Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums Modifications Duratec Performance Terry Q again. The "restriction"

If you would be so kind as to give me another opinion. Take a look at my mods below (in sig). Assume I were to 1) remove precats to complete the opening up of the exhaust, 2) FINISH up my mods with a dyno session that tuned my A/F ratio to optimum with chip, Apexi-AFC, etc.

Where do you think the intake flow restiction would be..? Nice easy multiple choice Q.

A) 60 mm throttle body
B) Extrude Honed upper intake (32mm secondaries)
C) 34mm butterflies in lower intake
D) intake ports in heads/valves
E) More than one
F) None of the above - eveything is perfect!
G) None of the above - hopeless case!
H) None of the above - what are you talking about!

A, B, and C are relatively fixable. Probably would not do head porting or big valves at present. Alot of people have chimed in on this but I want to know what you had to say.. Thanks once again

Work can be done in all of the areas you mention BUT the one you didnt is the one I think can give the most gain.If you notice on the intake when the throttle is at WOT the intake air almost 'dead heads' against the back of the intake manifold and then has to do a 90 deg right & left turn to the plenums,then another 90 deg turn!.A previous post was on the right track in this area but for the wrong reasons.What will happen to the flow if the axis point of the throttle body X shaft is moved away from the mating face of the intake manifold?.Think of 4 brl carbs with the 90 deg deck under the carb to the runners,when will the gas flow best? at WOT or with the butterfly not exactly at 90 deg to the manifold floor? and how could you make that flow smoother/better......

A mini throttle body on each end of the runners perhaps?

PS DemonSVT has proof that the 60mm TB is a flow restrictor. It is pointless adding a huge MAF if the downstream TB is still the same, the system will only flow as much as the TB can handle, regardless if you MAF is 1m in diameter!
Until people realise this, we will be talking our selves in circles.

My idea of optimising the SVT (N/A) or any Duratec, within reason is as follows:

Good intake filter
65mm TB
MAF? (Maybe a Pro-M, but a 70mm MAF is still bigger than the TB)
Chip with improved timing curve
A'PEXi S-AFC (to tune everything in)
Headers
True duals

Everything else like dual TB's, porting polishing and stuff like that is a lot more work, and even though it may yireld good results is more than I wish to undertake, except of course for a Turbo!

Ideal but not that easy,think about the 'dead heading' problem!!!

hey terry, toss me an email. I have some thoughts that may assist in making a solution to the "dead-head" problem even easier to implement.

Terry would you mind expanding on this a bit? If I understand correctly you're referring to the vertical "divider" which is cast internally in the upper IM to force airflow to the right and left plenums.

My solution would be 1 of or a combination of the following: add a spacer of XX thickness between the t-body and the upper IM entry; rotate the t-body 90 degrees; cut open the upper IM horizontally and port to smooth airflow. Did I miss any, and which is preferred?

Your on track!!!

Terry, Interesting thread. would putting some sort of splitter behind the tb and in front of where the air dead heads be of benefit. I'm kind of thinking it would start the air transitioning to the right or left just behind the TB to make the air flow smoother. Kind of taking a corner and hitting the apex at the right spot. Does this make sense

....and your 'on track' too!!!!!!

Like to continue this discussion. I have actually been thinking of this for quite some time. Have you done something like this already to your tour???

I think you could make an insert between the TB and the IM out of thin Al plate or something like that with a vertical plate incorporated into it that would extend back to the cast divider. This would induce a split from right behind the TB.
If you rotate the TB I think it would cause the air to go to one side of the upper IM more than the other at part throttle as it would "direct" the air into the IM parallel to the butterfly as it opens, only at WOT would it provide even flow to both banks. Not good, as one side would get a lot more air than the other. This would cause some weird/dangerous engine problems, lean on one side rich on the other. Yuck!
The easiest, I think, would be to make a plate that conform the the back wall divider, you would have to notch the bottom to clear the PCV inlet and it would extend forwrds to the IM opening. Then you could wedge it in and/or JB weld it in place.

PS Terry when are you going to employ me? Sounds like THM needs some manpower!

Appreciate the thoughts.

"MAF? (Maybe a Pro-M, but a 70mm MAF is still bigger than the TB)"

Aussie, the stock MAF meter sucks. It is advertised as 70mm but when you subtract the 12mm center post it is about 58mm. The center post is flat and I suspect makes significant turbulence. I have an SVT 60mm t. body optimized by Brad Noon and adding the Pro-M meter + open K&N to this smaller t.body was worth 12 HP at the dyno. I think with a 65mm t.body, a bigger MAF meter will be a must.

You have a point about the ghey design of the center post. I just wish tose Pro-M's weren't so bloody expensive!

Aussie, Muscle Motors sell them for $175 shipped. Also, a used 80mm Ford MAF meter may work well too especially using that Apex-i to fine tune everything.

Don't know if it's still there but ProM or ProFlow or whatever they call themselves now had a great primer on MAF's on their website. Although I printed it off, I don't have it handy but I shall attempt to summarize as best I can remember. As long as the MAF is bigger than or equal to the t-body, there's no point in going bigger except to lighten your wallet. They had a size chart with flow area comparisons after deducting the space taken up by the sampling bar on a stock Ford 70mm MAF, or sampling tubes on their units. This very same MAF was used on the 94/95 5.0 Mustangs. What was their rated HP? 215 IIRC. Surely, it's not necessary to upgrade to a bigger MAF on our cars until you've exceeded this no. I know the newer MAF's are made out of plastic, but mine is AL and was easy to improve upon. NO, I didn't cut out the sampling bar, but I will say it flows better from a quality and quantity standpoint now.

To get back to the original thought, why not machine an AL spacer, c/w integral splitter? Install it between the t-body and the upper IM. You'd need studs for mounting purposes, but I've already sourced those. Before I go off to the Machine Shop, let me ask-Am I getting warmer, Terry?

Bradness, I read all that before. But IIRC isnt the MAF upgrade one of the better mods for a Mustang? I think the stock design sucks, with a 65mm throttle body it WILL have less flow area - guarenteed. The bar shaped stock center pilar is for noise reflection/reduction not optimal smooth flow (the Pro-M is significantly louder, at least til I added the custom airbox). It DEFINATELY (and I do not say this often or lightly) worked for me. Before the 12HP gain varified on the dyno, I had said it was more noticible on the butt dyno (which I personally put less faith in than you I know) than the Bassani, the Y-pipe, or the K&N. Dyno only varified what I suspected. Now, this gain could be explained by having a MAF meter calibrated to the K&N filter (so they work together optimally). The stock meter is not calibrated to work with aftermarket filters, but perhaps with the Apex-i this could be taken care of. Also, it made the great difference in throttle response, much better.

Anyway, I dont sell the thing and feel free to dismiss my analysis, though beyond the chassis & Butt dynos, I do not know what more evidence I could provide. But that primer you sited also mentioned the risks of modding stock MAFs, and not just removing the center pilar.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. I don't discount the no.'s provided by a chassis dyno, my point was that I don't like putting my mill through that particular form of punishment very often (sorta' like the dentist).

When I mod stuff, I always, always start off conservative. If it works OK, then I begin to ponder 1-can I do more safely, 2-if I do go further and screw it up/gone too far, can I get a replacement at a reasonable cost. Quick cost/benefit analysis and go or no-go decision.

Lately, I've been seeing more and more 'Tours showing up in the local wreckers. So parts are easier/cheaper to come by and I'm more willing to try experimental stuff.

"To get back to the original thought, why not machine an AL spacer, c/w
integral splitter? Install it between the t-body and the upper IM. You'd need
studs for mounting purposes, but I've already sourced those. Before I go off
to the Machine Shop, let me ask-Am I getting warmer, Terry?"

On the other hand Bradness, Terry - this sounds intriguing.

Damnit ... we just need to have someone fab up a completely tubular UIM from scratch and do it right. Terry ... care to give it a try? I know that the Cougar group would react with purchasing as would the 3.0 crowd at the Taurus board. Do it for around $350 and it will sell!

The post 'Porsche' and pre production Duratecs had a tubular intake...........and I know who made them.....

I've seen the Porsche and held many of the pre production castings but I don't think I ever saw a tubular Duratech intake. I do know exactly who made the production castings though. It really isn't that hard to cut apart an intake, make minor changes like we are talking here and weld it all back together. There are many shops/people here in Detroit that would gladly do it for a price. I don't think I really want to go through the expense and dyno tuning that's necessary for it, but I would gladly contribute my intake knowledge and sources.

Dave,
Watson Eng mad the tubular Duratec development intakes on CDW27

So this sounds like a golf ball design as well Terry
Dan- the 80mm has a huoooge sampling tube in the center. I just got my pro-m tonight when I got home and it looks much more efficient. I have a dyno at 9am tomorrow to find out. We have a meet this Saturday so I will need to get some pics of all my new toys. PM me a mod list Dan and I'll let you know how we compare.

I should have a working spacer prototype made up and installed within a week. I'll start with a .25 thick AL plate and post pics when done.

A 1/4" spacer, and that's it, no divider? Will that even do anything - Terry?
I fail to see how anything that thin would make a difference.

Forgive my naiveté, and I may be WAAY off here, but would a twin TB and hogged out IM inlet help to soften the "dead head" effect? Granted, it's probably more costly than a spacer/divider setup, but could this be an adaptable solution?

HMS Inc's 'Twin T/B' Manifold is due out for testing at the end of the year(soon!)

Mind if I ask what you're doing for the IAC and EGR ports?

Hey Terry,

If you're absolutely STRAPPED for a guinea pig car (lol...yeah, right) I'll gladly test your twin TB setup! With all the SNOW and freakishly cold conditions right now in MI, I think you need a test subject in sunny Southern California! - you know, with year round mid 70 degree weather, we have the ability to take it for for extended runs you know, to gather data, and stuff... :p

My shop is at around 71 deg F !,thanks for the offer ,if I need to do some 'hot climate' tests during winter I'll PM you ,Thanks.TH

A spacer would not make a difference by itself (metal anyway)

However you will easily need to move the TB more than 1/4" away from the proposed divider to clear the throttle plate at WOT. So a spacer will be needed. I highly recommend something that does NOT transfer heat. (so no metal) A spacer big enough the stock studs may need to be swapped out as well. Plus adjusting the length of the remaining intake assembly.

For the splitter I was thinking a thin aluminum plate (2mm) and stamp cut the divider in it.

Run a bigger TB to help out since the intake opening is larger...

what about cutting out a half circle into the splitter, to make room for the throttle plate? might reduce turbulence that way, too

Hey, maybe it won't work, but gotta' start somewhere. I'm willing to run that risk, and all others can share in my experience. Try sourcing a piece of 1/2 inch AL plate-I happen to have .25 handy.

The Duratec has huge potential for producing power....I guess the key is just finding all the hidden horesepower in an engine!

What about smoothing out the stock MAF and letting air flow through there a bit smoother?

OK, I took a look at a stock t-body to verify the location of the throttle shaft. It's approx. 1/2 inch from the upper IM mounting face. Assuming (hate that word) the SVT t-body is the same, a spacer would need to be at least 5/8 thick to allow the throttle plate to open fully. Yes, I was planning to include a splitter in this whole assembly. Back to the drawing board!

My same dilema last summer.
Why I shelved it for my winter intake mods when I will be modifying intake length before the TB and have both intakes off as well!

I also know what you mean about getting a suitable spacer piece. My best effort to date is 2x 1cm phenolic block spacers. Not pretty but should work with some gasket material.

What about a velocity stack type intake ... that should work very well in conjunction with this TB Space/Director and/or Dual TB.

I machined a spacer out of 3/4 thick AL plate. It's still pretty rough and needs more work. My plan is to make a seperate splitter and TIG it to the spacer. This will take time to do correctly (not to mention all the other stuff on my plate)! My experience with phenolic spacers is that they do very little-don't forget heat is transmitted by radiation, convection and conduction.

Ah, but I happen to have access to nice thick phenolic pieces...

3/4" AL plate... Where's you scrounge up that...

I thought about welding it, but I don't, so that ended that right there... (not very well anyway) That's why I went with the thin AL plate idea with the spacer on top on it. Besides it's a lot easier cutting through then metal. I don't have a line bore machine, just a modified drill press.

Yes, well I happen to have access to AL plate in .25, .5, .75, 1.0, 1.5.... Plus I have access to a TIG welder (but I'm no good at it). Due to my concerns with engine vibration and cracked welds, this will defintely be an experimental piece. Terry H has the ultimate, exotic solution though-twin t-bodies!

What about cutting a slit (that runs logitudinal with the engine)in the bottom of the manifold that is about .25" or whatever thickness wide, and long enough to run to the wall of the manifold behind the t-body. You could fabricate a plate shaped however you wanted that would fit snuggly up into the slot and create the divider that you are looking for. It would make fabrication and mounting very simple, then you could weld it from the bottom and make it an integral part of the manifold. Before you weld it in you could keep shaping it until it fits the inside contours almost perfectly, and has the clearance for the t-body blade. If a spacer was still desired it would be nothing to fabricate.

Someone let me know if this idea came through correctly, I'm hyped up on pain killers since I hurt my back, but it sure looks good from here..
Sh*t, I might just try this one myself. I've already got 6 hours into widening and reshaping the upper and lower manifolds while I'm waiting for my heads in the machine shop, this wouldn't add much more work.

warmonger

Cut a slit in the intake inlet housing? Couple problems...
Structural integrity.
How to seal it 100%
How to slide in a perpendicular divider

The problem I have with it is "what if it doesn't work?" A little tough to go back, as you'll need a new/used upper intake. That's why a spacer makes more sense-if it doesn't work junk it and more or less no worse for wear.

Hey guys, im not trying to sound like a prick or nothin, Im just not informed about this very much... I am curious to what the potential gains are to putting in this air splitter. I can see the hypothetical gains possible from having a smoother path for the air to flow, but it seems to me this would not benifit the masses of people with contours. I would think that this modification would be most effective to squeeze power out of an engine setup that is already a beast (Say, force induction) Thats about the only way I can see a nice benifit, and more important a nice HP/$ ratio! Anyways, I am soooo glad to see people thinking 'outside the box' and comming up with all these great ideas to get some more power out of an already great engine! Good luck y'all with your designs! -Nick

Just measure the distance from the throttle butterfly at WOT to the back face of the intake manifold....why do we put 'riser plates on carb V8's.....NO its not for the heat either!

They do good work, at least on exhaust systems. I've seen their facility and the Aston and Ford Motorsports headers they make: cool stuff! I'll have to call up my contact there and see if they still have the drawings sitting around for the Duratec tubular intake... LOL

So Terry, will HMS be using them as a supplier for your manifold?

Did a little more work on this project and found that there will be some fooling around with the throttle cable bracketry as it mounts on the same bolt which holds the t-body to the upper IM. I figure a spacer/bracket extension will be easiest.

I looked at the bottom of my manifold, and you can make a cut that stops just before the pcv inlet with a die grinder. shaping the insert plate will be where most of the work is, but it should be long enough that when the top makes contact with the roof of the manifold it will then be flush with the bottom outside surface of the manifold. Then just have someone who can weld aluminum weld it up. It wont affect structural integrity, and it will only leak if you welder sucks.
Upon more thought, I would also add a spacer plate to move the throttle blade away from the divider for less turbulence.
Should only cost about 20-30 bucks for welding.
As far as going back in case you dont lik it, you can cut it out the same way and reweld the slit.

warmonger

Its to increase plenum volume. When you increase plenum volume you don't necisaraly increase torque but you do increae the rpm range the torque is produced in.

Tuned runners are GREAT for producing power, but they are compariable to a pipe organ, work VERY well at a certain rpm but not so well at others, as a result you have to find the specific rpm that you want to make your power. The longer runners in the 2.5 are better at producing torque, the shorter runners in the 3.0 are better for hp. Hone extrude a 3.0

OR for thermal efficiency a nylon 3.0 off the 2k's would be nice. Add a little porting (very little) and you have a nice intake. Just don't flow any nitrous though them, they don't like that AT ALL.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jason King:

The longer runners in the 2.5 are better at producing torque, the shorter runners in the 3.0 are better for hp. Hone extrude a 3.0
[/QB]

"The longer runners in the 2.5 are better at producing torque..."

Better at what? Relative to what?

"...the shorter runners in the 3.0 are better for hp."

These two statements imply that there is no relationship to horsepower and torque...AMONG other things. :rolleyes:

I hope you are trying to say that the longer runners in the 2.5 help maximize torque at lower rpm while the shorter runners help maximize torque at higher rpm.
Why would anyone want to give up the low rpm torque benefit of the 2.5 manifold by going with the 3.0 manifold which doesn't have short/long runners? The 2.5 SVT is already large enough except maybe right at the exit ports of the upper. I measured the ID of the uppers on the 2.5L and they are the SAME diameter for primary and secondary as the ports on the 3L upper. The SVT lower had larger secondaries than the 3L lower secondaries, and the svt lower primaries were the same size as the 3L lower primaries.
End result, no benefit in going with the 3L upper or lower if you already have svt manifolds. Smarter to just widen and smooth out all the passages that you can on the SVT stuff, and then retain all the benefits of the short/long runners.
Just my opinion after all.

warmonger

"The longer runners in the 2.5 are better at producing torque..."

Better at what? Relative to what?

The 2.5 upper plenum makes more torque then the 3.0 what is so hard to understand about that statment? -Jason

"...the shorter runners in the 3.0 are better for hp."

These two statements imply that there is no relationship to horsepower and torque...AMONG other things. :rolleyes:

I think you need to go back and check the post again. - Jason

Why would anyone want to give up the low rpm torque benefit of the 2.5 manifold by going with the 3.0 manifold which doesn't have short/long runners?

I think you need to go look a few 3.0's. - Jason

The SVT lower had larger secondaries than the 3L lower secondaries, and the svt lower primaries were the same size as the 3L lower primaries.

I never said anything about the lower. I specifically said UPPER plenum. AND the 3.0 DOES have the larger lower, check your facts, the post 99's came with 3.0 lowers - Jason

End result, no benefit in going with the 3L upper or lower if you already have svt manifolds. Smarter to just widen and smooth out all the passages that you can on the SVT stuff, and then retain all the benefits of the short/long runners.
Just my opinion after all.

Opinions are like *******s, everyone has one, but where do you base your opinion? Obviously not in facts since you don't even know that the 3.0 has 2 sets of runners.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jason King:

The 2.5 upper plenum makes more torque then the 3.0 what is so hard to understand about that statment? -Jason

Its hard to understand what you are trying to say when you say that one manifold makes more torque than another, and later you say that the other manifold makes more HP!

HP=((ft-lbs)*(2Pi/60)*RPM)/550

This says that if you increase your torque you increase your horsepower. If you say one manifold produces more torque and the other produces more HP, then you're incorrect.

"
I think you need to go look a few 3.0's. - Jason
I never said anything about the lower. I specifically said UPPER plenum. AND the 3.0 DOES have the larger lower, check your facts, the post 99's came with 3.0 lowers - Jason
Opinions are like *******s, everyone has one, but where do you base your opinion? Obviously not in facts since you don't even know that the 3.0 has 2 sets of runners.
"
Ok, I have a 99 3.0 right outside. Since we are only talking about the upper. The upper plenum is right on my bench. There are ONLY single passages (per cylinder)in the upper. On the 3.0 the split occurs as it mates to the lower. So I KNOW the 3.0 upper doesn't have two sets of runners. Sorry, strike two.

warmonger

Warmonger: Can you post proper measurements for all the stuff you've got? I have extensively measured both upper and lower IM's, non SVT. Please post the inlet and outlet measurements (although I'm more interested in outlet no.'s).

BTW-The non SVT lower IM has a cast in "2.5" on the bottom. It uses 1.25(32mm) throttle plates and (if I've got this right) it's the same on all Duratecs until the E1 went to a 3.0 lower. Outlet diameters are 1.125 (28.5mm) primary and secondary.

Ok, I have all the measurements except the heads since they are in the shop still. Here are all the measurements taking into account the variation from port to port:

SVT figures from 1999 model manufactured in October of 1998 with return style fuel.

SVT upper:
inlet=67mm outlet primary=30.5-31.2mm
outlet secondary=32.8-33mm

SVT Lower: (has "2.5" cast in it)
inlet Pri.=33.5mm outlet pri.=32.7mm
inlet sec.=36mm outlet sec.=34mm

1999 3.0L duratech(less than 1k miles)
upper:
inlet=63.75mm
outlet :(there are only 6 oval shaped runners, one for each cylinder with a divider right at the end that splits the air into primary and secondary.)
outlet pri.=30-30.3mm outlet sec.=31.8-32mm

Lower: (has 3.0 cast in it.)
inlet pri.=33.4-33.5mm outlet pri.=32.75mm
inlet sec.=35mm outlet sec.=32.75mm

Throttle bodies:
Both throttle bodies have "3.0" cast into the back. They are identical castings except there is an idle air passage on the one from the 3.0L. Both have 60mm diameter (outlet side).

Thats everything I have for now, I will take measurements of the head port diameters when they come back. I did preliminary measurements but didn't write them down. I also measured the valve offsets in each head and I found that they are identical. This means that each head has the same distances between the centers of all four valves. I took a picture with the micrometer held on each head and showing the center-center distances. When the roll of film is done I will develope it and post pics. This is to prove once and for all (for 1999 at least) that the 3L valves fit and only require seat modifications, no special reinforcement stuff. In fact, they look like they are from castings that are almost identical. It should be no problem to remove the extra "shrouding" on the 2.5l heads in order to make it look and act more like the 3.0L heads. Will also lower the peak compression ratio a little and help with detonation.

Hope this helps you bradness, and everyone.

warmonger

Thanks Warmonger. From your posting, it looks like Ford used a different cutter/end mill on the SVT lower IM (2.5 version). I crunched the numbers and unless the secondary throttle plates were bigger than 1.25, there can't be any gain by going with a bigger secondary outlet diameter due to the bore restriction from the shaft/plate assembly. Anyone else like to add their 2 cents worth?

Bradness, you are correct. And damn! I forgot to measure the sided to side throttle blade diameter. Oh well.
Either way, the throttle blades were the exact same size from the svt to the 3.0.
The bore on both lower IM's tapers as you can see from the #'s. The butterfly valves are about halfway down so you can roughly guess the port diameter in the middle. I think it is about 33 mm. However you know that the butterflys are NOT perfectly round. They are designed to contact at an angle, so the mounting axis is the same size as the bore(~33mm) but the long side may be 34mm.
Here is what I did last weekend. I removed the butterflys and shafts and proceeded to widen out the primary and secondary ports by at 2-3mm on the primary and 1-2 on the secondary. I was matching them close to the gasket diameter. When I reassembled it yesterday, the butterflys still retained and angle, but there was a small gap on either side. They still operate normaly, but there is a little endplay now. If you are careful not to widen the middle of the bore to much, then the endplay is acceptable. That way you can get significant improvement in port diameter. The little gaps on the axis sides now will take the place of cracking the secondaries even though the secondaries are still closed. That is my HOPE at least.

Summary, (my two cents) widening the input side of the lower IM won't do any good since its already bigger than the middle or bottom. The taper already exists, probably to increase the velocity of the air as it enters the head. If you widen the ports, primary or secondary then you need to keep the taper in the bore, and you must widden the middle in order to make it effective. Then the upper manifold outlets must also be increased in diameter so that you aren't going from a restriction to a wide area then restriction again. And so on with the head ports. I just finished doing this to my intake system,when the heads come back I will widen the intakes similarly so that the new system is bigger overall than the older one, but has the same design intent.

ONe last thought, you could easily widen the sides of the bores that are perpendicular to the throttle blade shaft axis in order to gain an increase in area at that point and still have no endplay. I would have done it that way if I'f thought of it first :rolleyes:

Warmonger

I've taken extensive measurements and crunched the numbers. For the stock, non SVT lower IM there are no gains by opening up the casting. The smallest/narrowest point in the casting is the bore at the shaft/plate assembly. I'm not interested (at this time) in going to larger plates, as this is the only way I figure to get an increase in flow quantity. I have been able to improve quality though. Upper is basically the same (non SVT).

Did you remove the shafts when you did your work? If so, did you re-install them?

Yes to both questions.

I pulled off all the butterfly valves and then just rotated and pulled the shafts until they came out. More scum buildup hinderes it so you may want to clean really well first. Then there are two spring-loaded contacts, one in each of the thick dividers. they com up from the bottom to apply pressure to the shaft upwards, probably to keep it stable. I used a piece of angled coathanger to push them down when reinserting the shafts. Clean the area real well before putting the shafts back. Thats it.

warmonger

This is great info. Was wondering if anyone is still working on the splitter to go between the tb and the plenum.

Hey Warmonger, I wish you and I had of exchanged this info. earlier. I removed the well plugs holding the spring loaded rubbing blocks, then drilled, reamed and tapped the wells for 5/16 plugs. I fooled around trying to get those damn things back down, but to no avail. Anyhow, I'm ready to put it all back together but wanted to take pics first.

Did your linkage line up? On mine the 2 shafts/plate assembly opened approx. 85 degrees and 95 degrees from horizontal. A little bending on the linkage and some grinding on the stop and I was able to get it all working properly so full open both sides are 90 degrees. That angle finder just paid for itself!

Yes, I have a prototype spacer/splitter made up. Soon as I borrow the digicam I'll post the pics.

Oh Goody!!!

Bradness, Thanks for the update. Let us know if you feel any gain. Dyno or butt. Also interested in purchase if it comes out with desired results.

I didn't have any trouble that I noticed, but now that you mention it I will pay close attention and check the blade position. Perhaps by pulling the spring loaded pressure thingy you allowed some play to enter the linkage. Then correction would be necessary. It may be that there is some up/down motion on both shafts that was being compensated by them. I will let you know what I find.
One other thing. I have come up with a cool idea of a variable fuel pressure regulator that will change FP as RPM changes. Read the complete post in "lower Intake" thread and let me know what you think of it.

warmonger

ooh, ooh, I have an idea and no one has mentioned it yet. add a tube in that connects both ends of the IM (opposite side from the TB) not exactly sure how it works, but it does. Every high performance or "expensive" engine that uses a IM similar to the duratech I have ever seen incorporates this.

Just whip out you TIG and wled on say a 3/4" tube right off the end of the upper intake manifold to connect both ends together.

now what if the TB were spaced further from the IM, and a conical shaped "difuser" similar to the one on the tip of the stock SVT air filter were attached to the back of the IM to allow air to more smoothly make the 90 degree turn.

It could be simply milled out of a block of aluminum. Then on its base a aluminum stud threaded in and welded to prevent this block from turning loose and bouncing around in the manifold, and the rear of the intake manifold could be drilled and tapped to accept this stud, instination will be just thread it into the IM through the TB opening and then the stud wlelded on the outside to seal.

Warmonger: Nope, mine's a 95 & there's no spring on the linkage. Just the usual sloppy Ford workmanship. I've spent lots of time tuning/synchronizing multi carb engines, so I figured I better check the synchronization. I expected it to be off.

JSMITH: Although it's a little rough, my spacer is fabbed from 3/4 AL plate with a taper bore and splitter top and bottom. As soon as I get the digicam I'll post the pics.

Brad, that explains it. As far as the spacer, man I want one. What do you think of jsmiths idea of putting the tube on the back of the manifold?

Jsmith: I am intrigued by both of your ideas. Since you must be an airplane mechanic, can you fabricate the items in question?

warmonger

Another thought on that, can you just pull the casting plugs from the manifold and use a mandrel bent steel tube and press fit it in? That would be reversible if it didn't prove useful.

warmonger

Your idea about joining the 2 plenums opposite the t-body has been discussed at much length in the past. Sorry, I don't recall what title it had but the discussion went something like this. To do this mod properly you must incorporate a valve which can open/shut at XXX RPM's. Someone chimed in who had prototyped such a system on the original Duratech and there were NO gains with it. I don't have a handle on the search thing but this topic is from 2001, if you want to try and find it.

I'm going to do the lower install first and butt-dyno test it. Then I'll add my t-body spacer. If all goes according to plan the lower will be on this weekend.

I'm sure I could bend up the tube to fit, but as for the tig welding, I need more practice, I tried a few months ago and got electricuted and burned real bad. The arc went to my hand instead of the metal!!!! OUCH
needless to say I now have a fear of TIG.

let me know how this works out. have you tried fitting your spaced yet? did you have any clearance/fitment problems with the TB being moved 3/4"?

I am interested in seeing pics. perhaps I can make my own or work out a deal where you make one for me, I'm sure at least a handfull of others would be interested as well.

whats your opinion on using a lesser conductive material than the aluminum, I saw someone post phenolic, but there are other materials as well such as nylon or polycarbonite (lexan) This would reduce heat transfer through conduction, although radiation and convection would still be an issue. I imagine most of the heat movement is through conduction.

What would be the effect if the upper IM were made of plastic rather than aluminum. I think I mentioned this before.

pics pics pics

I want one of the spacers if its any good.
By that I mean construction quality and at least looks similar to what I want to design.
I might have some stuff to trade, maybe one of might 1-touch open sunroof control modules or some engine parts.

warmonger

Warmonger: My prototype spacer is a bit rough, I figured I'd get something run off quickly and improve/tune from there. The only hold up I have is that my photo equipment is 35mm negative film. I can borrow a digicam, but probably not until the weekend. Then I gotta' figure out how to post the pics here.

In terms of trades, I'm looking for a first gen SVT (single pass Xhone) upper IM. Figure there must be someone out there who upgraded to a double pass upper now that BAT is selling them at a reasonable price.

Sorry, I only have my own manifold which I'm keeping. I will have 3L parts and a perfect condition 2.5 SVT block, which I wouldn't trade just for a spacer.

I am open for other suggestions though.

warmonger

Like Demon said. PICS please.

They're coming, they're coming (pics).

Warmonger: Nope, don't need a spare 2.5, got 1 of those already. Are you installing 3.0 valves in your heads?

Yes, I checked today and the 3L vavles are going in for sure! The intake valve seats are definitely able to be re-cut to accept the 35mm valves and still retain the correct installed height. The exhaust valves require new seats, but there is plenty of metal so no reinforcement is required. I've been over this before.
I pick up the heads tomorrow afternoon and widen out the intake passages accordingly. Then I take them back for lapping and cleaning. So I should have my heads completely assembled and ready to install by next friday. Yeay!!
The 3L heads are for sale though.

warmonger

Had a close look at the Yamaha 3.0 in the late, lamented Taurus SHO. It uses an upper IM similiar to ours. If you look at the feed from the t-body to the L&R plenums it's a nice, gradual curve. I gather that packaging restrictions caused ours to be a sharp turn(s). I'm thinking that it might make more sense to cut apart the upper, and reprofile the passageways from the inlet to the plenums. It would be way cheaper than sending it to Xhone, and my guess is it would be much more effective too. Plus, I've got 2 spare upper IM's.

Oh yes, the SHO motor uses the plenum connector/variable valve arrangement as discussed earlier.

isn't the Yamaha/SHO upper IM also made of several pieces conected by flexible tubes and hose clamps?

If you have spare IMs why don't you do this, make it more similar to the SHO IM.

I'm telling you guys ... a fully mandrel bent fabbed intake

Yes the SHO upper is a whole lotta' pieces clamped together with flex tube. A tubular upper like the 5.0 GT40 intake would look and flow great-IMHO. Who's going to fab it though?

I've got a kinda' crappy res pic of the t-body spacer. I'm just figuring out the "how-to" post it with my text. It's coming...

woo hoo...

{img}http://location of pic{/img} where {} = []

I think I got that part right, but the shot is on a floppy, not on a website. What to do?

E-mail it to me and I can post it for you...

PM me if interested or just get my email off my site (at bottom)

I already PM'd you!

What if we do try to fab an upper IM with plastics? If we can look for plastic tubing and thick sheets to cut the flanges from then perhaps we can create a 'tuned' IM. It's probably too much work right now though, I've enough to do already.

warmonger

I like that idea. You'd need to re-utilize the cast IM entry and the lower portion where the bolts attach. Then put the whole thing together with silicone hose and clamps!

I think we could just use the lower IM and make a header style plate(out of thick plastic) that the tubes could be laminated into. Most plastics can be heated and bent to the shape we want. I could be treated just like designing an exhaust header but with plastic. I just wonder which material that we could use to start with that could take the heat, be workable, and cost nothing.
yeah right.

warmonger

I'm thinking the only type of "plastic" safe to use would be like an ABS resin mold plastic and that's not end user shape-able.

PVC style plastic gives off fumes when it gets past a certain temperature. Not a viable option.

The tubular steel design would work great, just the time involved in designing & fabricaing such a piece would be temendous. PER PIECE... Still would be worth it IMO though!

what about if you used fiber reinforced polyester resin? otherwise known as bondo.

DeamonSVT- There are all sorts of high temp resins (2 and 3 parts) that are ok for 400-500+ temps and easy(ish) to work with before it sets. Cost is $100-$150 gallon for good quality fresh mix.

How hot is this going to get (max)??

Do you know of any other co. that ever made one of plastic?

John-

jjwoz@yahoo.com

Can we make 100 on this thread? As for your ? about how hot, when the car is running, temps shouldn't exceed 250 degrees F. If they do, your oil will start to coke. Synthetics are a little better here, but exceeding 250 is not good. The problem is what are the temps when the engine is shut down and there's no oil/water cooling flow through the motor. I don't think you'd want to have your intake melt into the heads. GM has been using plastic intakes on their 3.8 motors for almost 10 years now. Anyone know what it's made out of?

I am trying to think of where plastic gets used in the airplanes at work. There are a few locations that use flexible connections between ducting and they use fiberglass impregnated with high temp. silicone and they are supposed to be able to with stand 400 deg. F.

Friend of mine is a plumber and he says that it is becomming popular to build hot water home heating systems with PVC, and then switch to copper at the radiators and near the furnace. So I would figure that it would at least be able to handle 200 deg. F, since hot water heat ususally runs water temps between 160 and 190.

I think polycarbonite (lexan) has a temp. resistance of a few hundred degrees.

I would say to just use aluminum, its fairly easy to work with, inexpensive and will withstand the temps. After all Ford used aluminum on the upper IM.

Okay... You asked for it...

Now who's going to build the mold to use the "resin" in eh?

No possible way to hand shape an intakes inner diameters & bends.

Even if you started with a waxed based model of the tube designs, you would have to be a near perfect sculpturer to render them exact enough to make just ONE resin manifold.

Do you get where I'm going with this?

I know there are products viable (heat resistant) to make it out off. Just how do you go about creating a mold.

I could even get my cousins company to make a computer designed one-off mold, but the cost is in the thousands. (I've checked! Trust me! :D) Even if I did the design modeling myself the machine time is astronomic (per unit) just to make one "resin" rendering.
To make an actual mold it's more so and then find a shop to actually cast the pieces from the mold...

Could you make your money back. Most likely if it sold enough units, but like any custom project the initial cash outlay is significant!

Which brings us back to mandrel piping tubular design with silicone connectors.

I too would prefer a "resin/plastic" manifold for it's superior resistance to heat transfer. However thin wall tubing will retain much less heat then the stock thick wall (and coated) aluminum manifold.