Weiand Cross Tunnel Ram Intake Manifold
#330189
05/27/09 10:33 AM
05/27/09 10:33 AM
|
Anonymous
OP
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
OP
Unregistered
|
I’m contemplating running an old Weaind aluminum cross tunnel ram intake manifold, P3690982, on my 63 Sport Fury (see specs below). I have been trying to find some info on pros and cons about this intake. I have the option of running the 6 pack top or the single 4 barrel top. I was also thinking about having a dual quad top made. I have read the info in the Mopar engine book and it lists the mods for the 6 pack but I would like to hear form some people that have run it before. I know this intake will probably not work as well as some of the new ones, probably not as good as my TM7 that I just took off, but I think it looks cool. I have always liked to be different and I don’t think I have ever seen one of these intakes on a car before. I was going to go the traditional Max Wedge look but it is costly and it seams like lately every other 62 to 65 car I see has a cross ram. Don’t get me wrong I love the look, I just can’t afford it now and like I said before I like to be a little different. I found this site that has more mods for the 6 pac also. http://victorylibrary.com/mopar/weiand-c.htmThe site says the major problem with this intake is that the very low mixture velocity in the plenum will cause fuel to “drop out” of suspension, form large droplets, and collect on the plenum floor. This leads to poor idle quality, plug fouling and irregular mixture distribution between cylinders. Although this cannot be completely cured, the factory suggested some modifications (in the Engine book) Looking at the manifold I can see why the fuel would puddle on the plenum floor, as it is perfectly flat. On the 6 pack setup the center carb (primary) is directly over the flat spot in the plenum and I can see this being an even bigger problem with the single 4 as the carb is in the center directly over the flat plane of the plenum. This lead me to think about other tunnel ram designs with a single 4 and dual 4’s. I have used both and I always had better street manors from the dual quads. In theory I would say that a dual quad top made for this intake would work better and be less apt to having the problems noted above. What I was actually thinking was to have a 2x4 top made and place a large divider in the center of the plenum so that one 4 barrel would run the front cylinders and one would run the rear. This would reduce plenum volume, and increase velocity. I would leave an opening in the divider as a balance tube. Any thoughts? Thanks John Engine 440 = 0.040, forged flat tops (0.060 below deck) ported and polished 906 heads shaved to 80cc’s, final comp ratio is 9.5:1, MP mechanical .528 cam, roller rockers, Balanced rotating assembly, forged crank, LY rods w/new apr bolts, ½ inch oil pickup with high volume pump and 7 qt pan, just a good basic 440 build for street strip use. Car 63 Plymouth, 518 OD transmission w/ transgo shift kit, 2600 stall, 3.91 gears, SS springs.
|
|
|
Re: Weiand Cross Tunnel Ram Intake Manifold
[Re: gtx69]
#330194
07/17/11 01:54 AM
07/17/11 01:54 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,225 Charleston
sixpackgut
Drag Week Mod Champion
|
Drag Week Mod Champion
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,225
Charleston
|
dual quad lid would probably have less issues than a single 4 or six pack top because the carbs would be over top of the runners. HP wise, this intake will probably pick up 20hp or more over a tm7 depending on your engine
a victor jr with a 1000hp holley lost 4 mph in the 1/8th to this intake with a six pack in my testing on a standard port 493
Gen 3 power 6.22@110, 9.85@135 Follow @g3hemiswap on instagram
performance only racing, CRT, ultimate converter, superior design concepts, ThumperCarbs
|
|
|
Re: Weiand Cross Tunnel Ram Intake Manifold
[Re: Anonymous]
#2510713
06/20/18 11:07 AM
06/20/18 11:07 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,881 Ontario, Canada
Stanton
Don't question me!
|
Don't question me!
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,881
Ontario, Canada
|
There is disappointment that so many "bulletin" and mods seem to have to be made for them to work, and even more mods to maximize their performance. Man are you ever missing the point !!!! Just about every intake on the market needs mods to make them work and maximize performance. The difference is that Chrysler wanted racers in the winner's circle so they put the time and effort into figuring out what was needed and then passing the information along. Chevy and Ford guys had to fend for themselves and rarely shared their findings. I'd bet a lot of those guys were reading Chrysler bulletins !!
|
|
|
Re: Weiand Cross Tunnel Ram Intake Manifold
[Re: Anonymous]
#2510718
06/20/18 11:15 AM
06/20/18 11:15 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 14,889 up yours
Supercuda
About to go away
|
About to go away
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 14,889
up yours
|
Wow, talk about digging up bones
They say there are no such thing as a stupid question. They say there is always the exception that proves the rule. Don't be the exception.
|
|
|
Re: Weiand Cross Tunnel Ram Intake Manifold
[Re: Anonymous]
#2510746
06/20/18 12:03 PM
06/20/18 12:03 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,290 fredericksburg,va
cudaman1969
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,290
fredericksburg,va
|
I want the two four top for mine just for looks, thought of making one out of plate aluminum and a 1" spacer (to make the same thickness as original) but maybe just bolt the plate to the bottom for less plenum size (the article) and use the 1" thick 4 hole plastic carb spacers. I have the Carter competition carbs 9636SA. That way I won't mess with the my six pack carbs and leave the whole assembly carbs,intake and air cleaner stock.
Last edited by cudaman1969; 06/20/18 12:06 PM.
|
|
|
|
|