A friend of mine borrowed two intakes of mine to do testing for a FE with adapter. He had some of his own intakes. Heres his research for those interested.
Steve.k
A friend of mine borrowed two intakes of mine to do testing for a FE with adapter. He had some of his own intakes. Heres his research for those interested.
What do these intakes flow when attached to a decent Cleveland cylinder head?
That would be a better comparison - as well as dyno testing with a test mule engine.
A large toilet roll tube by itself flows alot too
In fact a 3" sewer pipe flows even more!
I wouldn't want a toilet roll or 3" sewer pipe intake manifold.
That would be a better comparison - as well as dyno testing with a test mule engine.
A large toilet roll tube by itself flows alot too
In fact a 3" sewer pipe flows even more!
I wouldn't want a toilet roll or 3" sewer pipe intake manifold.
Well...in the late 1970's I switched from the lowest flowing manifold the torker, to the highest the Weiand tunnel ram and picked up 5 tenths of a second......and another 2 with an airpan that was not even sealed to the hoodscoop. the best performing carb on the torker was a worked 750 better than a single 850 and so on the ram had box stock 660's..everything was jetted accordingly 351C 4v' 3200 mustang 4 speed gearing from 514 .543 and 5.83... in other words each combo was "tuned" for best et that is real world results from back then
so just saying big sucks and small rules the world....... its all relative
so just saying big sucks and small rules the world....... its all relative
I made 694 hp on pump gas with 427W with ported CHI intake they are pretty small, also have the Jack roush intake here at the shop and probably more than a half a dozen other Yates style intakes
Thanks for the info! I run the CHI 3V ootb on my Cleveland. Good intake!
The "gold standard" for the 351C for quite a few years was the Holley Strip Dominator. I'd love to see flow numbers on that one.
The "gold standard" for the 351C for quite a few years was the Holley Strip Dominator. I'd love to see flow numbers on that one.
In my mind the best intake is one that has the minimum turns, correct CSA for intended use (rpm range, CID), length and the taper that works for that rpm range.
Turns in a manifold create losses. Minimize turns and power goes up. Tunnel rams (even without correct taper and sizing) shine in most cases.
Modern very high rise intakes (like NASCAR) have minimized turns that the air/fuel have to make. These do tend to be very tall manifolds - to increase runner length for tuned power range.
JMO of course.
Turns in a manifold create losses. Minimize turns and power goes up. Tunnel rams (even without correct taper and sizing) shine in most cases.
Modern very high rise intakes (like NASCAR) have minimized turns that the air/fuel have to make. These do tend to be very tall manifolds - to increase runner length for tuned power range.
JMO of course.
Very true. That is where the 3v and roush are better. Less turns. Fyi the torker and tunnel are the only two with a cross section as big as the original 4v cast head.Those other manifolds wont fit stock 4v without mods. If you look closer at ported 3v manifold you will see the mods i made to get it to fit old head.
The Edelbrock Torker is an example of how not to design a racing intake.
A classic example of reverse taper. The plenum openings are small and then get larger to get to Cleveland 4V port size.
I think this was originally an attempt by Edelbrock to add some port velocity to the overly large Cleveland port size (overly large for 6000 rpm stock 351)
Perhaps helped on a lower rpm 351?
A classic example of reverse taper. The plenum openings are small and then get larger to get to Cleveland 4V port size.
I think this was originally an attempt by Edelbrock to add some port velocity to the overly large Cleveland port size (overly large for 6000 rpm stock 351)
Perhaps helped on a lower rpm 351?
I'll take all the information I can get and I'm very happy that Steve took the time to post it. Not everyone is a expert and this type of information and discussion might help them pick the right manifold for their engine.
An intake manifold that flows 280 cfm without the cylinder head will not help a 380 cfm head.
The restriction would be the intake.
That being said - bigger area flows more - but too big is no help either.
The intake manifold is part of the intake tract. They function together.
Yes some information is gained by flowing an intake by itself. Same goes for flowing a head by itself.
But how they function together is most important.
An intake by itself can show high flow numbers - but if the approach angle to the cylinder head is wrong/severe
the result is poor performance. There are examples where approach angles on some sheet metal intakes made for less than stellar results.
How the air/fuel is directed into a specific cylinder head port is very important. Manifold flow by itself will not show this - nor will intake by itself. (dyno/1/4 mile testing will show what works)
The restriction would be the intake.
That being said - bigger area flows more - but too big is no help either.
The intake manifold is part of the intake tract. They function together.
Yes some information is gained by flowing an intake by itself. Same goes for flowing a head by itself.
But how they function together is most important.
An intake by itself can show high flow numbers - but if the approach angle to the cylinder head is wrong/severe
the result is poor performance. There are examples where approach angles on some sheet metal intakes made for less than stellar results.
How the air/fuel is directed into a specific cylinder head port is very important. Manifold flow by itself will not show this - nor will intake by itself. (dyno/1/4 mile testing will show what works)
I have never flowed an intake.
Porting an intake to flow more air on a flow bench is a good way to f'k up an intake.
Porting an intake to flow more air on a flow bench is a good way to f'k up an intake.
None of these were ported for this combo. As stated its going on a Fe adapter. The guy doesn’t have any ideas to what Cleveland intakes flow. They will take this data and adapt to head and see what they get. They only own two of those intakes. The rest were loaners as mine were. Then they can buy the intake that they deem close to head. You may or may not know Cleveland intakes are not overly available so weeding out the poor ones before spending.I think the information helps them a ton. For us guys who’ve already tested on track not so much. Jay brown told me on his dyno testing the torker intake was the biggest surprise out of quite a few.
I can tell you that putting any of those intakes on an adapter for a FE...you can throw all those numbers out the window. They won't mean a thing.
They called me for intakes. Most of those will not fit factory heads which adapter is made. Which I explained and they never knew. They were hoping to find the rare roush intake. So if they buy that one they will have to cut up. Why they are not using billet or fabricated i have no idea.
Most would assume the ram and roush intake would work best. The ram they actually were avoiding. The roush hard to find here as is the one Scott used. Unless they pavk everything up and send to sheetmetal boys its a crap shoot.
The Cleveland intakes must offer as good as hp as the single plane or better readily available fe intakes otherwise whats the point?
The FE manifold adapter to use the Cleveland intakes was done years ago by Pro-Stock Engineering - as well as a few other Ford FE race components. The idea was slightly modified and re-introduced a few years ago.
Port alignment is a big deal - and the outer ports are a fair distance away - not ideal at all.
Short of a sheet metal intake - perhaps a welded up Victor intake or a welded up Trick Flow single plane would work
for high rpm race use?
The tunnel wedge does seem decent for dual 4 builds.
I haven't seen anyone modify the existing single plane manifolds - perhaps someone has?
Port alignment is a big deal - and the outer ports are a fair distance away - not ideal at all.
Short of a sheet metal intake - perhaps a welded up Victor intake or a welded up Trick Flow single plane would work
for high rpm race use?
The tunnel wedge does seem decent for dual 4 builds.
I haven't seen anyone modify the existing single plane manifolds - perhaps someone has?
Just curious if anyone has done any back to back testing with the CHI 4150 3V intake ported and stock. Curious to know if opening the plenum and major blending of the port entry is worth much if anything. Building a 434 with the CNC ported 3V 242cc heads and are looking for around 700 honest HP on pump gas. The 242cc heads listed flow is 355CFM @ .700" which will be max we are looking for with a non aggresive solid roller but looks like the ported intake shown will be a restriction. Thoughts please.
It will need full porting to achieve your goals. Those intakes are small. With a good complete porting, full runners. You will be good.
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
