After many requests to produce one for these engines, here is the first rendering of the prototype. It will use the Rochester style 2G carbs. From here the patternmaking begins.

Ohhhhhhhh ahhhhhhhhh

That drawing bears a close resemblance to the stock manifold for my military GMC 302!

Yours, i daresay, will not be cast iron.

God's Peace to you.

d
Inliner #1450

Yeah Don, it will be aluminum. It fits the 194-292 engines and is also similar to the stock 250/292 1BBL intake in a lot of areas, then topped off with a 2 BBL carb flange. Many guys want to upgrade above the stock I BBL but don't want to jump all the way to a 4 BBL intake either. So this should fill the void and provide what they are looking for.

You may want to figure a way to use a standard 2300 Holley bolt pattern or one of the small progressive webers on it.

I think the Weber and the Rochester have the same bolt pattern. The 2300 baseplate is almost twice the size of the flange shown above, and the throttle bores are a lot larger also and would make the interchange more to deal with. It would be easier to just change the top pattern and cast a specific intake for the 2300 carbs.

I'm sure looking forward to this!

Or use an adapter plate for the already plentiful 4bbl manifolds.

Looks good. My 270 ran really strong with a GM 2bbl.

My real target group for this is the guy that wants to upgrade in a small way perhaps with a HEI conversion and maybe some good exhaust but still want to use his vehicle for towing and light duty hauling and still retain that off-idle grunt without sacrificing that. Also the smaller 194 and 230 guys have virtually no specific items for their cars that aren't more geared toward the bigger 250 and 292 engines.

Good idea.

Thanks, im dangerous when I have some spare time!

Whether you think so or not with a little time (well maybe more than a little) a 194-292 manifold will work on a 228-302 GMC. Did my first one 15 years ago and it's still woking just fine. I definately like the this one and can immagine it with 2 more Rochester bases............JD

Excellent!
I used to cast stuff back in school, based on that I'd say the casting would be even easier with 3 downspouts (eg 1 for each of 3 possible carb pads.....)
Since these freeze last, it would be easier with 3 spouts to change carb pad types (eg Roch 1v vs 2gc pads) without having casting troubles.

Also, what about water cooling?
I hate exhaust cooling as it corrodes/erodes alum intakes.

And, I would add some "bosses" for bolting carb linkage, maybe the original bosses on the side for using the stock linkage and powerglide stuff, etc, and on the top where the later 292 throttle cable mounts. It's tough when you have no bosses in the intake cuz the head/block are pretty sparse too, no place to solid mount anything. It kinda helps to think out any thick bosses first cuz you can have shrinkage/coldshuts (lack of metal fill) in those heavy areas and may need chills there in the design.

Should be relatively easy to offer a 1*2v, 3*2v, and 3*1v intake this way!

You read my mind jimmysix, I am looking at making an intake or two for the Jimmys also, since there hasn't been any made for them in 50 or 60 years. Adding a few carbs to this one and making it 3 x 2, or a 3 x 1 or other combos is also something I was going to incorporate and offer. So literally with just a few changes I can have 3 or 4 different intakes available. And yes, more bosses for linkage and water heating are going to be part of the design as well. I also have several other engines I am currently making models of right now and will plan on making them part of my my new line of production products. I literally have dozens of new intakes, side covers, valve covers, timing covers and a few cylinder heads for different engines that I have been developing over the past few months and with some new 3D CAD/CAM software I recently purchased, its going to be an interesting upcoming year for Inlines of all types. I've recently demonstrated on another forum with this software how easily I can go from concept to part in hand in just a few days with a variety of products. Any part is within reach now from blocks, heads, intakes...anything. The only limitation is the imagination!

Cool!

May I make a couple suggestions? The two outermost corners should probably have a larger radius. As shown the cross sectional area varies from small to large them small again around the outer corners. Or to think of it another way, there is a dead spot/turbulence in those corners. Also, most engines are mounted with a few degrees tilted rearward. As shown, your carb mounting flange or runner shapes do not account for this tilt. Further, stock manifolds flare out at the head flange to go around the head bolt bosses. Perhaps you don't intend to mate to stock heads, I don't know.

Not trying to shoot you down, I appreciate inititative. Just trying to be helpful.

The runner radius' on the end runners are the same as the stock intake manifold are on the outside of it, but on the inside they are much different than one might think they are just from the outward appearance and are smoothed out straighter. Thats one of those hidden features i've made into it that you cant see externally. The port flanges are just attached to represent the feature and not the actual flanges that will be cast on them. And yes, an angle of some amount will be compensated for in the carb mounting surface.

Also, for those that might not need the intake for your particular application, there is always the T-Shirt.

But the T-Shirt is white advertisers of automotive parts forget we are dirt and grease magnets.

You buy my black shop aprons for when your going to get greasy, T-shirts are for car shows or when you want some that looks cool to wear.

I'd add enough material to allow a GM TBI to bolt on. I'm really considering making up a kit that would have the ECM and harness & sensor included. The rest is available in the junkyard for not much $$$.

Do you have a dimension for the throttle bore size and spacing and bolt pattern. English instead of metric preferred.

Got the apron, but what about the parts and food that gets between the apron and the shirt?, cars shows and swap meets have soda, coffee and burgers, and margeritas all of which provide a colorful pallet for shirt decorations.

CNC-Dude, Have you considered a 4BBL with closer to equal length runners?

Actually I am drawing one right now, might have it ready to post a drawing of like the 2 BBL intake later tonight. I actually have 4 different intake manifolds for the 194-292 I am currently designing and fixing to start patternmaking for them immediately so I can begin casting them. Thanks for your interest.

Here's my new version of an "equal" length runner 4 BBL intake manifold. Its meant to be a race only style intake, but the center runner length is approx an inch longer than other conventional 4BBL intakes available currently.

I sold my last TBI so nothing to measure.

4.3L, 5.0L, and 5.7L GM engines have throttle body bores of 1 11/16" with approximately 2 7/16" (scaled from a photo) between bore centers.

http://www.dynamicefi.com/TBI_Fueling.php

Thanks Winter, i'll check it out.

That's still not a equal length runner. At least not in my eyes
from base of carb to the Port on the head. Your center runner is still closer (shorter) to the carb then the end two ports. And with it being a single plane intake. Like Yours, cliffords, and the Offey. Clyde was close but not vary friendly in much of any manner. Esp. street wise or Hood clearance. But his wasn't meant for the street to start with. I have seen ONE intake and the mold (cast) that had Equal length runners. And is one fine piece of work. But the guy has NO interest in selling it Or the patterns to it.:(
But either way I agree with most Your 2b intake should more carb mount friendly.(more then one bolt pattern)

Your right Larry, it's not exactly an equal runner design, but as I mentioned, the center runner is an inch longer than the other options(Offy, Clifford)which makes it a little more equal than those. Having said that, the "unequal" runner design of the Clifford and Offy still isn't bad either. Short of making a Log Style intake, it might not be something that can be done, and whether that type of intake is any better than what we have now is debatable im sure.
The more I think about it also Larry, I think your also correct as to allowing more options on the 2 BBL intake carb flange for different bolt patterns.

I think having all runners of equal length is way over rated. At least on a street engine.

Did the Mopar slant six have close to equal length intake runners? Or semi/close to equal length?

The factory 4 bbl slant six intake, never seen one that I remember about, were those equal length?

Forgot what those 4 bbl packaged cars were called? Anyone? 1964 or there abouts?

MBHD

Yeah they were called the Hyper Pak. Aussiespeed makes a similar long runner intake for them and they are pretty close to equal length. There was a guy over on the Slant6 forum, Doug Dutra, that reproduced the factory Hyper Pak version intake for a while, then Jack Clifford bought the patterns and they offer it as "Fat Pak" intake from time to time, when ever they feel like making some. I had one of the first 10 intakes that Doug cast and sold it for big bucks on eBay. Runners are 16 inches long. From all the racers that have tried to use it on the Slant forum, they say the standard Clifford intake makes more power.

The rare slant 6 factory intake is a dual 4, Tex Smith had one on the XR27 roadster for a while and I've seen one other on EBay with carbs and linkage where it sold for around $3500.00

They definately are wicked looking! You just don't expect to see something like that on a Slant 6 when you pop the hood. Of the 65-70 intakes that Doug Dutra cast, I think only about 10 have actually been bolted on to engines and had gas run through them, these guys just buy them mostly because they have become such a cult symbol to the Slant crowd. I kept mine long enough to make a set of patterns for one to start making them myself.

Hey Scott
one more thing food for thought. As I know with the offey there is not enough meat/spacing with the carb plate for most 4b linkage to clear the intake, with out using a spacer. Have you thought about that? Just thinking maybe? or could have the same issue with a 2b.

Larry I have thought of raising the carb pad up about 3/4" on an inch above the flat part of the plenum, thats how high it is in the drawing for the 2 BBL intake. I think the standard carb adapter plate thickness for the Clifford 4 BBL is only 1/2" thick, so I should be high enough compared to that way of thinking. Would you think I might need to make the flange a little taller then or is 3/4" a safe target to shoot for. I will also add some bosses for linkage to bolt to also.

CNC-Dude, Before there was a choice of intakes we would make 2" and 4" spacers to go between manifold and head. The 4" showed the most benefit with the Offy 3x1 setup.

I would like to see someone make a 4BBL manifold with the center runner coming into the plenum from the bottom as far as possible to the outer side. The end runners entering from the sides. This would require a raised plenum. That would mean more cores I know. This would more than likely be a race only part.
Just my thoughts.

The PES intake actually is designed the way you are describing, with the center runner entering the plenum area from the bottom side and is raised real high. Have you seen this intake manifold?

I notice the area underneath the carb has sharp 90 degree turns.
Would be good to has big radius' for each runner.
Just a thought.
I know when I tried to make nice radius' I broke through the upper part of the runner, near carb base & had to add welded aluminum.

MBHD

Yes, but have not had a chance to try it. I don't know how high the carb flange is or what the runner size is. I like the idea and would welcome the chance to try one.

Hank, it will have a large radius under the carb, just doesn't show up well because of the angle of the intake. I can do a section view to reveal the inside features of it. Also Crklnsp, you can contact Tlowe about the PES intakes, he is the manufacturer of them if you need to discuss their design data, he can tell you all the specifics about them.

Maybe a good idea to make an assortment of carb spacers.1", 2", 3", 4", 4 hole, open etc, etc. Something that looks like it belongs on the manifold , not a universal carb spacer.
If you see what I'm saying? Or, picking up what I'm dropping off?

I made some slight changes to the prototype, I made the end runners have a little more radius in them.

For more even fuel distribution wouldn't a dual carb intake work better?? Most of the older (ie Nikson, Edmunds, Ellis etc.) intakes didn't really add much power but spread the fuel out more evenly between the cylinders for a smoother running engine.

I think with a single carb design on any inline intake, your going to always have a possible fuel distribution worry. I can see a market for a 2 x 1 intake, but don't know if people will look for it as a worthy everyday driver kind of bolt on or if they may feel having to deal with getting/keeping 2 carbs in sync is more of a hot rod setup and miss the appeal to the target crowd the single 2 BBL intake will attract.

I can always make both intakes and not settle for just one or the other....that way you get product availability for both markets. I think in the past with so few options in the intake category, many inline guys have had to settle or compromise on intake choices and not had one that entirely filled their needs 100%, such as installing a 4 BBL when a 2BBL would have been fine, etc....

If I personally had a choice of installing a single 4bbl vs 2X2bbl. 2GC's, I would take the twin carb intake because of fuel distribution and in the design stage you have the option of turning them 90 degrees to help with linkage hook-up so a bellcrank isn't needed. A Unisyn can make the carb tuning a fairly easy task.

Because of the runner width and cross section, rotating the carb 90° will place the throttle bore that is toward the engine side almost 2" closer to the head, making it more suceptable to being over rich and almost hidden entirely inside the center runner shrouding the 2 end runners from its contribution to the rest of the engine. The carb placement with the throttle bores being parallel to the head is the same design that is used on similar OEM 2 BBL intakes from South America Chevy 250's, so its really not an unorthodox design as it might be considered.

How about making the 2 end runners or all,,, divided?

Sorta like I did.



Just giving you some ideas, if you want me to stop, I will.

MBHD

This is fun to follow. Lots of interesting ideas.

I was going to run 3 singles on my 292, but lately I've been leaning towards a 2 x 2bbl set up. I haven't looked very hard yet, but there don't seem to be much of a choice for a manifold dedicated to 2 2bbls.

If dividers are added to the end runners, the dividers should extend through the manifold 90 degree bends. The Brazilian 2 barrel manifold had that configuration. Dividing just the short straight runners to the ports will negatively impact even flow distribution in the siamese ports.

Scott:

Have been following this thread with interest. Both the 1x2 and 1x4 manifold renderings look great. I can also understand the interest in the 2x2 configuration as well.

As we've spoken of before, a side draft 3x1 with Carter YH carbs would also be of interest, giving that "old school cool" Blue Flame look. If you take your original square radius 1x2 design, remove the carb pad on the top, and add the three carb attachment pads down the outside of the plenum across from the inlet ports, and "Bob's your uncle"! Just three bosses on the top of the plenum to mount the linkage jackshaft assembly and you're good to go.

By the way, does your CAD software help in the fabrication of the patterns and does it allow for casting shrinkage? Just curious ...

Russ

Russ, the software in using to draw these 3D models is Solidworks and I can slice these along there midplane axis and create the patterns for all the top external and internal cores and also add the shrinkage to the drawings. Then I can import these native Solidworks files into my BobCAD-CAM software and generate toolpaths to actually make the patterns from these 3D models. Funny you mention our "Blue Flame" project, I have almost gotten that one whooped! I also have a Slant 6 EFI intake done also for those guys, so I guess im the new intake manufacturer now. I sat down and drew that 4 BBL Chevy version intake in less than 2 hours. Since I already had all the dimensions, I thought that was a pretty good use of time.

[quote=Winter

If dividers are added to the end runners, the dividers should extend through the manifold 90 degree bends. The Brazilian 2 barrel manifold had that configuration. Dividing just the short straight runners to the ports will negatively impact even flow distribution in the siamese ports. [/quote]

That is how my manifold is divided as seen in the pic I posted.
From the carb base to the flanges.

MBHD

Hank, since your setup is injected with nozzles at the head entry point, dividing the intake runners is irrelevant anymore, dividing them after the nozzles would be were you/anyone would benefit from that setup more. The intake manifold at this point is only there to bolt the throttle body to and only is carrying air thru the runners instead of Air and Fuel together.

I am not saying to divide the runners for a fuel injected engine, were talking a carbureted engine.

I had already divided my Clifford intake years ago when I have used several different carbs.
Have not tried it fuel injected yet.

MBHD

Oh ok, I thought you were indicating you had run it like that already and were just showing us what you did. I think that for a fuel injected app like yours, the divided runner idea will hurt it. Because at this point the intake is really just a big aluminum breather, and the dividers will restrict the ports ability to breathe very well at higher RPM's.
You've said many times before when Tlowe had mentioned dividing the ports inside the head itself that you felt the port window was made too small to be effective for much power gain, I think the same is true for dividing the intake runners. You would have to make the runners large enough in the intake to begin with to make sure they are not reduced in size too much if you did divide them. Test that idea with a carb and let us know how it works, and then maybe it might be something to consider adding to a new intake design. There just isn't any data to support it is anything but just an idea at this point that might or might not work effectively.

No need to re-test my intake manifold idea. After I had divided the intake I noticed better low end power & better acceleration.
Comparing to my friends Nova before & after dividing the intake runners.

The reason is does not hurt airflow on this manifold is because the Clifford runners are huge. Any increase in intake port velocity running the Clifford is going to help everywhere in the entire RPM range.

Dividing the runners I believe also would help w/more even fuel distribution. Just a theory. Have not tested with individual e.g.t. probes, maybe Mike Kirby has? He uses 6 egt probes when he dyno tunes/tests.

I have also stated a Offy intake is a better street intake for for 250 & smaller engines because the port velocity is much higher with the Offy over the Clifford. Tlowes states the Clifford made more power, like 2 HP more?, I call that a wash.
Deuce coupe did actual testing between the two intakes w/various carbs & the quickest ET (IIRC)he got was with the Offy intake, not by much though. But at least his tests were done on an actual car on an actual road. I do not believe an engine dyno is the gospel (sort to speak) on how an engine is going to perform on the street or the track. Just my take on engine dynos.
Don't get me wrong, engine dynos are a great tool to tune with.


Not only did I think dividing the intake port in the cyl head would hurt airflow, I also flow tested the same divided cylinder head. It absolutely w/out a doubt killed the airflow.
I also talked about it w/Mike Kirby & he also agreed & found the same results on his own testing.

I think designing an intake manifold that combines the Offy & Clifford designs would be a better manifold.
Something that has smaller runners than a Clifford but larger runners/port volume of the Offy would make for a better manifold.
Just my idea. Could be wrong.

MBHD

I'm planning on dividing my intake in a similar fashion because I'm hoping it will smooth out the idle and low RPM's using port injection, I'm using a Clifford intake with cast in injector bungs so my injectors are at a steeper angle pointing into the ports. I think TLowe actually put port dividers in the head to smooth out his engine.

Hank,
Back to the Offy vs Clifford debate. Just to point out some differences in my testing and Duececoupes tests.

My tests showed more than a lowly 2HP change. Closer to 15 HP at 4800-5000. I also did my tests specifically to dispel those exact rumors. My tests were on a engine modified for a higher output. A aftermarket cam and reworked head for instance.

Duececoupes tests were done on a stock cammed, stock headed engines. Also good tests but day and night different than mine.


The dividers used in my Siamesed ports really helped clean up the way the engine ran. Well with doing on a multiport injected engine.

I agree that a new intake needs to be made to address many of the shortcomings the Offy and Clifford present. After all the drawings and prototypes are made then tests can be made on a dyno and then a car.

This is a classic example of why one intake doesn't fit all. Just for giggles and grins, I looked on Edelbrock's online catalog and saw that they offer 14 different dual plane intakes for the SBC. 14 different dual planes, how can there be that much difference in one manifold that you have to make 14 different versions of it to accomodate the demand....again, one intake doesn't fit all needs. They have exactly 50 different intakes total for the SBC. So there is plenty of room to make and offer something for most everyone's needs with the inlines, so maybe before long there will be 14 intakes for the 250/292's.

Here's an intake from Brazil set up for alcohol but with the Rochesters turned sideways (what I was referring to a few posts back) and I think this would distribute the fuel better than a single carb placed in front of the center intake port.,

I agree w/you 100%

MBHD

The info you post here on how much power differed from the two intakes from my point of view are just rumors also, nothing is posted here for all to see.
From what I remembered you telling me the peak HP differences were really close, not 15 HP, don't know where you got that number from?
For all I know you could be looking @ the best HP on one combo & the worst combo from the other & posting it here for us to just believe you. AKA rumors to me.

Don't take this like I want to see your dyno sheets, because I don't, but if you can understand from what I am saying here, anyone here on the BB, are taking your & my test results like a grain of salt, not much to back them.

Turbo6 also divided his siamesed port head with the results of better fuel distribution, but he also proved my fact that it makes the intake port window too small.
To make the same power Harry was making before w/the undivided siamesed port head, he had to increase boost 10 PSI for the divided intake port head.
I do not to see his dyno results or times slips to believe him, I have first hand knowledge on what dividing the intake port does, it makes the intake port window too small. The engine can't breath.

As far as Duececoupes results go, those count also & you should not dismiss his findings because they differ from your test results.
So w/your results on the dyno & the results of Duececoupes testing, you did not dispel any of those so-called rumors.
If anything, his results were the same findings I found years ago so in my eyes my rumors seems to be more accurate than your engine dyno testing. J.M.O.
This could be taken the wrong way, & it could be the wrong way to explain it.
Not saying Deucecoupes results match my results & therefore that's the way it is. There are so many factors that can change how a car runs or how dyno results can differ.

I like the Clifford intake, it's just not a low RPM manifold.


MBHD

I think every bodys tests are rumors because i gained 18 hp with just a chome package no dividers needed

P.s. this is a joke to break the **** swinging contest

I agree
If you put some JDM stickers & a rear spoiler, the gains would be more than 18 HP

MBHD

If I got this straight you don't want to see Tlowes dyno sheets because you don't believe them, you don't need to see the data from Turbo6 because you believe him and you like Duececoupes figures because they align with yours. In all honesty Hank, I believe you have some trust issues, any decision should be based on all available information, not just facts or figures that bolster your position.

jalopy45
I hope you don't mind me tagging an this one?
One thing I found out is from going the single 4b to the Dual Is it ran better ETs proved this to me. But My 3x4 ran better then the dual. Once again main reason is better fuel distribution. And much straighter. Another main reason the weber intake works so well.
just a 2cent post. on what worked for my 250.

[quote=Twisted6 I.I #3220jalopy45
I hope you don't mind me tagging an this one?
One thing I found out is from going the single 4b to the Dual Is it ran better ETs proved this to me. But My 3x4 ran better then the dual. Once again main reason is better fuel distribution. And much straighter. Another main reason the weber intake works so well.
just a 2cent post. on what worked for my 250. [/quote]

I can't how this can be true because you did not dyno test it.
I will consider this to be a rumor.

MBHD

This is all a big joke & am having fun with it.
Don't take it too seriously.

MBHD

It is pretty easy to understand, Tlowe states his findings on the dyno tests, does not publish them here. So for the most part, it can be considered a rumor, to people here that has not seen any of his results.

I might say something else about a carb or intake & my findings are not video taped or logged/recorded, so all you have to go by is what I post here, no proof.

Do you see any similarities?
Nothing is posted here for anyone to read or a video tape.
There is not a video of Tlowes dyno tests showing that for example a Clifford intake making 280 HP, then a comparing video showing the same engine w/an Offy intake making peak power of 265HP, just saying, there is nothing on this BB backing up his findings.
Was the tune correct on the Clifford run, was is better tuned for the Offy, who knows?

Make sense?

No similarities, I got copies of Tlowe's dyno test because I contributed some money towards the test, now I didn't get any dyno results from Edelbrock , Offenhauser or Clifford because I neither paid or help pay for their tests, but I happen to believe what they say because they have no possible reason mislead me. Trust issues.

I am saying for people that have no dyno sheets from Tlowe & not watching me race my friends car first hand, for the person that has nothing to go by other than a person posting on here it can be considered a rumor. Yes, no, maybe? You picking up what I'm dropping off?

Also, don't believe everything you read especially car magazines, some stuff they do not mention or will leave out.
I am not saying someone or anyone is misleading you & you should not trust them.
Those little fuel mileage magnets, do you have any reason not to trust them? http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=FuelMag1
Cant trust every manufacture that comes out with the latest & greatest gizmo. No?
http://www.kjmagnetics.com/fuelmagnet.asp


Never mind.

MBHD

There are so many variable lets say all of you tested different weather elevation different location differet drag strips different cars. Tires and such

I run a clifford for no other reason than i got it cheap and it will be turboed maybe some time down the road i'll just by a marshall intake and print my dino sheets on here lol

Some one on this site seems to always get a little to excited when it comes to other people/s on this sites stuff thats that and thts hot rodding

I mean isn't that why we make buddies is to learn and trust other people hell i'm only 22 i don't do or can't afford to do half the stuff you guys do and when i see the people i want to learn from doing "stuff" like this on the net makes me think is this what i'm really into

Come on its just ones tests to another get over it

Happy inlining

Amen Brother!

MBHD

A lot of the main dyno testing done was to evaluate the true gains of the different stages of "lump" head preparation with larger valves, etc... the other components like intakes and cam were just variables that can obviously be viewed as one cam and intake selection might show greater gains with a 1.84" valve head on a 292 instead of a 250, or the differences in a certain RPM range. So you really look at dyno reults as being more of a gain or loss with a certain combo and not just a number. Whether a dyno can truly measure the differences down to 2-3 HP between parts is always going to be challenged by those that have never been involved with that profession. But the bottom line is always going to be what makes the end user satisfied with what he/she chooses to use for their own personal driving habits and needs.

As for the fuel distribution issues that seem to keep raising concerns, there are ways internally inside the center runner that are used by other companies that make similar products that reduce this problem to being virtually non-existent and will be implemented in my design as well. So I don't really think it will be an issue, and some actual street driving in different traffic conditions will be performed by an outside, unbiased person to truly evaluate the good and bad so any changes can be made before I go into any mass production quantities.

Here ya go Hank,a video of a dyno pull and using a Clifford intake., now ya gotta become a believer. , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p3-cAJrLCw&feature=youtu.be

Nice video! Thank you.

It would be something to see a back to back comparison with a Offy intake & a video of that also.

Glad to somebody listens to what I say about running a zero deck to running a positive deck. Makes a huge difference in suppressing detonation & make more power. This is not my idea BTW, just passing info here that work on my engine builds.

MBHD

(Very good looking) good luck. I need a intake for 292 3 Weber IDF

Carb"s were can i find one i saw ine on Inliners web i can't find again, Please Help.
Thank You.
George.

There made in Brazil. I am a distributor for their products and have 20 intakes coming, but none are that style. I can check and see if they are still available and get pricing for you if your interested.

hummmm interesting Question & off the wall. Now if you have your own foundry Doing your own CAD drawings why would you Buy 20 intakes from Brazil?

Meeeow !!!

No meow Just a simple honest Question. is there a problem with that?

Fair question Larry. It was a trade situation, the owner of the intake manifold company in Brazil was interested in some of the items I got from Joe, that I wasn't too interested in, and it was easier for him to give me some of his products instead of money.

Just out of curiosity, if it's not secret, what did he get?

He wanted the 4 cylinder head and a raw cast FI intake, and one of the raw 6 cylinder heads and a raw FI intake for it. Not that I was not interested in the 6 cylinder head, it was more the 4 cylinder head, but he wanted one of the 6's also.

CNC

Thank you. That is kinda what I was thinking ( trade offs ).
Once again Thank you for a straight answer to a straight Question.

Sure Larry, your welcome.

So you sent my 4 cylinder head to Brazil? Don't make me come back there!

Im working on making the patterns a little more compatible for the smaller bore 4 and 6 cylinder engines. Joe had the chambers and valve sizes made for using with a 4-1/8" bore size. So the re-designed setup should be much better. I still have(2)aluminum 4 cylinder blocks for you Beater.

Are you going to produce aluminum 6 cylinder blocks?

Will you add engine mounts to it or need to use motor plates?

I always wanted a block.

MBHD

Hank, I would like to at some point, but I won't have any way to pour the casting myself, its just too heavy to pick up and try to attempt with just one person. So at that point I will probably have to get a larger casting facility to do it for me. But yes, it will have the traditional motor mounts to allow fitting it to passenger cars so it will have a wider target market.

I'm a person. OK, An old person, but I can lift stuff. I can pack a 302 block across the shop. Hank and I could come and help. How cool would that be? Seriously? The three of us working on an aluminum block project would be the ultimate Inliner collaboration, unless Tom and Larry jumped in.

That would be cool. We need to keep that in mind.

I'd bring my cans.

I got a couple of dawgs that are learning to retrieve beer cans.

Teaching them to retrieve them is easy. I'm having trouble getting the dogs to crush them and put them in the recycle bin. Maybe I need tow different breeds for that.

You might want to see if you can train him to help you drink them too, it'll take almost 100 lbs of aluminum to pour a block...so drink up!

The 5 of you couldn't agree HOW to do it and it would just turn into a big beer bust to build up your can supply..LOL

So are you going to come keep us in line? We need an adult to supervise.

The problem is that they do drink the beer, every time they bite one it sprays and they bite the spray and fall down and never bring me the can.

Yea, Beercanador Retrievers are not a soft mouthed breed like most bird dogs. You actually have to start them on bottles and progress to cans of something that tastes really bad like Budweiser until they learn not to puncture the can. It's funny watching them lick their butts to get the bad taste out of their mouthes, especially after they've popped a few.

LOL, I would just stand by & watch.

MBHD

The Hell you would! You'd be emptying cans the whole way and helping train the dogs. No slackers Hank.

Oh, yes, I would definitely find all the aluminum I could.

I'll put you to bush hoggin' or somethin', there's always somethin' to do around here.

Better yet teach me on how to make some Z-26 billet badges on your CNC machine. I am still in need for them. If you know anyone?

CNC-Dude,
That is a pretty sweet manifold! I don't reckon it matters all that much but... have you given any thought as to which 2GC's to use: the 1-1/4" flange(1-7/16" throttle bore) "Chevrolet" ones or the 1-1/2" flange (1-11/16" throttle bore) "Pontiac" ones?

All the small flange ones flowed about 197 CFM "in four-barrel speak" while the large flanged ones ranged in flow from 249 CFM to 308 CFM ( again, in 4bbl talk) dependent on the venturi size.

I reckon it might be easy enough to do both, if you were so inclined.
No big deal; just curious. Keep up the good work!

Yeah, its drawn with the smaller 2GC in mind for the smaller 194 and 230 engines. I could make a larger runner version for the 250 and 292's that use the larger 2GC carbs if its needed.

Hows this coming? Any updates to report?

Double post.

It's on the list. Doing the patternmaking now on it and a few other things now.

I havent heard any foundry updates lately. Have you just decided to be a POOLETZER prize winning author? I got my copy of Case File #1948 the other day. It looks so good I'm going to read it again. I think the publisher did a good job. The binding seems to be far better than the Bonneville rule books which fall apart as you walk away from the SCTA booth. I used to complain but those gals are tough. I just make sure I have a rubber band to keep the pages in place as I run away.

I actually have entered the book into a national contest for independent publishers and should know the results by the first of May. The Gold, Silver and Bronze Award winners are presented with their awards at a publishing convention in NYC with many of the bigwigs in the publishing industry. Tom's wanting to try and move forward on the dyno testing book which I will be publishing for him as soon as him gets me the files rolling in. And I have a book signing here locally in March to prepare for along with several TV talk shows. The foundry stuff had taken a backseat with all the snow storms we had been having here lately, so i'll get back to it once I get my Stovebolt book and his finished.

I don't know if I missed this information in the thread, but does your two barrel manifold have the attachment points on the bottom side to allow it to hook the factory exhaust manifold for heat?

It will have provisions for heating like the Clifford and Offy intakes do. I just don't know how compatible it will be for using the stock exhaust manifold instead of headers.

I guess hot rodding and writing are really just two different ways of harnessing hot gasses for fun and profit.

Its all fun. My resume weighs 10 lbs though .....

I have started the patternmaking process for the 2bbl intake. Spy photos will soon show it being tested in a "secret" undisclosed location on the West Coast.

Not like I have any questions or anything--- but which 2bbl, small or large base? Will it bolt to the stock exhaust manifold? Is the first book out for purchase, the one with a 56 Chevy on the cover? If so please tell me where to get it. Thanks. Jay6155

Try HERE .

Jay the first book is getting closer to completion. I just need to visit the machine shop for some last bit of photography needing to be done there, and then its can be sent to the printer.

The intake can be used with the stock exhaust, but not in the sense it will bolt to it as the factory intake does, but it will have its own separate heat box which will require a plate to be bolted to it to plumb in water to heat it, and it will be provided with the intake. The Rochester 2GC carbs with the 1.250" throttle bore size is the one that is intended for use on this intake.

Thanks for letting me know. The stovebolt is an interesting engine . I grew up right on the tail end of their use. Saw a lot of them in junkyards when I was 12 or so. Didn't know really what I was looking at at the time. Funny how one learns to appereate things later on. Looking forward to both. Jay6155

Can you make an intake to mount 2 1 barrel GM TBI s on a. GMC 270 H head, without having to use adapter plates. Would also like to have the horn mount cast in, with bosses for Vacuum port for hydro vac brake line as well. I know you can, but will you? this is for a 1950 GMC 3 ton fire truck, I want to go faster. You don't have to divide the ports or make them equal length.:)

I am planning both a few Stovebolt and GMC intakes. Which GM TBI are you referring to?

Single barrel TBI off an 88 Cutlus and 90 Grand Am. Bill at Hamilton Fuel injection has done this , I just can't find an intake yet. Thanks

If you can send me a gasket to verify the correct pattern i'll see what I can do. Thanks

Will pickup gaskets this week. Thanks

CNC-Dude, still interested in that manifold. I got sucked into an out of state job that I wasn't expecting. Had to drop everything and run. Will pick up gaskets tommorow. I'm getting the wiring sorted out on the 2 barrel TBI, hope to try starting it with that on it this week. Thanks. Jim

I actually have become involved pretty heavily in the last month or so with some TBI projects both for the GM 1 and 2 bbls. as well as multiple TBI setups, so I have all the dimensions I need now for both sizes of the 2 bbl. units.

finding good street intakes for the Chevy 153 isn't easy how bout a 153 4 intake that takes a good 2 barrel ?

I have some products for these engines as well already in the works.

Any news on the new intakes? Got my GMC 270 running and driving on the single 2 barrel TBI. Was wondering about the dual 1 barrel manifold. Thanks Jim

I'd love to see some turning vanes incorporated in the elbows of your intake. lots of turbulence in a square corner for air flow.
http://img.tfd.com/architecture/f1023-01.png

Do a search on turning vanes in elbows etc.

Here is a good way to get ideas for turning vanes

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=tur...p;sp=-1&sk=

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=turning+vanes+in+corner+duct&FORM=HDRSC2

Are you taking into account the shape of the moving air mass in a given cross section of a runner. example - a square or rectangular runner does not have a rectangular column of air flowing thru it. The air flow in the corners is at a reduced rate there for reducing the volume flow (efficiency). Oval or round runners tend to have better flow characteristics in a given cross sectional area. Also bends need to have a larger cross section to maintain the same flow rate.
Looking forward to seeing the finished version of the 4bbl manifold.

I do not think this is true. The bend needs a LARGER FLATTENED SHAPE ON THE SHORT SIDE RADIUS but a reduced cross section to keep the airflow "glued in" to the short side radius wall.

Build it in clear plastic so you can watch the flow.

He's a retired Ford engineer, i'm sure he's done it many times.

Done what? many times. Any news. The 10000 lb GMC 450 with a 270 H head now tops out at 60 mph running a 2 barrel TBI with dual Fentons. Interested in the dual one barrel manifold still. Jim . Thanks