I'm a salesman, I can see through the bull5h1t. Disclose the loss of torque & I won't be so harsh. Of course it's a science, which is why I believe you can only get so much out of the GT40 design. You stick with that platform for torque, not horsepower which is why runner length is needed. The exact length will also vary depending on the rest of the engine as well as its use, but Ford pretty much got it right for street use on a 5.0L. Show me an engine that gains power with this upper over a Systemax, RPM, RPM2, BBK etc in a back to back comparison & I will show you a car that is better off in the real world with the torque & economy it just lost by removing the GT40/Explorer upper. 100mm is a huge difference. You can't shorten the runners without losing torque, science & tests show that, but shorter runners don't always gain power either.

Everyone with an EFI windsor should read "5.0L Dyno Tests" by Richard Holdener from cover to cover. They will then have a much better understanding of what works & why it works. Science theory is great, but even science involves comparison testing to prove or disprove. Baffle us with the theory all you want, the proof will be in the pudding.


I don't see how when the lower manifold is more of a limitation. Not just the shape either with the twist & turn runners 1 & 5 make (better than HO though) but also cross sectional area. (for those that are interested in the science of it http://www.mustangcentral.net/tech/port.html ). Perfectly suited to the GT40 family of heads, but a 90mm MAF is wasted on any of those.


And you are clearly keen on a sale before proving it is an inprovement on those you claim to equal or better (yes, I read the ad before it was removed).


Thats great & I'm sure someone will believe this bit is more important than a back to back comparison of a realistic engine on the same dyno. Probably the same people that Pete referred to earlier.


I'm sure I said something earlier about the rediculousness of any comparison between an upper for a GT40 lower & a race bred, pre-supercar manifold tuned for the specific capacity & rpm band. To further highlight this, those pics of yours show a tapered port entry, but not a bell mouth like the GP A. A bell mouth will reach into the plenum not sit on the floor. The curve at the lip of the bell is just as important as its size & length & needs to reach around as far back on itself as possoble. It's still Camry vs M3.


So this clearly is a jewel. It has had its price tripled, before being discounted 35%

I think I'll stop wasting my time being frustrated by this now. The rest is just a waste of money & effort on a street car, & the GT40 lower is too much of a restriction on a real race car. I hate false & unproven claims & the fact it was on eBay probably just made it worse.

Unsubscribing from thread...

“To further highlight this, those pics of yours show a tapered port entry, but not a bell mouth like the GP Aâ€￾
As stated earlier pre machined and older design pics, not final production ones, they have a fine machined radius (bell mouth) and not a chamfer…

“A bell mouth will reach into the plenum not sit on the floorâ€￾
Bell mouth doesn’t need to sit proud and can be integrated on to the base. Do a search on the net and or fluid dynamics text book and it will be shown.

“The curve at the lip of the bell is just as important as its size & length & needs to reach around as far back on itself as possibleâ€￾
I agree with you in this regard, but it isn’t that significant when fluid flow diffusing directly above it and distributed equally across the runners. Which is what we’ve done on the final design

Look if you tow a caravan then this manifold probably isn’t for you! Anyways can talk about this forever but it’s all really simple!

To get this testing program going into top gear, and not just preliminary gtech testing, I will offer a free manifold to anyone (in Melbourne) if they can provide back to back testing of this manifold against another US brand of manifold which will be posted no matter the result! PM your interest for further details. I have no problems with this because I know the vast experience we’ve acquired from making top figures on the track and dyno for Holdens on cars such as “BLOWMEâ€￾ and “ITT-38Lâ€￾ of which is the fastest Holden V6 in Australia, I feel certain that this product shines!

And if it’s absolute crap, well as long as we all learn something from it then it’s all good, i'm not fussed

Yes and it's a question of application more than anything. Just sticking a box on top of your basic 5.0 lower is the real problem here. A total design like the TS50 intake, or the TFS-R with the box upper is the right approach and is really the same idea as the Group A intake without the two t-bodies. Even then the TS50 intake is for a 5.6L engine and the TFS-R is not suitable for less than 330ci unless it's a high rpm engine.
5.0L engines need help in the torque department and long runners give that.

Pete.

its obviously designed for top end power, as discussed shorter runner lengths i dont see it being a street car manifold as the conrod bolts are the limiting factor on revvin a windsor past 5800 which is what this manifold is gonna want to do.......so if youve gotta pull the motor and do the rod bolts your gonna want to spend more $= semi race motor........hence limited sales

not tryin to bag your product ...just not suited to a street car

Thanks for the constructive feedback guys. I think I need to make the ford ad a little more clear in regards to what type of engine its suited for (larger cam, stroker etc.) like I’ve done in previous ads as shown below.

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/TWIN-THROTTLE-BO ... dZViewItem

Kindest Regards,
Steve

You might also suggest that unless the explorer intake is hogged out big time it is not suited to high rpm or stroker engines.

Cheers,
Pete.

OK. I thought for some reason I was near my uploads limit. I'm nowhere near it so for anyone interested in "engineering facts", I thought I'd share the following attachments.

Note how similar the Group A is to the V8Supercar intake. The supercars injectors are positioned for more top end power & the trumpets are laid down more for packaging reasons & a straight shot at windsor heads. A custom offset distributor (or use of a coil pack setup) is also required for the supercar manifold.

Note how straight the runners are on both.

Note how the bellmouths sit proud inside the plenum on both.

Note how the bells are round (& 99% of windsor intake ports are rectangles)

These really are the best you can get, but neither of these intakes are worth having unless your engine spends 99% of it's time on the high side of 4000rpm with a 7000+rpm limit ie. a real race motor.

 

 

Attachments:

File comment: Ford V8Supercar engine supercar v8 3.jpg [ 21.08 KiB | Viewed 277 times ]

File comment: Ford V8Supercar engine supercar v8 2.jpg [ 21.28 KiB | Viewed 257 times ]

File comment: Ford V8Supercar engine supercar v8 1.jpg [ 22.45 KiB | Viewed 290 times ]

File comment: Inside a Walkinshaw Group A walkinshaw 5.0L manifold.JPG [ 28.01 KiB | Viewed 225 times ]

& some more attachments. This is becoming a summary of my research. I'd say this knowledge is why I got so frustrated with the s**t.

The 5.0L truck lower is the best ford platform to use if an upper is to be designed for any ford lower.

Note how the Systemax lower & the Truck lower are interchangable. Holley even sell the upper separately to suit people who have one of these (ie a 5.0L 'truck'), or get one secondhand & save enough to pay for a new TB. It isn't reversable, but rerouting the intake piping to the drivers side would be simpler than a twin TB setup.

The cobra specific sheet is invaluable reading for anyone contemplating bolt ons to an EFI windsor. Even a 80mm Lightning MAF is wasted on GT40 lower. In reference to the manifold in the thread title, a pair of 64mm throttles delivering 1200+cfm & feeding off a 1200-1600+cfm 90mm maf is absolutely the biggest wank mod you can do to a street car, let alone one that retains the GT40 lower. An utter waste. It is like putting a 600cfm holley carb on a basic 4 stroke lawnmower.

 

 

Attachments:

File comment: This was cut & pasted from googles cache of a stangnet forums page before it dissapeared 94-95 GT GTS Cobra Specific FAQ Sheet.doc [634 KiB] Downloaded 261 times

File comment: Stock F150/truck 5.0L upper & lower f150 intake2.JPG [ 17.51 KiB | Viewed 234 times ]

File comment: Holley Systemax upper & lower systemax.jpg [ 19 KiB | Viewed 273 times ]

File comment: Stock 1987 truck 5.0L lower stock 1987 5.0L truck lower.jpg [ 110.16 KiB | Viewed 257 times ]

Last edited by sam12h on Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Now here is a sheet metal intake design that anyone with NFghia's skills (& workshop) could make. Not a job for the average backyarder, but the design certainly has potential. Don't ask me what it is for or who made it, I can't remember. I just saved the pics because I was interested in the design. The runners could almost be made any size & length you like (as long as they were kinked to make the openings miss each other) to suit your specific application (ie capacity, rpm range & use). A couple of gentle kinks (easier, but not ideal) or a curve & the runners could be almost as long as a truck upper. The openings could also be made to sit proud of the plenum floor & the runner size tapered from plenum to head about 4deg for maximum ram effect. I wonder how much it would retail for if someone decided to make these for the little windsor?

*Edit* The bottom 2 are the Reichard Racing box upper mated to a Trickflow lower. It has very short runners only suitable for very high rpm or huge capacity, but at least the lower can support the flow required at that rpm.

I think that will do for tonite.

 

 

Attachments:

File comment: Sheet metal intake sheet metal intake 3.JPG [ 24.56 KiB | Viewed 196 times ]

File comment: Sheet metal intake sheet metal intake 2.JPG [ 19.98 KiB | Viewed 204 times ]

File comment: Sheet metal intake sheet metal intake 1.JPG [ 25.55 KiB | Viewed 207 times ]

File comment: Reichard Racing box upper on Trickflow lower trickflow box1.JPG [ 67.44 KiB | Viewed 197 times ]

File comment: Reichard Racing box upper on Trickflow lower trickflow box2.JPG [ 70.12 KiB | Viewed 229 times ]

Last edited by sam12h on Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Thats not the new Trick Flow boxed upper...
Good info...

Oops, your right. Thats the Reichard Racing box upper for the Trickflow lower. Will edit post appropriately.

Note to self: Don't post multiple epics late at night

Man, I've never even owned an 8 and found this whole thread interesting. Why did it die? Where did it go? Has Sam12h ever found the holy grail of induction?

You'll have to head over to Street Fords to find out, Sam's the production editor for the SF magazine and forum, so probably knows a thing or two about what he's talking about Probably doesn't get on here much any more considering the age of the thread.
But you are right fiend, was a very interesting read. Good find
Makes me feel like a right goose after reading this considering I have been butchering my old air box trying to get more cold air in

Street Fords? Don't think that one makes it to New Zealand.... Bet you there aren't many E series (or N or D derivatives thereof) within it's hallowed pages..!

you'd be wrong