Dave I moved your Post to it's own Topic, I hope that doesn't create any confusion...George
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Hi George, I have been a POCA member for a few years but have only recently lurked on this forum. I have a car that is mostly completed and have considered motor combinations for a long time. I have learned more from your posts about Fords in a couple of weeks that in the past several years. You provide an incredible service to the club. I would appreciate your opinion on the following: My dream is to have a smooth running street motor that (hate to admit this) I could say is 427 ci (or close) maybe 4.125 x 4.00. I would like over 400hp, but I would sacrifice power for driveability. I am commited to the new Edelbrock 351C 2V heads which I have in hand, and the Dart 9.2 aluminum block (already have very expensive exhaust that I want to fit properly), and planned on the TWM efi. (might have to settle for the new intake that matches the heads with carb for the time being). Anyway do you think these heads will work at all with that much motor, and can a 4.00 stroke work in a 9.2 block without the pin/ring problems? Would it be smarter to limit the stroke to 3.85, or what about a 3.5 stroke and 4.125 bore? Would I be smarter to just build the thing to 351ci? Katrina has halted the project, but I am moving forward with buying the pieces and parts and would much appreciate your input. Thanks for all you do, Dave Ferrato
Dave, Welcome to the DTBB!
your kind words are appreciated, thank you. I'm sorry to read that Katrina impacted your life, for that you have my wishes for your continued recovery from the devastation.
My first thought is a fuel injected all alloy 427 Clevor sounds pretty BITCHEN! Way to go Dave, I'm sure there are many owners that would love to have the same motor in their engine bay.
The Eelbrock heads are so new, I just don't know what their capabilities are out of the box. I've yet to read any feedback from an owner running those heads. The flow figures certainly aren't as good as those of the Australian AFD / CHI 2V heads. In general, Edelbrock heads for any motor have a reputation for not being the top heads out of the box, but head porters are normally capable of porting & extracting much more performance from them. Your performance goals seem modest enough that I'm sure one way or the other, out of the box or ported, the heads will be capable of making a good compliment to your motor.
Don't be self conscious about wanting that magic 7 liter displacment. Who wouldn't?! From what I read & hear from other owners, you are not alone. The issues with stroker motors in a Cleveland or Windsor package tend to boil down to rod length to stroke ratio (R/S ratio) and the wrist pin intersecting the oil ring groove, as you have alluded to. The piston is pulled pretty far out of the hole at BDC, but I'm not aware of any kits where that has become an achilles heel.
The R/S ratio issue is a non issue according to some very very highly respected engine builders. There are others however that believe it is important. So there are skilled practioners on both sides of the issue, all with mechanical engineering degrees. In a conversation with a well respected engine builder a while back, he kindly put it this way: the R/S ratio is an issue, but not the most important one, there are other issues that supercede it, it is not given the importance in regards to high rpm race engines it once was. With the advent of inexpensive Chinese stroker cranks the industry has blown the past rules regarding R/S ratio out of the water.
One example of this is the new Z06 Corvette motor. It's 427 cubic inches, with a 4.125" bore & 4.00" stroke. The SBC motor has a shorter deck height than the Cleveland motor. I haven't read how long the rods are in that motor, but I feel safe in writing the R/S ratio of that motor must be less than 1.5:1, yet that motor has a 7000 rpm red line (if my memory is correct).
I know of a fellow Pantera owner who has hired a very big name engine builder to build his 4" stroker motor, and this builder is going with a 6.2" rod because he comes from the school that R/S ratio is important. When I built solid lifter Cleveland engines, I always stuffed 6" rods in them because the engines seemed to run better above 6000 rpm. Small block Chevy guys did the same thing. I had it drilled into my head that the R/S ratio was important. Members of the camp that place more importance on the R/S ratio normally want a minimum ratio of 1.55:1.
The other side of the coin is that when the wrist pin intersects the oil ring groove, the motor burns oil. Some people don't mind dumping a quart of oil in their crankcase every so often, some don't drive their cars very often or for long distances, these folks don't think oil burning is an issue to sweat over. Speaking solely for myself, if I built an expensive high performance street motor, the last thing I want to see it doing is burning oil. Additionally, I drive my Pantera long distances, I don't want to have to tote along several quarts of oil on my trips.
For a reliable, smooth running street motor as you have described, I would place more importance on the location of the wrist pin, than I would the R/S ratio. The normal 4.00" stroker kit for a 9.2" deck height block and pistons with Cleveland valve notches includes a 6" long rod. The R/S ratio of these kits is 1.5:1, and the wrist pin intersects the oil ring groove. The 3.85" stroker kits have the same length rod, the crank throw is only 0.075" shorter, yet the wrist pin misses the oil ring groove. So it would seem your choices are to either build a 427 cubic inch motor and tolerate oil burning, or build a 411 cubic inch motor and avoid oil burning.
But I have a twist for you. Spend the extra money for a set of custom sized rods, and order them in a length of 5.925". Use them with a 4" stroke crank. You'll be able to use a piston with the same compression height as the 3.85" stroker kit, therefore the wrist pin will miss the oil ring groove. The R/S ratio of this combination will be 1.48:1, which I bet is better than the Z06 Corvette motor, it is the same as the R/S ratio of the production 400 cubic inch small block Chevy, which had a 3.75" stroke crank. This should be acceptable for a street motor with a red line of 6000 rpm to 6500 rpm.
Before you think that's a brilliant solution, price the rods, but don't throw any bricks at me, OK? lol................
Your friend on the DTBB
your kind words are appreciated, thank you. I'm sorry to read that Katrina impacted your life, for that you have my wishes for your continued recovery from the devastation.
My first thought is a fuel injected all alloy 427 Clevor sounds pretty BITCHEN! Way to go Dave, I'm sure there are many owners that would love to have the same motor in their engine bay.
The Eelbrock heads are so new, I just don't know what their capabilities are out of the box. I've yet to read any feedback from an owner running those heads. The flow figures certainly aren't as good as those of the Australian AFD / CHI 2V heads. In general, Edelbrock heads for any motor have a reputation for not being the top heads out of the box, but head porters are normally capable of porting & extracting much more performance from them. Your performance goals seem modest enough that I'm sure one way or the other, out of the box or ported, the heads will be capable of making a good compliment to your motor.
Don't be self conscious about wanting that magic 7 liter displacment. Who wouldn't?! From what I read & hear from other owners, you are not alone. The issues with stroker motors in a Cleveland or Windsor package tend to boil down to rod length to stroke ratio (R/S ratio) and the wrist pin intersecting the oil ring groove, as you have alluded to. The piston is pulled pretty far out of the hole at BDC, but I'm not aware of any kits where that has become an achilles heel.
The R/S ratio issue is a non issue according to some very very highly respected engine builders. There are others however that believe it is important. So there are skilled practioners on both sides of the issue, all with mechanical engineering degrees. In a conversation with a well respected engine builder a while back, he kindly put it this way: the R/S ratio is an issue, but not the most important one, there are other issues that supercede it, it is not given the importance in regards to high rpm race engines it once was. With the advent of inexpensive Chinese stroker cranks the industry has blown the past rules regarding R/S ratio out of the water.
One example of this is the new Z06 Corvette motor. It's 427 cubic inches, with a 4.125" bore & 4.00" stroke. The SBC motor has a shorter deck height than the Cleveland motor. I haven't read how long the rods are in that motor, but I feel safe in writing the R/S ratio of that motor must be less than 1.5:1, yet that motor has a 7000 rpm red line (if my memory is correct).
I know of a fellow Pantera owner who has hired a very big name engine builder to build his 4" stroker motor, and this builder is going with a 6.2" rod because he comes from the school that R/S ratio is important. When I built solid lifter Cleveland engines, I always stuffed 6" rods in them because the engines seemed to run better above 6000 rpm. Small block Chevy guys did the same thing. I had it drilled into my head that the R/S ratio was important. Members of the camp that place more importance on the R/S ratio normally want a minimum ratio of 1.55:1.
The other side of the coin is that when the wrist pin intersects the oil ring groove, the motor burns oil. Some people don't mind dumping a quart of oil in their crankcase every so often, some don't drive their cars very often or for long distances, these folks don't think oil burning is an issue to sweat over. Speaking solely for myself, if I built an expensive high performance street motor, the last thing I want to see it doing is burning oil. Additionally, I drive my Pantera long distances, I don't want to have to tote along several quarts of oil on my trips.
For a reliable, smooth running street motor as you have described, I would place more importance on the location of the wrist pin, than I would the R/S ratio. The normal 4.00" stroker kit for a 9.2" deck height block and pistons with Cleveland valve notches includes a 6" long rod. The R/S ratio of these kits is 1.5:1, and the wrist pin intersects the oil ring groove. The 3.85" stroker kits have the same length rod, the crank throw is only 0.075" shorter, yet the wrist pin misses the oil ring groove. So it would seem your choices are to either build a 427 cubic inch motor and tolerate oil burning, or build a 411 cubic inch motor and avoid oil burning.
But I have a twist for you. Spend the extra money for a set of custom sized rods, and order them in a length of 5.925". Use them with a 4" stroke crank. You'll be able to use a piston with the same compression height as the 3.85" stroker kit, therefore the wrist pin will miss the oil ring groove. The R/S ratio of this combination will be 1.48:1, which I bet is better than the Z06 Corvette motor, it is the same as the R/S ratio of the production 400 cubic inch small block Chevy, which had a 3.75" stroke crank. This should be acceptable for a street motor with a red line of 6000 rpm to 6500 rpm.
Before you think that's a brilliant solution, price the rods, but don't throw any bricks at me, OK? lol................
Your friend on the DTBB
Attachments
Images (1)
By the way Dave, is that you on the vintage motorcycle in your avatar?
Looks like a BSA single, but its too dark to be sure.
I learned to turn wrenches as a young lad on Triumphs. I've ridden bikes my whole life.
Your friend on the DTBB
Looks like a BSA single, but its too dark to be sure.
I learned to turn wrenches as a young lad on Triumphs. I've ridden bikes my whole life.
Your friend on the DTBB
Thanks so much George for the quick reply. Sorry if I posted in the wrong place. First time. Well I think that I will indeed look into the custom rod length, but in all probablility I will stick with 3.85 stroke. At least now I feel like I can go ahead and order the block at 4.125 bore instead of 4.00. Just checked the 06 GM parts catalog and all your info on the LS7 engine is correct. My primary mechanical vice is old British motorcycles. The picture is from an AHRMA race last year where I competed in pre 1940 GP class where at 55 I am usually the youngest in the class. Oldest is Al Knapp at 83 who I have no chance of ever beating. The bikeis a 1936 Norton 490cc International factory race bike. I have also Vincents,Triumphs and BSAs. Thanks again. I will keep you posted and I'm sure to take further advantage of your help. Dave Ferrato
Hi George, really enjoyed seeing your car in the club magazine. I thought I was the only one who combined the L rear bumper with Kirk's carbon fronts. I got one of the first sets he made but havent installed them yet. My block came in. I have to get with TWM to see if their 351c intake for the 8 stack will fit the Edelbrock heads and seal with the Windsor block. Any knowledge of what kind of intakes fit the Clevor combination?Again, love your car. Dave
Hi Dave, thanks for the compliment you gave 6018. Hope all is going well in regards to recovery from Katrina.
The subject of 351C intake manifolds is a very challenging subject to cover. The combinations of heads, port sizes, port heights, block choices and deck heights create several possible combinations of parts. There are intake manifolds available for just about every possible combination. There are also adapters available allowing intake manifolds to be employed in combinations they weren't designed for. Many (but not all) Clevor specific intake manifolds are machined for the 9.5" oem deck height Windsor block. However a competent machine shop can remove the proper amount of material from a Clevor intake manifold and make it compatible with blocks having a 9.2" deck height.
Since you are interested in individual runner (IR) fuel injection (FI), I shall limit my thoughts to those intake manifolds. I'm not aware of any IR intake manifolds manufactured for 351C 2V heads mounted on a 9.2" deck 351W block. However, you have a couple of good alternatives.
The ports, intake manifold bolts, etc of the 351W heads align very closely with those of the 351C 2V heads, the Windsor ports are just a bit smaller. So an IR manifold designed for a 351W could be adapted for your application. The manifold would have to be machined for the 9.2" deck height of your block and 8 of the intake bolt holes (which are all verticle in the Windsor) must be drilled to mate with the non-verticle bolt holes in the cleveland head. Finally the coolant pasages in the Edelbrock heads would require plugging & drilling for the Windsor style coolant passages. The advantage in proceeding in this direction is that you would have at your disposal the Windsor style thermostat housing cast into the Windsor intake manifold. I think you will find that the manifolds sold by TWM are designed for 351W motors.
A second route to take would be to employ two of the 4 runner IR style manifolds (or 4 butterfly throttle bodies) that bolt directly to the heads with no valley cover joining the two sides. These manifolds require the engine builder to fabricate a simple sheet metal cover for the lifter valley. Hilborn manufactures such 4 butterfly IR throttle bodies. PI Motorsports sells a complete IR FI system using the Hilborn throttle bodies. I'm only guessing, but I would assume Hilborn manufactures a 4 butterfly throttle body for 351C 4V ports & 351W ports, so again you would end up employing parts designed for a Windsor head. A thermostat housing adapter, available from several sources, would have to be employed in this application.
take care
your friend on the DTBB
The subject of 351C intake manifolds is a very challenging subject to cover. The combinations of heads, port sizes, port heights, block choices and deck heights create several possible combinations of parts. There are intake manifolds available for just about every possible combination. There are also adapters available allowing intake manifolds to be employed in combinations they weren't designed for. Many (but not all) Clevor specific intake manifolds are machined for the 9.5" oem deck height Windsor block. However a competent machine shop can remove the proper amount of material from a Clevor intake manifold and make it compatible with blocks having a 9.2" deck height.
Since you are interested in individual runner (IR) fuel injection (FI), I shall limit my thoughts to those intake manifolds. I'm not aware of any IR intake manifolds manufactured for 351C 2V heads mounted on a 9.2" deck 351W block. However, you have a couple of good alternatives.
The ports, intake manifold bolts, etc of the 351W heads align very closely with those of the 351C 2V heads, the Windsor ports are just a bit smaller. So an IR manifold designed for a 351W could be adapted for your application. The manifold would have to be machined for the 9.2" deck height of your block and 8 of the intake bolt holes (which are all verticle in the Windsor) must be drilled to mate with the non-verticle bolt holes in the cleveland head. Finally the coolant pasages in the Edelbrock heads would require plugging & drilling for the Windsor style coolant passages. The advantage in proceeding in this direction is that you would have at your disposal the Windsor style thermostat housing cast into the Windsor intake manifold. I think you will find that the manifolds sold by TWM are designed for 351W motors.
A second route to take would be to employ two of the 4 runner IR style manifolds (or 4 butterfly throttle bodies) that bolt directly to the heads with no valley cover joining the two sides. These manifolds require the engine builder to fabricate a simple sheet metal cover for the lifter valley. Hilborn manufactures such 4 butterfly IR throttle bodies. PI Motorsports sells a complete IR FI system using the Hilborn throttle bodies. I'm only guessing, but I would assume Hilborn manufactures a 4 butterfly throttle body for 351C 4V ports & 351W ports, so again you would end up employing parts designed for a Windsor head. A thermostat housing adapter, available from several sources, would have to be employed in this application.
take care
your friend on the DTBB
A 4.0" stroke will work fine for your application though the 3.85" stroke
will be more conservative. If you got the 9.5" deck version of the block,
you could go with as long a stroke as 4.1". The Edelbrock heads will work
but are restrictive on a healthy 351 and very restrictive on a big inch
stroker. On my 407 cube motor, the Edelbrock heads are down 75 to 100 HP
to my C302B heads according to my Dynomation simulation program. 400 HP
would be a no brainer, though. A friend's 418 dyno'd at 556 HP at 5800 RPM
and was very driveable.
> Well I think that I will indeed look into the custom rod length, but in all
> probablility I will stick with 3.85 stroke.
You needn't go with custom rod lengths. There are many sizes available
off-the-shelf these days including 6", 6.125", and 6.2".
> I have to get with TWM to see if their 351c intake for the 8 stack will
> fit the Edelbrock heads and seal with the Windsor block. Any knowledge of
> what kind of intakes fit the Clevor combination?
You will need to plug the Cleveland cooling passage in the head and open
a new one for the Windsor coolant routing. The Ford Motorsport heads
like the C302B's were drilled for both and came with instructions that
should work on the Edelbrock heads but I would verify that with Edelbrock
first. You could do as George suggests and mill, drill, and port match a
Windsor intake but there is a better way. Independent runner intakes for
9.2" deck blocks with 2V heads are available from Redline in Australia:
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album08
Dave Wharren is running one in a GT40 replica. They don't have the
Windsor waterneck for the thermostat but that is no big deal. You can
run an external thermostat housing. PME makes a remote thermostats that
bolts to Windsor blocks and positions the thermostat horizontally:
http://www.pricemotorsport.com/
Click on thermostat housing.
I'm doing something similar to what you are doing and have the same issue.
In my case (C302B high port heads on a 9.2" Fontana block), intakes with
waternecks are available but my engine builder prefers to take the coolant
out the front of the heads so I went with the PME housing.
Dan Jones
will be more conservative. If you got the 9.5" deck version of the block,
you could go with as long a stroke as 4.1". The Edelbrock heads will work
but are restrictive on a healthy 351 and very restrictive on a big inch
stroker. On my 407 cube motor, the Edelbrock heads are down 75 to 100 HP
to my C302B heads according to my Dynomation simulation program. 400 HP
would be a no brainer, though. A friend's 418 dyno'd at 556 HP at 5800 RPM
and was very driveable.
> Well I think that I will indeed look into the custom rod length, but in all
> probablility I will stick with 3.85 stroke.
You needn't go with custom rod lengths. There are many sizes available
off-the-shelf these days including 6", 6.125", and 6.2".
> I have to get with TWM to see if their 351c intake for the 8 stack will
> fit the Edelbrock heads and seal with the Windsor block. Any knowledge of
> what kind of intakes fit the Clevor combination?
You will need to plug the Cleveland cooling passage in the head and open
a new one for the Windsor coolant routing. The Ford Motorsport heads
like the C302B's were drilled for both and came with instructions that
should work on the Edelbrock heads but I would verify that with Edelbrock
first. You could do as George suggests and mill, drill, and port match a
Windsor intake but there is a better way. Independent runner intakes for
9.2" deck blocks with 2V heads are available from Redline in Australia:
http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album08
Dave Wharren is running one in a GT40 replica. They don't have the
Windsor waterneck for the thermostat but that is no big deal. You can
run an external thermostat housing. PME makes a remote thermostats that
bolts to Windsor blocks and positions the thermostat horizontally:
http://www.pricemotorsport.com/
Click on thermostat housing.
I'm doing something similar to what you are doing and have the same issue.
In my case (C302B high port heads on a 9.2" Fontana block), intakes with
waternecks are available but my engine builder prefers to take the coolant
out the front of the heads so I went with the PME housing.
Dan Jones
Dan, how do these strokes look for durabilaty with the available blocks. My XE block tested the same thickness as my D2AE-CA block.
We think a 3.85 stroke is all that is safe.
We think a 3.85 stroke is all that is safe.
Regarding the Redline manifold, I considered it & shrugged it off. My reason for doing so was because the rear of the manifold would have to be modified to mate with the Windsor block, and you are still left with having to use a thermostat housing adapter. I figured a machined Windsor manifold would result in an end product better matched to the application. If it were my choice, I would make the Hilborn set up my first consideration.
your friend on the DTBB
your friend on the DTBB
Attachments
Images (1)
> We think a 3.85 stroke is all that is safe.
What do you base that upon? Dave McLain used a standard 351C block for his
Engine Master's entry with 4" stroke and 6" rod. He said it worked out
just fine and I know of several similar street engines running with no
problems. A local Pantera owner is also doing a 4" stroker 351C. A friend
runs a 4.1" stroke with 6.125" rod in a 9.5" deck block, also with no
problems. 3.85" is conservative but it depends upon the RPM you plan to
turn. My Fontana uses a 3.85" stroke but my back-up motor will likely be
a 4" stroke.
Dan Jones
What do you base that upon? Dave McLain used a standard 351C block for his
Engine Master's entry with 4" stroke and 6" rod. He said it worked out
just fine and I know of several similar street engines running with no
problems. A local Pantera owner is also doing a 4" stroker 351C. A friend
runs a 4.1" stroke with 6.125" rod in a 9.5" deck block, also with no
problems. 3.85" is conservative but it depends upon the RPM you plan to
turn. My Fontana uses a 3.85" stroke but my back-up motor will likely be
a 4" stroke.
Dan Jones
> My reason for doing so was because the rear of the manifold would have to be
> modified to mate with the Windsor block
True. I forgot about that issue. I have an intake I modified that way.
It's pretty easy to do.
> If it were my choice, I would make the Hilborn set up my first consideration.
If it were my choice, I would have picked cylinder heads for which the
proper intake is available :-) Actually, that's what I did, though I
still used the remote thermostat housing. BTW, one of the Windsor Pantera
guys talked me into the remote thermostat housing as he had trouble with the
Windsor waterneck clearing the firewall.
Dan Jones
> modified to mate with the Windsor block
True. I forgot about that issue. I have an intake I modified that way.
It's pretty easy to do.
> If it were my choice, I would make the Hilborn set up my first consideration.
If it were my choice, I would have picked cylinder heads for which the
proper intake is available :-) Actually, that's what I did, though I
still used the remote thermostat housing. BTW, one of the Windsor Pantera
guys talked me into the remote thermostat housing as he had trouble with the
Windsor waterneck clearing the firewall.
Dan Jones
WOW! George, Dan and Doug, thanks so much for your input. A lot to research and think about. The TWM interest was because it looked like the system might fit under the engine cover and I liked the fuel rail locations. I do know Duane Hilborn and I will get in touch with him also. Thanks again. I will look into these alternatives and be back for more advice. Dave Ferrato
quote:If it were my choice, I would make the Hilborn set up my first consideration.
George, they come in mechanical too so you don't have to use a computer to get them to work. I bet they ain't any harder to tune than webers.
quote:Originally posted by george pence:
Regarding the Redline manifold, I considered it & shrugged it off. My reason for doing so was because the rear of the manifold would have to be modified to mate with the Windsor block, and you are still left with having to use a thermostat housing adapter. I figured a machined Windsor manifold would result in an end product better matched to the application. If it were my choice, I would make the Hilborn set up my first consideration.
your friend on the DTBB
George, Is this the picture of the Hilborn or the Redline setup?
Redline isn't that forthcoming with technical information about thier setup. I asked twice, that's it, I'm not going to ask them s*** anymore. Basically what they are saying is that here is the assembled kit, $6000 please.
They sell it as a pre-assembled unit.
They were supposed to get back to me with a detailed list of the components and never did.
I think they are being purposely evasive. I can't believe that they are unknowledgeable about the setup but that is certainly a possibilaty.
They supply it with a big port weber ida manifold. I suppose it is thier manifold. They didn't specify.
I would need to transfer everything over to my small port Hall IDA manifold. I'm not sure what that would intale and if it is completely possible.
That is why I asked for more specific information about it.
I would also point out that this is how they were about the 48 ida setup. That's why I didn't buy that from them too.
I simply have never been a fan of Redline and at this point probably never will.
As far as the blocks go Dan, this is coming from my builder now not me, both were measured at .170 to .180 bore thickness and .100 thrust thickness sonically.
I just wanted to know who broke what and you have answered that for me. TY.
If I build a 427, looks like I gotta wait for the "new block".
I don't think I will go with that many cubes though. 48mm webers are restrictive for those cubes. They really should be 58mm and I'm not commiting to reinvent the wheel, again. Been there done that.
George is Nora bending over looking at your Webers?
Doug,
that's the Hillborn set up, that pic is from PI Motorsports' web site.
I'm not familiar with the Red Line system you refer to, but I would assume they employ throttle bodies mounted on an IR manifold. The Hillborn system is a one piece affair, a much nicer design in my not so humble opinion.
Nora is not bending over looking at Webers, she's bending over so you can look at her Wahoos.
LOL ..............................
your friend on the DTBB
that's the Hillborn set up, that pic is from PI Motorsports' web site.
I'm not familiar with the Red Line system you refer to, but I would assume they employ throttle bodies mounted on an IR manifold. The Hillborn system is a one piece affair, a much nicer design in my not so humble opinion.
Nora is not bending over looking at Webers, she's bending over so you can look at her Wahoos.
LOL ..............................
your friend on the DTBB
Well she's welcome to jiggle my Webers anytime. I wonder if I can jiggle her wahoos?
George,
The Hillborn set up appears to be a 3 piece manifold ?? 2 intake runners one for each side and a top plate to cover the lifter valley ? I also have been inquiring about mounting throttle bodies on my weber manifold and employing EFI injectors into each runner. The only difficulty is the throttle bodies to mount on the webbers intake. The rest is all made for teh windsor.
Ron
The Hillborn set up appears to be a 3 piece manifold ?? 2 intake runners one for each side and a top plate to cover the lifter valley ? I also have been inquiring about mounting throttle bodies on my weber manifold and employing EFI injectors into each runner. The only difficulty is the throttle bodies to mount on the webbers intake. The rest is all made for teh windsor.
Ron
quote:Originally posted by accobra:
George,
The Hillborn set up appears to be a 3 piece manifold ?? 2 intake runners one for each side and a top plate to cover the lifter valley ? I also have been inquiring about mounting throttle bodies on my weber manifold and employing EFI injectors into each runner. The only difficulty is the throttle bodies to mount on the webbers intake. The rest is all made for teh windsor.
Ron
Red Line's system does mount on a Weber manifold. They won't sell it seperately at this point. I think they quoted me $4995 with the manifold. Maybe it was $5395? No matter, it's a no go for me.
They wouldn't explain or supply installation instructions any further without a purchase of the system.
Doug,
Yea I would imagine if they did exclude the manifold they would deduct a 100.00 and I'm not sure that we would like their set up .. to spend that kind of money I want to know exactly what I'm getting. I'm gonna give it a shot and I'll let you know what they tell me. I gonna tell them I have webbers and want to convert to EFI. even a pic would do me justice.
Yea I would imagine if they did exclude the manifold they would deduct a 100.00 and I'm not sure that we would like their set up .. to spend that kind of money I want to know exactly what I'm getting. I'm gonna give it a shot and I'll let you know what they tell me. I gonna tell them I have webbers and want to convert to EFI. even a pic would do me justice.