Which Inlet Manifold

Ian Anderson · Post by **Ian Anderson** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 12:36 pm

I picked up a Weber500 over the weekend and fancy trying it to stop my low throttle kangaroo from the EFI system

So which inlet manifold is considered the best "bang for the buck"?

I like the look of the JWR unit but it is more pricy than the edelbrock stuff which may be just as good.

Engine is in the GT40 and made to rev - on the Dyno max power at 6650rpm. That said it does not see much thrashing and around town spends most of it's time between 1500 and 2000 rpm. (Which is Kangaroo revs on the Efi)

At £675 for the "Plug and play" ecu (http://www.v8developments.co.uk/) is a bit pricy and I fancied trying a carb first and if that did not work can always go down the Efi Route again (or cam change)

Ian

DaveEFI · Post by **DaveEFI** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 1:07 pm

The plug and play unit V8developments offer is I'm sure an excellent way to an instant fix. However, if cost is an issue and you're prepared to so some work yourself you can reduce that greatly. A MSII V3 kit can be bought in the US for about £150. Of course you have to build it. And modify the loom to accept it.

Wotland · Post by **Wotland** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 1:11 pm

I will use Eales water heated copy of Huffaker/Wildcat inlet manifold.

CastleMGBV8 · Post by **CastleMGBV8** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:55 pm

Ian,

The best of the road manifolds is the Edelbrock Performer, The JWR Dual Port has two sets of runners and is not really a performance part.

You can if you have room fit a spacer above the Edelbrock which converts it into a semi single plane and is said to yield more power and RPM, porting will help but costs money.

The Huffaker, Wildcat and Harcourt are all single plane and generally pricier and unheated. but as Dimitri has mentioned Eales is doing a heated version.

If your going to keep the rover lump, the best bet still has to be the plug and play MS.

Kevin.

Pocket rocket · Post by **Pocket rocket** » Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:24 pm

CastleMGBV8 wrote: The JWR Dual Port has two sets of runners and is not really a performance part.

Can you explain why?

CastleMGBV8 · Post by **CastleMGBV8** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:21 pm

Pocket rocket wrote:
CastleMGBV8 wrote: The JWR Dual Port has two sets of runners and is not really a performance part.
Can you explain why?

All I can tell you is that the design being low rise and with divided runners which reduce the overall flow potential it is better for providing low down torque rather than high peak power.

To clarify, one set of runners work off the carb primaries and the second set off the secondaries, does make for a good road manifold though.

In tests the Edelbrock Performer has always been better than the offy and the JWR.

Kevin.

Ian Anderson · Post by **Ian Anderson** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:07 pm

CastleMGBV8 wrote:
Pocket rocket wrote:
CastleMGBV8 wrote: The JWR Dual Port has two sets of runners and is not really a performance part.
Can you explain why?
All I can tell you is that the design being low rise and with divided runners which reduce the overall flow potential it is better for providing low down torque rather than high peak power.

To clarify, one set of runners work off the carb primaries and the second set off the secondaries, does make for a good road manifold though.

In tests the Edelbrock Performer has always been better than the offy and the JWR.

Kevin.

Kevin
Is that for max power, best torque best economy or what?

Ian

CastleMGBV8 · Post by **CastleMGBV8** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:18 am

Ian,

If you meant the Edelbrock then it would seem to have more ultimate power potential than the offy and JWR, and can be further improved as per my earlier post.

I think in standard form it will flow enough for up to 280 BHP with a 500 carb.

If your not in a hurry order from Summit Racing and save money.

http://www.summitracing.com/parts/EDL-2198/

Kevin.

Ian Anderson · Post by **Ian Anderson** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:36 am

The edelbrock says to max rev 5500
My engine max HP comes in over 6600

What intake do you suggest?
But I'm also wanting low rev drivability - hence I thought the JWR was a good idea because of the soplit runners but perhaps at a reduction in overall HP.

Cheers
Ian

topcatcustom · Post by **topcatcustom** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:44 am

Ian what happened to the SBF? You should be getting a Ford fitment manifold not Rover!

CastleMGBV8 · Post by **CastleMGBV8** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:41 am

Ian,

With the cam you have and the RPM at peak power is reached you would need to use a single plane hi-rise manifold, but it will affect the drivability at low RPM's.

I have the Edelbrock and it performs! perfectly from off idle on my 4.35 engine, the relatively and small primaries of the 500 carb provide good drivability and it will pull from 1500 RPM in direct 4th gear and that is with the equivalent of stage 3 heads and Crower 50232 cam which peaks at 5500 but will rev to 6500 RPM if required.

As I said earlier it is possible to fit an open spacer between the carb and manifold which will further improve the high RPM performance but not sure how it would affect the low RPM drivability.

If you are using over 6000 RPM I assume you have outrigger posts on the rocker shafts.

Application Power Band Cam Lift(mm) Valve Lift(mm) Duration Timing Full Lift VC (mm) LTDC Required Parts
Sports ' R ' 2750-7000 8.05 12.32 I 284 Deg E 290 Deg 34/70 73/37 108 Deg 0.55 I 2.71mm CF23 / VS43
Part No Part Type Description
M238 Camshaft Sports ' R '
Product: M238
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I presume this is the cam you have which would suggest peak power at probably 6250 RPM, one other thing you could consider is running the cam say 3 deg. advanced which would bring the power band a bit lower in the RPM range, most timing gears have the facility to do this

This theoretically would cost you a few peak BHP but give you a stronger mid range, speak to Kent Cams they could advise as to whether this is practical.

Kevin

Ian Anderson · Post by **Ian Anderson** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 12:36 pm

Kevin

I'm running a John Ealed JE102 cam

Specs are:
43/79/79/43 302 degrees .500" lift

Or so I dug up somewhere

- Perhaps I'm blaming the FI when I should just change the cam!

Ian

CastleMGBV8 · Post by **CastleMGBV8** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:07 pm

Ian Anderson wrote:Kevin

I'm running a John Ealed JE102 cam

Specs are:
43/79/79/43 302 degrees .500" lift

Or so I dug up somewhere

- Perhaps I'm blaming the FI when I should just change the cam!

Ian

I think we were here about a year ago

that a pretty hairy cam and really only meant for track use.

I think it's a case of having cake and eating it! you want the best of both worlds.

With your EFI getting rid of the air flow meter will reduce the effect of the exhaust gas reversion, the meter is effective reading the exhaust gasses as the pulse back the the induction system causing the system to over fuel until the engine gets on the cam.

Choices, well the megasquirt should tame the characteristics of the cam but may still not give you the drivability you are looking for.

Change cam and stay with your EFI? you would have to go for a lot milder cam if you retain the airflow meter.

Swap to carb? The carb will not be so badly effected by the cam but I feel still be a bit rough at low RPM as you will still get reversion pulses coming back into the air filter.

My best advice is to talk direct to Phil at Extra EFI and ask him if the MS will handle your cam and give reasonable on road drivability, you could try and do a deal direct with him for the kit as the V8 Development prices obviously include a profit for them.

You would only need the ECU and the wiring loom adaptor which should reduce the cost substancially

It's effectively only a ECU swap as you can retain the dizzy and use that to trigger the EFI, not perfect but no worse than the ignition you already have

Kevin.

kiwicar · Post by **kiwicar** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:29 pm

"The carb will not be so badly effected by the cam."

I don't think I would agree with you there, If you fully flowed the primary boosters you may get it as good as the EFi but you will still have problems with transition onto the secondarys, and the 4 barrels do not work well with a mechanical distributor and you will need good reliable vac advance to get the engine to run well at low speeds.
If Ian were prepared to fully rework the carb and set it up over a period of time then he may get the result he is after, however it would involve less work to convert to Extra EFI, and be cheeper and he does not want to do that because of the time involved.
If this were a change to SUs (4 on a boxer manifold) then I would think he would see some imrpovment quite quickly (but setting up is still alot of work), or to a set of properly set up 45 IDAs by someone who really understood how to get them to work properly then he would have a carb system that delivered what he wanted.
I think this change is seen as "bolt on and forget" fix and it definatly won't be that.

Every where else I agree with you Kevin.

I would either change to extra EFI or a far better aproach would be to drive it as is and build the ford engine to a sensible 350-370 bhp fast road spec on webers and look forward to that.
Best regards
Mike

Ian Anderson · Post by **Ian Anderson** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:58 pm

I'll make some calls about the EFi replacement

If it does not cure the Kangaroo full refund?

See what they say on that

Ian