|
Author
|
Topic: New Clevor intake
|
Mpcoluv
Gearhead Posts: 1421
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-10-2002 07:14 PM
 
Terry Parker is now making Clevor intakes.
|
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 29200
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 10-10-2002 07:16 PM
Seems to me he should get what he already builds to meet his claims and expectations before introducing new products. 
Just my opinion.  ------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator/ non 65-66 Mustang owner sensitivity co-ordinator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
MCA member# (who knows?)
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Part time secret agent license #0089.5
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"
Quote #3: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch!"
|
Mpcoluv
Gearhead Posts: 1421
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-10-2002 07:17 PM
How do I post pictures/Jpegs?
I thought the info was in the FAQ but didn't see it.....
|
Mpcoluv
Gearhead Posts: 1421
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-10-2002 07:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Moneymaker:
Seems to me he should get what he already builds to meet his claims and expectations before introducing new products.
Just my opinion.
He readily admits that that the earlier intakes could be improved upon.
His latest version 4V Intake looks good on the flow bench, but I haven't run it yet.
All indications are that the additional velocity should boost low end
Hell I'm just thankful that someone is still interested enough in Clevelands to make new intake designs.
Vizard has the 302 intake sitting around but hasen't tried it yet. Looks like it is going for the "Super Victor" market.
What doesn't meet expectations BTW? [This message has been edited by Mpcoluv (edited 10-10-2002).]
|
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 29200
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 10-10-2002 07:28 PM
He claims it to be the most powerful W intake and better than a 302 Victor Jr. out of the box.
NOT! 
Real world flow figures are not within 10% of his published claims. 10-12 hours of porting gets it there, but then you have a Vic jr. with three time the money in it. 
Put that much time into a Victor Jr. and you have a better manifold again.
Sorry, but after waiting 15 years for a new W race intake design, Edelbrock did there homework.
Even the Super Victor 8.2 with 50 hours labor is only marginally better then a highly modified regular Victor.
------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator/ non 65-66 Mustang owner sensitivity co-ordinator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
MCA member# (who knows?)
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Part time secret agent license #0089.5
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"
Quote #3: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch!"
|
Mpcoluv
Gearhead Posts: 1421
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-10-2002 07:42 PM
The 4V intake flowed within 1.5 cfm of the intake port with the clay entry.
Of course the stuffers (Roush and others) hurt flow some from an open port.
What does he claim for flow on the "W" intake BTW?[This message has been edited by Mpcoluv (edited 10-10-2002).]
|
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 29200
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 10-10-2002 07:45 PM
Someday, when we learn how to race a dyno or a flow bench, BOY will we get fast!!!!!!!!!!!LOL  ------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator/ non 65-66 Mustang owner sensitivity co-ordinator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
MCA member# (who knows?)
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Part time secret agent license #0089.5
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"
Quote #3: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch!"
|
Mpcoluv
Gearhead Posts: 1421
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-10-2002 07:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Moneymaker:
Someday, when we learn how to race a dyno or a flow bench, BOY will we get fast!!!!!!!!!!!LOL
Hey, I never said a flow bench meant the results would be translated directly to where the rubber meets the road.
I DO want some validation that something is likely to work before I Epoxy stuff in my heads.
I'm not sure that the Parker intake will make more absolute power than Dan Jones' Strip Dominator I'm running. It does look like it should make more low end and midrange (Which is what I'm after).
I'm sure I'll be pressured into a strip test...I wonder if the crappy MPG port plates will seal up enough for a few runs so that I can do the strip dominator and the parker in the same day......
|
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 29200
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 10-10-2002 08:01 PM
Good luck with the port plates. On the flow stuff, I was just commenting sarcasticly.
If we all had a dollar for each of the minutes we put into increasing flow on cylinder heads and intakes, we would all be very wealthy. How many times have you done port work, gained flow CFM and then lost power? I know I have a bunch, and if anyone else never has then either they never did their own work or they are much better than I. 
I chased an exhuast port for 25 years, only to find out that it was never as bad as we all believed it to be. ------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator/ non 65-66 Mustang owner sensitivity co-ordinator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
MCA member# (who knows?)
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Part time secret agent license #0089.5
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"
Quote #3: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch!"
|
n2oMike
Gearhead Posts: 3058
From: Spencer, WV
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 10-10-2002 08:04 PM
As for the Super Victor not being much better than the regular Vic. Jr....I'm sure that depends a LOT upon the combination. The smaller runner volume of the original Vic. Jr. is probably a better overall match for someone running a factory type head with a small cross section area. (such as Alex) The Super Victor would probably be better suited to those running big strokers with high compression and larger aftermarket heads. Good Luck! ------------------
Mike Burch
66 mustang real street
302 4-speed 289 heads
10.63 @ 129.3
http://www.geocities.com/carbedstangs/cmml_mburch.html
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/healey/367
http://www.mustangworks.com/cgi-bin/moi-display.cgi?220
|
Mpcoluv
Gearhead Posts: 1421
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-10-2002 09:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Moneymaker:
Good luck with the port plates.
How do you suggest I similate the stuffers (Before I epoxy a set in)?
I assumed that the port plates would be better than a plain gasket because the intake cross sectional area will be much less than the normal 4V port.
I bet the "Tongues" of the port plates that protrude into the head vibrate in the head at high RPM like tuning forks......
|
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 29200
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 10-10-2002 09:45 PM
Sorry to bust you bubble Mike, but we tested the Super Victor on a 331 incher with Canfields. Same results as mine. About 7-8 HP pick up over the modified Vic jr. in the ionosphere RPM range. My 289 heads are a lot better than you give me credit for. Probably better than any 289 heads period! CCM also got a prototype SV and we shared information with them and Edelbrock. They had the same results with their 333 incher.
What I do is make little plate out of thin tin and Elmers glue them in place for testing ports on 351C's. ------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator/ non 65-66 Mustang owner sensitivity co-ordinator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
MCA member# (who knows?)
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Part time secret agent license #0089.5
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"
Quote #3: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch!"
|
n2oMike
Gearhead Posts: 3058
From: Spencer, WV
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 10-10-2002 10:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Moneymaker:
Sorry to bust you bubble Mike, but we tested the Super Victor on a 331 incher with Canfields. Same results as mine. About 7-8 HP pick up over the modified Vic jr. in the ionosphere RPM range. My 289 heads are a lot better than you give me credit for. Probably better than any 289 heads period!
No bubble to burst, Alex. I remember you saying that the Super Victor was worth a little power on your car, but it wouldn't fit under the hood. What I was saying, is that the huge cross sectional area of the Super Victor probably would have been even better suited to a huge cross section head. Factory 289 heads only come in at around 126cc stock, and you are limited to 155cc in Super Stock. (along with a 1.78" intake valve) A Super Victor would probably be worth even more on a big port, large valved aftermarket head. I wasn't saying your heads were 'bad'... just that they are small. (as are all 289 heads) I'm sure you are getting as much out of 289 heads as anyone. (probably around 230cfm or so with the stock vavle) If you were working your 'magic' with a 15:1 Edelbrock Race Victor headed 347 stroker, the Super Victor probably would have been worth more than 7-8hp! (which I realize is very significant in your application) Good Luck! ------------------
Mike Burch
66 mustang real street
302 4-speed 289 heads
10.63 @ 129.3
http://www.geocities.com/carbedstangs/cmml_mburch.html
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/healey/367
http://www.mustangworks.com/cgi-bin/moi-display.cgi?220 [This message has been edited by n2oMike (edited 10-10-2002).]
|
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 29200
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 10-10-2002 10:30 PM
Mike, have you ever seen a SV in person? Has anyone actually held one in their hands? Put one on a motor? It is one weird bird guys. It's primary purpose was not to make more power than the Vic jr. believe it or not. There is a reason they call it a Super Victor 8.2. It was specifically engineered for 8.2 deck W motors with aftermarket heads. It was never intended to be put on any OEM castings.
The flanges are double thick to allow serious milling and porting. The premise is so that engine builders can locate the combustion chambers better over the bores, then fit the intake from that point. This is something that is not easily accomplished with a Vic Jr. You would think that the runner size and length is a great bonus, but believe it or not, they are too big.
Even the best current aftermarket heads cannot yet utilize the amount of flow potential a SV has to offer. There is stuff in the works which will be introduced at the PRI show this December which will allow the SV to really show it's stuff. Can we say tunnel port? ------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator/ non 65-66 Mustang owner sensitivity co-ordinator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
MCA member# (who knows?)
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Part time secret agent license #0089.5
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"
Quote #3: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch!"
|
'69Stang
Gearhead Posts: 205
From: Detroit, MI USA
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 10-11-2002 11:45 AM
Mpcoluv: I am running the new Parker intake with the smaller stuffed runners and I have to tell you that I am very suprised with the excellent low torque qualities. The car will pull in 4th gear (Top Loader) with a mild stumble from 1500 RPM's. Of course it could have a lot to do with the compression being around 10.75:1 and the small solid roller at 234/236 duration @ .050 and .588 lift. I'm going to Milan Dragway next friday October 18th and I will share numbers. ------------------
'69 Mustang Fastback, 351C, Holley 950 HP, New Parker Funnelweb,4-v quench heads ported, 10.75:1, UD pulley, windage tray, Top Loader, 3.89 9" rear [This message has been edited by '69Stang (edited 10-11-2002).] [This message has been edited by '69Stang (edited 10-11-2002).]
|
Mpcoluv
Gearhead Posts: 1421
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-11-2002 12:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by '69Stang:
Mpcoluv: I am running the new Parker intake with the smaller stuffed runners and I have to tell you that I am very suprised with the excellent low torque qualities. The car will pull in 4th gear (Top Loader) with a mild stumble from 1500 RPM's. Of course it could have a lot to do with the compression being around 10.75:1 and the small solid roller at 234/236 duration @ .050 and .588 lift. I'm going to Milan Dragway next friday October 18th and I will share numbers.
Glad to hear it.
I have talked to KV about also trying it on a much hotter motor that mine....We may do that to see if it works on a 9 sec. car.
|
Dusty Kiser
Gearhead Posts: 191
From: Bethel,Oh USA
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 10-11-2002 03:36 PM
Guys, B4 you get too excited about small runner intakes for 4V Cleveland heads, you better read up on why the 351C is such an enigma to the Chebby thinkers. If you want to operate it like a tractor or UGH Chebby, then you need to use 2V heads or unported C3 heads , or better still stock windsor heads. If you want to run a Cleveland, forget about what it's doing at 1800 in high gear? and focus on what it's doing at 7500 in high gear. Smokey Yunick told me he did major intake work on the Boss 302 and picked up 100HP at 4000 rpm. I told him that's impressive, but Parnelli Jones didn't give a crap about what his Boss was doing at 4000rpm because he operated his at 8000 and was a second a lap faster than the Penske Donahue Camaro in the process. In the seventies when the 351C ruled supreme, the only thing that beat them was a Booth Aarons CJ Batten hybrid AMC head made from two heads sliced in two horizontally to make a tall bottom half port then furnace welded to a tall top half to make huge ports. Booth had the NHRA E.T record in Pro Stk and Maskin /Kanners with a similar setup had the mph record! NHRA outlawed the heads and the Cleveland was once again dominant. Any good racing engine needs to spin to make power.
|
Mpcoluv
Gearhead Posts: 1421
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-11-2002 03:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dusty Kiser:
Guys, B4 you get too excited about small runner intakes for 4V Cleveland heads, you better read up on why the 351C is such an enigma to the Chebby thinkers. If you want to operate it like a tractor or UGH Chebby, then you need to use 2V heads or unported C3 heads , ........
The 2V heads won't flow more than 250 CFM after extensive porting from what I can gather. The 4V head with the Roush or Parker stuffer will flow 261CFM bone stock with a big change in velocity. The bottom .600 or so of the 4V port is more or less (but not entirely) dead air space that hurts velocity below 5000 or so RPM. I have no interest in a 9000 rpm Pro-stock style motor for my street oriented car.
The stuffers and intake cost less than 20% of what a set of usable C3 (Yates) heads cost.
Jack Roush had good luck with stuffers (in non-Pro Stock applications/mostly road course per Roush employee Red Johnson) so I'm willing to give them a try.
If you start talking aftermarket/SVO heads, then I would abandon the Clevenland entirely and use aftermarket "W" heads and block.
|
Rustang
Gearhead Posts: 880
From: Clarion PA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 10-11-2002 04:21 PM
I've talked to Red Johnson before too, and basically he said for a stick car the Roush spoons probably wouldn't be very affective, but with an automatic they may work well. I put them in my Boss heads mainly because I was bent on adapting a yates intake to them and the spoons was the only way to get the ports to line up. Since all the cylinder head gurus keep preaching "good flow and good velocity", if you can keep the same flow with a smaller port I guess this is a good thing.Back in the early 80's (1982)a local dirt track guy used to run a 408 from Roush equipped with the spoons and the raised exhaust port "blocks". He had dyno sheets that showed 685hp (on alcohol). He also had a roush 426 with some of the first sets of SVO aluminum heads. It dynoed at 726hp! ------------------
'68 mustang 351 clevor- 10.92@124
'67 Stang, 351W -11.18@118
'69 351C Torino-14.90@100
'78 Pickup 351W-15.56@88
'79 Pickup 460 ET=??
|
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 29200
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 10-11-2002 04:41 PM
Good words of wisdom Dusty.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Just as soon as I can figure out how to race a flow bench I will have the quickest and fastest ANYTHING I build on the planet.  Forget about the flow numbers and find somebody who has put one of those intakes on a real world set of heads (that aren't in a magazine) on a real world engine in a real world car that goes down the track. One that has made a comparison with a Strip Dominator or an Edelbrock. Or better yet, even on a dyno the same day. Then we will learn something positive and then we will know if the numbers really mean anything. ------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator/ non 65-66 Mustang owner sensitivity co-ordinator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
MCA member# 53321
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Part time secret agent license #0089.5
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"
Quote #3: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch!"
|
Mpcoluv
Gearhead Posts: 1421
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-11-2002 04:45 PM
Red told me a similiar thing in the context of a Drag race car.
He said something like "If you are leaving the line at 6000 with a stick car, the stuffers don't do any good because at that rpm you have good velocity in the port, and your cam probably don't make much power at 2000 rpm anyways"
He did say that the stuffers would boost low and mid rpm torque.
BTW Steve Blackwell (Stevesheadshed.com), a former Bud Moore head guru said that the stuffers were used in short track and road race motors in the '70s.
|
Mpcoluv
Gearhead Posts: 1421
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-11-2002 05:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Moneymaker:
Forget about the flow numbers .....Or better yet, even on a dyno the same day. Then we will learn something positive and then we will know if the numbers really mean anything.
Well I was going to test them back to back on a chassis dyno on my 372....But then you said chassis dynos were bad
Actually KV will race in two weeks fairly close by and he has voluntered to be a guinea pig. That should test the top end capabilities right? I somehow doubt I will learn much about low speed characteristics though
BTW Alex I bet your 289 heads have good low to mid lift flow...Damn talking about flow again.....
[This message has been edited by Mpcoluv (edited 10-11-2002).]
|
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 29200
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 10-11-2002 05:41 PM
Now that's a GREAT test bed!
Actually my mid lift numbers suck. It's at over .500 when my stuff begins to show it's stuff. See what I mean about believing numbers?
We're seeing in excess of 230 CFM on the intake now, yet are not seeing much more power than we had at 225. ------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator/ non 65-66 Mustang owner sensitivity co-ordinator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
MCA member# 53321
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Part time secret agent license #0089.5
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"
Quote #3: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch!"
|
Dad Vishus
Gearhead Posts: 1153
From: Moscow, Iowa, USA
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 10-11-2002 05:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mpcoluv:
Well I was going to test them back to back on a chassis dyno on my 372....But then you said chassis dynos were bad
Actually KV will race in two weeks fairly close by and he has voluntered to be a guinea pig. That should test the top end capabilities right? I somehow doubt I will learn much about low speed characteristics though
BTW Alex I bet your 289 heads have good low to mid lift flow...Damn talking about flow again.....
[This message has been edited by Mpcoluv (edited 10-11-2002).]
KVs converter stalls to 6K plus, so low end won't show up, unless you count when he puts it on the trailer!
|
Dusty Kiser
Gearhead Posts: 191
From: Bethel,Oh USA
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 10-12-2002 03:39 PM
I totally understand the hot rod ethic of wanting to get the most out of what ever you're working with. I merely wanted to convey the idea that there is such a thing as betting on the wrong horse. I believe a small runner intake to be counter productive to the concept of the Cleveland and worse than useless if not accompanied by extensive work in the heads themselves. A good port . stuffer may help with what you're looking for in the intake. What I don't understand is referrences to 1500rpm in high gear in one breath and 265 cfm the next! Unless I'm mistaken the suggestion is a Cleveland doesn't make enough torque for good street performance? I don't know what's wrong with yours that you would spend hundreds on intakes and port stuffers, because ours with the stock ports and valves incinerates the tires at the flick of the throttle. It never occurred to us we needed more low end torque.
|
Mpcoluv
Gearhead Posts: 1421
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-12-2002 04:29 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dusty Kiser:
I totally understand the hot rod ethic of wanting to get the most out of what ever you're working with. .... What I don't understand is referrences to 1500rpm in high gear in one breath and 265 cfm the next!
You are mixing messages from me and '69stang.
What I am trying to do is boost low end without hurting top end much.
The 2V heads are not that great, plus I already have a set of ported 4V heads and a spare set.
I have access to a flow bench and played with it some to see what the stuffers effect.
The CFM figures merely for curiosity but the stuffers didn't seem to hurt very much.
Terry Parker cut me a price break (because of friends I have) and I don't actually own the Strip Dominator I am currently using. The strip Dominators are not given away these days BTW.....
At best, I pick up low and midrange power, at worst....turd polishing I guess.
|
