Thought for a Stude intake manifold..!

This forum is devoted to all topics concerning high performance, Studebaker powered vehicles.
Post Reply
User avatar
Mike Van Veghten
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 2240
Joined: 02 Sep 2005, 12:06
Location: West Coast

Thought for a Stude intake manifold..!

Post by Mike Van Veghten » 10 Jan 2019, 12:06

Lookin to see what the volume of the plenum is on this manifold. If the volume isn't too large, or can be easily filled in a few places, make a single four top... Waiting for an e-mail answer to my question.
https://www.eddiemotorsports.com/produc ... en-100.htm

Might be an interesting fit with the adapters. That big ugly block on the back needs to go though..!

It's similar in price to the big Offenhauser cross ram, but I know that that volume is way too large, I had one. I did a lot of filling in one of those years ago and ran it on a 350 in my 56 Chevy for 2 or 3 years on the street. Fun times.
Any large plenum (tunnel ram, cross ram) manifold should have a similar plenum volume as the engine cubic inches.

Mike

3x2stude
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 426
Joined: 21 May 2012, 19:24

Re: Thought for a Stude intake manifold..!

Post by 3x2stude » 27 Jan 2019, 16:20

A "plan view" dimensional drawing would be good to have. I have considered the cross ram to use with the adapters but my concern is the distributor clearance.

JK

User avatar
Mike Van Veghten
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 2240
Joined: 02 Sep 2005, 12:06
Location: West Coast

Re: Thought for a Stude intake manifold..!

Post by Mike Van Veghten » 28 Jan 2019, 00:55

I wasn't too worried, the Chevy has a rear distributor also.
But it will be something to verify.
I was hoping they might be showing off their wares at the Grand National Roadster Show this weekend. I didn't see them.
Hope to make it to their shop in the next week or two.

Mike

User avatar
Mike Van Veghten
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 2240
Joined: 02 Sep 2005, 12:06
Location: West Coast

Re: Thought for a Stude intake manifold..!

Post by Mike Van Veghten » 11 May 2019, 10:35

Well, I sprung for this manifold (Jegs sale). Looks like it should work real well ports with Jons adapters.
Needs some interior reworking around the end ports, but not a huge thing. Just need to build a single (or dual?) carburetor top for it.
It's also got a small amount of "choke" in the (gasket end) end of the ports for some reason. Should also be easy to fix.

Gonna need some heavy mill work to remove the EGR mount on the back. The front mill work should be a normal thing to cut off.

Should be plenty of room for a Stude distributor. Will need to relocate the vacuum chamber, radially wise from the OEM location. No large HEI's need apply though.

Mike

User avatar
PackardV8
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 2591
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 09:51

Re: Thought for a Stude intake manifold..!

Post by PackardV8 » 11 May 2019, 14:29

That's going to be an interesting project. Since it's designed as a low profile replacement, it might fit under Stude hoods.

If height were no problem, the new AFR looks interesting.

Image

jack vines

User avatar
Mike Van Veghten
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 2240
Joined: 02 Sep 2005, 12:06
Location: West Coast

Re: Thought for a Stude intake manifold..!

Post by Mike Van Veghten » 11 May 2019, 21:49

Yea, I wanted something a different and that all the runners are the "same" length. The runner size is the same as the adapter plate ports. BUT, they need some..."matching..!"
These are listed as a 6000rpm manif. That MAY...be because of the choke/restriction just before the gasket. As I noted, that's pretty easy to fix..! Could also be because of the throttle body size, vs. the 850cfm carburetor I'm going to use..! Haa..!
The newer / better single plane designs are much better in the runner length respect than older or less expensive models.

The AFR manifold above is slated as a 3500 to 8500 rpm manifold, that's a pretty high range even for some of the much higher end Stude engines. As you know, a LOT of rear gear and a lot of first gear/converter will be required to use that properly.
And I'd guess that the runner size is much larger than Jons plate ports, ending up being a big "funnel" after being match ported. Not sure that's a good thing.

I also was looking at AFR, but for their plastic manifolds.
But...I don't see them listed any longer.!? I'll have to call them.

Mike

User avatar
PackardV8
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 2591
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 09:51

Re: Thought for a Stude intake manifold..!

Post by PackardV8 » 12 May 2019, 11:14

Mike, you and I are sometimes thinking of being able to drive this stuff on the street. Of late, I've been convinced by guys with hundreds of dyno tests that it's nearly impossible to overcarburet/manifold for max top end horsepower. There's no way most under-400" engines can use all the flow of the 850 - 1050 CFM carbs or a 2 x 4 tunnel ram, but they always make more horsepower on the dyno and go faster on the track.

jack vines

User avatar
Mike Van Veghten
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 2240
Joined: 02 Sep 2005, 12:06
Location: West Coast

Re: Thought for a Stude intake manifold..!

Post by Mike Van Veghten » 12 May 2019, 16:14

Wellll...maybe, not always.

A friend of mine that runs a small inch C/ED (Econo-Dragster), may disagree some how "economy" the class really is.
Back when I was helping him (when he lived on the coast side of the San Gabriel Mts.) with his small Chevy powered car. 278" as I recall. We spent a "few" weekends testing at the old Orange County Drag Strip.
Four weekends all together.
1. Cams. Three cams. Two had the same values except for overlap, and the third was just different.
2. Manifolds. Two Hogan's and one ported Edelbrock.
3. Carburetors. Three different sizes
4. Combining the best of the previous three. Plus some other mixing and matching.

While the car was not a record holder, it was only a few thousandth's off. It was fast for the time.
With each test session, different sized tires were used (depending on tire slippage), different ignition timing was tried, jetting...well, is jetting for the day..! The two equal cams was enlightening. Huge low end power for the tighter lobe center version cam, but it dropped off drastically at about 1000'. That's the combination that "needed" a larger, wider tire. The manifold day, as I recall we even changed the trans. ratio with a second 2spd.

We changed parts, tried to optimize each combination as best that we could in a 12 or 14 hour day. Got there at gate opening, and was actually kicked out one night about 11:30ish.
What we found with Scotts extra parts and the borrowed parts he collected, with the exception of the intake manifold, all the parts he was using provided the best E.T.'s, and third best MPH. The manifold that worked the best was a Hogan that had shorter runners than the other two.

Carburetor wise... The class has/had a CFM max. At the time it was 750 as I recall. We tested larger carburetors just as general experiments. An 800 and an 850 Holley. All three basically stock per the rules. No hard parts changed, no machining.

Take a rough guess which carburetor worked the best ? The one that was per the rules for the class...the 750..! Only by a VERY small bit...but.

All in all, Scott didn't buy any new parts, The better manifold, while it produced better E.T. numbers, it was out of his price range at the time.

He's still racing, but with a 268, big block Dodge, still the same C/ED class. H'e basically lets the dyno shop pick his engine parts for him now.
He builds T-200 transmissions for drag racing. He'll build you a T-200-4R if you beg..! Two of my T-200-4R's have trans. brakes in them.

So while too big a carburetor may work sometimes...not always.

I can tell you a story about a too large a header primary tube on my old Anglia worked and the changes THEY required to be a positive change..!

Mike

User avatar
PackardV8
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 2591
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 09:51

Re: Thought for a Stude intake manifold..!

Post by PackardV8 » 13 May 2019, 18:14

Hi, Mike,
I've long wanted to try a Tuned Port Injection on a Stude. It was originally developed for the SBC 305", so it should be perfect.
Think of the TPI as a port fuel injected evolution of the Crossfire. Here's a cross section of a TPI.
Image

jack vines

User avatar
Mike Van Veghten
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 2240
Joined: 02 Sep 2005, 12:06
Location: West Coast

Re: Thought for a Stude intake manifold..!

Post by Mike Van Veghten » 15 May 2019, 14:00

That would be different.
It would need to be mostly aftermarket parts though. I don't recall the OEM stuff working all that well.

Avanti's need not apply !

With the adapters, the sky is pretty much the limit.
With a new bolt pattern, the Chrysler manifolds can work too. They have narrower and taller ports than the Chevy, but some reshaping of the plate port will fix that. I set an adapter plate on a small Chrysler manifold. Not too far off, usable.

Mike

User avatar
Jeff Rice
Global Moderator
Posts: 4753
Joined: 15 Jan 2004, 08:48
Location: Brooklet, Georgia,USA,Earth
Contact:

Re: Thought for a Stude intake manifold..!

Post by Jeff Rice » 22 May 2019, 15:48

The technology is now here..
They are printing titanium wheels.
Why not an intake manifold?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFDZie1 ... r_embedded

User avatar
Mike Van Veghten
Studebaker Racing Team Member
Posts: 2240
Joined: 02 Sep 2005, 12:06
Location: West Coast

Re: Thought for a Stude intake manifold..!

Post by Mike Van Veghten » 22 May 2019, 19:42

You mean like this..?
https://all3dp.com/2/aluminum-3d-printe ... d-printed/

Sounds plenty doable.
Like everything, just takes money.
Just get a good manifold (single and or dual plane), bolt Jons plates on that have been sculpted to lighten them, have it scanned and put on a thumb drive...call the place above, there you go.

Mike

Post Reply