351c EFI intake manifold

Doug,

Raised port heads? Has somebody other than Thomas Tornblom done the conversion? I am aware of only two conversions, Thomas' and an american's, a gentleman named Jim Murch.

the basis for the conversion is the Trick Flow 351W FI manifold base. The runners of the manifold are pretty much in the same location as the 351C 2V, they are a tad smaller and more rectangular, whereas the 351c 2V runners are a bit more oval (corners more rounded). There is plenty of meat in the Trick Flow intake casting to grind them to the same size as the 351C 2V. Thomas Tornblom mated his manifold to a Aussie 351C motor, with small port 2V heads. Jim Murch, has done the same conversion mating his manifold to the 4V heads. He found plenty of meat around the runners to grind them open to "almost" the same opening as the 4V head ports. (see pic below). A 2V port lines up in the lower right hand corner of the 4V port. The Windsor/2V runners also line up with the ports in the Ford/SVO heads, only needing a height adjustment. For instance, David Berman's engine builder modified an Edelbrock Performer 2V manifold to mate up with the high port Yates heads on David's motor. Since the Windsor block is taller, making the "vee" wider, the wider Windsor manifold sits higher in the "vee" when it is installed on the 351C block, since the Cleveland "vee" is narrower. I can't say if it aligns properly with the ports in the Ford/SVO heads (A3, B351, C302), but it can be adjusted one way or the other.

Ignoring the un-needed water neck in the front of the manifold, there are 3 operations that must be performed to the Windsor manifold base to mate it with the Cleveland heads & block.

(1) The rear "valley rail" of the Windsor block curves outward, the rear valley rail of the Cleveland block curves inward, so the manifold's rear valley rail mating surface must be welded up to create a new inward curving mating surface, machined flat and then cut to the Cleveland shape. You can see the outcome of this operation in the picture below, looks like it was cast that way from the factory.

(2) The Windsor manifold bolts are all oriented vertically, whereas the Clevelands manifold bolts are a mixture, the two in the middle on each side are vertical, but the outer bolts are perpendicular to the head. The manifold base must be redrilled for the perpendicular orientation of the outer bolts.

(3) The Windsor block has a 9.5" deck height, the Cleveland deck height is 9.2", so some material must be machined from the manifold base to allow it to sit at the proper height in the narrower "vee", unless of course the intake is being mated with a high port SVO head.

So Doug, are you ready to put the A3 heads & Webers on the shelf and bolt on a set of C302s and an FI intake?

cowboy from hell

Here's a couple of pictures comparing the port layout of 4V vs 2V vs C302 svo. In the lower picture, the roof of the C302 port is 3/4" higher than the roof of the 2V port.

I'm still working on making the wheel round and I'm close to fixing a rainy day.
I need to get those completed first.
Yikes.

I know this has been covered but why do you need to do this? Are you gonna use the Ford EFI from the Windsor?

I don't need to do anything, but thanks for the inquirey.
I'm always looking for better alternatives.
I am presently still in the IR FI mode.

The IR FI components are all there. I am told that the technology is manageable. Hell F1 teams use it all the time. I can do that, right? DeTom has faith in me.

The Weber IDA "look" seems appropriate to me for the Pantera.

For me this is the way the Pantera should go. I love the sound of the FI Lamboghinis. (Yes I know v12's don't sound like 5.7 v-8s), but part of that whine/scream is the IR FI at work. No question about that.

Because of the costs of the IR FI I am reluctant to jump in head first. Also I don't have the bucks. The buy in is around $6,000.

A Ford EFI would be interesting IF THERE WAS A MANIFOLD FOR IT, i.e., a "bolt on manifold".

I can tell by some of the responses that I am getting from the "FI experts" ( I don't mean you guys here on the forum) that supply complete running systems that there are some "implied pitfalls" that haven't been worked out yet.

The IR FI system had a starting problem. Whether or not the still do is unclear.

I suppose it depends on the definition of the word "running" or like what Bill Clinton said about how it depends on what "is, is".

The buyer has to work this all out.

That whiney SoCal, "I'm too cool for YOU to understand me" and "you're wasting my time" additude is unmistakeably present in those sellers.
That characteristic is part of the traditional snakeoil salesmanship that I have run into so many times before, seemingly passed on from generation to generation, that goes with buying a a bill of goods.
It sets off the flashing caution light immediately in me.

I don't know. I shouldn't doubt "them". Maybe they can walk on water...new technology ya' know.

quote:

DeTom has faith in me

Absolutely Doug. In fact, if I ever win the lottery I am gonna have you tune my IR fuel injection system for me. I still think Hillborns are sexy despite them not working for crap.

Thanks DeTom. You know that you are in a very select group of only one?

Doug,

the marque with the prancing donkey and the marque that's full of bull don't install IR FI on their street cars, they install one throttle body per bank of cylinders, 2 in total, not 8 or 12. A runner for each cylinder connects to a plenum serving one bank of cylinders, and there is one throttle body feeding that plenum.

I'm a big proponent for fuel injection conversion, but not of the IR type. I can't argue IR doesn't look good, it does, but it is unneccessarily complicated and expensive, definitely not for everyone. I have my personal doubts that it makes any additional horsepower for a motor with a redline of 6500 rpm.

Here in the Pantera hobby there is a mystique about FI installations that they are only for the knowledgable insiders. But over in the Mustang hobby, or among the various GM groups like the Camaro guys, retro-fitting FI is no big deal, its done everyday, even folks with limited technical ability install them. The folks outside of the Pantera hobby have 4 advantages, there is plenty of information available to assist them, they are retro-fitting injection onto motors that have been fitted with FI by the manufacturer, there is nobody telling them it is too complicated, and they are not installing independent runner systems. One throttle body is enough, keep it simple.

I agree that it would be nice to have a FI manifold available so that an owner doesn't have to roll his own, Trick Flow actually announced the development of one two years ago (for 2V heads) but that project is on the back burner at the company right now.

At this point in time, a Pantera owner wanting to convert to single throttle body FI, but not wanting to modify a 351W intake, is left with installing one of the throttle body injection systems, or the systems employing a modified single plane intake.

George

A single plane intake? I've got one of those!

Not to be cotradictory, who me? Dennis Quella's system is as torky as a production unit and just as dependable.
I had heard, but can't confirm, that it can inexplicably experience hot starting problems.

Not to be argumentative either, who me? I think if I dig a little I could find some dyno on IR vs. single plenum.
I seem to remember that there was a measureable difference around 4,500 rpm. (+15hp)
The difference at 7,000 was a bunch.
Who's got a 6,500rpm engine? Not I sir.

A 2v intake isn't going to help me with my A3's. I luv my heads.
I still don't see how those things give you 400hp. The ports go the wrong way.

Also, I should point out that there is a tremendous difference in the runner size of the A3 Weber manifold vs the 4v.
That has to be a plus in making the system respond.

On the subject of 2V heads, the very best ported "iron" 2V heads can support 500 bhp, 450 is a more reasonable expectation for the average porting job. Even with porting & 4V size valves the iron 2V heads hit a brick wall in the intake flow curve at 0.550" intake valve lift.

But its a new world now Doug. The alloy 2V heads made by CHI & AFD will support right around 600 bhp. The intake ports flow well past 0.600" lift, they are a good match for the lift characteristics of hydraulic roller cams. They are plenty for any reasonable street application.

cowboy from hell

quote:

the marque with the prancing donkey and the marque that's full of bull don't install IR FI on their street cars, they install one throttle body per bank of cylinders, 2 in total, not 8 or 12. A runner for each cylinder connects to a plenum serving one bank of cylinders, and there is one throttle body feeding that plenum.

Heh-heh. Prancing Donkey and Full of Bull? -Funny stuff. But, their engines are configured for this type of induction.

quote:

I'm a big proponent for fuel injection conversion, but not of the IR type. I can't argue IR doesn't look good, it does, but it is unnecessarily complicated and expensive, definitely not for everyone.

It’s true that there’s a lot of hardware in multi-cylinder IR induction systems. More throttle bodies and linkage means more cost. It also means the linkage must be well thought through in order to be reliable and maintain tune. Unnecessarily complicated? Compared to what? The old Hillborn mechanical injection systems were IR, simple, and effective, though not optimal. As far as the ECU, the sensors/instrumentation are really no more or less complicated for IR or anything else.

If you are not an engine tuner, and want a bolt-on-and-go system, go buy a mass flow EFI system. But don’t expect to be able to obtain states of tune that are achievable with other approaches. As far as that goes, a good engine tuner with a 4 barrel has shamed many a deep pocketed, would be, EFI "expert". But give a real engine tuner a free hand with engine configuration and EFI….....and he will produce better all around results. And IMO, a better balance can be struck between street behavior and race performance with the combination of EFI & IR. Like everything else, it requires a purpose built engine for IR, and unfortunately >$. For all of the aforementioned reasons, you are absolutely correct, IR is not for everyone.

quote:

I have my personal doubts that it makes any additional horsepower for a motor with a redline of 6500 rpm.

With all due respect, I don’t think 6500 rpm is the driver. The objective of IR is rarely to achieve better peak HP figures, but generally, more avearge torque over a broader the rpm range. If you make higher average torque over a given rpm range, you will accelerate harder even though you may have lower peak HP. This tends to make better drivers out of lesser ones on challenging tracks and shall we say "spirited street driving". Cammed properly, IR has the potential to do so. Just ask the sprint car guys and the likes of Kinsler, Hillborn etc. They’re not delusional. They’re just allowed to run IR. Historically, in carbureted engines, IR produced much stronger signal to the booster, thus throttle response and torque. -Not a factor with EFI. Isolating the runner also allows different LSA and cam profiles. Run similar profiles in an open plenum four barrel and get impressive peak HP but often in fairly narrow rpm ranges, thus peaky engines. So you cam and design the induction system accordingly. If you can’t keep the engine in the sweet spot boys, that peak HP figure will not get you down the road faster.

quote:

Here in the Pantera hobby there is a mystique about FI installations that they are only for the knowledgable insiders. But over in the Mustang hobby, or among the various GM groups like the Camaro guys, retro-fitting FI is no big deal, its done everyday, even folks with limited technical ability install them. The folks outside of the Pantera hobby have 4 advantages, there is plenty of information available to assist them, they are retro-fitting injection onto motors that have been fitted with FI by the manufacturer, there is nobody telling them it is too complicated, and they are not installing independent runner systems. One throttle body is enough, keep it simple.

If you slap a factory ECU and instruments from a Camero, Vette, or 5.0 Mustang on a like sbc or sbf engine, expect like performance. It will definitely be much more economical due to the factory production volumes. In my opinion, deciphering all the factory sensor input, and altering source code for a factory ECU, is more challenging than tuning with an aftermarket ECU. But, there’s lots of people doing it, selling PROMs etc., and you definitely can get good bang for your buck in the early steps up from stock . Getting into the higher states of tune costs increasingly more……and boys, it’s never enough!!!!!

Always a healthy discussion George. –Best wishes to you and your family for a very happy New Year.

Kelly

Yeah I heard you can run more overlap on the cam with IR because since the cylinders can't communicate, you don't get that back pulse of exaust going into a cylinder on it's intake.

If you look at cam listing from anyone, I defy you to find one that is labeled for IR EFI.
Some might be thought to apply themselves better then others but, no no specific cams for this application.
Pay your money and take your chances! Your pick is as good as anyones.

quote:

Originally posted by Panterror:
...Always a healthy discussion George. –Best wishes to you and your family for a very happy New Year...

Kelly, without a doubt, carbureted IR systems are far superior to common plenum carbureted systems in terms of powerband width and throttle response, just the sort of thing a road course race car, or a sports car, can take advantage of.

My personal question, is a fuel injected IR system an advantage compared to a fuel injected long runner "factory" system that employs a single throttle body, at what we would call streetable rpm levels. Is the powerband achievable measurably wider, or the throttle response measurably crisper? Do the complexity & expense involved in the IR system provide a worthwhile return with fuel injection, like it did with carburetion?

I don't have the personal experience to answer that question, but apparently the prancing donkey engineers & the engineers full of bull don't think there's any advantage, or they'd be doing it, wouldn't they?

I agree with your sentiment, always a healthy a discussion. My heartfelt wishes for a healthy and prosperous new year for you and your family as well, my friend.

George

quote:

...but apparently the prancing donkey engineers & the engineers full of bull don't think there's any advantage, or they'd be doing it, wouldn't they?

Well, I wouldn't conclude such.

Everything's a compromise in engineering especially when it comes to engines. One certainly can not assume that Ferrari's or Lambos don't compromise performance for other things important to passenger cars or public perceptions of "refinement" and quality. Production cars have an even more complicated set of conditions and trade-offs. The original manufacturer and badging on the car doesn't exempt them from US government regs or the need to make trades. This certainly is not limited to the induction systems. Examples?

Are their exhaust systems designed for optimal performance? No, they have catalytic converters and meet noise and emissions standards. Doesn't mean I would select it for my car. More tractors than police on the roads I drive.
Tires? -A street/performance compromise.
Suspension? same.
Cammed for performance considerations only? Nope.
Weight? Yup, you guessed it...compromise; radios, air conditioners, sound supression, crash impact tolerance, etc.

And on and on. Having said all that, I see a lot of Ferrari and Lambo bashing. I don't agree. They are fine cars. The fit and finish are of a high standard, and even in street trim the over square 12 cylinder engines have great range, are very predictable, and that makes them easy to drive. "Refined" if you will. Wind'em up tight and they'll go. But I routinely see modestly modified Vettes exceed many Ferrari's in club racing.

Cheers,
Kelly

With the Electromotive TEC3r, it is relatively straight forward to set up a single plane manifold with the air fed from a throttle body for easy linkage and then have the FI nozzles at the end of the individual runners aimed right at the valves. It can even be set up with 8 coils sitting right at each spark plug.

quote:

Originally posted by PanteraDoug:
If you look at cam listing from anyone, I defy you to find one that is labeled for IR EFI.
Some might be thought to apply themselves better then others but, no no specific cams for this application.
Pay your money and take your chances! Your pick is as good as anyones.

Doug the only cam I ever bought was back in 1973. It was a solid roller for a chebby 454. It didn't exist yet and it took two years for the bastards to deliver. By that time I lost my money and had to sell my engine project just to pay off the builder. So I do know if you are buying a cam, buy something that exists or the wait becomes too long.
I guess now a days you just get on the phone to a reputible cam company and they asks you a million questions. What does the car weigh, how is it geared, how are your gonna drive it, what is your zodiac. After you answer all the questions they send you a cam. So yeah, you get a cam just for your car. I guess. That's what I heard anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Panterror:
... I see a lot of Ferrari and Lambo bashing...

Large equipment and a bionic prostate. -Too funny. OK, I give. You have superior e-weapons!

Have a good one George.

Kelly

Since every runner has it's own injector, I would think that a common plenum is an economy measure eliminating all those individual throttle bodies and linkage that needs to be synchronized. Although they are Italian and have different rational.
I'm wonder if anyone (hi ya Kelly) has tested the twin injector per throat throttle bodies?
I know that the RX-7 Mazda racers are using them.
I know that the Haltec computer (don't know which model) can handle all 16 injectors.
I'm wondering if it is a waste of time to stage injectors on a 351? Anyone know? (Kelly?)

Doug the hot new thing is direct injection. They inject right into the cylinder with the valves closed.They have been able to pull it off because of super high injection pressure. Like 10,000 PSI.
I am betting we could make a Cleveland with direct injection by replacing the spark plug with one of those super high pressure injectors. But we will need to run 15:1 compresion and a turbo running 30 pounds of boost. Uhm we may want to also use desiel fuel insted of gasoline while we are at it. Probably need to figure out how to make the block stronger too. But we can just play it by ear and see how it goes.

quote:

I'm wondering if it is a waste of time to stage injectors on a 351?

If we’re talking V-8s and Panteras, staged injection really isn’t necessary in most normally aspirated street applications. For a single injector per cylinder, when horsepower demands get high and drive the flow rate of your injectors up, larger injectors don’t have much resolution for fine tuning at low rpms. -You can’t get them turned on and off fast enough for idle and low speed trim. So when the injector pulse widths get very small and start approaching the injector recovery time (time to effectively shut down and ready to pulse again) it can pose a problem at low speeds. Conversely, small injectors won't be able to deliver high flow and power. Staged injection can allow the use of a smaller injector to handle the low rpm duties and as the rpm, power, and fuel flow demands exceed the small injectors ability to deliver at a reasonable duty cycle, the additional set of injectors also kick in so you get the best of both worlds…..good low speed resolution and plenty of fuel delivery capability. Full sequential can also help smooth out idle and low rpm operation since full sequential fires only once per engine cycle instead of once per revolution as in phased sequential.

On eight cylinder street engines of reasonable displacement (say 400 CI or so, more the better), you should be able accommodate 600 HP at sub 7krpm with a single 45 lb/hr injector per cylinder. If you will only briefly see the peak power and fuel demand (street banging) then you can get by with the high duty cycle and you may get more. If you’re living at high power levels (racing) you need a bigger and properly sized injector. Guys that are running boosted engines on the street and putting down big numbers also often run staged injectors for this reason.

One exception to my remarks above is rotary engines. Because you only have a couple rotors that have quite a bit of displacement, they’ll need staged injectors even at modest power levels and this is common practice for rotaries.

Interestingly enough, a pair of smaller injectors can be significantly less expensive than one large one; big production quantities for small injectors typical in passenger cars provides economy I guess. If your ECU can drive multiple injectors it may be one of the rare instances where more costs less. It only applies to the injectors boys, you pay dearly everywhere else.

Very high rpm racing engines will also use staged/multiple injectors per cylinder since they can have a very small amount of time available to deliver the fuel due to the high engine frequency. Varying the injector placement in the induction stack can potentially take advantage of higher harmonics. Some racers even have an injector placed (out of) above the stack to optimize performance. -All this is way out of my league.

Hope that helped. Happy New Year gents.

Kelly

Ok to make a long story short ... if I was to put IR EFI on my 351W ..... Kelly ??? where would I start educating myself .. because god knows when you ask some one a quesion on this subject they start ....foaming at the mouth and mumbling ... stuff like wide band sensors .. narrow band ..oxygen sensors.... lap tops .. LOL

Dont get me wrong I can figure out anything on my own ... but a couple guy I consulted with made my head spin ... LOL

Ron

quote:

Originally posted by accobra:
Ok to make a long story short ... if I was to put IR EFI on my 351W ..... Kelly ??? where would I start educating myself .. because god knows when you ask some one a quesion on this subject they start ....foaming at the mouth and mumbling ... stuff like wide band sensors .. narrow band ..oxygen sensors.... lap tops .. LOL

Dont get me wrong I can figure out anything on my own ... but a couple guy I consulted with made my head spin ... LOL

Ron

Sure change the subject! We're talking about FI on 351c's not 351w's. Comon' now!

quote:

At this point in time, a Pantera owner wanting to convert to single throttle body FI, but not wanting to modify a 351W intake, is left with installing one of the throttle body injection systems, or the systems employing a modified single plane intake.

When PCNC Member Jim Murch did his EFI conversion, the tech folks at TrickFlow were very interested in how he converted their 351W manifold for use on the 351C. My understanding is that he sold TrickFlow on the merits and market for such a manifold and that they may soon offer such a manifold for the 351C.

I'll ask Jim for more info when I see him at this month's PCNC meeting at the end of the month.

Cheers!

The last word I received is that the project is on a back burner. I spoke with Jim last May. But if you have other news that would be great. If Trick Flow were to release that manifold, it would alter my engine building plans.

thanks Garth

LOL .... we are talking a 351W w/ C302B CLEVELAND heads ... with Kelly's intake .... technically which is it ??? LOL

I have to say ... the 5.0L factory intake ...has me thinking ... on how hard would it be to make a intake ... by cutting apart a C intake and a 5.0L intake ... and CLOANING the 2 together ??? Dreaming again ..

Ron

quote:

Originally posted by accobra:
LOL .... we are talking a 351W w/ C302B CLEVELAND heads ... with Kelly's intake .... technically which is it ???

this topic has been hijacked to the point, I don't know who you are writing to Ron, you should have used the quotes. The Trick Flow intake Garth refers to would be a 351C 2V intake. Jim Murch modified a 351W intake to fit his 351C 4V.

quote:

Originally posted by accobra:
I have to say ... the 5.0L factory intake ...has me thinking ... on how hard would it be to make a intake ... by cutting apart a C intake and a 5.0L intake ... and CLOANING the 2 together ??? Dreaming again ...

some welding, some machining, some drilling and some spacer plates, a 351W EFI intake (factory long runner style) could be made to fit your Clevor with C302 heads.

You would be amazed at how close in size the C302 ports & the Windsor intake runners are. They are even in the same location horizontally. The C302 ports are vertically higher. The intake bolt holes would require re-drilling.

I've already forgotten again if your block is 9.2" deck or 9.5" deck. The short deck may not need spacers.

below is a picture of some of the work required

cowboy from hell

PD said " Sure change the subject! We're talking about FI on 351c's not 351w's. Comon' now! "

I said " we are talking a 351W w/ C302B CLEVELAND heads ... with Kelly's intake."

Then I said " the 5.0L factory intake how hard would it be to make a intake ... by cutting apart a C intake and a 5.0L intake ... and CLOANING the 2 together.

George said " some welding, some machining, some drilling and some spacer plates, a 351W EFI intake (factory long runner style) could be made to fit your Clevor with C302 heads.

I said " Oh yes I forgot the 351W truck EFI .... that intake may need minor alteration ?? LOL thats why you get the big bucks George !! LOL

George said " You would be amazed at how close in size the C302 ports & the Windsor intake runners are. They are even in the same location horizontally. The C302 ports are vertically higher. The intake bolt holes would require re-drilling.

I said " I think you hit it on the head my c302B's are about 2.25 high and 1.5 wide .. which bolts would be redrilled ???

George said " I've already forgotten again if your block is 9.2" deck or 9.5" deck. The short deck may not need spacers.

I said" 9.2 deck ... but the factory Windsor blocks are 9.5 so it may need milling to get a 351W efi inatke to fit my block.

below is a picture of some of the work required ..... real nice.....

I said " so back to the old thread ... EFI. Good bad or not proven yet ???

Ron

I'm going to post some gasket overlay pictures in a little while.
After looking at the mismatch I don't see where this is a feasable modification.

In looking at the picture of the manifold, I presume that is cut for a 9.5 block?
If it is, there is no way there is .375" left to mill off of each flange. Even if there is, forget about the bolt holes.
You are going to have to weld them up and redrill them.

The best thing is to convince TrickFlow to build a manifold that will fit a 9.2 Cleveland block with real heads, not the 2v production heads.

The more I look at it, the more I like the EFI setup.

quote:

Originally posted by accobra:
...I said " I think you hit it on the head my c302B's are about 2.25 high and 1.5 wide .. which bolts would be redrilled ???

The bolt holes in the intake manifold ALL need re-drilling, my guess is 3/4" lower. I don't know if there's enough room, if there would be interference problems with the runners, etc. I'd like to mock one up and see how it looks. Gotta pick up a 351W EFI manifold off ebay. I may be way out in left field here.

quote:

Originally posted by accobra:
I said" 9.2 deck ... but the factory Windsor blocks are 9.5 so it may need milling to get a 351W efi inatke to fit my block...

The wide (9.5" deck) intake on the low deck block will cause the intake to sit higher in the "vee" and may align the intake runners with the raised ports of the C302 heads.

quote:

Originally posted by accobra:
...I said " so back to the old thread ... EFI. Good bad or not proven yet ???

EFI.....GOOD.......

quote:

Originally posted by PanteraDoug:
...In looking at the picture of the manifold, I presume that is cut for a 9.5 block?
If it is, there is no way there is .375" left to mill off of each flange. Even if there is, forget about the bolt holes.
You are going to have to weld them up and redrill them..

I've already shown you a picture of a 351W FI intake mounted on a 351C motor. It is possible. The bolt holes may be a problem with C302 heads as they will require significant lowering, but not an issue with 2V or 4V heads.

quote:

Originally posted by PanteraDoug:
...The best thing is to convince TrickFlow to build a manifold that will fit a 9.2 Cleveland block with real heads...

this will never happen, maybe we can coerce Kelly C! Kelly?

quote:

Originally posted by PanteraDoug:
... not the 2v production heads...

CHI & AFD alloy 2V heads will support 600 bhp

quote:

Originally posted by PanteraDoug:
...The more I look at it, the more I like the EFI setup...

I think you mean Independent Runner EFI

quote:

...The best thing is to convince TrickFlow to build a manifold that will fit a 9.2 Cleveland block with real heads... this will never happen, maybe we can coerce Kelly C! Kelly?

So many opportunties so little time......Sighhhhhhh....

-Kelly

http://pantera.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2250045562/m/1990087434

Here is a 351w with stock Ford EFI computer.

When Edelbrock makes the same manifold for the 351C it would be easy to do on a C.

" The more I look at it, the more I like the EFI setup."

Doug my thoughts exactly

quote:

Gotta pick up a 351W EFI manifold off ebay. I may be way out in left field here.

George .. I just Junked an 88 E350 van with one on it .. I knew I'd be kicking myself in the butt...

Ron

I think I'm going to see if I can pick one up and report back ... would the holes be redrilled in the C302B head or would the holes be redrilled in the Manifold >???

George so you think the ports are too high ... maybe on the 9.2 deck block the ports would bring the intake higher since its for a 9.5 and the front and rear would need metal added like the picc.....ah I see your pic shows that ... ok taking me some time ...but I got it ..

Thanks Ron

I suppose thatat the moment the only choice of an EFI manifold is to modify a 351w unit.

This is a picture of three intake gaskets overlaid upon each other.

The white one is for my A3 heads the smaller port with the rounded corners is the 351c 2v (iron head) and the third is a 69 351w gasket.

It is similar in size to the C302 port but you are looking at the same thing as I. Tell me that this is doable.

I don't mean to be a doubter but it looks like re-inventing the wheel to me.
Forget about the bolt holes lining up. Plan on welding them shut and starting over.

As a matter of fact it may be easier to redrill the manifold bolt holes in the heads.

A sheetmetal intake might be cheaper.

quote:

Originally posted by accobra:
...I think I'm going to see if I can pick one up and report back ...

Ron you don't want to use a Ford Truck EFI, you want to use the Trick Flow piece for the 351W. The Trick Flow version flows better and mates up with the better flowing Trick Flow uppers. You don't want to put that truck piece on your race motor with C302 heads, doesn't make sense. I'm going to look for a manifold too, so lets be sure to not bid against one another.

quote:

Originally posted by accobra:
...would the holes be redrilled in the C302B head or would the holes be redrilled in the Manifold ...

The holes are normallly redrilled in the manifold, but redrilling the head is perfectly possible and perfectly acceptable. If you redrill the head, you'll wind up using 351W or 351C 2V intake gaskets, instead of C302 gaskets. The intake bolt holes in a 351W are all oriented vertically. Not so with 351C/SVO heads & intakes. The middle bolts are vertical, just like the Windsor, but the outer bolts are perpendicular to the head. In this application, redrilling the heads for 351W bolt orientation would give the best chances of success. Some folks would get squeamish when it comes time to starting drilling holes in their $1500/each heads. Much less stressful to drill holes in a $300 manifold. The last consideration will be closing up the gap between the intake and the lifter valley rails of the block. You would end up with a C302 head Clevor, with a long runner FI manifold. Very unique. The large selection of intake & fuel system parts developed for fuel injected 5.0 Mustangs could then be used on your motor.

cowboy from hell

George / Doug ,

G ... dont worry ... I'm gonna look you go first ... give me the info on what trickflow intake we are looking for and I'll look for both of us. I got some young Mustang Freaks in the area .. I;m gonna ask around.

Brain storming here ... so the ideal thing would be to cut the intake flanges off a C302B intake and fit them to a 351W intake .. if it could be done .. of course port matching and probably adding to the rails on the block since the ports are raised would be needed.

R

Ron, look at the gaskets. The 351w port is about 1 inch lower.
Maybe George is right. A manifold for a 9.5 would sit higher I guess. Then all you would have to do is either mill the sides to equalize the top of the ports or machine unique thickness spacers.

If you look at the car that was done with the 2v heads, the assembly just fit under the stock screen.
If you raise this manifold 1 inch...guess what?

You can't mill the top down 1 inch, can you?

Yikes is all I can say.

Doug,

Is what your saying the TF intake is for a 9.5 deck ... I have a 9.2 deck with C302B's ... maybe the top of the port would be close to the right location ?? bolt holes and rails would need work ??? I'm gonna stop at my engine builder tomorrow and see what he has kicking to see if we could mock this up.

Ron

Yup. To make matters worse, you need to mill something like .375 off of each flange to fit it in the valley.
Look at the pics George posted of the manifold. Notice the thickness of the flanges? Ain't no way you can mill that much off of them. Your only hope is that the manifold comes close to matching your ports as a stock 9.5.

Good luck, you're going to need it.

Below is a picture of a Trick Flow 351W intake milled to fit in the valley of a 9.2" deck 351C block.

Ron's application is a 9.2" deck SVO/Windsor block equipped with C302 heads.

I took an hour this evening and did the calculations. I even remembered the trigonometry!

Fitting this same intake into Ron's application will be easier than the application in the picture in 2 ways. (1) Ron's is a Windsor block, not a Cleveland, the rear of the manifold does not require modification. (2) The manifold will sit exactly 37/64" vertically higher in the vee and requires no milling.

The application will require 5/16" adapter plates (spacers) between the intake & heads to make the manifold sit high enough to align the ports in the heads with the runners in the intake.

Mount the adapter plates to the heads with countersunk screws using the existing bosses in the heads; then drill & tap new bosses in the adapter plates to match up with the bolt holes in the Windsor intake manifold.

Ron I believe your application is as easy to accomplish as fabricating 5/16" adapter plates and valley rail spacers. Period. NO intake manifold modifications are required whatsoever.

cowboy from hell

Ah well some of us are a little slower then others. Something just doesnt add up ... the 9.5 dech 351W intake on a 351C 9.2 deck motor. But the pic tells the tale .. ?? Thanks George

Got it George I wrote the previuos post before I read your last post .. sounds good ...thanks for your expert mathematical skills. Trig. was a long time ago ..12th grade ...LOL

Ron

It must be that I am stupid. How is one going to anchor bolts into a 5/16" thick plate?
How far away are the centerlines of those bolt holes? 5/16"?
Using a 3/8" flat head bolt to hold the plate to the head, ok, got that.
Don't mind me I must be retarded. No I am definately retarded.

Without regard to mounting issues for the Windsor intake, out of curiosity, does anyone know the length and cross sectional area of the runner? Plenum volume?

Ron, what's the bore, stroke, and target compression ratio of your engine? Hows about the port volume, cross sectional area, and flow data, for your C302Bs? Cam?

Kelly

Kelly,

So far we are at 4.0 bore with std SVO 351G block, 3.75 stroke, 6.125 rod and target compression is 12 to 1. Port volume the builder has since these heads were used on a blown alcohol motor ( I dont have it, I could get it ) cross sectional I had given to you when I ordered the intake ..was it 2.1 x 1.65 ?? flow data I dont have ... cam has not been selected ..depends on what intake I use ... so how are they coming along ..

Thanks Ron

quote:

Originally posted by PanteraDoug:
...How is one going to anchor bolts into a 5/16" thick plate?...

Well, 5/16" isn't that thin really, plenty thick for the torque associated with an intake manifold. You can maximize thread engagement by using National Fine threads instead of National Coarse. But it does make sizing the length of the manifold bolts rather critical. If it were me, I would probably choose to use 1/2 thick plate for the adapters, and mill the intake a bit. There is also the need for a bit of port matching, but that is rather minimal. Overall, to run a long runner 351W efi intake on Rons 9.2 Windsor block with C302 heads looks to me to be a rather straight forward thing to do. Having dual SVO & Windsor bolt holes/bosses in the adapter plate is the approach that makes this possible.

cowboy from hell

quote:

Well, 5/16" isn't that thin really, plenty thick for the torque associated with an intake manifold. You can maximize thread engagement by using National Fine threads instead of National Coarse. But it does make sizing the length of the manifold bolts rather critical. If it were me, I would probably choose to use 1/2 thick plate for the adapters, and mill the intake a bit. There is also the need for a bit of port matching, but that is rather minimal. Overall, to run a long runner 351W efi intake on Rons 9.2 Windsor block with C302 heads looks to me to be a rather straight forward thing to do. Having dual SVO & Windsor bolt holes/bosses in the adapter plate is the approach that makes this possible.

I think the adaptation of the W intake may be a little more involved. I've spent a fair bit of time with 9.2 versus 9.5 intakes and bolt patterns, but that was always superimposing a 335 series pattern over itself in those two deck heights, not a Windsor pattern. I'd like to offer the following observations and comments:

It's true, applying the 9.5 deck intake to the 9.2 will raise and help align the ports on high port heads. The bolt patterns may be a totally different matter.

I think there are two approaches to this problem and they have been previously mentioned in this thread. -Mod the less expensive intake so it properly bolts to the heads or put a second pattern in the heads.

Offhand, I'd say weld up the holes in the intake and drill them in the right place to fit the head. You might try positioning the intake on the heads such that the ports align well (this may take adapter plates) insert a drill bushing in the Windsor mounting holes, and use it as a fixture to drill and tap the heads. You'd need to check to ensure that you don't punch a hole in the water jacket (most potential for this on the holes at each end) and that the holes don't partially overlap the old pattern. If you try to put a 9.5 335 series pattern over a 9.2 pattern, they will overlap.

Though I've seen heads with two 335 series, I've never attempted redrilling heads for a Windsor because (sorry fellas) there is no Windsor intake that's interesting enough to me to justify the effort. Based upon Ron's choices of parts so far, I doubt it's a good choice for his build. But.....

Even if you were to use the Windsor pattern, won't the bolts engage any adapter plate at an angle, say 45 degrees on the Windsor pattern? If this is so, you will have thread engagement on one side of the bolt. On something as thin as 5/16", won't that side hit the head about the same time the threads on the other side engage?

Though I can only see a couple of the mounting bosses, if you examine the modified Trickflow intake in this thread closely, you will see that the pad angle of these mounting boss has been modified to the 22.5 degree angle (Midway between perpendicular and 45 to the head) of the 3/8"-16 portion of the 335 series Cleveland pattern. If you look at the flange side of that Trickflow intake, it looks nice and clean. I'd have to guess is was welded, redrilled and milled because those holes use be at a different angle and would not have broken through the intake flange in that manner.

It's a lot of work and appears to have been well done. IMO, the intake would be better suited for a properly cammed 2V headed engine.

Kelly

Too many compromises for me at this point.

Ron certainly is in a better position to adapt the 351w intake.
Stock 351w gaskets are 1.360" x 2.140". Those are pretty close to his C302 heads.

The Trickflow may have more meat in the runner walls to port match then others. Maybe not.

Certainly I wouldn't touch those heads one iota.

He's running a 351w block.
No so my case.

I never said that I have the ultimate setup. What I said was that considering performance/dollar, mine is hard to equal.

With this much modification to the 351w EFI manifold to run on a 351c, Kelly's IR EFI is the best way to go, and it fits under the deck. A close second best is IDA throttle bodies on a Weber manifold. Especially if the deck is already cut.

Ofcourse if a nice EFI 351c hit the market tomorrow, that certainly could change things.
If a large comet or asteroid hit the earth it could also.

Just my very humble opinion gentlemen.

I agree ... there are advantages to both .. Kellys will fit like a glove on my motor .. but then there is MY OWN learning curve which I'm going to take that plunge and learn and set up the IR EFI. The advantage to the single plenum is DRIVEABILTY on the street. I'm not an expert ... but I'm going to learn soon.

Ron

I'm in agreement with all 3 of you gentlemen in one way or the other.

This is Doug's thread, and so I want to mention I've never written that the long runner EFI manifold would be a good match with his A3 heads, rather I suggested he convert to C302 heads. I read in what you've written Doug a strong liking for the long runner intake, and an equally strong dislike for having to roll your own manifold. That's cool and at least we've explored the idea and given you an idea what the gentlemen who have done so have gone through.

Kelly, You have a good handle on the situation, you are right the Cleveland intake bolts aren't perpendicaular to the head, but accuracy wasn't my intention, just painting a picture in the minds of the reader. While Thomas & Jim were able to mod the Trick Flow intake to work on the cleveland with the intake bolt holes in the standard location, I doubt the casting would allow redrilling for Cleveland angles 3/4" lower to match the bolt location on the SVO heads, hence why I believe using the spacer to adapt to the Windsor holes is the best alternative. Probably the only other alternative would be redrilling the heads. And as I wrote yesterday, if 5/16" is too thin, make the spacers 1/2" and mill the intake a bit. One advantageous thing about the vertical Windsor intake bolts, it allows the use of studs, and so it would be possible to install the studs in the spacers with loctite and grind away anything that pokes out the back side of the spacer.

As far as suitability for racing, Trick Flow intakes for the 351W have large volume runners that are 13.3" in length, the intake is available rated for 2000 to 7000 rpm on a 351 cubic inch motor with mounting for a 90 mm throttle body. If you need more, everybody, including Trick Flow, manufacture what they call "box intakes". a replacement upper that has no runners at all. The box intakes are normally rated for powerbands starting at 2500 or 3000 rpm and upwards. There are tons of guys out on the tracks around the world racing their cars with with long runner efi intake lowers and box intake uppers. Ron you're a drag racer, I know you've seen all the guys with motors like this. This includes big cubic inch Windsor strokers. Those intakes support all sorts of horsepower.

I'm also waiting for Trick Flow to produce that 2V lower for the Cleveland. I agree that would be the optimum situation. I think that intake mated to a pair of CHI or AFD alloy 2V heads would be the next hot set up for the majority of Panteras, Mustangs, etc. Combining the beneifits of EFI, improved throttle response of the small port head, and the ability to support up to 600 bhp out of the box. Sure they're not high port heads, but these new generation of 2V heads will support the kind of valve lift that is provided by the current crop of hydraulic roller cams.

take care,

George

I'm not in love with the EFI. You know they make 'em with horses, and flames and other silly stuff inscribed on the top.
What ever happen to the cougar with the leaping cat on it? Now there was an ensignia!

Nice kitty Mr.Pence.

One last point of signifigance here is that with a EFI FI system, a very radical camshaft with a lot of overlap can be run on the street.
That would not be so with the EFI and a common plenum.

Plenum reverb in theory no longer exists with IR EFI.
Since no cylinder is 100% efficient, there has got to be some unburned mixture or oil contamanent blown back into the intake system.
Maybe that's even a plus. Maybe it will lubricate the valve stems?
The question that was possed in another discussion is how signifigant is it?
It certainly won't have the reverse venturi flow problem that the IDA's do.

Probably the answer is that it will need to be determined by experimentation but I wouldn't be too surprized to find NASCAR or Prostock type camed engines idleing like a pusseycat with a IR EFI. It is certainly now in the relhm of possibilaties and evn very highly likey.

IR EFI opens up an entirely new era to radical street machines.

quote:

One last point of signifigance here is that with a EFI FI system, a very radical camshaft with a lot of overlap can be run on the street. That would not be so with the EFI and a common plenum. Plenum reverb in theory no longer exists with IR EFI.

You are absolutely correct. This is a point I have made before in regard to IR (and not limited to IR EFI) and attempted to make again earlier in the thread as well. I guess I just didn’t do so as well as you just did. But be advised, you can also lose the favorable affects this provides in a well engineered and highly tuned open plenum system. In practice, the latter is much harder to achieve for people (me for instance) that do not have the experience and resource of the pros. It’s also not unusual for IR systems to concede some peak horse power for the torque curves they yield. At the extreme, there can be a greater risk of fire with IR and big cams. Long duration and overlap can shove a lot of fuel out the top of the stack in certain cam profiles rpm ranges. Large fuel plumes above stacks are not an uncommon sight at the track.

quote:

Since no cylinder is 100% efficient, there has got to be some unburned mixture or oil contaminant blown back into the intake system.

Sort of depends on what you mean by 100% efficient. It’s not out of the question for engines in high states of tune to show volumetric efficiencies >100% VE in their sweet spot. You know your induction is very well chosen (or perhaps the other way around) for your engine combo when this is the case.

quote:

It certainly won't have the reverse venturi flow problem that the IDA's do.

Another reason why EFI and IR is especially desirable.

quote:

……..I wouldn't be too surprised to find NASCAR or Prostock type cammed engines idling like a pussycat with a IR EFI.

In fact, it’s one of the most common comments from people that have run common plenum induction systems and then change nothing except to switch to IR induction. It can be pretty eye opening and really go a long way to eliminating some of the undesirable street behavior caused by cylinder communication in the plenum area outside of the optimal rpm range. Add the instrumentation, sensing, control, and programming ease of a modern ECU and it gives you a lot to fight with.[/quote]

quote:

IR EFI opens up an entirely new era to radical street machines.

As I mentioned earlier, it can often be as much about who’s doing the build and tuning as what they’re building. Look at Kaase and his last EMC entry. About anything the guy touches sets the bar. For us mere mortals, I’ll take canted valve heads for their superior flow potential, IR EFI for the best street (maybe not limited to street depending upon the kind of racing we’re talking) tuning compromise, and as many cubes as I can reliably get into the build.

I just want to be clear on one more thing as well. I have not formed my opinions of IR induction based upon the desire to promote and sell systems or my intake. It's only hobby fellas. I have a day job. Others pioneered this long ago. I'm merely a disciple. Several other notable figures on this board and other forums asked me to replicate what I was doing for them. I've learned a great deal from them. I actually have far more requests IR EFI hardware than I can practically serve. The remarks that I have made are supported by my own experiences and more importantly those of others whose opinions and input I greatly value. As I have said, talented engine builders and tuners are tough to beat. I'm glad I know a few. I’d rather start with a combination that has the greatest potential.

Good luck with your EFI projects gents,

Kelly

I have been reading this thread with a lot of interest, but here goes a question. I have read that if you want a lot of low RPM torque, you run a long IR tube, if you want high RPN horsepower, you run a short stack. So does forced induction change all that? I mean if you are running a turbo or supercharger, would stack length matter that much? Or would shorter always be better in forced induction?

It doesn't apply to supercharging DT.
If you have a supercharger that kicks in at a low rpm then you want short runners in the intake.
If it doesn't kick in to say, 3,500rpm then you have sort of a hybrid induction in that you need the naturally asperated part of the system to provide as much torque as it can by using a long runner until the supercharger kicks in then you want as short runner as possible to reduce turbo lag.
The killer turbo systems use two small units that kick in right over idle, maybe 1,500 rpm.
The turbo has to be sized, or "tuned" to the set up to provide quick respose (that means a small turbo) and enough boost to go to the rpm limit that you want.
In your case that's about 12,000rpm right?
Good luck with that one.
You will need a set of staged turbos to kick in as you go through the rpm range.
I have a friend with a SB Chevy that runs in the 40psi boost range.
He has to let off of the accellerator to move the shift lever.
Last time I heard he was at 1000hp and kept breaking input shafts.
I just don't understand why, do you?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panterror:

As I mentioned earlier, it can often be as much about who’s doing the build and tuning as what they’re building. Look at Kaase and his last EMC entry. About anything the guy touches sets the bar. For us mere mortals, I’ll take canted valve heads for their superior flow potential, IR EFI for the best street (maybe not limited to street depending upon the kind of racing we’re talking) tuning compromise, and as many cubes as I can reliably get into the build.

Todays top engine technology is on tomorrows JC Whitney discount page.

A lot of "engineers" worry about the not invented here syndrome.
Not so the Japanese. They only steal the very best.

Technology control is like beauty, its fleeting. Not so ugliness, that's all the way to the bone.

Thanks Doug. I knew I could count on you to answer my question. I think of that friend of yours would just be a little gentler on the gas pedal, he might have his trannies longer. 1000 HP is only good for going for top end in high gear. Hammering the throttle and sidestepping the clutch with a thousand ponies on tap is just plain foolishness.

Doug,
If your friend is running 40 PSI boost on a SBC and only getting 1000 hp then he is doing something seriously wrong. A 40 psi boost level on a 350 should make over 2500 hp. You can get 1000 hp with only 15 psi. I get 600 hp with only 8 psi and no intercoolers.

And intake tuning also helps a supercharged car. The long and short runner still helps. Its just not easy to get long runners when you mount an 8-71 GMC blower so they are usually short. All a supercharging device does is to make the atmospheric pressure appear to be higher than normal. Since there is so much of a power increase, people may not know they are not getting all that could be had. Even a poor intake system will make more power than a good design N/A engine.

Don't know Dave, never went that route.

quote:

You will need a set of staged turbos to kick in as you go through the rpm range.

Or you can use a shot of nitrous until the turbos kick in. A good EFI should be able to handle the programming for this.

Hi guys, I spent some time with both Duane Hilborn and Gary Polled (twm) at PRI. Haven't made a final decision, but I have resolved myself to the fact that the deck is going to get cut. I guess a glass deck lid is a good investment. Anyway, I think the only IR EFI deal that fits under the screen is Dennis Quella's, and I believe this is accomplished by shortening a Weber intake, and installing injectors lower in the manifold. The Hilborn system looks incredible and with less sensors and no laptop time is quite attractive. The TWM as used on the roush motors has more "bling" and I guess more adjustability with the FAST or like ECU. Also spent time with Keith Craft (Ford engine builder here in the South) and was very impressed. Anyway, really enjoying the thread. Laughed my ass off at the Ferrari/Lambo cartoon. Got the Vincent on Ebay as we speak and if it makes reserve, perhaps I can mover forward on the engine. Dave Ferrato PS. finally got back in the house three weeks ago post Katrina. Hope to see the car soon as the furniture will soon be back in the house.

good news about the house Dave!Congratulations.

George