On another board a question was brought up regarding the fact that the intake manifold is also part of the head making it a bit harder to change as compared to a Ford small block. Is there some design reason or just an engineer who said let's try this? No one has had an answer yet on the other board.

 

I wondered the who and why of that design while trying to set one of those manifolds. Like many mechanical items, especially automotive, the engineer or designer is far removed from the assembler and even farther from the owner, subsequent owner, and not at all concerned about the eventual rebuilder.

There is no answer.

 

I've never been able to find a definitive answer to that question, only conjecture and speculation.

 

They did it just to make you have this conversation many years after the engine ceased to be produced......

 

The story coming from folks who used to work at the factories & foundries was that, considering that most of the "port" was in the "manifold", it was very easy to make different manifolds, either as improvements or as vehicle-specifics, and it makes a lot of sense as the FE came out with the big-body T-birds with low hoods, and the Birds used a flat manifold for hood clearance and also a level manifold instead of tilted like the Galaxies (or Fairlanes back then). With most of the port in the manifold, the manifold could be reconfigured pretty easily, and made to run reasonably well with very low runners. Even the Bird 3-deuce setup is different than the one for the Galaxie, with all 3 carbs level instead of stepped like the Galaxie.
And there's always an answer, sometimes you just can't find it with Google

 

Makes sense. You should post that info on Wiki.....

 

Makes sense to me, it's very similar to the explanation i found on the "other" FE forum...

<TABLE border=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-TOP: 4px" vAlign=top colSpan=2><!-- google_ad_section_start -->Engineering basis for the width of the FE intake manifold.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

October 12 2002 at 1:15 PM</TD><TD vAlign=top align=right>Dave Shoe (Login dshoe)</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=bottom colSpan=3><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=3><!-- google_ad_section_start -->I hypothesize the reason the FE got such a wide intake manifold has a lot to do with styling trends started by Studebaker about the time the engine was being proposed.

Studebaker was widely recognized as introducing some great, low-swept, aerodynamic styling during the mid 1950s.

My info might be wrong, but I believe Studebaker contracted with Fram around 1955 or so to develop the very first paper element air cleaner for use in a car. The prime benefit of paper filters instead of oil-bath filters was it allowed the top of the air cleaner to sit much closer to the engine, thus permitting a lower hoodline and thus a lower roofline.

The lower bodyline was such a styling hit in the mid-50s Studebaker that it became a driving criteria behind all new car design. In 1958, both the TBird and Lincoln underwent major styling changes. The goal was to lower the cars while keeping them easy to enter and exit. The result was the Lincoln became a unibody car to eliminate the height-consuming framework under the body, and the redesigned TBird would remain a unibody car and be built on the same line as the Lincoln.

Here's where the intake manifold design theory of mine comes in: The best method to lower a car overall is to lower the hoodline. Lowering the hoodline is done by lowering the engine. The FE was planned with a paper element air cleaner from the start, so this end of the "lowering" plan was in place. The heads were made narrow and the intake manifold wide so that the intake manifold runners could "bend downward" as soon as possible coming away from the head and not consume engine height. The longer the intake runner remained in the head, the longer the runner must travel in an upward direction before it could bend back downward. The solution was to limit the head size and make the intake manifold wide to compensate.

This also explains the change in aspect ratio of the manifold runners, as they start out tall and narrow at the head, but they eventually become square, and as they approach the carburetor they become very wide and low. This height compacting of the runner would have had a negative impact on performance, but a low engine was far more important to the marketing folk than performance.

It's just a theory.

Shoe.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

It might have more to do with what's possible with sand/cast-iron castings.

With the rocker-shaft setup, and port placement, and where to put the pushrods, and cooling passages, it might be impossible (or much much harder/expensive) to make a full head casting. Not to mention that even if you did make the heads wider, it would protrude up away from the top of the block.

 

Now that just doesn't make a whole lot of sense - most other V-type engines have the "normal" arrangement, and many have shaft rockers- like the Y-block, MEL, small & big Mopars, Studebakers, on & on, and most production heads are cast iron or aluminum, been casting them that way for a number of decades. The ports, rockers, and cooling passages are still in the head. The ports still had/have to compete for space with the pushrods like most other V8's, except the Tunnel Port 427 & 302 and OHC engines. And the end of the block has always just been made to fit where the head ends- if the heads had been wider, the ends would just have been made taller and narrower.

 

Just throwing things out there I still wonder, if there was some casting reason. The rocker shaft bolt holes, cooling, a combination of things?

 

Well, that's an example of why this site has the reputation of being a source of much incorrect and mis-information- too many folks "Just throwing things out there" or playing Google-expert when other folks are looking for real info

 

Yeah, because theorizing why the FE intake manifold is designed as it is is going to hurt SO MANY people trying to build their own FEs.

Oh brother.

 

Those "folks":

--did they design the manifolds or just cast, machine and install?

--did you talk to them directly?

--where was their info from?

While your explanation makes the most sense of anything here, imo, but without authentication of the source, it is simple more info "..just thrown out here..."

 

If Carroll Shelby didn't have a problem with the FE design in his Cobra, I don't with my F250 either. Ford's best engine family IMHO.

 

Well lets see here, during the 1950's, marijuana was starting to take hold in the U.S....