I say leave it!! I love the raw look. I think you did one hell of a nice job man, show off your craftsmanship. If you make it smooth, people will just assume you bought it. Leave it....love it!!

 

Amazing job, wish I had such skills! Where did you get the design? I ask because it appears that distribution may be an issue at low speeds. Port injection will get the fuel right, but each cylinder must still have the same amount of incoming air. The design you used has unequal runner volumes from the underside of the throttle plate to the valve.

 

Fellas,


I started smoothing them out last week. I am going to grind them all to a sharp square edge, and the hammer in a round edge.


As far as design:


Yes this does have some thought into it. Quite a bit actually. I started with a design that mocked the Clifford and Offenhauser carb'd intakes. Both of which had a tendency to lean out on cylinders 1 and 6. Now if your theories are true, 1 and 6 on my design will actually be rich, same fuel as 2-5 but less air.


Now, for the changes (besides multiport). The old edelbrock style intake was hands down the best designed intake for the 300 if you are into low rpm torque, the Clifford and offenhauser are for a little higher revving rpm engines that move the curves up in rpm. So I designed the plenum off of the offy and Clifford, and extended the runners to match edelbrock in an effort to gain a little more low end grunt than the Clifford and Offy provides. The plenum is over 6 times the square area as the runners, and then the runners neck down evenly.


Some of us over on the six have theorized that the carb design intakes were made to help spread the torque curve over a larger range of the engine. I tend to believe this is true. For instance, runners 1 and 6 are long, faster moving air, better low end torque, runners 2 and 5 are mid length, helps in the mid range rpms. Then the shorter runners 3 and four for top end. So throughout the range of the engine you always have two cylinders at max torque.........


Is it proven, perhaps somewhere in someone else's research. I doubt Clifford or Offenhauser designed theirs without some. As an engineer, who has studied flow characteristics in various systems it makes sense. Take that for what it is worth.


I may never know how well this intake will perform though because it is going into a boosted engine where airflow is not nearly as important.

 

Great that you have put so much thought into the design, I am certain that will pay off well. Since you intend to go BOOSTED, you are correct in that the pressurized intake air will overcome most cylinder distribution problems. Idle and tip-in still important if this engine is to be street-driven regularly.

What EFI system do you intend to use? If it has the SEFI feature, the closed loop learning will correct each cylinder's fuel to match the actual air flow at low speeds & non-boosted operation.

 

Well I had been leaning toward Mega Squirt 3. However, the more time I spend on the subject, the more I like Holley's HP efi system.


I am still debating, tfi vs EDIS. TFI is plug and play but limits the capability of SEFI.


Still waffling on turbo vs, S/C. At this point the Turbo is going to be more work to install, (Just because I am deeper into the S/C setup). But the S/C is going to be more expensive.


I feel like a turbo is less to go wrong, no belts to break..... but the S/C is a little more stable, and I like the constant increase in pressure controlled by rpms. Just feel like it is better suited. So we will see.


What kind of experience do you have on this Walt?


Maybe I should start a build thread for just my 300.......

 

Oh I forgot to mention that my 300 head has been CNC ported, and will have flow data............ pretty sweet for an ol' 300.

 

clintonvillan,
I worked at Ford n Dearborn, MI for 32 years, most of that time in Powertrain design & Development and focus was Electronic Engine Controls. (Computer Science Engineer), but being a car guy I stuck my noise into a lot of areas and tried to always learn the most I could. I have done a lot with EEC IV and EEC V over the years. Check out this video of a 1970 472cid Cad motor that I made run with EEC IV fuel injection.


Made that TFI Distributor from a Cad lower and a 5.0L Ford upper, then modded it for the reverse rotation of the Cad distributor.

 

Walt,


You may be just the guy I need..........


Any chance that the stock ecu can be made to control my setup? It is a shame, I have an entire harness that is junk with these aftermarket systems.


I admire you guys so much. I am both a civil and mechanical engineer. Wanted to do full mechanical, just not much call for it locally. Grew up wanting to do this for a living, ended up in construction so now I play with this stuff in my spare time. Being a ford designer on the SVT stuff would be a dream come true!




There is a guy over on fordsix that helped develop it....... pretty neat.

 

clintonvillan,

pretty easy to make these systems work. What is your I6 out of and what wiring came with it?

 

From a 87 f150. Has the older ecu with tfi. I have the whole harness. I gutted the truck and pulled all the wiring and controllers.

 

OK, you have the EEC IV module, on the gray connector of the module there are some identification numbers, looking for EEC -MA, does it show that?

 

Not bad looking welds. I think I'd hit them lightly with a flap wheel grinder disc just to knock down any high spots and shine them up a little.

 

 

There is my ecu, is it ecu or ecm? I have heard both, is there a differentiation?


Now something I have been pondering, why couldn't I swap a harness and ecu over from a super coupe and then just hit the dyno with it........

 

Any idea how a supercoupe controls timing?