quote:Originally posted by Mat_G:
Team ..Tx for feedback..
quote:
There is in the center of the Intake Manifold a cut Window to bridge both intake sides (picture). Any thoughts of the minimal size or should I just copy 1:1 as I mill it down (next week)?
You really can not estimate the effect of the "balance" port without putting it on your engine and on an engine dyno and running it.
I would think that if you mill the pad flat, it won't have a significant effect on the engine.
It PROBABLY is designed to give you a little better or smooth idle with a bit of a radical camshaft AT IDLE.
I can't think of a wedge spacer that has a divider in the center of it. I think that they all will have an "open plenum" design.
So using that kind of a spacer would negate any effect that the balance slot would have anyway.
I would leave the slot alone and use a wedge spacer.
There are some fiberglass extended carb/air cleaner pans made by Kirk Evans, aka, Ameri Sport made for the Pantera engine screen, to give you more room for the carb/air cleaner assembly.
He made them in stages. Small, medium and very high. Inquire with Kirk about those.
You would use the 73/74 engine screen assembly and just change the "pan" to give you more height if you need it.
Just looking at the picture of that plenum, on the "Ford/Motorcraft) A341 intake manifold, the top of the runners as they connect to the plenum,i.e., in relationship to where they intersect with the plenum, your Edelbrock has about 3/8" MORE distance from the top of the runner to the carb mounting plate.
What that means I think is that in theory you can lower that pad another 3/8".
Having said that I just don't know what effect that will have. It PROBABLY would give you an issue with the "accelerator" pump?
On THAT Edelbrock, milling it an additional 3/8" would most likely only give you the carb accelerator mounting interference issue with little or no advantages?
I would compare the plenum and the runners intersection at the top to the A341 manifold. The A341 manifold is a modified Edelbrock Torker intake so it is not a completely alien device to the Edelbrock that you are using here, so I think that is a valid consideration?
I understand that the A341 is now rare and difficult to find but my feeling is that on a Cleveland a 180 degree intake is a design that has maximum effect using an automatic transmission and a 360 like the Torker would be for maximum power effect with a manual transmission?
They have differences on how much torque the engine makes right off of idle. One is MUCH better for the automatic transmission characteristics. The 180.
I am not suggesting that you should change the intake manifold to the A341. What I am saying is compare the plenum to the top of the intake runners on the two. That will give you an idea how much you can mill down the carb pad on your Edelbrock.
I don't have any pictures of the A341 that would show that relationship of how the top of the ports flow into the plenum though. This is the best that I can do, but the top radius of the intake runners have no vertical wall at the intersection of the plenum like your Edelbrock does.
You can see at the front side of the plenum, the top of the runners is right there in the plenum with NO radius at all?
Maybe Mr.Pence has some pictures that better show this? Just a thought.
