roush motorsport single palne intake

Well Roush certainly makes a manifold that fits the cleaveland heads, but I'm really not sure if that is it or not, or if it will fit your heads. The dual plane will give you more low end power and the single plane will give you upper rpm power. I have a Roush single plane manifold on my car and it is a nice manifold. I have the C302B aluminum heads. Maybe someone with more knowledge on these manifolds can tell you.

Also how you drive your car will also determine which will work better for you. For example if you spend most of your time driving stop light to stop light, then the dual plane will probably work better. But if you spend more time at higher speeds, most of the time (like road racing at track events etc.) then the single plane might be better. The single plane really starts making horse power above the 3000 to 3500 rpm range, where the dual plane starts much earlier. So you might loose some power of the line, but gain power at the upper end of your gears. The last track event that I ran I was almost always over 4500 rpm so a single plane manifols was to my advantage.

I need to see the entire picture of the manifold and if there are any casting #'s. I alos have a set of C302B heads but mine are going on a 351W 9.2 block so that intake is going to need some research or marking to indentify it.

Ron

Does it have a part # anywhere, many of the Roush ones don't, but if you purhcased it for a Cleveland it may be an A331, which is basically the only manifold specifically made for the C302B heads on a Cleveland (9.2" deck) block. If so it is not suitable for use with your cast iron heads as there will be port misalignment, but it is a rare manifold.

I think I can help you out here. First I am presuming that this manifold has no thermostat housing on it. If that is so then it looks like it is the core, i.e., the unmachined intake for the B351 Motorsport heads.
I had a set of the heads and the manifold.
Now the thickness of the flange that would mount to the heads tells me that it is at this point intended for a 9.5" block.
The unmachined bolt holes tell me that it is not a machined manifold, or not a completly finished manidold.
It can be machined down to fit a 9.2 but cutting the flange thickness.

You will need to machine about .300" off of each flance to make it fit a 9.2 if I am not mistaken.

It is cast in a way that there is enough material to port match to the B351 or C302For Motorsport Cleveland aluminum heads.

These manifolds generally speaking do not fit an iron head Cleveland becasue of the difference in height of the ports. It is about .625" difference and there is no way to really close the hole in the bottom of the port without fabricating a spacer to sit between the intake and the head.

I think this is the A341 intake manifold.

It is pretty tall for a Pantera as well and blocks the rear view of the window and the air cleaner top winds up just under the roof, barely.

It's also pretty heavy. About 17 pounds machined as I recall.

You don't see a lot of them but this one isn't especially rare. The rare one is the A-331 for the A3 heads. It is the Torker style.

Mr.Buttery Nipple himself may infact now have the rarest of that version with a very small port version. It is so heavy it feels like it is aluminum billit.

A pic is worth a thousand words, and I have some pics.

I have owned a couple of manifolds that looked like the one pictured above, they had A331 "stamped" into them, not cast. Like Doug wrote, the opening in the runners were about the size of the ports in the B351 head, with enough material to allow them to be opened up to work with the A3 heads. The manifolds had the bolt holes drilled out however, it is odd that the holes are not drilled in the one pictured. This particular manifold has thicker flanges than the A331 intake however, I suspect it has been cast for a 9.5" block. The rear valley rail should curve outwards Windsor style. Is that the A341 Doug? The Roush manifolds are not designed to fit iron 4V heads, they are designed for the high port SVO heads.

A Parker Funnelweb pictured below is designed to fit the iron 4V heads on a standard 9.2" Clevo block, with port stuffers in the intake ports.

cowboy from hell

Here's pics of the last Roush A331 I owned

the part number is stamped, not cast

The runners are smaller than 4V runners and raised. Look at how the manifold bolt holes line up near the bottom of the runner ports. Those bolt holes are centered in a 4V port.

For comparison here is the Edelbrock version of the A331 intake, which is basically a Torker with A3 sized runners. Notice the runners are wider, giving them a "squarish" shape.

> Will this intake fit the iron 4v d1ae heads and what would the advantage over
> the aluminum holley dual plane one I have on my car now. I have the comp cam
> roller rocker cam package and I'm assuming trw 10:1 or so pistons and a hall
> big bore system. Whatcha think?

Holley does not make an aluminum dual plane intake for the 351C. They only
made small port single planes (Street Dominator) and large port single planes
(Strip Dominator). What intake do you currenlty have installed, what are the
cam specs and what is your carb?

The intake pictured appears to be a Roush casting blank for C302 heads. If it
has the 351C end seal shape (curves in towards the middle of the intake), it
is a casting blank for an A331 and would be for a 9.2" deck 351C block. If it
has the 351W end seal shape (curves out), then it's a casting blank for an A351
or a B351. To make it an A351 for a 351W style 9.5" deck block, you would simply
drill the holes. To make it a B351, you would drill the holes and mill the
port faces for a 9.2" deck block. If you run it one a race block, you'd leave
the end seal part as it is. If your run it on a Cleveland block you trim it
to match the 351C end seal (or just leave it overhang). This picture shows
the dual end seal shapes:

http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery2/v/hidden/dan/dan-cars...C351_bottom.jpg.html

A couple pictures of my Roush A351/B351 casting blank:

http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery2/v/hidden/dan/dan-cars...lank_bottom.jpg.html
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery2/v/hidden/dan/dan-cars...nk_side_top.jpg.html

> For comparison here is the Edelbrock version of the A331 intake, which is
> basically a Torker with A3 sized runners. Notice the runners are wider,
> giving them a "squarish" shape.

With milling and drilling, the A351 casting blank should fit a 351C but may
not seal off the lower portion of the 4V head ports (assuming you aren't
running the Roush type port stuffers). I ran into that problem attempting
to dyno test the Torker and Edelbrock A331 pictured above. Even though they
look alike, those two intakes are separate castings and there wasn't enough
material on the Edelbrock A331 to seal off the bottom of the 4V head ports.
The Roush intakes have more material there but I'm not sure if it is enough.
If you are serious about this, I can mock up a 351C block with 4V heads and
do a trial fit.

> The part number is stamped, not cast

A351's and B351's were that way since they shared a common casting, as were
C351's and D351's for the same reason. However, both of the A331's I owned
had cast in part numbers:

http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery2/v/hidden/dan/dan-cars...ort_A331_01.jpg.html

If you compare the lip thickness at the port face of your A331 with mine:

http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery2/v/hidden/dan/dan-cars...ort_A331_02.jpg.html

it appears to me your intake is a B351 with the end seal trimmed to fit a
Cleveland end seal. That makes it pretty much an A331 even if started life
as a different (A351/B351) casting.

> I think this is the A341 intake manifold.

Did you mean A351? I've never seen an A341 intake.

Dan Jones

I sold that manifold and agree that the important part of the number was stamped.

It doesn't seem to be important now but I thought I remembered it as being stamped 341.

That one is in the "parts catalog". I have not looked at it in awhile.

I thought it was that the 331 was the torker and the 341 was the spider for the B351 heads? I suppose it is academic at this point anyway.

Since George didn't post the "tiny" port 331 picture I'll see if I can post it here. The ports are way smaller the the B302 ports. Closer to a 289-302, 2v style port. It seems very obvious that it was intended to be match ported to whatever you had.

However if you look at it the runners and the plenum were much smaller height wise then the 331.

Can't find them, maybe later?

On the different manifold's, how can I tell if one I have is for a 9.5" or 9.2" deck? No casting #'s and not sure if it has been milled or not.

I'm assuming there is some critical dimension like the distance between the lower intake edge of the heads is different, but what exactly are those dimensions on a 9.5" and 9.2" block?

Look at the picture that George posted and then the first one.
Did you notice that they look like the same casting?
Now look at the thickness of the flange at the end of the intake ports where they meet the heads. Notice the difference.

The 9.2 is going to have a flange around .250" thick. The 9.5 is going to be .300" thicker.

This is the case of the manifolds that use one basic casting for both. The intake for the 9.2 is going to have more material milled off the mounting flange.

Here is the picture of the special small port a331 torker. You may at first assume that it is the size of a C302 port but it is actually much smaller.

> I thought it was that the 331 was the torker

There were three A331's that I'm aware of. The large and small port Torker
versions and the Roush A331 like the one in my links above.

and the 341 was the spider for the B351 heads?

> Since George didn't post the "tiny" port 331 picture I'll see if I can post
> it here. The ports are way smaller the the B302 ports. Closer to a 289-302,
> 2v style port. It seems very obvious that it was intended to be match ported
> to whatever you had. However if you look at it the runners and the plenum
> were much smaller height wise then the 331.

That is an interesting one. That would be a good intake for C302B heads
if you want to keep a stock engine screen. I'd bet the Roush A331 is a
better intake but it is also considerably taller.

> That one is in the "parts catalog". I have not looked at it in awhile.

If you come across it, let me know. I've got a database of part numbers
and info from all the Ford Motosport catalogs since 1984. I've not seen
an A341 in them but that doesn't mean one didn't exist. Ford did a lot of
small production run stuff.

> I'm assuming there is some critical dimension like the distance between
> the lower intake edge of the heads is different, but what exactly are those
> dimensions on a 9.5" and 9.2" block?

I don't have those numbers handy but if you measure your engine or a 351C
intake for it's width (at a specific point), the 9.2" intake should match
it and the 9.5" should match a 351W intake.

> This is the case of the manifolds that use one basic casting for both. The
> intake for the 9.2 is going to have more material milled off the mounting
> flange.

Correct. That is true for the A351/B351 common casting intakes but not for the
Roush A331 (with cast-in numerals). If you look at my Roush A331 and George's,
you'll see mine has the thicker lip, even though it is for a 9.2" deck.

> Here is the picture of the special small port a331 torker. You may at first
> assume that it is the size of a C302 port but it is actually much smaller.

That's a rare one. I'm told Ford had a number of variations on the high port
intakes (and heads). I've been told (but never seen) there is a high port of
the Scorpion.

Dan Jones

according to the seller it does fit the iron heads now I m confused.

Me too. Do you have a picture of the ports?

Is it marked Ford or Just Jack Rousch?

The Ford Motorsport spider manifold is marked with both. I presumed that is the manifold being sold.

If it is, technically the manifold will bolt up to the the iron heads but the bottom of the port of the iron head will be open 5/8".

You can't fill that. The only way you can do that is to make a "spacer plate" to sit between the manifold and the head that covers the bottom of the port on the head and has an inlet openig the size of the intake runner.

The plate has the tendancy of warping away from the head and creating vacuum leaks into the lifter valley. It is not the way you want to go if you can avoid it but it will work with some fabrication, at least for awhile.

Technically the seller is right but is being less then truthful.

Frankly although you may have the hots for that intake there isn't any BFD with it. It isn't really what you want to run on a Pantera.

Walk away from it. At most it is worth $150.

thanks I just want to go faster. My motor is supposed to be hot shit d1ae motor 4v has comp cams cam and roller rockers not sure of the duration/lift and a mallory comp 9000 dist and coated hall big bore system but with the carter afb carb on it its kinda gutless is that the missing link? I have a manual secondary speed demon 750 and the holly throttle bracket ready to go for it. I jsut dont know how to install it