Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hello Gents

I was wondering if anyone has logged any time against the Parker FunnelWeb?

The makers are touting better distribution on the short runners.

Would the Vic Jr 302 be a better manifold for a light car(2900lbs with C4 auto w 3.8 gear and 26"tall tire) running a 306ci in the 3500-6800 rpm range? supposidly the vic jr has a smidge less runner volumn. this motor has a small shot of NOS and valve seat events that follows

IVO 25 BTDC IVC 59 ABDC -> 264*
EVO 81.5 BBDC EVC 19.5 ATDC -> 281*

114LCA 107Intake cl

Intake .544 lift Exhaust .565 lift
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,551 Posts
With that combo, you'd be better off with an RPM air gap, IMO. It takes a serious motor to need a Jr or Funnelweb. The air gap works well to about 7400 RPM on a 302 and makes a LOT better bottom end power. On my Mustang the airgap was .3 quicker ET in the 1/8 mile but I lost .8 mph.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
did you run any NOS?

Did you have anybody do any work to the inside of the manifold?

This is the current manifold that is on the car. What I am concened about is too much tire spin after I put this cam in with a dual plane.

I was trying to soften up the bottom end torque and extend into the 5K range with the single plane. the motor drops down to 5K after shifting.

I don't know if those Desktop Dyno programs are really valid for calculating the torque and HP curves.

I get a really flat torque curve @ 495 lb/ft (+/-3 lb/ft) from 3K to 5K with a single plane

again - I don't know if this data is reliable
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
501 Posts
I have used both intakes on a 302. The Funnel web did not work as good as the Vic. Jr. But this was on a N/A engine. The Funnel web was real soft in the lower RPM ranges. Once the engine was over 5000 rpm's it would scream. I also had a cam in the engine that had 264* of duration @ .050. Now I run the funnel web on a 347 and have run a best of 10.96 @ 122 mph with a 1.48 60 foot. Have not tried the Vic. Jr on that engine yet. Right now I'm limited on how many rpm's I turn vecause of the heads. The AFR 185's go flat on the 347 at 7300 rpm's so I'm shifting at 6900 - 7000 rpm's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Thanks econodrag

that is what I was suspecting - the Vic Jr. looks like it would work with a small displacement (302) motor better than the FunnelWeb...but you had a big duration cam - thats about 300* seat to seat - correct - you weren't buildint too much cylinder pressure down low with that thing


The cam I am planning on only has 264* seat to seat on the intake - the intake closes early to build pressure - but still that funnelweb looks too big for my motor and heads

Thanks for the info
Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
501 Posts
On 2006-06-29 09:48, gchero351 wrote:
did that guy just say he shifts at 7000 ?
Yes I did. The 306 I had in the car was shifted at 7500 on occasion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
293 Posts
I've never tried a funnelweb but I did go from a Wiend X-Cellerator to a Vic Jr. and WOW, what a difference. It really woke the car up. I gained accross the board. Just my experience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
On 2006-06-29 05:14, mavman wrote:
With that combo, you'd be better off with an RPM air gap, IMO. It takes a serious motor to need a Jr or Funnelweb. The air gap works well to about 7400 RPM on a 302 and makes a LOT better bottom end power. On my Mustang the airgap was .3 quicker ET in the 1/8 mile but I lost .8 mph.
How much more serious of a motor do you need than one whose powerband starts at 3500rpm? The rpm air gap's powerband starts at 1500rpm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,551 Posts
What I was getting at:

The VJ manifold on a 302 is lazy on the bottom end, compared to the air gap. At around 3500, you can literally feel the VJ start to come on...similar to a 2 stroke MX bike engine or a turbocharged engine when you "pack the pipes". The cam that is listed in the original post is quite small...relatively. I would suspect that cam to have a powerband of somewhere like 2200-6000 give or take. The VJ manifold works best on a 302 from about 35-3800 to around 7800-8000 give or take a few hundred. With that camshaft, it appears that it might not be the best match. Once again, and one last time, I am speaking from experience. The air gap usually does a better job of getting a small cube engine out of the hole...and if you're drag racing, 75% of your ET is in the first 300'. Put a lazy manifold on there and you'll lose quite a bit...in my case, right at 3 tenths. The 1/8 MPH was the same...actually a bit more (not quite 1 mph faster) with the airgap but the ET went from 7.45 (VJ) to 7.22 (airgap). My cam is a small solid flat tappet cam....245-245 @ .050" .544" lift both sides...108 centerline and a 112 LSA. Power is from around 3500 to about 7200, it hits a brick wall at 7500. Yes the VJ was slower ET but in the 1000' (we don't run 1/4) it also MPH'd better...so it was making better HP up top but at the expense of low end torque. On my other mustang, the airgap also got MUCH better fuel mileage...FWIW.


And one last note, you will probably never know the difference between the 2 (VJ and airgap) if you don't try them both on the exact same engine without changing anything else but jetting and timing. That's called trial and error...something that I am getting pretty good at, unfortunately$$$$
_________________
"it is better to appear ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"--Mark Twain

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mavman on 6/30/06 10:13am ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Mavman

you were right on with the rpm range ( if I used the air gap) with the Vic it should move things up 500rpm. and you are correct about 60ft times.....boy oh boy are you right. when I put this new cam( curently we have the stock 86 cam) in we are going to do the test you mentioned - start out with the airgap( it is bought and paid for ) and then see what we have.

currntly we are running 8.17 in the 1/8 now and the 60ft sucks @1.82

This new cam will really pickup the 60ft if I dont get any wheel spin - shouldn't but I don't know.

thanks for the input guys
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top