Brought to you in part by:

M&M Restoration & Tool Supply Store

Great deals on auto restoration supplies!

.


NOTICE! The old Mustangsandmore.com is a read-only archive.
Currently the Search function is inoperative, but we are working on the problem.

Please join us at our NEW Mustangsandmore.com forums located at this location.
Please notice this is a brand new message board, and you must re-register to gain access.

  Mustangsandmore Forum Archive
  '69 to '73 -- The Musclecar Mustang
  Which 351c intake manifold?

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Which 351c intake manifold?
'69Stang
Gearhead

Posts: 205
From: Detroit, MI USA
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 04-02-2002 10:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for '69Stang        Reply w/Quote
Which manifold should I use? I have two 351c intake manifolds that most of you 351c afficionados will recognize, the mid-rise dual plane Blue Thunder manifold and the Parker Funnel web. The Blue Thunder reminds me a lot of an Edelbrock Performer RPM, while the Parker Funnel Web reminds me of a Holley Strip Dominator.

The engine set up is 351c .020 over, 4-v heads cnc ported that flow 330 cfm intake @ .600 lift and 225 exhaust, 10.8:1 compression, solid roller cam w/spec's at .050 being 234 intake 236 exhaust and .588 lift, 110 lobe seperation. The car is a '69 fastback with a wide ratio Top-Loader and 3.89 gears. Based on everyones advice I will be running a 950HP carb and 3" exhaust.

Is the cam that I have too small for a good single plane? Or should I just go with a set of 4.30 gears to optimize the parts for a single plane? Are the parts just better for a dual plane set up?

I am looking for a very effective (fast) street set up, with occasional strip.

As always, your opinions are very important to me, this is the best Mustang forum I've found for Ford performance. Thanks in advance.

Luc

[This message has been edited by '69Stang (edited 04-02-2002).]

[This message has been edited by '69Stang (edited 04-02-2002).]

Mpcoluv
Gearhead

Posts: 1421
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-02-2002 11:51 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mpcoluv        Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by '69Stang:
Which manifold should I use? I have two 351c intake manifolds that most of you 351c afficionados will recognize, the mid-rise dual plane Blue Thunder manifold and the Parker Funnel web. s the cam that I have too small for a good single plane? Or should I just go with a set of 4.30 gears to optimize the parts for a single plane? Are the parts just better for a dual plane set up?

I am looking for a very effective (fast) street set up, with occasional strip.

]


Do you have the Parker port inserts?
If so, you should be fine with the single plane.
For street usage, you might consider a carb with annular boosters like the Holley 830.

kid vishus
Gearhead

Posts: 7251
From: middle of NC
Registered: Oct 2000

posted 04-02-2002 04:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for kid vishus        Reply w/Quote
The cam seems kind of small on the duration to me. Especially for a 4v headed motor. I probably woudl have goen with something around 245 to 250 @ .050 on the intake, especailly if you plan on running a single plane intake. But I probably over-cam even my street motors (the last one I built for the street had a solid flat tappet cam that was 256 int, 266 exh @ .050 with a 106 LSA).

Clevo377
Gearhead

Posts: 312
From: Blackburn, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 04-02-2002 05:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Clevo377        Reply w/Quote
Why not try both? Go with the one that works best.

Paul

'69Stang
Gearhead

Posts: 205
From: Detroit, MI USA
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 04-03-2002 08:01 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for '69Stang        Reply w/Quote
Mpcoluv: I don't have the Parker port inserts, the place I get them from (Mad Hatter) is out of them. Anywhere else I can get them?

Kid vishus: Yea, the cam is kind of small I'm beginning to think, too. I'm going to run it and if I don't like it I'll upgrade to something in the 240-250 range. That's why I'm confused on which intake to run. The set up seems more tailored to the dual plane.

Clevo377: I'd like to run both but I was considering returning the Parker because it was soooo expensive. Didn't want to have an intake lying around that i would never use. I'll probably end up trying both and then selling one.

Mpcoluv
Gearhead

Posts: 1421
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-03-2002 01:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mpcoluv        Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by '69Stang:
Mpcoluv: I don't have the Parker port inserts, the place I get them from (Mad Hatter) is out of them. Anywhere else I can get them?

I have a set of the Roush stuffers if you want to buy a set.
They are not quite as tall as the parkers however....You would have to do some slight port matching. Also the heads must be removed to install these inserts.

'69Stang
Gearhead

Posts: 205
From: Detroit, MI USA
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 04-03-2002 02:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for '69Stang        Reply w/Quote
Mpcoluv: How do these inserts install? A screw and some epoxy?

Mpcoluv
Gearhead

Posts: 1421
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-03-2002 03:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mpcoluv        Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by '69Stang:
Mpcoluv: How do these inserts install? A screw and some epoxy?

Yes, and they also are about 1/4" too long.They stick out of the port a little.
The intake face of the head has to be milled to get the inserts flush with the head.

Clevo377
Gearhead

Posts: 312
From: Blackburn, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 04-03-2002 06:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Clevo377        Reply w/Quote
After looking at your post a couple of times I would say go with the Funnelweb. Get a cam with 245?-250? @108?, 4.30 gears, and don't look back

Paul

n2oMike
Gearhead

Posts: 3058
From: Spencer, WV
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 04-04-2002 12:17 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for n2oMike        Reply w/Quote
Here are some pictures of stuffers posted earlier...

Another view of those same stuffers...

Here are some more port stuffers from Parker...

And a website that shows tons of different intakes, as well as Parker's email address.

http://www.panteraplace.com/page35.htm

Here's another page of that website that has links to Pantera vendors that might sell the stuffers.

http://www.panteraplace.com/page24.htm

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 04-04-2002).]

'69Stang
Gearhead

Posts: 205
From: Detroit, MI USA
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 04-05-2002 01:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for '69Stang        Reply w/Quote
Thanks guys, great info.

[email protected]
Gearhead

Posts: 998
From: Lakewood, CO, USA
Registered: Jun 2001

posted 04-05-2002 03:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for JCQuinn@work        Reply w/Quote
FYI
Back in the late 70's I was doing a lot of flow work on Cleveland heads and tried filling the intake port in a manner very similar to the port stuffers shown in the first set of pictures ( the ones that only fill the bottom of the port ). In my tests there was no significant difference in flow with the bottom of the port filled.

John Quinn

kid vishus
Gearhead

Posts: 7251
From: middle of NC
Registered: Oct 2000

posted 04-05-2002 04:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for kid vishus        Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by [email protected]:
In my tests there was no significant difference in flow with the bottom of the port filled.

John Quinn


When I had cheap access to a SuperFlo, I took a head and raised the floor 7/8" and tapered it to the short turn, and it picked up over 25 cfm at .600, and 30 cfm at .700. Plus the mid lift numbers improved dramatically. (and I was guessin as to where to put the "putty")

[email protected]
Gearhead

Posts: 998
From: Lakewood, CO, USA
Registered: Jun 2001

posted 04-05-2002 05:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for JCQuinn@work        Reply w/Quote
Kid
I don't doubt your results, Mine simply were different. Maybe I didn't fill enough. My point is that with no difference in flow and a much smaller port, there should be a significant performance gain especially in throttle response.

John Quinn

kid vishus
Gearhead

Posts: 7251
From: middle of NC
Registered: Oct 2000

posted 04-05-2002 07:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for kid vishus        Reply w/Quote
John,

I hope that didnt come across wrong. I wasnt trying to "upstage", show off or anything of that nature. I was just relaying the results from the one time I filled a port. Maybe it was a one time fluke.

I changed the way I had it filled and re-worked the short turn and was going to re-flow it, but the flow bench I was using got sold and relocated out of state. So I have a port that was done for the sole purpose of flow testing (r&d), and no cheap access. So my "filling of ports" has been a short lived adventure.

Mpcoluv
Gearhead

Posts: 1421
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-06-2002 09:20 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mpcoluv        Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by kid vishus:
John,

I hope that didnt come across wrong. I wasnt trying to "upstage", show off or anything of that nature. I was just relaying the results from the one time I filled a port. Maybe it was a one time fluke.

I changed the way I had it filled and re-worked the short turn and was going to re-flow it, but the flow bench I was using got sold and relocated out of state. So I have a port that was done for the sole purpose of flow testing (r&d), and no cheap access. So my "filling of ports" has been a short lived adventure.


I have heard people with both results.
I have heard of one instance of a modified 4V head that picked up flow with an old "Two sided" terry parker insert. The guy could not duplicate it again with another head after much effort.
At the very worst, you should pick up low end and throttle response (velocity).
For drag cars that leave the line at over 5k rpm, you probably will not see any difference with the inserts.
Speaking of velocity, Dan Jones knows a guy who tested a Strip dominator Vs a performer on a chassis dyno and a road race course.
The strip dominator made more power on the dyno, but the performer was faster on the track (probably because the driver let the rpm drop a bit here and there).

Daniel Jones
Gearhead

Posts: 972
From: St. Louis, MO
Registered: Aug 99

posted 04-08-2002 05:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Daniel Jones        Reply w/Quote
>Speaking of velocity, Dan Jones knows a guy who tested a Strip Dominator Vs a
>Performer on a chassis dyno and a road race course. The Strip Dominator made
>more power on the dyno, but the Performer was faster on the track (probably
>because the driver let the rpm drop a bit
>here and there).

Hmmm, I think you're confusing aa couple of different tests. Ron tested a
Torker, a Weiand Xcelerator 4V, and an Edelbrock Performer 4V. He found the
Performer was faster around a road course in his Pantera (open chamber 4V
heads, small domed TRW pistons, 230-something cam) because the Torker was so
dead below 4000 RPM. The Weiand 4V was worse dead. I offered up my spare
Strip Dominator to the cause but he never took me up on it. I also would
have like to see him test a Weiand 2V. I bet it would outperform the Weiand
4V and the Performer 4V.

Another guy in the club, Tim Tullio, did a bunch of intake testing on his
Pantera. His engine consisted of an Erson hydraulic flat tappet cam (232
deg duration @ 0.050", 108 LSA, 0.545" lift), Rhoads lifters, 4V quench
heads, flat tops pistons, 735 Holley, coatings, C&A rings, MSD ignition,
wrapped headers, and MPG Stinger exaust port plates. Intakes tested included
an Edelbrock Torker, Weiand Xcelerator 4V, Offy Port-o-Sonic 4V, Holley Strip
Dominator, along with a couple dual planes. Tim spent a lot of time
optimizing the carb for each intake. The Holley was 4 tenths quicker in the
1/4 mile than the Torker and had, by far, the best driveability (smooth with
no flat spots) of all of the single planes. He said it rivaled the dual
planes down low, as far as driveability was concerned, and by 3000 RPM was
pulling away. He could never get the Torker to smooth out at lower RPM,
despite a lot of tuning time. He never got to try a Blue Thunder high rise
dual plane.

He also tested intake and exhaust port plates. The only ones he found that
worked were the MPG Stingers exhaust plates (the 1/4" thick brass ones, not
the stainless steel ones). Pantera headers may respond to exhaust port
plates better than say a Mustang header because the header goes straight out
from the port, instead of turning down. IIRC, Tim worked his way down into
the 11's with a very streetable combo that worked better than the parts list
might indicate. It would even pull down 20 MPG on highway... It helps that
Panteras don't have much aero drag. He loved the Holley 735 (off a 428CJ)
but thought the Predator would be ideal for a big port 4V.

When Mike Cook built Mad Dog Antenuccis first 372 Cleveland stroker, they
tested the Strip Dominator, Blue Thunder, and Torker. The engine had an
offset ground crank, 6" rods, 4V quench heads, re-worked 750 Holley,
GTS tri-y headers (wierd desing 2" primaries leading into 2 1/4" collector),
Isky hydraulic flat tappet cam (single pattern version of your cam... I think
it was 0.565" lift cam, 108 LSA). The Strip Dominator was the best followed
closely by the Blue Thunder. The Torker was last but I think the extra cubes
help it out (didn't lag as far behind as expected). Mad Dog ran that engine
for several years including a bunch of Silver State races (running in the
165 MPH average class). When the car burnt to the ground, I sold him one of
my spare blocks and sourced a set of C302B heads. He came up with a Roush
intake to match the heads (the set that was damaged and Dave repaired) and
a set of high port headers (off the shelf item for Panteras... 4-into-1
with 2" primaries but still necking down to a 2 1/4" collector so he could
retain his GTS tailpipes and mufflers). The rest of the motor exactly the
same as the previous one with 4V heads and Strip Dominator. He said the
motor came on at about 2200 RPM with the C302's while it took the low
3000's for the 4V headed motor.

Also, Jack Butler borrowed my Blue Thunder for a dyno test against an Offy 360
and an Edelbrock Performer. The engine was a 377 cube 351C stroker (0.600"
solid lifter cam, 108 lobes, 6" rods, offset ground crank, 10.5:1 compression,
Willy's modified 950 HP carb, also tested his old 650 Holley). Unfortunately,
he ran all the tests with MPG intake port plates, so I think that colors the
results. The Offy 360 did very poorly, down 50 HP to the Edelbrock. While
the Offy isn't much of an intake, I think the port plates hurt the Offy but
helped the Performer which has smaller ports that match more closely to the
port plates. The Blue Thunder did best but the margin between it and the
Performer wasn't as large as expected, probably due to the port plates.
Dave's got my binders with the dyno sheets but I believe he made a bit under
475 HP. Jack said the Willy's modified 950 HP carb made a huge difference
over the admittedly undersized Holley 650 DP.

Dan Jones

Mpcoluv
Gearhead

Posts: 1421
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-08-2002 07:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mpcoluv        Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Daniel Jones:
>
Hmmm, I think you're confusing aa couple of different tests.
Dan Jones

Well, can't I just mix up that parts I like or at least remember?
If only the Clev had as much development as the SBC....
I really gotta bolt on my Performer and see if there is any low end difference....

n2oMike
Gearhead

Posts: 3058
From: Spencer, WV
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 04-08-2002 09:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for n2oMike        Reply w/Quote
At this past weekend's Spring Swap in Columbus I saw both the Active, and the TFC 351C intakes. The Active (used, with a $495 asking price) may have been for a 2V 351C. It was similar in size (inside) to a Victor Jr. It didn't have a lot of 'dead' airflow space. It was a nice looking unit. It might not support 350cfm, but it was pretty. The TFC was a bit larger. It looked more like a full race unit. It may have been for the 4V heads. I didn't get the price on it. It was all pretty cool eye candy.

I think the Active, used on a set of Aussie heads with a GOOD port job, would make an EXCELLENT street engine that would pull hard through a wide powerband.

The Accelerator for 2V heads has ports that are quite a bit larger than as-cast 2V ports. It would probably work great with 4V heads. It has a rather abrupt plenum, but with some blending, looks like it would work really well. I ported a set of Aussie heads and worked an Accelerator. I had extensions welded in the corners and blended the plenum into the roofs of the ports. It should work really well. I'm anxious to see how the engine does.

Good Luck!

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

Daniel Jones
Gearhead

Posts: 972
From: St. Louis, MO
Registered: Aug 99

posted 04-09-2002 12:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Daniel Jones        Reply w/Quote
I spoke with Terry Parker (maker of the similar Funnel Web 351C intakes) over the weekend and he claims Active is no longer making intakes. I know Mike Fielder switched from Active to importing the TFC's. Both Parker's and TFC's 4V intakes have raised floors and are meant to be used with port stuffers. I agree the 2V versions should work well.

Did Mike Fielder have the side-draft EFI manifold at Columbus?

Dan Jones

Ron
Gearhead

Posts: 137
From: Newcastle, Wa.
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 04-09-2002 03:46 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ron        Reply w/Quote
Who is importing the TFC? can you provide the info for me?
The only one I know in the entire world that has one is clevo377 (paul)
I've mailed KB engine parts but they did not have any detailed info on it and they were reluctant to hook me up with the manufacturer.
I am very serious about buying one of these but I'm not gonna spend the big bucks then find out its some guy in arkansas named billy-joe-bob makin them out behind the hog pen with his homemade cast aluminum pourin machine.

Daniel Jones
Gearhead

Posts: 972
From: St. Louis, MO
Registered: Aug 99

posted 04-09-2002 05:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Daniel Jones        Reply w/Quote
Mike Fielder is importing the TFC intakes. They are made in Australia and are cast at the same plant that makes the CHI 3V aluminum Cleveland heads. Casting quality is very good (at least the one I had my hands on). Mike lives in Australia and travels to the U.S. on business. He may be still here but his contact info is:

[email protected]

He also has a California distribution phone of 562-428-9764. BTW, Pantera Internaitional Motorsports is selling the TFC as the Vapours II (the Vapours I was the Active).

Terry Parker has revised his intakes and they are a similar sort of air gap single plane for 2V and 4V heads. I don't have Terry's current contact info but he's supposed to send me some new photos soon, along with his contact info.

Dan Jones

kwazykat
Moderator

Posts: 8279
From: ...a wonderful place to be.... orange county... NC!!!! M&M member #92 .... a blue-oval GRRL-deluxe.....
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-09-2002 10:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for kwazykat        Reply w/Quote
Dang...
wrong username again

kv

[This message has been edited by kwazykat (edited 04-09-2002).]

kid vishus
Gearhead

Posts: 7251
From: middle of NC
Registered: Oct 2000

posted 04-09-2002 11:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for kid vishus        Reply w/Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan,
Do you think it would be worth the effort to try the Active intake that is cast for 2v heads on a 4v headed motor? I have that intake that I payed a lot of money for (probably too much) and I hate to just have it sitting around. I'm worried that the major port mismatch might create real bad turbelunce once it dumps into the head. Also I dont really have time now to try and open the ports up to match so thats not an option at this point and time.

thanks

(p.s. thats better )

Clevo377
Gearhead

Posts: 312
From: Blackburn, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 04-09-2002 11:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Clevo377        Reply w/Quote
Kwazykat, I know you are not going ahead with this but when I first got my Funnelweb I spent some time deciding whether to open the ports up to match the head. I started on one port and decided that it was going to be too much work. I didnt think it would make a lot of difference anyway because you still have a large area change (losing velocity) which you dont want. Not only that but you kinda stuff the manifold for use as a 2V. (unless you like a lot of putty ). I'd either try it as it is, or sell it and buy something else.

Paul

[This message has been edited by Clevo377 (edited 04-09-2002).]

All times are ET (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Mustangsandmore Front Page

Copyright 2006, Steve LaRiviere. All Rights Reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47d

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More

[Build a free Mustangsandmore.ws Home Page!]

[Posting Pictures]

[About M&M][Members' Pics]

[M&M Conventions] [M&M Mug Shots] [Tech Articles]

[M&M Bookstore] [M&M Restoration & Tool Supply Store]