is the original build and dyno test with 4V.
https://youtu.be/iLxMVfnvLvU

Their camshaft was way less than desirable for a hydraulic roller FE.  I think with the right cam, the TW would have pulled on up.

The cam was a hydraulic roller 254 / 262 @.050" .670" lift, 110 LSA. Not big, but not small either. What would be the right cam?

So the 4V intake and carb hit peak around 5,850 and held it to about 6,100 rpm before dropping off and had an overall smoother curve. The TW peaked at about 5,800 rpm and started dropping off.  How can a TW with atleast double the cfm in throttle bodies peak earlier and drop off earlier than the single plane with a 4150 style carb? Not saying your wrong, just not seeing it as all cam and I'd think the TFS TW would be doing better than a 4V like that by 5,500 rpm? I attached the dyno graphs. This sure helps convince me to keep the 2x4 MR over the TFS TW, although the TW sure looks good on a FE! -Steve

A 254° duration hydraulic roller is large for a 445.   When you get into large duration hydraulic rollers, the advertised durations are large as well, which means lots of overlap.   I've been trying to get into guys' heads that bigger cams don't always mean bigger horsepower or higher peaks.   I think this engine wasn't efficient enough for that large of a camshaft.   FWIW, my 445's with about 23° less duration will pull to 5700 and make 550 hp with a Performer RPM.   The single plane intake would be worth some peak horsepower, but the camshaft on that engine is not correct.   

[67xr7cat]

I think they picked that cam looking for a big HP number which they did get 583hp.  So your saying kinda like that cam in Jay's engine that was recently shown to be bigger than what the engine needed or could use. So if you wanted this engine to pull and make power to 7k what cam would you run?

I'd love to use the TFS TW as cannot beat the looks. Was hoping they made it more street friendly, but have yet to see anything as to how it performs. To date all the TW intakes need a big engine to make sense for a street bound engine.  Seems is hard to bet the 2x4 MR on the street.

[blykins]

I think they picked that cam looking for a big HP number which they did get 583hp.  So your saying kinda like that cam in Jay's engine that was recently shown to be bigger than what the engine needed or could use. So if you wanted this engine to pull and make power to 7k what cam would you run?

I'd love to use the TFS TW as cannot beat the looks. Was hoping they made it more street friendly, but have yet to see anything as to how it performs. To date all the TW intakes need a big engine to make sense for a street bound engine.  Seems is hard to bet the 2x4 MR on the street.

I was talking to Pat Topolinski and he said he picked that cam because he wanted to make sure that if someone got that engine that they wouldn’t have any issue with it on pump gas. 

You are very correct on the 2x4 MR.

[410bruce]

Nothing really to add other than this intake is pretty "trick." Pun intended. Any of you guys remember that term to describe something nice or unique back 30 or 40 years ago? 

And I love cats! Seems FE guys have propensity to liking cats. Very cool. 

[Joe-JDC]

As I read through all this and listen to the questions, it really enforces my point that I have tried to make several times in the past about the head flow and intake manifold flow percentages.  If a TFS head flows 330 cfm, then for maximum performance, the intake needs ~120% more flow, or 396cfm.  I am going out of my comfort zone here, and tell you that the TFS 4V flows 405 cfm as cast, and with a good cartridge roll to the MR port size, it flows 455cfm.  The  Ford TW flows ~390cfm as cast, with a cartridge roll goes up depending on gasket size to near 500 cfm.  The BBM as cast flows ~415cfm as cast, and will go over 500 cfm with port work.  I am of the opinion that the TFS TW is very similar in flow to the 4V, at the 405-410 cfm as cast.  If true, then there would not be a great difference in power produced with either the 4V or TFS TW because they flow the same and the heads are the same.  You reach a point where the head flow and camshaft average lift/flow numbers do not change regardless of the manifold added to the top of the engine.  It simply will not flow more air unless you change the average flow numbers to a higher number, change the compression ratio, or reduce exhaust pressures.  Every engine reaches a point where nothing will add power unless you change a major component to increase airflow into the combustion chamber.  JMO, experience from years of engine building, drag racing, porting, dyno testing.  Joe-JDC

[blykins]

As I read through all this and listen to the questions, it really enforces my point that I have tried to make several times in the past about the head flow and intake manifold flow percentages.  If a TFS head flows 330 cfm, then for maximum performance, the intake needs ~120% more flow, or 396cfm.  I am going out of my comfort zone here, and tell you that the TFS 4V flows 405 cfm as cast, and with a good cartridge roll to the MR port size, it flows 455cfm.  The  Ford TW flows ~390cfm as cast, with a cartridge roll goes up depending on gasket size to near 500 cfm.  The BBM as cast flows ~415cfm as cast, and will go over 500 cfm with port work.  I am of the opinion that the TFS TW is very similar in flow to the 4V, at the 405-410 cfm as cast.  If true, then there would not be a great difference in power produced with either the 4V or TFS TW because they flow the same and the heads are the same.  You reach a point where the head flow and camshaft average lift/flow numbers do not change regardless of the manifold added to the top of the engine.  It simply will not flow more air unless you change the average flow numbers to a higher number, change the compression ratio, or reduce exhaust pressures.  Every engine reaches a point where nothing will add power unless you change a major component to increase airflow into the combustion chamber.  JMO, experience from years of engine building, drag racing, porting, dyno testing.  Joe-JDC

I agree completely and your testimony goes hand in hand with the camshaft dialogue.  You can keep adding camshaft for a given combination, but there's a point where you can keep adding and you don't gain, or go backwards. 

A 254° @ .050" camshaft is a whole lot of cam just to get to a 5800 rpm hp peak.   Should have been an eyebrow raised there when similar peaks are had with 20° smaller cams.   

When the numbers that you get are not what you expected, then you back the cam down, see where the choke point is, or both.

[fryedaddy]

Deliberate cruelty to animals says a lot about someones character. Usually associated with serial killers, mass murderers and psychopaths.

+1.  Bad joke, Shady 

Not to hijack, but here's another FE cat.  He prefers hanging out on the old Ford Racing jacket, sitting on the sideoiler...

me and my wife love orange cats,we've had 3 over the last32 years.all three orange,all three we named Oscar.

[shady]

Well, I like orange popsicles. However I digress, I had a Siamese cat (Simon) that was just a nasty ass. He hated everybody except the wiener dog and me. Almost made it to 21yo. Replaced the wiener twice, but never the cat. Figured I'd never find another as cool as he was. Maybe some day.

[67xr7cat]

Thanks Brent and Joe. The intake flow rates make sense. Not right cam makes sense why it did not peak higher given the duration. Guess it will for sure run on pump gas with that cam.

[blykins]

Thanks Brent and Joe. The intake flow rates make sense. Not right cam makes sense why it did not peak higher given the duration. Guess it will for sure run on pump gas with that cam.

You have to *really* be careful with hydraulic rollers when you start getting into higher durations.  It's not uncommon for me to run 115-116 LSA on larger hydraulic rollers.   When you get too lazy of a lobe, you can also compound things.  I've volunteered to send Powernation some cams and some parts, but their big advertising guys are Summit, Comp, etc.  I'm sure Comp Cams has almost zero Ford FE dyno testing. 

[BigBlueIron]

Hi FE fans! 

Yes, our new FE Tunnel Wedge intake was released to market last month.  Good news and bad news, sales was higher than expected and we sold out of our first production run more quickly than we expected.  We’re working with our foundry to get more castings and get these back in stock as soon as possible.  The entire industry and supply chain is struggling to keep up with demand and our foundries (Cast and machined right here in Ohio!) are no exception, so it’s tough for us to give a more accurate estimate than “early next year” right now.

From the limited side view from those pics the ports look smaller than the BBM which is more like the stock size. Probably better for a street deal than the big port BBM.

We are aware of at least 2 different versions of the BBM manifold.  We’ve not done a direct comparison, but we understand their early version had larger ports than their later version.  Our design was based off of the OE manifold to get carb locations and overall style, but ports were designed from scratch to optimize flow with our heads.

What is the power range of it on a 427 cube FE?   How does it compare to a medium riser below 6000 RPM?

There are too many variables for anyone to give you a solid answer on this, including heads, compression ratio, cam specs, etc.  But, our Tunnel Wedge intake was designed to be usable for 390-428 CI FE’s in the 500-700hp range, and will deliver peak TQ/power between 3750 - 7500rpm (7500 rpm for those of you that like to gamble!).  Actual HP/TQ peaks will depend heavily on your displacement, heads, and cam selection.  We did our testing on a 396 running our PowerPort 175cc heads, and it did make more power and torque across the RPM range compared to our Track Heat single plane intake.  A more modern carb option on the TW might have produced even better results.

For anyone still interested, ports appear to be a conservative MR design. I'd guess it was designed to work with the ports in their heads (they'd be stupid not to make them that way), and it looks like they could work with just about any standard FE head with some port matching. Just a guess, but I'd think they would work very well with their heads, and are aimed more at the street/strip crowd or smaller CI engines.

Yep, it is a conservative mid-riser design.  We design all of our intakes to perform well right out of the box with our heads.  We also test fit with competitor’s heads to help ensure good compatibility across the market.  The intake runners are designed to taper slightly to allow for port matching.  We test manifolds un-port matched, and can often pick up anywhere from 5-15 hp just through port matching.

The TFS heads do have a turbulence in the intake port flow at ~.610" lift, but with a little work the flow jumps up and keeps flowing.  The TFS Track Head 4V intake manifold flows the best of any 4V intakes out of the box, and jumps up easily with just tweaks.  Better than the old HR 4V manifold.   Joe-JDC

Our testing (and other 3rd party testing) shows strong competition beating flow numbers up to .800” lift.  While we don’t doubt a skilled builder could rework them and achieve better flow numbers above .600” than out of the box, it’s worth noting that a majority of the flow is happening at lower lifts and the valve is only open all the way momentarily, so you need to look at the whole picture not just max lift flow.  Also, there can be significant changes in measured flow numbers depending on flow plate design (or clay) and bore size the heads were flowed with, especially with the shorter port of the FE head.

From what I see there they look pretty good is there anyway that you could pour the intake and see what the total volume is?

While it is tempting, and often common practice, to try to compare one head or manifold to another based on volume, there is much more to airflow than volume and volume is not really a relevant factor.  We are often able to achieve competitive flow numbers with smaller runner and port sizes, and this can often result in better real world performance due to improved velocity and efficient cylinder filling.

One point that hasn't been brought up that I think everyone here will agree on is the need for another water port! On all manifolds made for the FE.  And since Trickflow has brought themselves into this thread now is the perfect time to mention it.  What say the rest of you.

[My427stang]

I am with you! Amen!