Trumpet base and trumpet length... why are they not similar?
Discussion
eliot said:
I posted on a sunday morning when my provider decided to upgrade his server - so people missed it.
Its from my manifold archive, Its a John Eales Manifold:
http://www.rover-v8.com/jeales/web.nsf/pages/used
£2770 !
Which is firmly in my "why bother - buy an LS3" department.
That really is a thing of beauty and looks to be well packaged but the price .. wow.Its from my manifold archive, Its a John Eales Manifold:
http://www.rover-v8.com/jeales/web.nsf/pages/used
£2770 !
Which is firmly in my "why bother - buy an LS3" department.
Edited by eliot on Tuesday 29th March 20:39
eliot said:
Indeed - but do you need a 50mm hole. Only guessing, but you probably need a 5L + engine reving north of 7k rpm to justify it - which is into high end wildcat teritory and therefore ££££££££.
I think this is the best solution:
Long runners and individual throttle bodies.
I went for 48mm on my wildcat TB's .. and that is running a 256 solid lifter cam.I think this is the best solution:
Long runners and individual throttle bodies.
Edited by eliot on Sunday 13th March 08:44
The issue with the std manifold is it's 45mm at best and has bends (not good at all) and the diameter drops a lot.
spend said:
That seems to be a common misconception... the 45mm is only where it is opened out at the trumpet base interface. The internal runners are still a nominal 38mm - & in fact can be less than 35mm depending on casting.
The wildcat manifold is actually a perfect example of getting the port to funnel down (gradual reduction of cross sectional area) as you hit the port. I fail to see how you can get that nice gradual acceleration of flow with these more complex shapes that are being touted.
There is something else rather import - lack of bends.The wildcat manifold is actually a perfect example of getting the port to funnel down (gradual reduction of cross sectional area) as you hit the port. I fail to see how you can get that nice gradual acceleration of flow with these more complex shapes that are being touted.
Airflow all wants to go straight on .. and never really hugs the inside of the bend.
That is true.... I had a very sharp 90 deg inlet elbow fitted initialy to the car (MAF to Plenum),... and thought myself it could be an issue so changed if for one with a bigger bend... and it helped a lot for sure!... can't quantify it.. but made the thing feel much freeer flowing... 
A benefit fit if the JE cross over manifold has to be that you can see the back of the valves when fitting it. That means you can check the alignment of the manifold and the gasket.
You can do all the clever port enlarging, shaping and polishing you like but unless the manifold matches the head and the gasket it is not going to achieve the best result. I have always worried about how well the gasket matches the manifold when it is bolted up, without a looky down a hole medical type thing you need to take it off again and look at the witness marks to find out.
You can do all the clever port enlarging, shaping and polishing you like but unless the manifold matches the head and the gasket it is not going to achieve the best result. I have always worried about how well the gasket matches the manifold when it is bolted up, without a looky down a hole medical type thing you need to take it off again and look at the witness marks to find out.
TVR Beaver said:
Mmmm interesting all the same... sort of keeps it std over the LS??... but as you say.. a lot of dosh ...
Wonder what its claimed / tested to do?...
I heard a figure of 375bhp boasted at one point on PH, but J.E. told me 365 bhp...shpub would be the chap to talk to as I believe this crossover was trialed on his motor.Wonder what its claimed / tested to do?...
Gassing Station | Griffith | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff