I have been doing some research into a replacement Inlet Manifold for a 302W with heavily ported GT40-P heads (larger inlet valves), bombproof bottom end, appropriate cam etc. Heads will flow enough air to spin the engine to about 6500-7000rpm. Race application that requires use of std heads and std displacement (so I don't need to be told to get aftermarket heads and a 347 bottom end to make power!), but computer, inlet and exhaust are free. Also have height restrictions in the engine bay that will prevent use of anything taller than an Explorer manifod (about 10.6"), which narrows the field considerably.

There's a lot out there, and at the moment the BBK SSI-R (different from the SSI see {DESCRIPTION}) is at the top of the list. Does Anyone out here have any experience with it. I have called BPT in WA (forum sponsor) and they didn't know much about it and couldn't answer simple questions, and didn't ever call back with anything. I got onto the manufacturer and spoke to their tech bloke who was very helpful (and the reason I didn't chase BPT - if they didn't already know it they would just have just gone back to the US supplier, who I was talking to anyway). However, the tech bloke works for BBK and may be talking up the manifold.

There a bit of chat on here about the SSI, but no mention of the SSI-R which is fairly new. Height is 10.6", will accept 80mm throttle body, reversible.

Discuss.

To the best of my knowledge (having not ever had one in my hands) it is pretty much a similar concept to the TFS BOX-R intake manifolds.

TFS state the rpm range for their Box R is 3000-8000rpm, and having seen the results of this intake I would not use it on anything less than 347ci and turning to 7500rpm...

I don't feel that your GT40Ps regardless of the amount of porting someone has undertaken will be able to meet the airflow requirements at the RPM that manifold would need.

I cannot find any information on the actual runner lengths or dimensions, you'll need to find out to get an idea of the runner volumes.

Is the top half reversable for correct TB location for an Aussie engine?

If you aren't limited by the ECU then what about utilising a 4 barrel setup? Edelbrock do a whole kit.


But for my money and that engine combo I would be looking hard at a Performer RPM II.

Yea I would like to see specs on these compared to TE50 manifolds.. Especially runner size and length...
Be nice on blown application....
This is the TFS boxed..


This is a CHP Spyder Carb EFI conversion..Another high rpm manifold..

Interesting.

The Dyno has us currently pegged at 202rwkW at 5800rpm, which is basically what we had previously with a different cam and std heads, manifold and bottom end, same intake and exhaust. Needless to same we're disappointed that the head work has achieved nothing. The concensus between the head guy and the dyno bloke is that the explorer (ported lower, matchported upper) is the restriction in the system and a freer manifold will give it some more life. the head bloke suggested making a box type setup to go on the explorer lower, and teh dyno bloke agreed also suggesting an 80mm throttle body (which seemed large to me), which led me to this manifold.

It's definitely reversible in any application not using a distributor. Not reversible if you use a distributor.

A four barrel set-up is not something I have considered. It seems a step backwards, although I'm happy to be corrected if there's evidence that it will work better.

In my application the rev range used will be 4000-6500 (or more if it's there). On-road drivability is not a consideration. In the article in the link on my first post, there's a comparison to the SSI, which is quite a bit better than the Explorer. The SSI-R is superior from abuot 4800rpm, and is probably superior to a std manifold from about 4000 (I can't find any direct comparisons). Ideally I need something between the two.....

The Edelbrock RPM performer is right on the line for being too tall for my application.

Is there anything out there that compares manifolds between manufacturers and also against a std manifold on the same bottom end?

Are you still using a hydraulic roller or is that free to change as well?

Havwe a look at the RPMII, it is close to you height limit, and using the same mag ( although i have searched online and been unable to find it) 5.0 and superfords did a comparo between the SSI, Systemax, RPMII, and Explorer.The RPMII came out ahead by 14hp, and still had considerable torque compared to the SSI and Systemax. The Explorer just ran out of puff above 4200rpm

Cheers
Brett

I have to use the same cam setup - hydraulic roller.

This is the article testing the range of manifolds:
{DESCRIPTION}

In the test they use a 347 motor with aftermarket heads, and don't run the manifolds beyond 6000rpm, so it's a little different to my application....

OK. I've bitten the bullet and ordered one with an 80mm throttle body. Should see it in a couple of weeks.

Will post up results.

Just got a note from the courier in the letterbox. It's here. Going down to the post office to collect it soon.

Great, I'm interested in seeing how it performs, and what your opinion is.

OK. It's in and running. Goes to the Dyno Monday morning. The die grinder got a good workout.

Comments:
The port matching between the heads and the lower manifold was pretty good. you can just see down the holes enought to see the bottom and one side of the port interface. You have to measure and guess the top and the other side, but I reckon we're pretty close.

The port matching between the upper and lower sections was pretty average, with every port needing some significant work - 3mm mis-match at some point on nearly all ports. At fitst I thought that this may have been because of the fact that I'd swapped the upper around for a LHS throttle opening, but a quick check revealed that the mismatch was almost exactly the same when the upper was installed 'correctly'. You'd think that this was the easy one for them to get right. Fortunately the ports in the upper are quite short so it's an easy job to sort out.

Everything went together pretty well, but there were quite a few modifications to deal with changing the throttle from one side to the other, mainly plugging up the supplied holes for vacuum lines (brakes, PCV, MAP, FPR) and drilling and tapping new ones. Everything supplied is NPT rather than BSP which is more common here. I could get NPT fittings, but I had to wait for them to come in. Also make sure you have an NPT tap because it is slightly different to BSP - won't be a big issue for vacuum lines, but could be for fuel. There's bugger all clearance between the supplied fuel rails and the upper, so I ended up re-tapping the (tapered) holes to get the plug in far enough as to not foul.

No clearance issues - it is the same height as an Explorer.

Didn't have any fuel leakage issues at all as a couple of threads I googled up indicated I could - I think that these threads (on a mustang forum somewhere) are a bit if a red herring, having read through them in entirity.

Had to re-fabricate the throttle cable braket and the throttle cable now loops around the front rather than the rear.

Had to cut and modify the coil pack (AU coil packs) to get it to fit back into the original location, and make a small bracket to hold the back of it.

The TPS only just fitted on the supplied 80mm throttle body - the holes for it are smaller and at a slightly different spacing, but my std TPS would just fit after I found some longer screws (imperial of course - 3/16 or 1/8UNF I think) Had to modify the throttle assy also to fit the plug for the TPS.

Will report after the dyno tune.

s**t mate you are doing more customizing fitting a manifold than I did fitting a 351.

Don't forget to get some pictures up!! I'm really interested to see how it all goes together. If it works in a lower RPM range than the TFS Box R, I think it would be a viable piece.

I will when I have the time.

The cam (custom grind; big) in my engine won't really give us a good indication of the low down performance, unfortunately. It's designed to make power at higher revs, and since teh car is not a road car, low down drivability was not a consideration. It idles like a pig and was already doughy down low with an explorer manifold.

I took a photo of the port matching (or lack thereof) before I attacked it with the die grinder.

 

 

Attachments:

portmatch.jpg [ 71.89 KiB | Viewed 2322 times ]

any updates