Long rams vs modern dual planes
#2620587
02/13/19 12:27 AM
02/13/19 12:27 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,069 Irving, TX
feets
OP
Senior Management
|
OP
Senior Management
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,069
Irving, TX
|
I'm still daydreaming about dropping a long ram intake setup on the Imperial. The 440 is being built with an eye on low to mid range torque and largely ignoring anything above 4500 rpm.
Have there been any direct comparison tests between the old long ram (30" divider) intakes and the modern intakes like the Performer or even the old Torker? I know the long tubes would fall flat well before 5,000 rpm but it would be interesting to see the area under the curve at lower rpm.
Hacking one for port EFI would cure the old fuel puddling issue and likely send parts collectors into low earth orbit.
Yeah, for me it's all vapor but I do enjoy a good think about stuff like this.
We are brothers and sisters doing time on the planet for better or worse. I'll take the better, if you don't mind. - Stu Harmon
|
|
|
Re: Long rams vs modern dual planes
[Re: BulletBob]
#2620656
02/13/19 04:13 AM
02/13/19 04:13 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,069 Irving, TX
feets
OP
Senior Management
|
OP
Senior Management
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,069
Irving, TX
|
Thinking about doing inline low rise dual fours on my 59'Imperial The little Offy inline dual quad seems to be okay on mild to moderate engines, at least by what I've read.
We are brothers and sisters doing time on the planet for better or worse. I'll take the better, if you don't mind. - Stu Harmon
|
|
|
Re: Long rams vs modern dual planes
[Re: BulletBob]
#2620665
02/13/19 05:30 AM
02/13/19 05:30 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,285 Bend,OR USA
Cab_Burge
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,285
Bend,OR USA
|
Thinking about doing inline low rise dual fours on my 59'Imperial You'll be sorry, I've used both the early inline dual four for wedge motors and the early first gen Hemi motor intake, no good except at WOT above 3500 RPM one of my first halfway fast street cars was a 1934 Ford pick up that had been chop and channeled, it weigh under 2800 Lbs. without me in it with the near stock 1955 Chrysler 331 C.I. hemi, I put headers on it and a inline dual four intake off of a Jensen sport car with some early small CFM Carter AFB carbs, the stock dual plane single intake with one of those AFB drove a lot nicer below 3500 RPM than the dual quad set up did but being a guy under 22 yrs old back then I left them on One of the first drag cars, (1960 Dodge Phoenix that weighed over 4000 Lbs with out me in it ) I put together had a stroker 383 motor that was 454 C.I. that had been run up in Fremont CA as a Super Stock car in a 1959 Plymouth Savoy He got caught and banned so I ended up with it That car ran 12.80 on a set of J.C Penney 800x14x7 inch wide slicks on it with me in it at the old Thermal airport Drags back in 1969, that car had a 3.73 gear open rear end it with a stock cast iron early torkflyte and stock converter I never drove that car with the stock AFB single carb and intake but I was told the Plymouth ran a lot faster than my Dodge did with the same motor and tranny If you have both intakes try them both and go from their , we all don't like the same thing so test, test and test some more
Last edited by Cab_Burge; 02/13/19 05:31 AM.
Mr.Cab Racing and winning with Mopars since 1964. (Old F--t, Huh)
|
|
|
Re: Long rams vs modern dual planes
[Re: feets]
#2620712
02/13/19 11:11 AM
02/13/19 11:11 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,083 Niles , Ohio
therocks
oh wait.but hey.lets see.oh yeah.
|
oh wait.but hey.lets see.oh yeah.
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,083
Niles , Ohio
|
I hear people say that the long rams dumped at 5K.My 60 D500 never did.It would pull beyond that.Maybe I had a odd ball.Only problem I ever had was fouling plugs in daily driving which it did every day.Was my high school ride.Rocky
Chrysler Firepower
|
|
|
Re: Long rams vs modern dual planes
[Re: therocks]
#2620735
02/13/19 12:33 PM
02/13/19 12:33 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,717 Bitopia
jcc
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
|
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,717
Bitopia
|
Christmas day back in the late 60's, with my younger sister in the car, we were first car in line that got stuck waiting for a passing train, when gates went up, I kicked it to to clean it out, all the the black smoke got me pulled over by a nearby LEO, said I did a burn out, I asked him where the tire tracks were? I got off, again. On my long ram project, I can't see getting an optimum injector angle that just doesn't eventually aim at the floor of the manifold/head, so trying to go route for a bottom long ram port injector location, aiming at the roof, thinking with that small of inlet tract on a big inch motor, puddling will not be an issue, and keep a more period correct look.
Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.
|
|
|
Re: Long rams vs modern dual planes
[Re: feets]
#2620791
02/13/19 03:08 PM
02/13/19 03:08 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 17,907 S.E. Michigan
ZIPPY
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 17,907
S.E. Michigan
|
QuickD100/Dave is getting ready to do a dyno test on one of these pretty soon. Not sure if he's doing multiple manifolds or just the ram, but you might want to get ahold of him and see what's up.
Rich H.
Esse Quam Videri
|
|
|
Re: Long rams vs modern dual planes
[Re: moparx]
#2620811
02/13/19 03:37 PM
02/13/19 03:37 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,717 Bitopia
jcc
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
|
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,717
Bitopia
|
here is a thought. what about using spacers between the head and intakes, housing the injectors, and throttle bodies where the carbs go, creating a dry intake ? the spacers would be relatively easy to fab up. I don't see how to get a decent injector angle with that solution, unless the spacer is 3-4" deep. Additionally, since the long ram has such a poor reputation on puddling, seems to me to be counter intuitive to change over to an efi system, and just have puddling move to a different location. Your idea would be the simplest. Years back I asked here about a 90Deg injector, didn't get any leads.
Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.
|
|
|
Re: Long rams vs modern dual planes
[Re: dogdays]
#2620832
02/13/19 03:56 PM
02/13/19 03:56 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,394 Pikes Peak Country
TC@HP2
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,394
Pikes Peak Country
|
You guys are hopeless. You keep buzzing around those long rams like they're going to do something for you. Don't you suppose that if they were so all-fired good that there'd be more of them in use? I think there was a direct comparison in Hot Rod's 383 intake test which I can't download because my operating system is so old.
Good Luck! R. They didn't do a long ram test in that series, unfortunately. But, I was surprised by how broad the torque and HP range was with the tall tunnel ram. For all the stories of them only being good over 4500, as I recall, it pretty much spanked everything everywhere in the curve in those tests. I beleive they were originally done by Hot Rod, so they are probably floating around on the interwebs.
|
|
|
Re: Long rams vs modern dual planes
[Re: feets]
#2621065
02/14/19 12:47 AM
02/14/19 12:47 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,714 Spokane Washington
ScottSmith_Harms
Mr Wizzard
|
Mr Wizzard
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,714
Spokane Washington
|
I had a couple ram engines rebuilt, one was a 1960 300F 413 engine with 63 300J short ram intakes and 3505s carbs. Stock stroke, stock compression, stock small valve heads with a very light pocket cleanup and a mild cam (similar to stock, went with a hyd roller) basically a stock rebuild but with lighter pistons and a warmer cam. I had it dyno'd and it performed well. TQ peak was at 3,600 rpm/351hp. Peak HP was 410 at 5,000, 421tq. It started falling off steadily past 5,000 rpm but the torque curve was very long and flat.
|
|
|
|
|