351c Funnelweb intake manifold dyno comparison. - Ford Muscle Forums : Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 16 (permalink) Old 10-26-2002, 11:16 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3
351c Funnelweb intake manifold dyno comparison.

I thought the 351c owners might like to hear about some interesting dyno results I got from manifold swaping. All results are rear wheel horsepower on a 72 Pantera. Power loss through the transaxle and giant 335x35x17 tires is suposed to be 17%.
The engine is .030 over with TRW flat top pistons, 4v heads with minor port clean up and gasket matching. The exaust has the bronze tongues from M.P.G. The cam is a $85 solid from Chet Herbert, .245 int and 255 ex. @ .050. Lift is .550 int. and 575ex 108. Headers are 1" 7/8. with 3" collector and 3" exaust pipes. Carb is holley 3310 750vac. Old ignition is Hayes stinger. Car idles at 850rpm.

1st run with performer manifold....

MAX POWER at 5800 rpm.....346
MAX TORQUE @3800 rpm.....339

2nd run with the famous Holley Strip Dominator and Proform carb center body <$99 from Jegs>

MAX POWER @ 6600 rpm.....364
MAX TORQUE @ 5300 rpm....321

3rd run with ParkerRacing Funnelweb 2. and intake port stuffers. No jet changes.

MAX POWER @ 6700 rpm.....380
MAX TORQUE @ 5200 rpm....341

The fuel curve was near perfect on all 3 runs but the ignition was eratic above 6ooorpm, it's years old. Also on the funnelweb run the secondaries weren't opening properly. I feel sure there's over 400 at the wheels with 750 double pumper and new ignition. Not bad for a non stroker thats done many laps at Willow Springs and has 15k hard street miles also.
So the famous strip dominator was a bit of a dud. The torque curve on the funnelweb was almost flat from 3000-6000.
The new funnelweb 3 is even better. Anybody want to buy a polished funnelweb 2 please e mail me.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: brushman on 11/9/02 8:43am ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: brushman on 11/9/02 8:44am ]</font>
brushman is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 16 (permalink) Old 10-27-2002, 01:44 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 945
351c Funnelweb intake manifold dyno comparison.

Good stuff, I've read an article elsewhere comparing the two manifolds. Its good to get comfirmation. The holley is an OLD manifold now and due to the lack of clevelands most development has ceased in the US more or less. Just as well the Aussies are still at it
cmf60 is offline  
post #3 of 16 (permalink) Old 11-08-2002, 08:49 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3
351c Funnelweb intake manifold dyno comparison.

I'm not sure how to post pictures, but here is my graph....

http://madhatterracing.com/funnelwebs/colordyno.jpg
brushman is offline  
 
post #4 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-30-2003, 07:52 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 32
351c Funnelweb intake manifold dyno comparison.

I'm running a Funnel Web with the port stuffers. in my drag car, 87 hatch back. My best ET 10.7 @124mph. My 60' is a 1.48 with a c4 trans and a 4500 stall with a trans break. 430 gears and a 28.5 tire. We started out with 410s and we found out that wasn't near enough. 456's are going in now. We were in the 1.58 with the 410's. I'm launching at 3500 because of traction problems, that I hope to have fixed for next year. We basically had a stock rear suspension with Lakewood traction lift bars. All of last year we basically had a stock car, nothing fancy.
The engine combo consists of a $400.00 short block that I picked up on ebay last winter. .030 over with TRW flat tops and a comp cam 294s. I pulled the flat tops out and dropped in a set of used TRW domed pistons. Stock rods, and I filled the block. The spec for the cam is embarrassing by Cleveland drag race standards, 248 duration @ .050 .605 gross lift intake and exhaust. I never planed on spinning it over 6500 so last year I didn't even have the rotating ass. balanced. I can brag about that now because it came apart looking as though it was all new. It's getting balanced for next year because we're taking it up to 7000 or maybe 7200. Here is the weird thing, at about 6200 it feels like you're hitting a button of nitrous, or opening up another four barrel. I couldn't believe this the first time it happened. I have it on tape from inside the car and the engine changes pitches like you're hitting the button. All summer long there where people coming up and asking where the bottle was after we blew by them the last 50' of track and put them on the trailer.
I know a few people don't believe the port volume of the funnel web will support the Cleveland heads at higher rpm's. But I have it on tape. I have had that pull from running a Weiand tunnel ram on a comparable Cleveland just with more cam. However, the power pull was more of a slower increase. It wouldn't even touch what the funnel web pulls from 3500 to 6200. The low end pull and increase from the funnel web is unbelievable. I also believed that you had to run a Holley Strip dom If you wanted to run a single four barrel. I have run this intake on a few street engines that went to the track about 10 times a year. I'm not going to say anything bad about the Holley, there are guys still running them with good results. However, I feel you have to run the engine at a higher rpm to achieve the same out-put. With the port stuffers I don't believe any thing will touch the funnel web down low off the line.
Next year I'm planning on a new cam, carb, and higher gear. The front end getting a tube K member, coil overs, and the rear getting roll bar with drag shocks and springs. Cam will be a comp custom grind, 252-262 @ .050 .657 gross lift. I've already talked to Jessie at Biggs's about the size carb I should run. The 830 HP was way to small even for what I had in the cam department. To fill the intake I had to run one 50cc squirter for off the line when we were on the foot break. To keep the plugs a nice light brown I ended up jetting well into the 90's. I guess I'll be looking at a 950 or a 1050 HP for next year.
I'd like to get one of these Funnel webs on my 393 stroker Cleveland in my 69 Boss to see what that would do

Phil
boss69302 is offline  
post #5 of 16 (permalink) Old 12-01-2003, 08:28 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1
351c Funnelweb intake manifold dyno comparison.

i HAVE A 410 CLEVOR WE JUst put together. torker intake,270-280 solid roller .750 lift. I'm getting 9.80's out of it in a 2940 lb. car at 133mph shifting at 6500. Should i be satisfied? I feel something is holding me back on the big end and was wondering if changing intakes would make a difference. I'm running mechanical fuel injection with a toilet bowl on alcohol. The heads are ported cleveland with port plates front and back.
D.S.S. says it's probably the heads. That funnelweb sounds good but you'll pay for it.
sparacino is offline  
post #6 of 16 (permalink) Old 12-01-2003, 11:11 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,844
351c Funnelweb intake manifold dyno comparison.

Quote:
On 2003-12-01 20:28, sparacino wrote:
I'm getting 9.80's out of it in a 2940 lb. car at 133mph shifting at 6500. Should i be satisfied?
I hope I dont sound to hash but, 410ci 2940lbs + alcohol injected and your only getting 9.80'S???????

that sucks.

Start a post on the tech board and list your complete motor specs + cam and someone will help you out.
fogged408w is offline  
post #7 of 16 (permalink) Old 12-02-2003, 12:03 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Central West Virginia
Posts: 7,375
351c Funnelweb intake manifold dyno comparison.

Get rid of the port plates! They do nothing but cause vacuum leaks and rob horsepower. They do NOT work in racing. Just do it, and you'll see.

The Funnelweb and port stuffers would be fine, though. Either that, or trash all the port plates and put a Holley Strip Dominator on there.

http://www.madhatterracing.com





Good Luck!

_________________
Mike Burch, 66 mustang real street
302 4-speed 289 heads, 10.63 @ 129.3
http://www.mustangworks.com/cgi-bin/moi-display.cgi?220
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/healey/367

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: n2omike on 12/2/03 12:07pm ]</font>
n2omike is offline  
post #8 of 16 (permalink) Old 12-13-2003, 12:50 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Central West Virginia
Posts: 7,375
351c Funnelweb intake manifold dyno comparison.

Quote:
On 2003-12-01 23:11, fogged408w wrote:
Quote:
On 2003-12-01 20:28, sparacino wrote:
I'm getting 9.80's out of it in a 2940 lb. car at 133mph shifting at 6500. Should i be satisfied?
I hope I dont sound to hash but, 410ci 2940lbs + alcohol injected and your only getting 9.80'S???????

that sucks.
Dang... I would think any car using stock Ford heads and a street duty intake running in the 9's without nitrous is doing pretty good!

Good Luck!
n2omike is offline  
post #9 of 16 (permalink) Old 12-19-2003, 11:31 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Merkel, Tx
Posts: 9,251
351c Funnelweb intake manifold dyno comparison.

That first post is why I'm holding out for a Funnelweb. The torque that thing makes is exactly what I need for my 1/8 mile racing. Now that I have a stash of 4V heads, I have the hots for it even more.



ckelly is offline  
post #10 of 16 (permalink) Old 12-20-2003, 09:49 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Alberta Canada
Posts: 167
351c Funnelweb intake manifold dyno comparison.

i find all your dyno results very interesting but all things aside how do you think the holley strip dominator would do with the port stuffers.or how would the funnel web do with out them.
bindirdundat is offline  
post #11 of 16 (permalink) Old 12-21-2003, 09:45 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,844
351c Funnelweb intake manifold dyno comparison.

[quote]
On 2003-12-13 12:50, n2omike wrote:
Quote:
Dang... I would think any car using stock Ford heads and a street duty intake running in the 9's without nitrous is doing pretty good!

Good Luck!
He said "ported heads" so I hope he didn't pay too much

He is only making 1.48 hp per cubic inch...sorry, but that seems low to me for a single plane ported head 410ci with one big ass solid roller cam burning alcohol.

Besides, the guy has never made another post, I think he was full of it anyway
fogged408w is offline  
post #12 of 16 (permalink) Old 12-21-2003, 09:36 PM
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 3,692
351c Funnelweb intake manifold dyno comparison.

Quote:
On 2003-12-01 20:28, sparacino wrote:
The heads are ported cleveland with port plates front and back.
Front and back? WTF?
1 Bad 88 GT is offline  
post #13 of 16 (permalink) Old 03-31-2004, 07:39 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 233
351c Funnelweb intake manifold dyno comparison.

Personally, I think there's a push to sell the funnel web. The holley strip dominator is a proven intake. I'm not saying the funnel web isn't as good but every drag race driver that I've known over the years swears by the strip dominator. I don't doubt the numbers but the second run may have been completed on a different day with different conditions as well as different water and oil temperatures.
1970coupe is offline  
post #14 of 16 (permalink) Old 04-03-2004, 12:33 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Merkel, Tx
Posts: 9,251
351c Funnelweb intake manifold dyno comparison.

Well, FWIW, the strip dommy went out of production many, many years ago. The Funnelweb is current technology applied by people that have extensive experience building race clevelands. Down under, they're as common as dirt (mfg many years longer than in the US) and considered a good race engine. Smaller ports that flow the same or more than a larger port with increased velocity is current performance cylinder head engineering and a Funnelweb and stuffers does just that to a 4V iron head. There's a lot of R&amp;D in that manifold. If it wasn't so dad-gum expensive to import, there would be a lot more of them running here in the states.





1967 Falcon 4 door 351C - 70 Mustang 351C
Owner built, owner abused.
ckelly is offline  
post #15 of 16 (permalink) Old 08-09-2004, 03:53 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 105
351c Funnelweb intake manifold dyno comparison.

sounds interesting i thought port plates were only used on the exhaust side?so what the hell is front and back???the funnel web intake here in n.z (new zealand)is bloody dare about $750,i run a redline single torker on my clevo,anyone else using one??
pmoylan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Muscle Forums : Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome