Parker Funnelweb Intake Manifold - Thoughts?

First off, I was amazed that it fit under the engine screen. But upon closer inspection, it appears that there is no air cleaner on top of the carburetor. Not my first choice in an induction system.

does anyone think there is an air cleaner somehow hidden underneath there?

Larry

There is an air cleaner - they removed the center screen and added a raised shroud to cover it. The manifold has a height of 6 7/8" from the manifold base to the carb pad. My car does not use the center screen now so not an issue for me.

OK, first photo has stock screen and no air cleaner.

Second photo has modified screen with air cleaner.

Got it.

Larry

For looks it is not a disappointment. Don't expect anything significant as far as added performance unless you are going to regularly run over 8,000 rpm, because that is what those manifolds are designed for.

They are essentially single 4v tunnel ram manifolds.

I have not run the Parker but I did run the Ford Motorsport A341. It is VERY similar.

Considering that it's intent was superior very high rpm performance, it works well.

It is about the same overall height as the Parker. As such, it is made with a level carb pad, not cut 17° like would be used in an American V-8. Installed that way in the Pantera, it looked silly so I had it milled like a normal American V8 would have been, and removed the center section to the screen for clearances.

If you drive the car in cold weather at all, expect frost on the runners and the carb. In fact under around 40° F, it will tend to ice up the carb. It won't get any engine heat as the runners of the manifold will act as a heat sink.

Engine builders will also tell you that to get the maximum power out of them that you need to do flow bench work on the plenum and runners.

Also if you buy one, make sure they are for the heads you are using on the car. The Australian "Clevelands" tend to be designed for the 2v heads and the runners for those are significantly different then the 4v heads.

Good luck! Looks great!

Appreciate the info so far!

Speaking to the owner of the company (in Australia) he has a 351C with 4V heads, from USA, that he used for his design basis (manifold was designed over 25 years ago). He also stated the need for some porting, port tongues, proper cam, etc to get the full benefit out of it.

I'd like to replace my current stock manifold, and was going to get the Edelbrock RPM Air Gap, but stumbled upon the Parker. I know the Air Gap is the better choice - but still considering the Parker.

@Rob Fridenberg posted:

Appreciate the info so far!

Speaking to the owner of the company (in Australia) he has a 351C with 4V heads, from USA, that he used for his design basis (manifold was designed over 25 years ago). He also stated the need for some porting, port tongues, proper cam, etc to get the full benefit out of it.

I'd like to replace my current stock manifold, and was going to get the Edelbrock RPM Air Gap, but stumbled upon the Parker. I know the Air Gap is the better choice - but still considering the Parker.

It depends on what you mean by better but you determine that. Whatever you choose, choose for no regrets.

@panteradoug posted:

It depends on what you mean by better but you determine that. Whatever you choose, choose for no regrets.

LOL - right! The best part - since these are dry manifolds and no dist hole, not too bad to swap out if the regrets take over! 

@Rob Fridenberg posted:

LOL - right! The best part - since these are dry manifolds and no dist hole, not too bad to swap out if the regrets take over!

That's my favorite part about a C, just needs a lot of silicone.

Dear Rob,

          I have an engine with a Parker Funnelweb 4V intake.  It does require use of port-stuffers in the intake ports for optimal function.   I have about 4-5000 miles on it including last year’s road trip to the POCA Rally in Phoenix.  It runs well and is visually striking.   Using a CR of 9.2:1; a custom cam chosen with Dan Jones, ported and port-matched iron 4V quench heads and a custom-built carb the dyno test showed 488 hp at about 6000 and 476 at 6800 rpm.   At the lower end, 3000 rpm showed 200 hp and 376 ft-lbs or torque.  The block is not stroked and is thirty-over.  The other Pantera uses a similar engine with a CR or 9.75:1 and a Holley Strip Dominator intake.  Both have been driven on winter days with temps in the thirties without issues other than a longer warm-up.

            Yes, use of the Funnelweb precludes the stock engine cover especially with use of a carb spacer.  Also, a disadvantage is limited rear vision.

          I am re-building an Aussie-headed engine and have a Parker Funnelweb 2V.  It is, I think, about an inch lower than the 4V and does not require port-stuffers.  Based on the dyno results of a friend’s similar engine using a Weiand intake, I am expecting 450 hp or so on the dyno.

          Beware of Parker Funnelweb Chinese knock-offs.  The reported machine work required to make their fitment and function is expensive and makes the low purchase price sour quickly……and they probably don’t function as well as the real thing.

          Warmest regards, Chuck Engles

Thanks for the info Chuck - beautiful engine. Looks like you polished the funnelweb too! Good to hear that it will function reasonably in colder temps as if it 45 + degrees and the roads are dry in Michigan - the Pantera comes out!

I have been speaking directly with Terry Parker at length now (nice guy!) - he still makes the manifold (4V and 2V versions) but perhaps in more limited quantities now, so I would be buying it from the maker! Total charge air freight to my house is approx $700 USD, so similar to the cost of the polished Edelbrock RPM Air Gap that I am also considering.

Do you have a pic of your engine as installed - curious to see what your air cleaner set up looks like.

Also - how do you hook up your PB Booster vacuum, since the manifold does not have any provision to this? Terry recommended a carb spacer, but I am trying to get away adding another 1" of height to the system! I currently use the carb port for my PCV system - for which I could tee off of??

Dear Rob,

          You asked for some pictures.....

           The road shot show the height of the air cleaner relative to the center rear view mirror.   

            The engine bay shot shows that with the one inch carb spacer, the top of the Holley looks like it is about an inch above the level of the side engine covers.

             The last shot shows the base of the Holley is about level with the base of the rear glass.  It shows the one inch carb spacer and the left side fitting for the PCV.     There is a similar one on the front of the carb spacer for the brake vacuum.  The is no provision on the intake for any vacuum fitting.  None of my custom carbs have a fitting for PCV or brake use. 

             The dyno sheets showed that the four-hole carb spacer gained about 4-5 hp over the open spacer.  Unfortunately, I can't find a dyno run without the one inch spacer.  If you forego the spacer then you will lose a bit of power, gain a little "head room" and need to plan where you'll plumb the vacuum attachments for the PCV and brakes. 

              One other thing with the taller intakes: a taller throttle bracket to maintain optimal geometry of the throttle cable to the carb throttle arm.  In may case that meant also using a longer throttle cable than stock.

                          Warmest regards, Chuck Engles

Thanks for the pics and additional info Chuck! It will help with my decision.

...You asked for Thoughts: Your not going to like this.

I'am with Doug! These Funnel-Web Manifolds are the equivalent of a 'Single 4 Barrel TUNNEL-RAM'.

(I) have never ran this Manifold...but I do have extensive experience with Tunnel-Rams (yes they were dual quads).

This I know, 'they' Do NOT 'come onto the cam' At less than 5000-5500 RPM. They will provide a 'Fuel Distribution' problem...#8 Cylinder Will go Lean. The posted Dyno Results Prove the Manifold is a 'Dog', off-idle, until one hits 5 Grand RPM. I've said before, this is another Manifold that belongs on the Racetrack! Running it on the Street will mean cruising at higher rpm's All the Time. You will be 'Racing' on the Street.

Yes! It does look Pretty...and the 'Wow Factor' can't be beat. 'Power is Expensive!' You will Pay Extra for it!

My thoughts,

MJ

Thanks Marlin - I always respect your knowledge that you provide on this site. I agree with everything you say right to the last sentence!! My engineering brain knows better, but the Pretty and Wow Factor, is a struggle to overcome. I haven't bought anything yet - still mulling it over.

After looking at the funnelweb sitting on the floor in my home office for a year I finally installed it. Thanks to fellow funnelweb fan Chuck Engles for his advice/tips, it really helped!! I haven’t had a chance to really rip on it yet. So far, I’m not feeling any low end torque or drivability issues and of course, the top end feels good. No regrets.

...Gotta Ask, where did You ever find That Gorgios 'Intake Scoop'? I've been looking for one, a Long Time. Finally Made My Own out of Aluminum Sheet.

Your Set-Up Looks Supreme...You've Earned the Ultimate Trophy!

MJ

A Tip: I could Never find a 'Oval' Filter Element...Just Get the Largest ROUND Element that will Work, and Squeeze the Sides In a Little!! Perfect, Done!

I have not run the Aussie 2v heads nor the Funnelweb.

What I have run is Boss 351 4v heads with the Shelby lettered 4v and the Edelbrock Torker. Of those two, the Torker was by far the best. The key there though I think was running a Holley 4779, 750 cfm double pumper.

It was very responsive with the Edelbrock but the Shelby manifold was sluggish with it. That manifold design is continued with the Blue Thunder version, which I have not run so I don't know if Francis reworked the runners and ports on it.

I switched to the Ford "high port heads".  I tried the B351 heads and they were not worth the effort. Then the  A3 heads. Those for me are the way to go.

Now with both of those heads I tried the two Ford Motorsport intakes available for them. They are both numbered A331 intakes.

One is a Ford spec'd version of the Edelbrock Torker. That one works well with the 4779 Holley but didn't seem as torky as the iron heads with the Torker.

The other intake from Ford for that combination is the tall "Spider" 1 x4v intake.

With that Holley, as Marlin suggested, it really didn't even start to come on until 5000 rpm. It was in it's element at 7000 and up, but in the Pantera, that is not a good combination. You want lower rpm response.

There certainly are suttlties between these manifolds. Ones that I couldn't begin to explain to you WHY they vary, but the certainly do.

I'm taking an educated guess in saying I'd expect the Funnelweb to be very similar to the Ford "tall spider" A331.

What is happening here is that there is no question that all of these mentioned intakes are honest performers. The real answer is as Marlin suggested, they are working as "tunnel rams" and that is not the best match with a Pantera.

Not to change the subject but all of this stated above is the reason that I went back to the Weber 48IDA setup. Hall had made a special intake for the A3 heads and that's what I went back to.

I will tell you that likely the Webers will not make the same amount of total horsepower at the rpm's these other single 4v intakes will. For one thing, the Webers are really "tuned" to be 6,500rpm set up. However, they are responsive like nothing else you will ever experience, right off of idle. NONE of the single 4v set ups can match that.

To me, that's where the Pantera "lives" best.

I had a "friend" that ran "Pro-stock" in the mid 1980's. I once asked him for advice on something engine related. He asked why I asked him and added, "I'm not highly intelligent, just highly experienced".  That's what I would add here to my own above comments.

...one last note..." The Farther the Carb 'Butterflies' are From the 'Intake Valves', the 'Slower' (less Crisp) the Throttle response". It's the Time it takes to get the 'Fuel/Air Column' to Move, and 'Get' Into the Cylinder. Adding 'One More Inch' as in a Spacer, must have been a Tuning/Trimming, Improvement.

MJ

...You Guys are starting to get Me Motivated to Install this On the Cleveland, with the Tuned Twin 600's and head down to Wilcox in late September!

I did the Math: 1800 Miles Round Trip, 12-13 MPG. 1800 Miles/12.5 MPG + 144 Gals. @ Average $5.00 = $720.00

Doable!!

It isn't an argument from me to you Marlin. I tend to agree that runner lengths are key factors.

SOMEWHERE along the line in my saved data, the distance from the throttle butterfly to the intake valve came up as 4.5" as optimum with the 351C.

That is the distance on the original Pantera/Detomaso Weber intake.

Others may have had success with spacer plates and various combinations on the 1 x 4v intakes listed above. I did not. I don't know about the Wieand 2x4 Tunnelram. It may be tuned that way like the Weber is?

I will also add that I did try vacuum secondary carbs. One was an original Boss 302 carb. That was a waist of time. The engine needs a double pumper. It's only a question of what size you feel you like the best.

On  my 68 GT350 I am running what is referred to as a Shelby/Ford Trans-Am intake. It is a C60A engineering number and takes two Holley 4v carbs. The reason I mention it is because it is a180° intake but each runner is arranged in a way that it is an equal distance to the intake valves.

I'm not going to ask you to guess what that distance is. It is right in the 4-1/2" range. So that seems to be a magic number and if you look at the single 4v's above mentioned, you can't get equal length runners.

You can only get four long and four short.

Nice hanging out with you on this Father's Day. I hope it's enjoyable for all? See ya'.

...Or was it 16 MPG?? Don't remember.

Doug, Agreed! Dual Planes have 4 + 4 unequal Runners. How are these (Above) for all 8 Equal? The Length is Exactly at 7.0", center of Port at Plane to Top of Plate. Yes, 4.5" Would be Optimum.

I still have to De-Burr and Polish the Inside Radii.

Yes! Have a Great Fathers' Day!!

Marlin

Thanks Marlin. I borrowed the air cleaner from my ‘32 Ford hot rod. It is an old Cal Custom piece. The shape mimics the inverse of the rear opening so it works well from a style point of view. The air cleaner base unfortunately has openings that would draw air from the engine compartment. I bought a second one on eBay that I will put back on the hot rod.

There Pretty Proud of these Air Cleaners! lol

Thankfully I bought mine many years ago for less than half of those prices.

@marlinjack posted:

...Or was it 16 MPG?? Don't remember.

Doug, Agreed! Dual Planes have 4 + 4 unequal Runners. How are these (Above) for all 8 Equal? The Length is Exactly at 7.0", center of Port at Plane to Top of Plate. Yes, 4.5" Would be Optimum.

I still have to De-Burr and Polish the Inside Radii.

Yes! Have a Great Fathers' Day!!

Marlin

The C60A dual 4 intake has 8 equal length runners! In addition, it is a180° design!

Exactly how this was done? I don't know, but even you will be speechless when you see it and have one in your hands! It is an amazing design.

I do know that Ford had several sources for designing and building intakes. I couldn't tell you who did the original design on the C60A but I was hoping that I could find a continuation of the train of thought manifold into the 351c engine series. So far I have not.

One of the things encouraging me on the quest is that the thought in fact WAS continued into the 429 engine series and that manifold does exist.

One key factor is that you need to consider is it was made for an 8.0" deck height block. That creates opportunities for the runner length being optimum.

From what I have learned/seen, so far with the induction possibilities, I am leaning to a 2 x 4 Holley 180° intake with equal runner lengths as the optimum induction on a STREET DRIVEN Pantera. This has largely to do with the ability of progressive throttle linkage to control the beast or keep it docile.

You can run around all day on the primaries of one 1850 Holley and yet use it as a 600cfm "double pumper" with vacuum controlled secondaries as "rocket afterburners" on a Cleveland that has the port flow to use it.

Unfortunately for the Cleveland, if that manifold was being worked on at the time of Ford's racing program cancellation, it has never seen the light of day but I suspect it would have been the ultimate, significantly even over individual runner intakes because of the progressive linkage thing.

Once you see the intake Marlin. It will answer all of your questions. Many if most have no idea that it ever existed.

I love what you have done with the Wieand Tunnel ram. It is exactly along the lines of what I am talking about.

Realize that at the time of the C60A design, the "tunnel ram" intakes didn't exist.

What "Ford" did though was to tie the two carb plenums together, so that there was a bridge between them. In that way it made it possible to run/idle on just one. So it would be accurate to describe the C60A as a hybrid manifold of a low 2x4 tunnel ram, which it would run at as a WOT intake, and yet have the idle characteristics of  "street driven" single 4v 180° intake. Certainly for the time a very abstract thought and yet one that has even current "carburetor-ed" applications.

I saw your intake project before and was always waiting for you to come to this conclusion of attaching the two plenums together in order to idle on only one carb. The question to me was what would be the size of that tunnel connection?

I would guess and say it is the size used on this C60A?

To me, this is a very interesting and significant discussion. One thing that you can't easily deal with on that Wieand is the total height of the manifold.  Anything that you do is going to be very tall. The C60A is only 4.5" tall at the carb base so it fits under the hood of a stock Mustang. It's really a very stealth type of thought process the entire way.

The runners on it will show a flow of around 250cfm unported. So I don't know even if you had one if you would want to make it fit on a Cleveland with adapters? On my 347 with AFR heads it works fine. Maybe, extrude hone the thing so you don't ruin it?

I agree with Marlin on the tall single 4v "spider" type intakes. They are all essentially "tunnel rams" and will likely dyno out all very similarly to each other. The biggest point with that is they are high rpm manifolds for the most part and are all going to a be a bit flat off of idle? I wouldn't expect there to be more then a 10 or 15hp difference between them.

In a dyno comparitive test, I'd be curious to see how well the Edelbrock "Scorpion" does against them. The Torker itself is quite a torky and responsive manifold. The Scorpion is the race version of the Torker.

Having "been there and done that" I need someone to explain to me how a 5,000-10,000 rpm intake is the way to go on a street Pantera? I don't see it at all.