Inliners International Forums General Discussion Hi Performance New 2 BBL intake on the horizon!

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.