|
Author
|
Topic: 351c high port plates
|
scottford351
Journeyman Posts: 96
From: reedsville ohio usa
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 05-11-2003 01:35 AM
   
can someone give me the low down ? and the parker intake? thanks for any info
IP: Logged |
kid vishus
Gearhead Posts: 6405
From: middle of NC
Registered: Oct 2000
|
posted 05-11-2003 10:34 AM
The high port plates most people refer to are on the exhuast side. They cut most of the existing port off, and bolt an aluminum plate to the head that raises the exhuast port to give the gases a straight shot out of the port. They will not fit an early mustang with factory shock towers. To make them work properly, you need the hedders to run 2" to 3" inches straight out before turning downward and there isn't room to do that on the older cars. And unless you plan on building some real exotic motor, I don't think they are worth it. My exhuast ports flow pretty danged good without those plates, and still use "off the shelf" hedders.As for the Parker intake, I haven't tried one. I have seen one in person, and it looks nice, but looks don't make power or quicker ET's. Untill I see an honest dyno comparison, and an honest un-biased on track comparison, I won't shell out that kind of cash for an unproven intake. Most people that have them, are incredibly biased and claim they are the best thing since sliced bread, but none of them seem to run as well as I think they should. By the way,
Welcome to M&M.  ------------------
Rob Hetzler
member #773
'69 mustang, 351C, best 9.97 @ 133 mph 1/4, 6.18 @ 110.4 mph 1/8
'70 mustang, soon to be 351W powered
'93 F150 Lightning 15.33 @ 87 mph, completely stock with 173k miles
'60 Falcon wagon project car
'99 Pro Et track champion
'00 Mod ET R-up (with new car)
'01 Top ET 5th place My Photo Page [This message has been edited by kid vishus (edited 05-11-2003).]
IP: Logged |
Dad Vishus
Gearhead Posts: 920
From: Moscow, Iowa, USA
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 05-11-2003 04:44 PM
I've got a set of heads with the port plates and raised intake runners. The intake side is not finished.I'd part with those if anyone is interested.  ------------------
63 Falcon 377 Cleveland stroker Flying Toilet alchohol injection. 6.19 @ 110 MPH 1/8 mile
2002 Ranger FX4 daily driver
2000 F350 PSD Crew cab dually - Like commuting in a B52!!
98 US Cargo Phantom II 28'
IP: Logged |
Fordwiser
Gearhead Posts: 429
From: Metamora, Illinois
Registered: Dec 2000
|
posted 05-11-2003 10:43 PM
I've got a set of Highport plates on my 80 T-Bird, they are from Price Motorsports in Indiana. The ones they sell are made mainly for 2V heads, but can be opened up to match 4Vs. My heads flow pretty well, especially since most of the porting was done by me,and consisted mostly of just smoothing out and blending of rough spots, exhaust flow topped out at 230.8@ .700 lift. An experienced head porter could get numbers like that and more without the plates, but it probably wouldn't be cheap, I do think the plates would add potential for more flow, but like kid said it would have to be a really stout moter to need that kind of flow. Kid is also right about the headers, to get the full potential of the plates the headers should be custom made and would work best in a tube chasis car where the headers go over the frame rail.
Dad Vishus, do you know where the plates came from on your heads? Also I wouldn't mind taking a look at them sometime if we can line up a time when we're both at Cordova
Roger
IP: Logged |
scottford351
Journeyman Posts: 96
From: reedsville ohio usa
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 05-11-2003 11:55 PM
what would the typical HP gain be,Ive heard 50 HP
I already have the plates on and Im using a ranger so I had plenty of room to make a straight shot out the exaust. How much should I fillthe bottom of the runners?The motor is .030 hardblocked stock stroke 13-1 solid roller 256/264/.657 Im kinda interested in the parker intake. Any body with any input fire away
------------------
91 LX 398w street/bracket 6.88 1/8 60FT 1.44[This message has been edited by scottford351 (edited 05-12-2003).]
IP: Logged |
kid vishus
Gearhead Posts: 6405
From: middle of NC
Registered: Oct 2000
|
posted 05-12-2003 07:47 AM
A couple of things about the Parker intake. First, it was designed to hlep mid range power. Not something that is great for a purpose built race motor. Secondly, Parker is well known for exagerating his HP gains and flow numbers. If you are building a strip only vehicle, either find a Holley Strip Dominator, or modify a Ford NASCAR style intake to fit, it will work much better.I'm willing to bet that on a motor like mine, the Strip Dominator would be faster than the Parker (I already know how well my Strip Dominator works, and it's pretty da**ed good). But for a street motor, the Parker is supposed to be easier to drive because it lowers the powerband.
IP: Logged |
'69Stang
Gearhead Posts: 205
From: Detroit, MI USA
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 05-12-2003 05:49 PM
Ditto on Kid Vishus's response. I run the latest Parker Funnelweb and the driveability is very good for a high rise single plane manifold. In fact its down-right amazing how much low RPM pull this engine has. The shocking part is how much high RPM power it has also, the engine with a mild cam (234/236 duration) doesn't want to quit when I am shifting at 6700-7000 RPM's. However, I have to say that I would not claim that it would make more power than, or be a better race intake, than a Holley Strip Dominator. I just don't know. I do know from a lot of reputable people (KV included ) that Strip Dominators are great all out performance intakes. I can tell you that when I run across a deal on a Strip Dominator that I will buy it just to dyno them back to back on my motor to see which one works better for my engine. Kid, I have my engine apart now; I could ship my Parker to you if you plan on doing any dyno testing, or even better, some track testing. I'll split the shipping with you.........just a thought. ------------------
'69 Mustang Fastback, 351C, Holley 950 HP, New Parker Funnelweb intake, ported 4-v quench heads, 10.75:1, UD pulley, windage tray, Top Loader, 4.30 gears 9" rear
------------------------- 12.51 1/4 mile @ 115.89
60 foot time 2.008 (ouch) [This message has been edited by '69Stang (edited 05-12-2003).]
IP: Logged |
kid vishus
Gearhead Posts: 6405
From: middle of NC
Registered: Oct 2000
|
posted 05-12-2003 06:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by '69Stang:
I could ship my Parker to you if you plan on doing any dyno testing, or even better, some track testing. I'll split the shipping with you.........just a thought.
Now there's an idea. Especially for on track testing. I pretty much know what my car will run now, and it should be pretty clear one way or the other which intake is better for my motor.
IP: Logged |
kid vishus
Gearhead Posts: 6405
From: middle of NC
Registered: Oct 2000
|
posted 05-12-2003 07:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by kid vishus:
I pretty much know what my car will run now...
Wow, after looking in my log book, it will be more obvious than even I thought.
Here's all my passes (just ET and MPH) from this year. March 22,
6.323 @ 108.29 , 6.302 @ 108.78 , 6.307 @ 108.74 , 6.289 @ 109.06, 6.310 @ 108.86 April 12,
6.329 @ 109.24 , 6.316 @ 109.25 , 6.312 @ 109.08 April 20,
6.280 @ 110.08 , 6.315 @ 109.33 , 6.302 @ 109.25 , 6.311 @ 108.92 , 6.344 @ 102.3 (on brakes hard), 6.332 @ 106.31 (also on brakes) May 3,
6.332 @ 108.41 (rain out) May 4,
6.315 @ 108.57 , 6.325 @ 108.35 , 6.306 @ 107.36 (scrubbed brakes) That;s all of them for this year. Yeah, I think my car would be a good one as a test platform to compare intakes.
IP: Logged |
clevelandstyle
Gearhead Posts: 1189
From: Connersville, IN
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 05-12-2003 08:26 PM
Yeah, do it Kid.  Inquiring minds want to know. There is a lot of big talk about the Parker. Let's see if it can put out like they claim. '69stang, that's a gracious offer to Kid. A lot of people would benifit from a test like this. ------------------
Ben
Grabber Green '70 Mach I 351C 4V
Robbin Egg Blue '79 Fairmont 351C 4V
IP: Logged |
MrXerox
Gearhead Posts: 348
From: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 05-13-2003 12:47 AM
Do it! I would love to see that test too!
IP: Logged |
scottford351
Journeyman Posts: 96
From: reedsville ohio usa
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 05-13-2003 01:27 AM
My project is about 2 years from competion ($$$$$????)Ive just had back surgery and its going to be months before I recover physically and finacialy.I have almost every thing as far as major parts to complete it.I have a scorpion intake its quite tall, are they any good,I had a strip dominator but at that time I didnt have enough motor and it slowed me down.If anybody has any ideas or comments -im interested Ive built a 398w and put it in a 91 lx and its hard to change after reving a cleveland , thanks guys
IP: Logged |
Dad Vishus
Gearhead Posts: 920
From: Moscow, Iowa, USA
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 05-13-2003 09:22 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Fordwiser:
Dad Vishus, do you know where the plates came from on your heads? Also I wouldn't mind taking a look at them sometime if we can line up a time when we're both at Cordova
Roger
I don't have any info at all on the plates. The heads have been cut and the plates are installed. Some exhaust side blending is still needed. On the intake side, the roofs of the runners have been raised and epoxied and the floors have holes drilled for screws to hold the epoxy. I also have a header flange pattern of one side, but not the other. These heads will require some work to be ready for use, but the potential is great and much of the high dollar work is done.I may go to the Pro-Am race at Cordova in June. I'll have to see how my finances look by then. 
------------------
63 Falcon 377 Cleveland stroker Flying Toilet alchohol injection. 6.19 @ 110 MPH 1/8 mile
2002 Ranger FX4 daily driver
2000 F350 PSD Crew cab dually - Like commuting in a B52!!
98 US Cargo Phantom II 28'
IP: Logged |
kid vishus
Gearhead Posts: 6405
From: middle of NC
Registered: Oct 2000
|
posted 05-13-2003 10:52 AM
quote:
Originally posted by MrXerox:
Do it! I would love to see that test too!
We are a bit concerned about the intake fitting my heads. My heads have been milled .050. We're a little worried that the bolt holes wont line up and the port mismatch is going to be "not very pretty".
IP: Logged |
ironbullet
Journeyman Posts: 39
From: wytheville va usa
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 05-13-2003 09:36 PM
plates take a whole nuther strategy . the pro stockers use to run stuffers in the intakes and raised x port plates ,but the cams that work well on a plain 4 barrell c won't do right on a fully developed set of pro stock heads .Specifically they may overscavenge , even on a 408 !! the lobes need to be at least 108o apart . I plan to build a set of pro stock style heads someday but it will be an "ironball" motor Al rods , Ti valves , destroked crank , ridiculous roller etc . I can't afford that right now though , so I am building a steel rod steel valve solid cam engine with a pair of nascar modified heads ,updated , (old 4 barrel clevelands done up by dorton years ago) I see little reason to get tricky with cleveland heads unless you really want to fly,if your worried about street performance , low end torque ,whatever ,use 2v heads ! nothing wrong with 2v heads.
IP: Logged |
Built351c
Gearhead Posts: 140
From: Big Lake, MN
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 05-15-2003 12:49 AM
That would be a interesting test. I am having that same thought about the two intakes. I must admit I am leaning towards the Holley intake. Only because I dont want to pull my heads and spend the extra money for port stuffers and the cost of putting them in. With the holley its a bolt on and go.
IP: Logged |
Buster
Gearhead Posts: 1553
From: Hurricane alley
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 05-15-2003 07:55 AM
quote:
Originally posted by scottford351:
My project is about 2 years from competion ($$$$$????)Ive just had back surgery and its going to be months before I recover physically and finacialy.I have almost every thing as far as major parts to complete it.I have a scorpion intake its quite tall, are they any good,I had a strip dominator but at that time I didnt have enough motor and it slowed me down.If anybody has any ideas or comments -im interested Ive built a 398w and put it in a 91 lx and its hard to change after reving a cleveland , thanks guys
Sorry to hear about your back surgery. I had back surgery last year and it wasn't fun. How did the 398W run? Did you ever take it to the track? And are you saying that you would rather run a 351C?
IP: Logged |
scottford351
Journeyman Posts: 96
From: reedsville ohio usa
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 05-15-2003 12:02 PM
The 398 is ft piston, small lift.544 245/252, stock rods, performer rpm heads,holley street dominator w/780 vac,The tranny is a stock C4 with a c5 Ranger converter.It ran 6.88 1/8 @ 100 60 ft 1.44 on 93 octane.Ive bought a solid roller with the same dur. but .620 lift.Ive alwas had clevelands and I miss the sound of 7000 rpms.A have considered a 393 clevor and Ive considered putting in the cleveland but the heads are high port and that creates header issues. [This message has been edited by scottford351 (edited 05-15-2003).]
IP: Logged |
'69Stang
Gearhead Posts: 205
From: Detroit, MI USA
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 05-15-2003 04:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by kid vishus:
We are a bit concerned about the intake fitting my heads. My heads have been milled .050. We're a little worried that the bolt holes wont line up and the port mismatch is going to be "not very pretty".
Any comments or thoughts on the mis-match due to the .050 cut heads?
IP: Logged |
kid vishus
Gearhead Posts: 6405
From: middle of NC
Registered: Oct 2000
|
posted 05-18-2003 01:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by '69Stang:
Any comments or thoughts on the mis-match due to the .050 cut heads?
Anyone?? 
IP: Logged |
clevelandstyle
Gearhead Posts: 1189
From: Connersville, IN
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 05-18-2003 10:36 PM
Just a thought.
I don't use intake gaskets on my intake. The heads are milled .030 and alignment seems good.
I just smear a thin coat of RTV around the ports and let it set up (completely). Bolt on the intake and never have a leak or alingment problems. The intake would set lower wouldn't it?
This may help with the problem of Kids heads. What do you think?------------------
Ben
Grabber Green '70 Mach I 351C 4V
Robbin Egg Blue '79 Fairmont 351C 4V
IP: Logged |
Mpcoluv
Gearhead Posts: 1333
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-19-2003 03:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by kid vishus:
Anyone??
Sorry, Just back from vacation.....
The Parker intake I have has slotted bolt holes.
Should bolt on. I don't know about sealing though.
IP: Logged |
Mustangsandmore Forums
