Dan & Doug,
Here's some pics of the small port Edelbrock A331. the runner openings are ~1.75" high and ~1.25" wide.
Doug I was slow with the pics, ya gotta cut me some slack, I'm sick as a dog...
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Dan you know what a fussy butt I've been about keeping the air filter under the engine screen. Thanks to Doug who graciously agreed to a swap of Edelbrock A331 intake manifolds, I now have an intake that will enable me to run C302 or BF301 heads AND keep the air filter as low as possible. I gotta acquire the heads now, and I'm still waiting on Todd's new alloy block. Yup, I'm getting excited.
part number up close
part number up close
Attachments
Images (1)
Sorry you're sick but I know you have connections. I figured you could ask Heff at the Mansion to get some of the girls to help out?
Frankly I know no one has ever seen another A331 like that because that's the only one there is. It's a horse of a different color. I know because I've been to see the Wizrd and he told me so.
Is that manifold cool or what? Use it in health and happiness dude. Power to ya'!
Frankly I know no one has ever seen another A331 like that because that's the only one there is. It's a horse of a different color. I know because I've been to see the Wizrd and he told me so.
Is that manifold cool or what? Use it in health and happiness dude. Power to ya'!
> Dan you know what a fussy butt I've been about keeping the air filter
> under the engine screen. Thanks to Doug who graciously agreed to a swap
> of Edelbrock A331 intake manifolds, I now have an intake that will enable
> me to run C302 or BF301 heads AND keep the air filter as low as possible.
> I gotta acquire the heads now
If you compare that to the wide port version, it looks to me that the port
roof and floor are in the same spot as the A3 version of that intake and only
the width is different:
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery2/v/hidden/dan/dan-cars...el_A331_001.jpg.html
You can clearly see the A331 (both large and small port) are different castings
than the Torker upon which they are based:
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery2/v/hidden/dan/dan-cars...s_Torker_02.jpg.html
but it appears the wide and narrow port A331 share the same basic casting
with just the runner cores changes. That would fit with what PanteraDoug
said about the port being smaller than a C302. The C302 port is narrower
but it is also taller than A3. A narrow version of the A3 would be both
narrower and shorter than a C302. That leads me to wonder if that intake
was meant to match the narrow port Phase 1 1/2 heads:
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery2/v/hidden/dan/dan-cars..._port_ports.jpg.html
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery2/v/hidden/dan/dan-cars...ort_chamber.jpg.html
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery2/v/hidden/dan/dan-cars...ode_closeup.jpg.html
If so, I may have the heads that were meant for that intake and might be
willing to part with them. If you are interested, do a tracing of the
ports and intake bolt holes and I'll see how well it matches.
> I'm still waiting on Todd's new alloy block.
Me too. I just sold my XE block and set of titanium valves and sent a
deposit to Tod's wife for one of his aluminum 351C blocks.
Dan Jones
> under the engine screen. Thanks to Doug who graciously agreed to a swap
> of Edelbrock A331 intake manifolds, I now have an intake that will enable
> me to run C302 or BF301 heads AND keep the air filter as low as possible.
> I gotta acquire the heads now
If you compare that to the wide port version, it looks to me that the port
roof and floor are in the same spot as the A3 version of that intake and only
the width is different:
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery2/v/hidden/dan/dan-cars...el_A331_001.jpg.html
You can clearly see the A331 (both large and small port) are different castings
than the Torker upon which they are based:
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery2/v/hidden/dan/dan-cars...s_Torker_02.jpg.html
but it appears the wide and narrow port A331 share the same basic casting
with just the runner cores changes. That would fit with what PanteraDoug
said about the port being smaller than a C302. The C302 port is narrower
but it is also taller than A3. A narrow version of the A3 would be both
narrower and shorter than a C302. That leads me to wonder if that intake
was meant to match the narrow port Phase 1 1/2 heads:
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery2/v/hidden/dan/dan-cars..._port_ports.jpg.html
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery2/v/hidden/dan/dan-cars...ort_chamber.jpg.html
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery2/v/hidden/dan/dan-cars...ode_closeup.jpg.html
If so, I may have the heads that were meant for that intake and might be
willing to part with them. If you are interested, do a tracing of the
ports and intake bolt holes and I'll see how well it matches.
> I'm still waiting on Todd's new alloy block.
Me too. I just sold my XE block and set of titanium valves and sent a
deposit to Tod's wife for one of his aluminum 351C blocks.
Dan Jones
I think that the entire circumference of the port has been filled and I know that the plenum has been as well.
Someone should flow it (I didn't) first to get an indication of if it was intended to be used with a particular head, which is possible, rather then presume it is a custom porting mule, again, which it also might be.
I believe that there is a 3 or 4# difference in weight between the two A331 torker manifolds that I had. I think that one is 17# and the wide port was 14#. Something like that.
There's alot of 'luminum in that mama.
Dan look at the pic I posted in the other thread. You can see how thick the floor and roof are in that shot.
Someone should flow it (I didn't) first to get an indication of if it was intended to be used with a particular head, which is possible, rather then presume it is a custom porting mule, again, which it also might be.
I believe that there is a 3 or 4# difference in weight between the two A331 torker manifolds that I had. I think that one is 17# and the wide port was 14#. Something like that.
There's alot of 'luminum in that mama.
Dan look at the pic I posted in the other thread. You can see how thick the floor and roof are in that shot.
The port floor doesn't look much, if any, lower than my A331. The port floor on mine is above the bottom of the inner bolt holes as is yours. I think we'll need a tracing from George to know for sure.
Dan Jones
Dan Jones
On my regular port A331 the caliper shows .434" on the floor, .460 roof, 2.150" h port.
The small port is going to have approximately a .634" floor and a .660 roof.
Incidentally that would make the mismatch on an iron 4v about 1.207" on the port floor.
I don't know where my notes are at the moment on it but the plenum floor is also about .750" closer to carb flange then the regular A331.
I think I came to the conclusion that it was intended to be port matched to the C302 heads. That made the most sense.
John Vermersch at Ford Racing thought that it was more likely a circle track cheater since he said he had never autherized the manifold.
The small port is going to have approximately a .634" floor and a .660 roof.
Incidentally that would make the mismatch on an iron 4v about 1.207" on the port floor.
I don't know where my notes are at the moment on it but the plenum floor is also about .750" closer to carb flange then the regular A331.
I think I came to the conclusion that it was intended to be port matched to the C302 heads. That made the most sense.
John Vermersch at Ford Racing thought that it was more likely a circle track cheater since he said he had never autherized the manifold.
Dan I will trace the manifold & mail the template to you. I'll use the address where we mail the magazines unless you tell me otherwise.
If this is designed to mate with the narrowed port A3 heads, hey I'm your huckleberry. FYI the dimensions for runner cross-section I quoted are on the smallside.
Like all the SVO stuff, this manifold was cast to be hand ported, runner dimensions are not consistent, or precise.
cowboy from hell
If this is designed to mate with the narrowed port A3 heads, hey I'm your huckleberry. FYI the dimensions for runner cross-section I quoted are on the smallside.
Like all the SVO stuff, this manifold was cast to be hand ported, runner dimensions are not consistent, or precise.
cowboy from hell
> On my regular port A331 the caliper shows .434" on the floor, .460 roof, 2.150" h port.
> The small port is going to have approximately a .634" floor and a .660 roof.
I'll check those against my Phase 1 1/2 heads and A331.
> I don't know where my notes are at the moment on it but the plenum floor is also about
> .750" closer to carb flange then the regular A331.
Okay.
> John Vermersch at Ford Racing thought that it was more likely a circle track cheater
> since he said he had never autherized the manifold.
So the circle track racer had Edelbrock cast one for him, not Ford?
I bet that wasn't cheap. Was the intake ever run? It appears new.
Dan Jones
> The small port is going to have approximately a .634" floor and a .660 roof.
I'll check those against my Phase 1 1/2 heads and A331.
> I don't know where my notes are at the moment on it but the plenum floor is also about
> .750" closer to carb flange then the regular A331.
Okay.
> John Vermersch at Ford Racing thought that it was more likely a circle track cheater
> since he said he had never autherized the manifold.
So the circle track racer had Edelbrock cast one for him, not Ford?
I bet that wasn't cheap. Was the intake ever run? It appears new.
Dan Jones
It is un-used.
quote:Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:
> John Vermersch at Ford Racing thought that it was more likely a circle track cheater
> since he said he had never autherized the manifold.
So the circle track racer had Edelbrock cast one for him, not Ford?
Dan Jones
He said it wasn't cast by Edelbrock. It was made by the foundry that casts the racing blocks.
Apparently he made his own molds.
If you compare the regular A331 to the "tinnie port" you will see little differences where they must have lifted a wet sand female mold right off of an A331 and lost some of the unimportant details. You have to have the two side by side to see it.
Next is the small port Edelbrock A331 intake compared to a 4V gasket (Fel-Pro #1228).
Notice the roof of the runners lines up with the top of the cut-out in the gasket.
The roof of the un-ported runners of this intake are roughly the same height as the intake port roofs of a 4V head.
Notice the roof of the runners lines up with the top of the cut-out in the gasket.
The roof of the un-ported runners of this intake are roughly the same height as the intake port roofs of a 4V head.
Attachments
Images (1)
Yep! But not only that, have you checked the difference in the plenum floor under the carb pad?
Gasket comparisons were one of the first things that I did with the manifold.
In a picture it would appear that it just needs to be port matched to the C302 gasket.
If you examine the runners themselves they are of less volume as well.
I don't think I have seen a set of C302 heads that have been run in stock configuration. To say that they are intended to be extensively ported is not completely true. The D head was made for that. How many of those have you seen?
The C302 was really intended as a Boss 302 substitue for 5 liter displacement engines.
Many that I have seen are opened and resemble the B351 heads in their stock configuration. I ran that head on the street with the spyder 1x4 and didn't like the combination at all.
It did seem to make some upper rpm differences but was very flat through 5000rpm. I don't really care what dynos show. I have driven a couple of dyno monsters and personally think they were dogs. I suppose they are intended for the Nintendo/x-box generation and you are supposed to drive them with a joystick, I don't know?
I think a 5.7 Cleveland has a lot of interesting characteristics and not all of them are bad. I like the Boss 351 alot.
A lot of engines make a lot of torque. A Ford 390 does but I wouldn't exactly call it a performance engine.
Anyway you look at it that one is rather special as special goes and it offers some serious alternatives as to final configuration.
My builder is now recommending the CHI 3v heads too and this is a really trick Pantera manifold and it fits under the screen. Great find George.
Gasket comparisons were one of the first things that I did with the manifold.
In a picture it would appear that it just needs to be port matched to the C302 gasket.
If you examine the runners themselves they are of less volume as well.
I don't think I have seen a set of C302 heads that have been run in stock configuration. To say that they are intended to be extensively ported is not completely true. The D head was made for that. How many of those have you seen?
The C302 was really intended as a Boss 302 substitue for 5 liter displacement engines.
Many that I have seen are opened and resemble the B351 heads in their stock configuration. I ran that head on the street with the spyder 1x4 and didn't like the combination at all.
It did seem to make some upper rpm differences but was very flat through 5000rpm. I don't really care what dynos show. I have driven a couple of dyno monsters and personally think they were dogs. I suppose they are intended for the Nintendo/x-box generation and you are supposed to drive them with a joystick, I don't know?
I think a 5.7 Cleveland has a lot of interesting characteristics and not all of them are bad. I like the Boss 351 alot.
A lot of engines make a lot of torque. A Ford 390 does but I wouldn't exactly call it a performance engine.
Anyway you look at it that one is rather special as special goes and it offers some serious alternatives as to final configuration.
My builder is now recommending the CHI 3v heads too and this is a really trick Pantera manifold and it fits under the screen. Great find George.