Scooped this NOS ram box up. Curious on how many were actually made in both single & duel 4's. Any other history would be cool to know too..
With speed parts mag
They were in the various Shelby catalogs for several years. By FAR , the best cross ram made for a small block Ford. It could use some "filling" in the base to help direct air flow as a single four. Better than the T/A 289 dula plane ,dual four when the top is switched to run two fours. T/A22 , Gary Goeringer ran one on the Maier Racing '67 coupe he used to own. Well over a thousand were made.
Randy
Quote from: gt350hr on January 29, 2020, 04:27:51 PM
They were in the various Shelby catalogs for several years. By FAR , the best cross ram made for a small block Ford. It could use some "filling" in the base to help direct air flow as a single four. Better than the T/A 289 dula plane ,dual four when the top is switched to run two fours. T/A22 , Gary Goeringer ran one on the Maier Racing '67 coupe he used to own. Well over a thousand were made.
Randy
You just said that to make me want one right? ::)
No , just the facts. A Vic Jr or "real Parker funnel web makes more power.
Quote from: gt350hr on March 23, 2020, 10:59:35 AM
No , just the facts. A Vic Jr or "real Parker funnel web makes more power.
I don't deal in facts. Especially hurting ones like that. Ouch. >:(
I live in the past but I know what's cooler. ;)
What Randy says is true.........although the Maier car was a '68 S code coupe. Another clarification...while the Box manifold(with single carburetor top) did make a few less HP than the much later technology of the Vic Jr or Parker(the best motor was 489 HP @7600), it did produce in excess of 400 ft/lbs of torque on a 305 ci engine with original/ported C6FE heads. I dont know of many combos before or since that did. It was lightly massaged to prevent fuel puddling and performed flawlessly.
BTW, if anyone needs one of these, I still have one with a two carb top sitting at TOE...............PM me.
GG
Thanks for chiming in Gary! The power you made with that engine certainly had the ( you know who) "GM" tounges wagging.
Randy
Fortunately, I had the correspondence from Senter(Ford) to Maier which proved the manifold was given to him prior to its official introduction and ran in a T/A event or two prior to Maier receiving a Boss 302 from H/M..............otherwise, I would have had to run another period appearing manifold...........
I still have mine with both tops the 4V and the 8V. The single 4 top is the rarer and more desirable. Jay Cushman was asking me if I was willing to part with mine. I essentially said no. The photo was from a couple months ago.
What I don't have is the top cover gasket that FSTMRFR has.
Cheers
~Earl J
.............we always made our own gaskets ............didnt know there were any NOS available
Quote from: TA22 (Gary Goeringer) on March 23, 2020, 11:15:46 AM
What Randy says is true.........although the Maier car was a '68 S code coupe. Another clarification...while the Box manifold(with single carburetor top) did make a few less HP than the much later technology of the Vic Jr or Parker(the best motor was 489 HP @7600), it did produce in excess of 400 ft/lbs of torque on a 305 ci engine with original/ported C6FE heads. I dont know of many combos before or since that did. It was lightly massaged to prevent fuel puddling and performed flawlessly.
BTW, if anyone needs one of these, I still have one with a two carb top sitting at TOE...............PM me.
GG
rumor was they bought the 390 car and pulled engine to be installed in the tow vehicle.
While on the subject of Ram Box's and who else runs them Mark H./SFM5S170 his set up is very nice. I'd post a photo of his engine bay, but I think I'd need his permission to do so.
~E
It won't fit with a/c will it? :o
Quote from: shelbydoug on March 23, 2020, 01:14:13 PM
It won't fit with a/c will it? :o
Doug, sure it would, provided your 68 GT350 has a 302 based engine (8.2" deck block). It would be very cool in a 68. Here's a few pics of the Bill Maier car (Gary Goeringer's/TA22 old car) I took at the Rolex Reunion at Laguna the previous year. It's a race car that gets photographed so I'm sure he won't mind.
Cheers,
~Earl J
nice shots Earl !!!!
Nice find!! WOW!! I have one myself with both tops. I'm not too sure I've ever heard there were 1000 made? Not disputing that but in the SBF world I've only ever seen a handful and only three in person. I've always heard they are quite rare and most that bought them could not get them to run properly and gave up on them. I've just completed my 2 carb setup with help from Drew Pojedinec. Hopefully this set up will work out! I'm excited to try!
I know Mark Hipp's 65 #170 car well and he's definitely figured out how to make a Ram Box run!! It pulls so hard from 3800 all the way to 8200 RPM's!! It never runs out!!
That looks cool as hell.
I concur too! It's just screaming Drive Me!
Very nice.
Quote from: 67GT500#1594 on March 23, 2020, 09:02:19 PM
I've always heard they are quite rare and most that bought them could not get them to run properly and gave up on them. I've just completed my 2 carb setup with help from Drew Pojedinec. Hopefully this set up will work out! I'm excited to try!
Hello 67 GT500#1594,
You may want to revisit the position and mounting of the Drivers side Carburetor on your setup. The dual 8V top was designed to have the driver's side carb mounted backwards. As you can see the dips (clearance notches oriented in the center) (see pic, top is upside down in photo) for the carb levers and linkage.
The reason is (as designed) the passenger side carb's primary venturies will feed the forward cylinders. When mounted correctly, the drivers' side venturies will feed the back half of the cylinders. The inside of the manifold is like a giant bath tub. (see pics).
Unlike the single 4V arrangement, That top has distribution walls (see pic) to evenly distribute air/fuel mixture.
Attempting to run your setup as is, you will experience lean conditions on the back half and erratic surges once you open the secondary's.
The linkage assembly should run in between the two (2) carburetors. Passenger linkage rod should "pull", the driver's side linkage rod should "push". (see pic, rod lengths are short in pic for discussion reasons)
I thought to inform you so to avoid a future headache.
Cheers,
~Earl J
Thanks Earl , you saved me the post. You are absolutely correct that the D/S carb MUST be mounted backwards! This manifold has offset carburetors unlike other crossrams made "in the day". The engine will run horribly if they are both facing forward even with "center squirter" carbs. Great catch.
Randy
Quote from: 67GT500#1594 on March 23, 2020, 09:02:19 PM
I know Mark Hipp's 65 #170 car well and he's definitely figured out how to make a Ram Box run!! It pulls so hard from 3800 all the way to 8200 RPM's!! It never runs out!!
Speaking of Mark Hipp's car, being a race car (I'm sure it gets photographed too) I decided to post it. It's a very tidy setup.
On the other hand, here is a setup on a 66 GT350 #15xx with the dual carb arrangement set up correctly. I understand why he used the side hung bowls. I'm assuming to clear the Monte Carlo Bar, as any other bowl wouldn't clear it. Not crazy about his choice in ignition but to each his own.
~Earl J
Thanks Earl for the heads up. Yes, it is currently mounted "backwards". There's been a lot of thought put into this one and many reasons for doing what I doing. I agree that there is a chance of fuel starvation by mounting the carb forward but I won't know until a dyno test can confirm this. I've discussed this with MANY different individuals each experienced with this exact set up. My choice of LeMans bowls complicates things somewhat. They're definitely harder to set up the float levels. The WOW factor plays into this for sure.
Honestly, the dyno will be the proof. I'm not convinced that back when these were designed for anything else but pure drag racing with zero street manors. The carbs they chose were way too much carburetion for a 289/302. Now I think we can agree 465 cfm X 2 is way too much. Hipp's race car runs a 750 cfm with a 850 baseplate. He's car is amazingly perfect in every way with a lot of other well thought out improvements! One of the finest pure examples of a real period correct vintage race car. So based on the photos, what carbs do you think I've had built for this project. I plan on building either a 331 or 347 with aluminum heads for my 66 Fastback. I'm hopeful that this project will work and be super unique. With better heads, larger cubes, and better balanced carbs this will work.
I'll give you a hint, their NOT 715 cfm's...
Respectfully , 465s are TOO little . The plenum area is so large that two small carburetors can't fill it fast enough ! You WILL find this out on the dyno so be sure and bring some bigger carbs and jets. The manifold was not designed strictly for drag racing. The manifold WAS designed by Ford engineers based on the Chevrolet Z-28 intake. Yes it will respond to more cubic inches and certainly better flowing heads than what I ran in the day. ( C6FEs). I'll leave the rest up to you.
Randy
Quote from: gt350hr on April 01, 2020, 06:37:30 PM
Respectfully , 465s are TOO little . The plenum area is so large that two small carburetors can't fill it fast enough ! You WILL find this out on the dyno so be sure and bring some bigger carbs and jets. The manifold was not designed strictly for drag racing. The manifold WAS designed by Ford engineers based on the Chevrolet Z-28 intake. Yes it will respond to more cubic inches and certainly better flowing heads than what I ran in the day. ( C6FEs). I'll leave the rest up to you.
Randy
Randy. Sometimes there are "clues" as to what the thinking was on the original design. Knowing that it likely would need to be changed or thinking modified, I don't think that was ever a stumbling block to get a design on a dyno.
Do you have any indication of what the "first best guess" of carb size was thought to be?
I'd take a guess and say a pair of 700's and the only question would be double pumpers of vac secondaries?
Just curious as to what you think size wise on this set-up?
Doug, I recall reading somewhere (I have it in my office, I'll see if I can dig it up) calling for two 600 CFM double pumpers in the 8V arrangement if my memory servers me correctly. I could be wrong but that's what I remember.
~E
That's around what I am thinking too Earl? Let's face it, it was never intended for a street production option.
Engineering of the final details would be as always left up to the dyno team, be it a butt dyno or a real machine.
Although folks like Bud Moore got these things to more then just work, my limit for exotic induction is limited to my 2x4 Holley T/A and my IR 48 ida's.
My limited intellectual capacity pretty much just leaves me there and also it's for me the limit of my "practical" application ability? Thanks for the input. The ram box is an interesting subject.
The intended carburetors were indeed 600cfm. Double pumpers were not "invented" yet (1969 creation) List # 1850 was what Shelby recommended. "Center squirters" were the race carburetor choice. They were developed in '66.
Randy
Tony Oddo Sr/Jr @ TOE Performance have successfully used 390 cfm carbs on their race engines using this manifold. In fact, he still has my dual carb ram box manifold as we were planning on building a engine specific for use on longer tracks like Road America....... but I sold the car prior to building it.
I forgot about yours Gary . Yes Tony was able to get the 390 mechanical secondary carbs to work for you. Tony is very sharp on carburetion !
Quote from: gt350hr on April 14, 2020, 10:33:16 AM
The intended carburetors were indeed 600cfm. Double pumpers were not "invented" yet (1969 creation) List # 1850 was what Shelby recommended. "Center squirters" were the race carburetor choice. They were developed in '66.
Randy
Randy, you were right. I found where I read (what I thought were 600 double pumpers) the recommended carbs for the ram box. It does In fact call for 660 cfm carbs which are center squirters with standard bowls. 5th line down in the pic. It's funny how the names of bowls changed from "standard" (now side hung) and "cathedral" (now center hung).
Hope all is well. Down in OC LA.
Cheers,
~Earl J
With all this "Social Distancing" and down time, I'm toying with the idea of giving it a whirl. Just for sh*ts and giggles pulling off the Weber's and giving this setup a try. The carb is a modified 4778 dp (might be a tad small) we'll see. At least that's where I'll start carb wise.
If I hate it, I'll throw the IDA's back on.
Cheers,
~E
Good thing in this case to have time on your hands. ;D
Adventurous aren't you? ;D
Quote from: TA22 (Gary Goeringer) on April 14, 2020, 12:57:08 PM
Tony Oddo Sr/Jr @ TOE Performance have successfully used 390 cfm carbs on their race engines using this manifold. In fact, he still has my dual carb ram box manifold as we were planning on building a engine specific for use on longer tracks like Road America....... but I sold the car prior to building it.
Well there you go, at least someone else out there as crazy as me! That's exactly what I have except for mechanical secondaries. With time things improve, parts improve, and thinking outside the box helps too. I have to put faith in my carb guy as many others have done. Honestly 1200 cfm for a 289-347 based engine is too much, it just is. We shall see how this turns out. It's been a fun challenge for the last 5-6 years!
The size of the carbs depends on how the manifold reacts. It could have certain characteristics of an IR manifold and if the plenum changes it you could be looking somewhere between 600 cfm and 2300 cfm.
The plenum volume was always the proprietary information. Flow benches have help reverse engineer the manifold over the years.
Depending on what the ultimate gain there is over more conventional set ups is the determining factor. Is it worth $4000 of bench work to gain 10hp on a vintage racer?
I can't answer that but I can envision the limitations here?
I'd guess two 1850's is close to optimum, but who knows for sure?
Gary (T/A 22) ran it VERY successfully as a single . I had forgotten he tested it with the 390 carbs and that his engine builder got them to work. Tony Oddo Jr is really good with carburetion, making stuff work that normally wouldn't by adjusting air bleeds , secondary opening etc. The ( old) Holley 1850 had calibration that would work "out of the box" except for some jetting changes. I did add the secondary diaphram covers with the tube so that both secondaries would open at the same time. ( Same as the 427). It was good but 'if" I had done dyno testing like Tony does , it might have been better. The manifold was FAR bettwer than the M/T or Edelbrock cross rams. They essentially split the intake into two four cylinder engines. The Shelby featured a "common plenum" which is where the additional power came from. Besides it just looks cool!!!! LOL
Quote from: shelbydoug on April 15, 2020, 11:20:37 AM
Adventurous aren't you? ;D
Okay Doug, here's one for you:
"Almond Joy's got nuts Mounds don't..."
How's that go?
"Some days you feel like a nut, some days you don't!"
😁
Best,
~E
Quote from: SFM5S000 on April 16, 2020, 09:30:52 AM
Quote from: shelbydoug on April 15, 2020, 11:20:37 AM
Adventurous aren't you? ;D
Okay Doug, here's one for you:
"Almond Joy's got nuts Mounds don't..."
How's that go?
"Some days you feel like a nut, some days you don't!"
😁
Best,
~E
So true! ;D
Talk about being adventurous, this is the latest project I'm working on.
One more pic.
Roy
Is this the Boss 302 set up or is there one for the Windsor heads also?
Have you ever seen a version of this manifold for a 9.2 Cleveland?
Not meaning to be a downer but I can envision a volcano of reversion with this and having worked with Webers on IR's I can't imagine how you can cover the carbs with an air cleaner. It's just going to go up in flames?
In any case, adventurous is an understatement and on the surface, looks so innocent to boot?
Very cool. 8)
there is a reason i dont have a dyno in the shop , too many ideas at hand ! I will stick to the 2x4 setup for the street :)
Nice one Roy,
That's for the Boss 302. Are those the sand cast dominators and do you have the linkage for it? That will also require the offset distributor, but you knew that. How long have I known you some 40+ years??
Cheers,
~Earl J
Quote from: gt350shelb on April 17, 2020, 08:13:14 AM
there is a reason i dont have a dyno in the shop , too many ideas at hand ! I will stick to the 2x4 setup for the street :)
Excellent choice. You will like it but revive all of the Holley curse words you had forgotten about.
The sb 2x4 pulls HARD and depending on the cam, idles like a pussy cat.
Earl: there is that 2x4 t/a 'windsor' manifold mated to the special cast small port Boss 302 heads so is anyone sure exactly what COULD still turn up as far as manifolds go? I wouldn't be shocked if there was that Boss 302 t/a also cast for C6FE 289 heads, maybe just more stupefied?
This is like Rocky and Bullwinkle. "Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat?" :o
Earl ,
Those are die cast 6214 IR carbs. Yes I know Roy has an offset dist. He also has TOE in his backyard and Jr can make the carbs work. The air cleaner is the tricky part. We know IR carbs ( of any brand) have reversion. This forms as a "cloud" above the stacks in a static condition. In motion the weight of the fuel throws it around some. Wherever the fuel lands , it accumulates to the point where it "rains" down. ( Science lesson LOL) That phenomenon takes a perfect air fuel ratio and makes it dead rich wherever the droplets "randomly fall". The closer the top of the "enclosure "( air box , hood , or air cleaner) the quicker the droplets form and upset the tuning. In an "open" ( Can Am or exposed carbs) the "cloud" can't form as the car passing through the air prevents it. IR in this case is not street friendly , but allot of what we do is the same way.
Randy
Quote from: gt350hr on April 17, 2020, 10:38:04 AM
Earl ,
Those are die cast 6214 IR carbs. Yes I know Roy has an offset dist. He also has TOE in his backyard and Jr can make the carbs work. The air cleaner is the tricky part. We know IR carbs ( of any brand) have reversion. This forms as a "cloud" above the stacks in a static condition. In motion the weight of the fuel throws it around some. Wherever the fuel lands , it accumulates to the point where it "rains" down. ( Science lesson LOL) That phenomenon takes a perfect air fuel ratio and makes it dead rich wherever the droplets "randomly fall". The closer the top of the "enclosure "( air box , hood , or air cleaner) the quicker the droplets form and upset the tuning. In an "open" ( Can Am or exposed carbs) the "cloud" can't form as the car passing through the air prevents it. IR in this case is not street friendly , but allot of what we do is the same way.
Randy
My discovery about the fuel cloud is (I can only speak of Webers at this point) the cloud hovers over each stack at about 3 to 3-1/2" high.
If you extend the stack to 5" (like on the factory racing Panteras) the cloud stays within the stack.
The cloud only appears at over a certain rpm and the fuel droplets are dumped back into the carb at idle or something approaching idle where they don't effect the power curve by changing the a/f ratio. Just maybe like a small accelerator shot?
Unfortunately there are no Mustang derived cars that have that kind of hood room to run 5" stacks. The Pantera does with about 1" of clearance to the roof.
The droplets DO affect the dominators under the '69 T/A airbox! Yes 4"s or more seems to do the trick for clearance. The cloud is still present beyond idle , been there , done that.
the cloud MAY always be there BUT because of in this case a reverse Venturi effect, it may need a certain rpm for it to rise out of the carb throat in order to be visible?
The Webers don't seem to be effected much by this reversion cloud as far as a/f goes. They are at points so rich to begin with, it's next to impossible to determine that.
I think that is where in IDA's the emulsion tubes have some effect at leaning or enrichening the mixture for a certain rpm range?
Doug ,
If you remember GT40s had a "tray" or cover about 4"s above the carbs. Vintage road race Cobras often have eight round ring stains on the underside of the hood/scoop. The cloud does end up condensating on the object above the carbs and produces the rings. It is probably more apparent on race cars with fuel with a dye ( red , blue , purple , yellow) than with a pump gas with no dye. It doesn't happen on fuel injection because the fuel is sprayed at high pressure into the port , not siphoned out of a carburetor and the "tubes" are usually long enough to keep the fuel vapor in the tube eliminating the possibility of combining to for the "cloud".
Randy
All consistent with my "discovery".
I would tend to disagree about the cause of the rings though. In my case I am very sure they are from the flames thrown out of the carbs when starting cold.
In daylight it isn't that apparent, but at night, what a show! The neighbors would come over and watch me start the car at night. About 12 feet they felt was a safe distance.
As a matter of fact, I was going to repaint the inside of the hood white as delivered from the factory. I gave up the prep after a day or so when I still couldn't get the ring marks out of the hood and just sprayed it all semi-gloss black.
Flames. The rings are from the flames! ;)
Quote from: shelbydoug on April 17, 2020, 07:42:27 AM
Is this the Boss 302 set up or is there one for the Windsor heads also?
Have you ever seen a version of this manifold for a 9.2 Cleveland?
Not meaning to be a downer but I can envision a volcano of reversion with this and having worked with Webers on IR's I can't imagine how you can cover the carbs with an air cleaner. It's just going to go up in flames?
In any case, adventurous is an understatement and on the surface, looks so innocent to boot?
Very cool. 8)
Doug, there is no version for a Cleveland deck height motor but I will attach a picture showing a Shelby single Dominator intake along with a few other rare intakes. As for the reversion problem I have a couple of possible solutions. One is to lower the engine an inch and raise the lid of the air cleaner as high as possible which might possibly get me about four in's and if I go with a cowl hood I could probably get up to 6 in. Also I thought of putting in a very small blower motor like out of a computer that would blow the reversion cloud away and that might solve the problem also. Another possible solution would be to put something like an inverted V peace of a metal under the air cleaner lid so that any droplets would form their and run off to the sides of the carburetors. What do you think Randy and Doug?
The first intake upper left is a street boss intake to use 2 BBL Cleveland heads on an 8.2 in deck height block. The second picture is the Shelby Cleveland Dominator intake. The third intake is just a Ford letter high rise intake for a 289 or 302 and the fourth intake is a GT40 ported intake for my 93 lightning.
On the lower row of intakes going from left to right is a 2-4 289 302 intake and next to it is the TransAm version. In the center is the Dual Dominator Boss 302 intake and next to that is the extremely rare 69 Trans Am intake for regular Holley's. The last intake is the Shelby 2-4 Boss 302 intake which does not require an offset distributor. I have also attached a picture of an offset distributor that I have. I have also attached a picture of one of Rich Rodeck's tunnel Port 302 intakes.
Roy
Very cool collection.
As I said, my experience with IR manifolds is limited to Webers. In my case I started with them about '78 with a Boss 351 in my '68 GT350.
The clearance to the hood was so tight with stock stacks that the front two stacks and auxiliary venturis needed to be cut a full inch.
I eventually went back to the 302, as a 347 and arrived at a combination of AFR 185 heads with a C60A t/a. It fits nice whereas the Cleveland was just too big on every dimension.
The height of the cloud clearly showed in a video of a Webered Cleveland on a dyno run with the cloud hovering just over the stock stacks which are 2-3/4" heigh.
The Pantera has the room to use a 5" stack. Few other cars do. Certainly I can't think of any Mustangs that have that kind of room?
Probably not co-incidentally vintage pictures of the Pantera Gp4 factory race cars clearly show the racer version of the stacks, soldered together arriving at just around a 5" height.
You know on race cars virtually nothing is done for no reason. I think that the taller stack on the race Pantera was not just done to tune the torque for a certain rpm.
It solved the issue of the cloud with a race cam in the car and no where to let the droplets drain to but on top of the headers?
i know that the engines in the Daytonna Coupes were lowered 1" since they required a shortened oil pan.
I'm surprised that wasn't done to the trans-am cars too. Like you suggested, it MIGHT just provide you enough height for taller stacks.
Not to give the GM guys any credit but the raised "cowl induction" hood on the Camaros does give more room right over the top of the carbs.
Randy is the guy to ask about this. I understand he has toiled tremendously on a couple of the t/a boss cars. If there is a fix, he'd know?
Thanks for showing me your collection. I'm envious. ;D
Speaking of Weber's, I figured I'd post a couple pictures of the Mirage GT40 aluminum motor that I sold to Jay Cushman a couple of years ago. The Weber's are some I got when I saw Jim in Inglese at sacc in Monterey 35 or 40 years ago. I traded him a magnesium cross ram Weber intake for 58 Webber's to go on a 289. The heads on the motor were not correct but they were aluminum ones from 1973.
Roy
We love pictures. The more the better.
Doug,
The only way to put IR dominators on a 351C is with a Weiand "Pro Ram" and some 1/2" spacer/adaptors shaped from round to "D". THEN you will still need "some" form of an offset distributor. Ford did make one and I sold the one I had to Craig Olsen many years ago. Ford made a handful of single plane dual for Cleveland intakes for regular Holleys. Two different friends have them now. The low end performance is dismal at best. WHY anyone would want IR on a 351C is beyond me.
The rings were fuel not burnt fuel. If you had fire coming out of your
Roy ,
Lower the motor. Use an open , 2" tall spacer under each carb. That should solve the probem. Jr can make the carbs work for you.
Randy
Quote from: gt350hr on April 20, 2020, 11:49:46 AM
Doug,
The only way to put IR dominators on a 351C is with a Weiand "Pro Ram" and some 1/2" spacer/adaptors shaped from round to "D". THEN you will still need "some" form of an offset distributor. Ford did make one and I sold the one I had to Craig Olsen many years ago. Ford made a handful of single plane dual for Cleveland intakes for regular Holleys. Two different friends have them now. The low end performance is dismal at best. WHY anyone would want IR on a 351C is beyond me.
The rings were fuel not burnt fuel. If you had fire coming out of your
Roy ,
Lower the motor. Use an open , 2" tall spacer under each carb. That should solve the probem. Jr can make the carbs work for you.
Randy
Yes, I'm aware of the Wieand tunnel ram. There are a couple of folks running them with 1850's on 3/4" spacer plates on the street in Panteras.
In asking, I'm not looking for a Ford 351c t/a, just asking if anyone has ever seen them? I don't know where the t/a program dropped off, but it looks like right in the beginning of the 351c racing development?
In fact it appears that the issue Detomaso was having with engine failure in the Group 4 Panteras is that there had been no development on the engine (or little) at that point. He was one of the first to race them in competition.
Bud Moore was just starting his development and Dyno Don was immersed in "testing" the "special parts", aluminum blocks and heads, that Ford dropped off at his door.
It is said that the Weber 48ida "Detomaso Pantera" intake manifold was done for Ford by Holman-Moody. Unfortunately sending the molds and completed manifolds to Detomaso in Europe was not a good idea?
Something like 15 complete sets were sold and the remainder of the manifolds and the molds disappeared?
The Cleveland falls in kind of a no mans land because of the dropping of funding to racing by Ford?
As far as what causes the rings...something. I should do a video of starting the car at night. Whatever it is, it's a light show. I'll just call it my own aurora borealis? I'm far enough north. ;)
Actually, it's one of the first things Kopec asked me about the Webers, which he already was running for a year. "Did you notice the light show yet?"
A Weber 48ida intake manifold IS an IR intake. Initially I started with iron Boss heads and the big port manifold in my 68 GT350.
Eventually I didn't want to wrestle with making the thing fit and pulled the entire engine out and put the 347 in.
I was fortunate to come up with a very nice set of race prepped A3 aluminum Ford heads from Joe Lapine and am using them in my Pantera with the matching "small port" intake AND raised exhaust port 180 degree headers. That's where everything sits now.
No ram boxes for me...unless you get me very drunk and...
Anything else I say about the three setups is from my experience, not my expertise and likely others experiences will vary?
The 5" stacks on the Webers seem to have fixed a lot of issues others have in Mustang chassis.
...Oh, and you need 5" OVER the top of the carbs to contain the fuel cloud although I like the idea of the lowered engine, but put a skid plate on the oil pan...
That's my story, and I'm sticking with it. Inconsistencies I'll blame on unexpected side effects of the virus, codeine cough medicine mixed with Jack Daniels. What month is this? ;D
The 351C was never considered for T/A so there wasn't a dual dominator intake made for it.
Quote from: gt350hr on April 20, 2020, 01:00:00 PM
The 351C was never considered for T/A so there wasn't a dual dominator intake made for it.
Euro Group 4 rules permitted the Webers. Dual Dominators with the 4 corner idle were an "engineering substitute" for IR ida's. Webers had been run and developed in the Cobra racing program.
The dual Dominators on a T/A ir manifold are just another way of doing the same thing with less total carb height.
Maybe it was just Ford setting Detomaso off on his own development program but there seems to be a point at which Ford stopped sharing information with them and maybe just figured Detomaso was happy with the Webers and the Webers fit the Group 4 rules so why waste more time and money?
Just idle speculation and discussion on my part and a thought that there was some thought of other carb development particularly in light of that 2x4 Holley intake that showed up in an obscure magazine article and the actual existence of a 3x2 Cleveland intake?
Probably the Doug Nash split magnesium intake cast for either dual Autolite inlines or for mechanical fuel injection, 8.0 block, 9.2 or other combination, should be mentioned also as I suppose abstract induction possibilities depending on how the class rules went? Another IR possibility.
What program an engine was intended for doesn't seem to necessarily be the determining factor for production. I'm told that the aluminum 351c blocks have 68 casting dates and were made for the "Ford Indy Program". So what's the difference in which program they originate from?
Plus picking your brain is fun Randy. Seems like you are the only one left alive with specific insider knowledge that will talk about this stuff at all?