Dan, Steve,
Thanks for the very informative postings guys. I have a Holley (modified
1850) on top of an F4B dual-plane intake manifold. Even with the repro LAT
79 hood there is scant room for an effective air cleaner. The things I have
considered doing, but haven't yet, to get more room are: a) mill the
manifold-to-head mating surfaces consistent with matching the manifold and
head intake ports and, b) mill down the intake manifold carb flange by
perhaps 1/2" to allow for the use of a 1/2" insulating spacer. I believe in
many cases, as the result of milling the block and/or heads, or even
without this machining, that the intake manifold can or should sit a bit
lower on the block. In our application, even 1/8" to 1/4" additional
clearance is critical. Also, taking 3/8" or maybe 1/2" off the carb
mounting flange will give you the opportunity to use a spacer to insulate
the carb and also provide the opportunity for a PCV vacuum inlet.
I like the way my F4B works, but I have had been using it for the past
twenty years now and don't really know how much better (or worse) some of
the newer manifolds might work. I might be tempted to take Dan's advice and
try the Weiand Xcelerator. Any data comparing it to the Performer RPM?
(That you trust that is.) Also, are there any data comparing the F4B to one
of the popular modern intakes? Would prefer though, all else being more or
less equal, to stick with the parts that are contemporary with the car.
TTFN,
Bob
P.S., I probably should mention, for completeness, that there are
variations in where the engine sits, depending on the motor mounts, etc.
Quite a few Tigers out there have the engine lowered and moved back a bit
for clearance and center of gravity reasons.
At 09:59 AM 5/7/99 -0500, Daniel Jones wrote:
>
>
>>>> Steve Laifman <laifman@flash.net> 05/06/99 07:21pm >>>
>Daniel Jones wrote:
>
>> >The Torker is a HIGH rise manifold. The Carter is about the same as the
>>I believe it is not a dual plane manifold, and is a bit soggy at the
lower RPM
>>ranges, but superior at the high revs.
>
>It is a single plane. Windsor states his is a Torker 289 but what Edelbrock
>now lists is a Torker II which may or may not be the same as a Torker 289.
>They redesigned some of the early intakes but others were simply renamed.
>Some single planes are much better than others. Stay away from the x-type
>single planes that have straight runners into the ports. The better ones
have
>gently curved runners. The best high rise dual planes may beat a so-so
>single plane all the way across the rev range. A good single plane will
>usually
>win out on the top end and some aren't too bad on the low end either. The
>tricky part is when you add the effect of an air cleaner. I lean towards a
>good medium rise single plane like a Weiand Xcelerator with a full air
cleaner
>element over a high rise with a restricted element. That assumes I've got the
>cam and compression to use a single plane in the first place. Single planes
>can work well but they are more sensitive to engine configuration and tuning.
>
>Dan Jones
>
Robert L. Palmer
Dept. of AMES, Univ. of Calif., San Diego
rpalmer@ames.ucsd.edu
rpalmer@cts.com
|