My last communication with them I asked them to verify if the intake would work on 4V heads. Its been over a week now. I'll shoot them another e-mail.
cowboy from hell
Julian,
here's the reply from Mark of AussieSpeed:
Hi George ,
I am still awaiting a reply from the pattern shop they are doing some small repairs to the pattern & checking port size to see if compatible with the 4V heads .Will have an answer in the next few days.
regards Mark
cowboy from hell
here's the reply from Mark of AussieSpeed:
Hi George ,
I am still awaiting a reply from the pattern shop they are doing some small repairs to the pattern & checking port size to see if compatible with the 4V heads .Will have an answer in the next few days.
regards Mark
cowboy from hell
George,
Thanks for the update, I'm keen now to see how this turns out. On the 4V note, I'm guessing this manifold wouldn't work if I chose to go with any of the raised port heads i.e. A3, C302B or CHI 3V correct or are port plates available?
Julian
Thanks for the update, I'm keen now to see how this turns out. On the 4V note, I'm guessing this manifold wouldn't work if I chose to go with any of the raised port heads i.e. A3, C302B or CHI 3V correct or are port plates available?
Julian
On the contrary my friend, any 2V intake manifold will bolt up to a 3V head. It takes lifter valley rail spacers sold by CHI for that purpose, plus some minor elongation of a few of the manifold bolt holes.
You see, the heads are a little bit wider than a standard 2V head, its as if spacers are "built in".
That should put a grin on your face!
Of course, every bit you raise the intake manifold, takes away that much clearance between the carbs & engine screen. My advice would be to use the CHI 2V heads to keep things as low as possible. Check out the flow figures. those heads will support 600 bhp, how much more does a feller need?
cowboy from hell
You see, the heads are a little bit wider than a standard 2V head, its as if spacers are "built in".
That should put a grin on your face!
Of course, every bit you raise the intake manifold, takes away that much clearance between the carbs & engine screen. My advice would be to use the CHI 2V heads to keep things as low as possible. Check out the flow figures. those heads will support 600 bhp, how much more does a feller need?
cowboy from hell
quote:Check out the flow figures. those heads will support 600 bhp, how much more does a feller need?
Well with all these aftermarket goodies on offer; a new Al Cleveland block in the wings, CHI heads etc. a fella may want to stretch the HP boundaries, besides MME elevated the stakes offering 725 HP and a 2 year guarantee.
Talking of high HP and as this is still a topic on Weber stacks, can you educate me a little. I recall reading Webers on an IR manifold can support up to maybe 500 HP and then they drop off as the Independent Runner manifold is restricted in per cyclinder flow rates in comparison to an open plenum type design. Is that true, valid to a point or urban myth?
Thanks,
Julian
The carbs become restrictive, not necessarily the manifold.
48ida's are used because of the torque trade off.
427 Fords had a set of 58mm carbs made for them for racing.
Probably the solution (for me) is going to be to go to IR EFI on a Weber manifold with larger bores. 50mm minimum, 55mm possibley.
It would seem that the EFI, with the CPU of course, is more adaptable.
I shall find out.
Also, I personally never found the Webers feeling restrictive.
I ran them before on a big port/quench chamber 12.0:1 engine.
They were about as torqie as the 750dp Holley on an Edelbrock Torker. There are those who will argue that isn't saying much.
4,500rpm was the magic number for that engine set up to explode, power wise.
Power under that was ok. It just didn't pull like a 427 does. Actually I think a 428cj is the king down low anyway. I think it is noticably more powerful down low then the 7 is.
All that doesn't matter a hill of beans.
A freakin' diesel will out pull them all to that point, but who wants a diesel? Not me.
The Webers restricted or not are exceptional in the upper rpms.
I put 4 car lengths on a Paxton car at over 100mph. He was so small in my rearview mirror, I needed a telescope to see him.
I think everyone is too dyno crazzy. They can't explain why a car with an engine with 100hp less on the dyno kicks the crap out of the other car.
The answer is there is a lot more to it then just HP.
It's complicated.
Incidently. Why put a 427 small block in front of a ZF that has notariaty for not being able to handle a 427FE torque? Torque is torque.
If you use it you're going to break a very expensive item.
Sorry. Just my 2 cents worth. But you asked...well you sort of did anyway.
48ida's are used because of the torque trade off.
427 Fords had a set of 58mm carbs made for them for racing.
Probably the solution (for me) is going to be to go to IR EFI on a Weber manifold with larger bores. 50mm minimum, 55mm possibley.
It would seem that the EFI, with the CPU of course, is more adaptable.
I shall find out.
Also, I personally never found the Webers feeling restrictive.
I ran them before on a big port/quench chamber 12.0:1 engine.
They were about as torqie as the 750dp Holley on an Edelbrock Torker. There are those who will argue that isn't saying much.
4,500rpm was the magic number for that engine set up to explode, power wise.
Power under that was ok. It just didn't pull like a 427 does. Actually I think a 428cj is the king down low anyway. I think it is noticably more powerful down low then the 7 is.
All that doesn't matter a hill of beans.
A freakin' diesel will out pull them all to that point, but who wants a diesel? Not me.
The Webers restricted or not are exceptional in the upper rpms.
I put 4 car lengths on a Paxton car at over 100mph. He was so small in my rearview mirror, I needed a telescope to see him.
I think everyone is too dyno crazzy. They can't explain why a car with an engine with 100hp less on the dyno kicks the crap out of the other car.
The answer is there is a lot more to it then just HP.
It's complicated.
Incidently. Why put a 427 small block in front of a ZF that has notariaty for not being able to handle a 427FE torque? Torque is torque.
If you use it you're going to break a very expensive item.
Sorry. Just my 2 cents worth. But you asked...well you sort of did anyway.
quote:Originally posted by Joules5:
...besides MME elevated the stakes offering 725 HP and a 2 year guarantee...
Unless you are involved in true competitive racing where a trophy, prize money or a title are at stake, what does it matter how much bhp your motor makes? What matters is the powerband and throttle response. Doug makes a point worth repeating over and over, you've got a 500 bhp radiator (at best), a 550 bhp transmission, and a chassis prone to cracking. In 1972, Panteras racing in the world endurance racing series were able to attain top speeds of 170 mph with 500 bhp motors. 500 bhp is enough to spin a 335 section rear street tire for hundreds of feet. On the street, where we accelerate from stop lights, the car with the best low rpm torque, throttle response, and that hook the tires up the best with the asphalt will win the race. I've always advised owners building street motors to shoot for a powerband of 2000 to 6000 rpm, and the rest be damned.
quote:Originally posted by Joules5:
...Webers on an IR manifold can support up to maybe 500 HP and then they drop off as the Independent Runner manifold is restricted in per cyclinder flow rates in comparison to an open plenum type design. Is that true, valid to a point or urban myth...
I don't have experience with Webers on a 7 liter motor. I have read before that the 427 FE motors used for road racing in the sixties did have Webers larger than 48 mm. On a smaller motor the 48 mm variety provide plenty of capacity. Keep in mind the reason road racers run Webers is for throttle response coming out of a corner. Power quality, not quantity. Regardless of the size of your motor, if they get you to 6000 rpm before flattening out, that's good enough for a street motor in my book.
Lets play with some numbers. These are rounded off numbers. A Weber 48 mm carb flows about 600 cfm, thats 300 cfm per venturi, or cylinder. 300 cubic feet is over 500,000 cubic inches. A single cylinder of a 427 cubic inch motor displaces 53 cubic inches. Running at 6000 rpm, that 53 cubic inch cylinder will inhale 160,000 cubic inches of air per minute. The single venturi of the 48 mm Weber can supply 3 times that much air. There's more to it than this of course, such as depression at wide open throttle, but you get the picture.
To summarize, the reason to equip a motor with Webers is for the throttle response, the pull coming out of a corner or off the line, the looks, the sound. Whatever you might give up in maximum bhp will not be missed, unless you take your car to a dyno day shoot out. On dyno day, the guys with large single four barrels on a high rise manifold will probably win.
Hum, Webers flatten out at 6,000? Mine I would say would continue to pull, and pull HARD to around 7,200. They wanted to go so bad that I had to put a rev limiter on the engine.
I found 42mm chokes about right. 37mm chokes would flatten out in the low 6,000's, yes. Just like a rev limiter. The engine just wouldn't go anymore.
I also ran 44mm chokes and didn't like them. It was worse then a 3 liter BMW. It was flat across then entire rpm range with seemingly no ceiling, and that's dangerous to the engine. I couldn't feel a power peak. It was just flat.
You couldn't even tell what rpm you were at without a tach.
It is rumored that the 58mm IDA's for the Big Ford were made in serial numbered sets. I've only seen one set, and one intake manifold in mag.
I'm sure there are more but they are probably in a warehouse in England or Europe. You know like the one in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Labeled property of Ford, and part of the GT40 racing program. Probably.
They are a love hate relationship. When they are bad it's living hell, but when they are right they are nothing short of amazing. Maybe even orgasmic.
Because they change with the weather, be advised, they are a lot of work.
The promis of the Webers was that at full throttle they pulled like fuel injection.
Guess what? Now we have IR EFI that pulls like fuel injection at every rpm. Amazing. Ain't electricity great?
I found 42mm chokes about right. 37mm chokes would flatten out in the low 6,000's, yes. Just like a rev limiter. The engine just wouldn't go anymore.
I also ran 44mm chokes and didn't like them. It was worse then a 3 liter BMW. It was flat across then entire rpm range with seemingly no ceiling, and that's dangerous to the engine. I couldn't feel a power peak. It was just flat.
You couldn't even tell what rpm you were at without a tach.
It is rumored that the 58mm IDA's for the Big Ford were made in serial numbered sets. I've only seen one set, and one intake manifold in mag.
I'm sure there are more but they are probably in a warehouse in England or Europe. You know like the one in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Labeled property of Ford, and part of the GT40 racing program. Probably.
They are a love hate relationship. When they are bad it's living hell, but when they are right they are nothing short of amazing. Maybe even orgasmic.
Because they change with the weather, be advised, they are a lot of work.
The promis of the Webers was that at full throttle they pulled like fuel injection.
Guess what? Now we have IR EFI that pulls like fuel injection at every rpm. Amazing. Ain't electricity great?
> Talking of high HP and as this is still a topic on Weber stacks,
> can you educate me a little. I recall reading Webers on an IR manifold
> can support up to maybe 500 HP and then they drop off as the Independent
> Runner manifold is restricted in per cyclinder flow rates in comparison
> to an open plenum type design. Is that true, valid to a point or urban
> myth?
That statement is based upon David Vizard's testing on a 350 SBC.
Vizard found that 48mm Webers on a down draft IR intake will make
more peak HP up to around 480 HP, compared to a plenum intake and
4 barrel carb. Beyond that, a larger 4 barrel carb can make more
peak power but will usually be down on power in the lower rev ranges.
BTW, Vizard ran 48mm Webers on his pickup truck due to the better
power curve.
Another guy recently tested Webers against a Victor Jr single plane
on his 331 Windsor. The engine had a 3.25" stroke, 4.030" bore,
5.4" rod, 11:1 compression ratio, Victor Jrheads that flowed 301.5
CFM intake and 200.5 CFM @ 0.6" valve lift, custom solid flat tappet
cam 262/264 degrees duration @ 0.050", 0.592"/0.544" lift. Results
were:
.....Holley..Weber
RPM..Tq..Hp..Tq..Hp
4000 338 257 382 291
4400 371 311 400 335
4800 398 364 449 411
5200 411 407 441 436
5600 413 440 438 467
6000 412 470 434 496
6400 400 488 422 515
6800 401 519 399 517
7000 390 534 386 514
The Webers make better power until 6800 RPM. While the peak
is lower, the average between shift points is higher so the
car will accelerate faster with the Webers.
> The carbs become restrictive, not necessarily the manifold.
Correct. Larger Webers will increase the point at which
the carbs becime restrictive. When Ford was testing IR
set-ups for Pro Stock (using the Autolite in-lines), they
maxxed out the flow of the larger inlines and resorted to a
mini-plenum between the IR carbs and intake.
> 48ida's are used because of the torque trade off.
>
> 427 Fords had a set of 58mm carbs made for them for racing.
Yup. Shelby ran the 48's on 289's and Ford had a batch of 58's
for 427's. The 58's were rare but there are guys like Gene Berg
that make similar big bore Webers today.
> Also, I personally never found the Webers feeling restrictive.
I doubt it's the sort of thing you'd feel in the seat of your pants.
It's only by comparison testing you'd notice. I recently drove a 408W
with a set of 48mm Webers in an aluminum bodied Kirkham Cobra replica.
It supposedly had 550 HP and I believe all horses were present and
accounted for. I've driven a Superfromance Cobra replica that had a
dyno-verified 556 HP 418W that had a Victor Jr single plane and Race
Demon 4 barrel carb. The Weber-equipped Kirkham felt much stronger,
due in no small part to 400 lbs less weight, I'm sure, but the Webers
performed flawlessly. No flat spots anywhere in the powerband, pulling
strongly from 2000 RPM to my 6000 RPM shift point. Power was not
dropping off at that point. I was impressed.
> Power under that was ok. It just didn't pull like a 427 does.
> Actually I think a 428cj is the king down low anyway. I think
> it is noticably more powerful down low then the 7 is.
None of that is due to the bore and stroke differences. Torque
follows displacement, the product of bore and stroke. Shorter
stroke and bigger bore is easier on the components at high RPM
and permits better breathing (larger valves or less unshrouding
for the same valve area). In the case of 427 and 428, it's the
tuning that makes the difference, particularly the 428CJ cam.
> I think everyone is too dyno crazzy.
The dyno is a tool. Used correctly (calibrated and corrected for
the same day), you can learn a lot.
> They can't explain why a car with an engine with 100hp less on the
> dyno kicks the crap out of the other car.
It is torque at the rear wheels that accelerates a vehicle. If an
engine averages 100 HP more betweeen shift points than another
engine (on the same dyno under the same conditions), it will out
accelerate the other when installed in the same vehicle.
> Incidently. Why put a 427 small block in front of a ZF that has
> notariaty for not being able to handle a 427FE torque? Torque is
> torque.
On a street car, the tires are the fuse. If you break traction at
400 ft-lbs, it doesn't really matter if your engine makes 600 ft-lbs.
The transaxle won't see it. That said, there are people who can
break an anvil in a sandbox and lose all the pieces.
Dan Jones
> can you educate me a little. I recall reading Webers on an IR manifold
> can support up to maybe 500 HP and then they drop off as the Independent
> Runner manifold is restricted in per cyclinder flow rates in comparison
> to an open plenum type design. Is that true, valid to a point or urban
> myth?
That statement is based upon David Vizard's testing on a 350 SBC.
Vizard found that 48mm Webers on a down draft IR intake will make
more peak HP up to around 480 HP, compared to a plenum intake and
4 barrel carb. Beyond that, a larger 4 barrel carb can make more
peak power but will usually be down on power in the lower rev ranges.
BTW, Vizard ran 48mm Webers on his pickup truck due to the better
power curve.
Another guy recently tested Webers against a Victor Jr single plane
on his 331 Windsor. The engine had a 3.25" stroke, 4.030" bore,
5.4" rod, 11:1 compression ratio, Victor Jrheads that flowed 301.5
CFM intake and 200.5 CFM @ 0.6" valve lift, custom solid flat tappet
cam 262/264 degrees duration @ 0.050", 0.592"/0.544" lift. Results
were:
.....Holley..Weber
RPM..Tq..Hp..Tq..Hp
4000 338 257 382 291
4400 371 311 400 335
4800 398 364 449 411
5200 411 407 441 436
5600 413 440 438 467
6000 412 470 434 496
6400 400 488 422 515
6800 401 519 399 517
7000 390 534 386 514
The Webers make better power until 6800 RPM. While the peak
is lower, the average between shift points is higher so the
car will accelerate faster with the Webers.
> The carbs become restrictive, not necessarily the manifold.
Correct. Larger Webers will increase the point at which
the carbs becime restrictive. When Ford was testing IR
set-ups for Pro Stock (using the Autolite in-lines), they
maxxed out the flow of the larger inlines and resorted to a
mini-plenum between the IR carbs and intake.
> 48ida's are used because of the torque trade off.
>
> 427 Fords had a set of 58mm carbs made for them for racing.
Yup. Shelby ran the 48's on 289's and Ford had a batch of 58's
for 427's. The 58's were rare but there are guys like Gene Berg
that make similar big bore Webers today.
> Also, I personally never found the Webers feeling restrictive.
I doubt it's the sort of thing you'd feel in the seat of your pants.
It's only by comparison testing you'd notice. I recently drove a 408W
with a set of 48mm Webers in an aluminum bodied Kirkham Cobra replica.
It supposedly had 550 HP and I believe all horses were present and
accounted for. I've driven a Superfromance Cobra replica that had a
dyno-verified 556 HP 418W that had a Victor Jr single plane and Race
Demon 4 barrel carb. The Weber-equipped Kirkham felt much stronger,
due in no small part to 400 lbs less weight, I'm sure, but the Webers
performed flawlessly. No flat spots anywhere in the powerband, pulling
strongly from 2000 RPM to my 6000 RPM shift point. Power was not
dropping off at that point. I was impressed.
> Power under that was ok. It just didn't pull like a 427 does.
> Actually I think a 428cj is the king down low anyway. I think
> it is noticably more powerful down low then the 7 is.
None of that is due to the bore and stroke differences. Torque
follows displacement, the product of bore and stroke. Shorter
stroke and bigger bore is easier on the components at high RPM
and permits better breathing (larger valves or less unshrouding
for the same valve area). In the case of 427 and 428, it's the
tuning that makes the difference, particularly the 428CJ cam.
> I think everyone is too dyno crazzy.
The dyno is a tool. Used correctly (calibrated and corrected for
the same day), you can learn a lot.
> They can't explain why a car with an engine with 100hp less on the
> dyno kicks the crap out of the other car.
It is torque at the rear wheels that accelerates a vehicle. If an
engine averages 100 HP more betweeen shift points than another
engine (on the same dyno under the same conditions), it will out
accelerate the other when installed in the same vehicle.
> Incidently. Why put a 427 small block in front of a ZF that has
> notariaty for not being able to handle a 427FE torque? Torque is
> torque.
On a street car, the tires are the fuse. If you break traction at
400 ft-lbs, it doesn't really matter if your engine makes 600 ft-lbs.
The transaxle won't see it. That said, there are people who can
break an anvil in a sandbox and lose all the pieces.
Dan Jones
quote:Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:
That said, there are people who can
break an anvil in a sandbox and lose all the pieces.
Dan Jones
You know those guys too?
As far as having a 725hp sb it's a ego thing. You will never get it to the ground in a Pantera.
If you want to go fast in a Pantera 450hp and a 5.38:1 rear gets you into the 9's in the 1/4. At least it did with Gary Halls Burgandy Express.
Considering what I'm seeing others spend that's what I call cost effective and intelligent.
George and Dan hit it right on...look at the size of the Weber venturi times eight, then do the same on a 750, 850 or larger Holley...the volume flowing through the Webers will be greater how there can be restriction I don't know.
I had a McLaren M12 Can Am car that I vintage raced with a little 6 litre small block Chevy with Chevy's best competetion heads ported, using 48 IDA's choked down! to 42mm for better lowend power, (I would guess the heads didn't flow as much as the 351C ports just because they were physically smaller). That Chevy small block ran like a scolded ape and was probably putting out (only) 550-570+/- of very usable power, no flat spots and pulled like a son of a gun from 2000 rpm up to 6500 (what a rush with the acceleration and sounds!), redlining at over 7000.
At the very serious vintage events where you had Porsche 917-10's with legends such as Folmer and Ginther driving (they drove the cars for Vasek Polak team in the actual Can Am series) I had Dick Smith drive, famous for driving the winningest SC 427 Cobra in history(a Ford factory effort) Dick Smith still owns #198....he said he couldn't believe how hard the car accelerated through all the gears...he said "it accelerates as hard in 4th and 5th gear as it does in gears 1-3". Of course the car only weighed 1700-1900 pounds (depending on fuel weight) which allowed the horsepower to be put to the ground through 16 inch wide Goodyear Eagle slicks (Dan's comment about the weak link/fuse, ie: transaxle and tires is very appropriate...great analogy Dan!). We built the motor for usable horsepower (not peak horsepower from 6500-7500 rpm) on road courses so that it wouldn't break every other time you pulled out of the pits (which most of the other cars were doing). I also chose not to go with a big block...more weight, worse handling. The motor never broke nor did the LG 600 transaxle that was put behind all the big block motors. Dick Smith also drove in the Can Am series in an identical McLaren M12 with the only "Ford 427" (don't recall if it was a mid or high rise motor) run in the CanAm series and the car CONSTANTLY broke the same LG600 transaxle because of the massive torque from the Ford 427...this wasn't a problem with the big block Chevy's (less torque I assume) which dominated the series until the turbocharged 917's (turbo 5 litre) came along.
If the LG 600 Transaxle (straight cut gears, non syncro box) had problems with the Ford 427 torque, the ZF will absolutely disentegrate if you can get tires to hold the horsepower and the additional 1200 pounds of car...I don't think there is enough wheel well to put that much tire on the ground, however.
If you go with the 427 with the Webers, (WO BOY what fun!!!) take some drifting/driving courses because my guess is you'll be spinning tires up into the 80's (mph)easy in a straight line and well over that in the corners.
I had a McLaren M12 Can Am car that I vintage raced with a little 6 litre small block Chevy with Chevy's best competetion heads ported, using 48 IDA's choked down! to 42mm for better lowend power, (I would guess the heads didn't flow as much as the 351C ports just because they were physically smaller). That Chevy small block ran like a scolded ape and was probably putting out (only) 550-570+/- of very usable power, no flat spots and pulled like a son of a gun from 2000 rpm up to 6500 (what a rush with the acceleration and sounds!), redlining at over 7000.
At the very serious vintage events where you had Porsche 917-10's with legends such as Folmer and Ginther driving (they drove the cars for Vasek Polak team in the actual Can Am series) I had Dick Smith drive, famous for driving the winningest SC 427 Cobra in history(a Ford factory effort) Dick Smith still owns #198....he said he couldn't believe how hard the car accelerated through all the gears...he said "it accelerates as hard in 4th and 5th gear as it does in gears 1-3". Of course the car only weighed 1700-1900 pounds (depending on fuel weight) which allowed the horsepower to be put to the ground through 16 inch wide Goodyear Eagle slicks (Dan's comment about the weak link/fuse, ie: transaxle and tires is very appropriate...great analogy Dan!). We built the motor for usable horsepower (not peak horsepower from 6500-7500 rpm) on road courses so that it wouldn't break every other time you pulled out of the pits (which most of the other cars were doing). I also chose not to go with a big block...more weight, worse handling. The motor never broke nor did the LG 600 transaxle that was put behind all the big block motors. Dick Smith also drove in the Can Am series in an identical McLaren M12 with the only "Ford 427" (don't recall if it was a mid or high rise motor) run in the CanAm series and the car CONSTANTLY broke the same LG600 transaxle because of the massive torque from the Ford 427...this wasn't a problem with the big block Chevy's (less torque I assume) which dominated the series until the turbocharged 917's (turbo 5 litre) came along.
If the LG 600 Transaxle (straight cut gears, non syncro box) had problems with the Ford 427 torque, the ZF will absolutely disentegrate if you can get tires to hold the horsepower and the additional 1200 pounds of car...I don't think there is enough wheel well to put that much tire on the ground, however.
If you go with the 427 with the Webers, (WO BOY what fun!!!) take some drifting/driving courses because my guess is you'll be spinning tires up into the 80's (mph)easy in a straight line and well over that in the corners.
Yes I know of Dick Smith. He blew past me enough times at the SAAC track events in the Cobra. He drives like he has a death wish. (No insult intended Dick).
BB Cobras are difficult to drive fast for me. It's like driving in the snow. The tires never stop breaking traction.
I remember a quote from Bob Bondurant about this subject.
Paraphrasing him, he said, he thought the perfect engine to run in a Cobra was a 351.
He thought the 289 needed more and the 427 was too much.
The first Pantera I ever drove was a Webered 71.
I thought the car was very easy to drive at speed. Big speed. Not to insult the Cobra guys here either and start a big fight here, but I thought it was as fast as a 427 Cobra. At least as fast.'nough said.
Yes. I agree with you guys about the Webers. The cfm of a set with 42mm chokes is actually around 2400 cfm.
The Holley chart can not explain why they work when a single 4v of around 715cfm is sufficient to 8000 rpm on a 351.
I think that there is no point in a Pantera running 427 cubes or 700+ hp.
My personal opinion is that even if the car doesn't break, either you can't get it to the ground, or if you could the car would be undriveable except maybe in a straight line.
Again my point is that if you really look at the numbers. Panteras in the 450 to 500 hp range were faster 15 years ago then the current crop of dyno breakers are now.
To each his own I suppose.
Interesting remark about the Ford 427 vs the Chevy BB. Funny actually.
BB Cobras are difficult to drive fast for me. It's like driving in the snow. The tires never stop breaking traction.
I remember a quote from Bob Bondurant about this subject.
Paraphrasing him, he said, he thought the perfect engine to run in a Cobra was a 351.
He thought the 289 needed more and the 427 was too much.
The first Pantera I ever drove was a Webered 71.
I thought the car was very easy to drive at speed. Big speed. Not to insult the Cobra guys here either and start a big fight here, but I thought it was as fast as a 427 Cobra. At least as fast.'nough said.
Yes. I agree with you guys about the Webers. The cfm of a set with 42mm chokes is actually around 2400 cfm.
The Holley chart can not explain why they work when a single 4v of around 715cfm is sufficient to 8000 rpm on a 351.
I think that there is no point in a Pantera running 427 cubes or 700+ hp.
My personal opinion is that even if the car doesn't break, either you can't get it to the ground, or if you could the car would be undriveable except maybe in a straight line.
Again my point is that if you really look at the numbers. Panteras in the 450 to 500 hp range were faster 15 years ago then the current crop of dyno breakers are now.
To each his own I suppose.
Interesting remark about the Ford 427 vs the Chevy BB. Funny actually.
Doug your comment about Dick Smith brings a grin to my face and many great memories...he is a character and one hell of a driver. He's lucky to be alive the way he drives that Cobra. I remember many of his racing stories and became a true believer is his abilities when in my McLaren, he went from forth or fifth to first place in one pass at the end of the Riverside straight under braking, passing a number of other McLarens and two 917's!...one with Ginther driving the other with Folmer driving!!! So no one could say the drivers weren't top notch.
There is a reason that he was A production champ.
There are three things need to succede at anything.
Talent, oportunity and desire. He is 100% at all three.
I just wonder if he relaizes he isn't still flying the plane though?
There are three things need to succede at anything.
Talent, oportunity and desire. He is 100% at all three.
I just wonder if he relaizes he isn't still flying the plane though?
> look at the size of the Weber venturi times eight, then do the same
> on a 750, 850 or larger Holley...the volume flowing through the
> Webers will be greater how there can be restriction I don't know.
Each Weber barrel on an independent runner manifold operates
intermittantly, only when that cylinder is on its intake stroke.
With a plenum underneath the Holley 4 barrel, the carb operates
continuously as there's always an intake stroke somewhere in the
plenum providing a positive pressure differential.
> Yes. I agree with you guys about the Webers. The cfm of a set with
> 42mm chokes is actually around 2400 cfm.
For equivalent flow, an IR carb needs to be roughly 3 times the
CFM rating of a plenum carb, for the reason noted above. This
varies somewhat with the type of plenum. A split plenum intake
like a dual plane requires more carb (rated) flow than an open
plenum single plane does.
> The Holley chart can not explain why they work when a single 4v
> of around 715cfm is sufficient to 8000 rpm on a 351.
Because an implicit assumption of the Holley chart is a plenum
intake is being used. Put 2400 CFM of Webers on a plenum intake
and they wouldn't work well at all. On an IR intake, they do.
Dan Jones
> on a 750, 850 or larger Holley...the volume flowing through the
> Webers will be greater how there can be restriction I don't know.
Each Weber barrel on an independent runner manifold operates
intermittantly, only when that cylinder is on its intake stroke.
With a plenum underneath the Holley 4 barrel, the carb operates
continuously as there's always an intake stroke somewhere in the
plenum providing a positive pressure differential.
> Yes. I agree with you guys about the Webers. The cfm of a set with
> 42mm chokes is actually around 2400 cfm.
For equivalent flow, an IR carb needs to be roughly 3 times the
CFM rating of a plenum carb, for the reason noted above. This
varies somewhat with the type of plenum. A split plenum intake
like a dual plane requires more carb (rated) flow than an open
plenum single plane does.
> The Holley chart can not explain why they work when a single 4v
> of around 715cfm is sufficient to 8000 rpm on a 351.
Because an implicit assumption of the Holley chart is a plenum
intake is being used. Put 2400 CFM of Webers on a plenum intake
and they wouldn't work well at all. On an IR intake, they do.
Dan Jones
Here's a link to some of photo's of Dick Smiths McLaren with the Ford 427...
http://www.photoessayist.com/canam/images/laguna-seca-c-01.JPG
fficial%26sa%3DG" TARGET=_blank>http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.photo...US
fficial%26sa%3DG
fficial%26sa%3DG" TARGET=_blank>http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.photo...USfficial%26sa%3DG
http://www.photoessayist.com/canam/images/laguna-seca-c-01.JPG
fficial%26sa%3DG" TARGET=_blank>http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.photo...US
fficial%26sa%3DGfficial%26sa%3DG" TARGET=_blank>http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.photo...US
fficial%26sa%3DG
The latest news about the Cain intake manifold, it was designed for 2V heads only, but the new owner (Aussie Speed) has decided to modify the intake so that it is capable of working with either head (2V or 4V). This shall delay its availability.
Mark had given me a price, I've now written him & asked if this change to the manifold shall raise the price, and when the manifolds shall be available.
Stay tuned. The price he had given me was below the budget Julian & I had established. I should have the final info in a day or two.
cowboy from hell
Mark had given me a price, I've now written him & asked if this change to the manifold shall raise the price, and when the manifolds shall be available.
Stay tuned. The price he had given me was below the budget Julian & I had established. I should have the final info in a day or two.
cowboy from hell
Hum...did you say cheaper? How about modifying it to work with any head?
I have started a "group buy" thread in the member news forum about this intake manifold, please refer there.
http://pantera.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8250045562/m/2750086284
cowboy from hell
http://pantera.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8250045562/m/2750086284
cowboy from hell
George,
Could these be adapted for a sequential fuel injection system? Throttle bodies?
Jeff
6559
Could these be adapted for a sequential fuel injection system? Throttle bodies?
Jeff
6559