I know the roof can be raised, but can the floor be dropped???

sizemoremk

Registered User
Hey guys, I have read the posts on removing the triangle, and raising the roof, but I am now wondering of the floor can be dropped?
I would rather drop the floor, that way it still looks stock, and might would be easier to weld that way...

Is it bad to have the floor below the ports?

How much clearance is there between the bottom and the valvetrain? Looks like plenty to me, and if the bottom is thermal coated, does the splash pan need to be used?

Dave won't let me remove the triangle, but I would like to get a little more volume out of this thing somehow....


Thanks!
 
Last edited:
No you can keep splash pan off...I;m still not convinced raising the top does anything!

I;d like to see some before and after dyno number on sam emotor
 
DamonSlowpokeBaumann said:
No you can keep splash pan off...I;m still not convinced raising the top does anything!

I;d like to see some before and after dyno number on sam emotor

Oh what a doubting Thomas you are. :p
I geuss I better start choppin up your intake again. :p NAHHHHhhhh!!!!!!!!
I'm leaving it as is. I'm gonna make a believer out of you yet. :D
 
This is what I was thinking of int he attachment, courtesy of Rich's how-to on the triangle removal on www.mn12performance.com

I also asked him if he thought the removal of the triangle would be dangerous if running N2O, and he said he didnt think it would be an issue...

I have been warned by another serious SCer here that it would be a bad idea....

What are your thoughts on this Mike???

Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • lowered_intake.jpg
    lowered_intake.jpg
    43.4 KB · Views: 147
My thoughts on this are very unpopuliar. I threw away the intake Ford gave us and built a completely new one for my car. That was easier and cheaper in the long run than trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Not to mention that the silk purse you just spent all that time labor and money on still is'nt 1/2 the intake I've built.
just my .02
 
And Mike,

Being my blower is shooting straight down and not in the back of the intake I sure do think in my case its alot different!
 
MIKE 38sc said:
My thoughts on this are very unpopuliar. I threw away the intake Ford gave us and built a completely new one for my car. That was easier and cheaper in the long run than trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Not to mention that the silk purse you just spent all that time labor and money on still is'nt 1/2 the intake I've built.
just my .02

Most of us dont have the ability to make our own completely new intake..

Some of us are just looking for ideas in the range of things we are capable of....

Lets say this modification could be done for free, and you did not have the ability to create your own intake manifold.... Would you have anything to say against this mod?
 
Last edited:
DamonSlowpokeBaumann said:
No you can keep splash pan off...I;m still not convinced raising the top does anything!

I;d like to see some before and after dyno number on sam emotor

I wonder why the fastest and others in the top five are running a raised manifold.
RANDY
 
MIKE 38sc said:
My thoughts on this are very unpopuliar. I threw away the intake Ford gave us and built a completely new one for my car. That was easier and cheaper in the long run than trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Not to mention that the silk purse you just spent all that time labor and money on still is'nt 1/2 the intake I've built.
just my .02

Its easy to build scratch parts,

Its not easy to make power and stay in the original Ford SC Thunderbird
design perimeters.

You have no proof that you can make any power let alone be
on the top end of any list.

RANDY
 
Last edited:
sizemoremk said:
Some of us are just looking for ideas in the range of things we are capable of....

Lets say this modification could be done for free, and you did not have the ability to create your own intake manifold.... Would you have anything to say against this mod?

I don't see how Mike can say anything agaist a raised manifold.Being
they are on top in ET & speed ,dyno and have been for a few years.
And now even better with up grades in the past few month..

Bring that wanta be cobra manifold to the track and prove me wrong.

RANDY
 
Last edited:
Randy N Connie said:
I wonder why the fastest and others in the top five are running a raised manifold.
RANDY
Randy, I just looked at the top 5 and do not see anyone besides Coy running a raised manifold. Please be specific as to who you are referring to.

# 1 10.852 127.050 Coy Miller
# 2 11.122 117.770 Christopher Wise
# 3 11.619 119.420 David Neibert
# 4 11.665 111.970 Kevin Leitem
# 5 11.755 119.890 Gary Kuhn

Paul
 
I not tring to starting any crap.I never the start crap but its takin that way.
Stop being so pairinoid

Your relieing on a bigger blower as much or more than your manifold design.
How can you compair two different blower size's fairly.Any time you
straightin out the air flow,by cutting the top off a manifold.you should
have a better flowing part.If you have the right runner shape to turn
the air to the head ports.If not just install a bigger blower.

Why not help sizemore with his ? instead of running his ideas down.
You have been working in this area of lowering the bottom of a manifold.
All though he wants to work on a stock casting.He was asking how deep
he can drop the bottom and not interfer with other parts.With your work
with DAMON you would know this.Simemore is not infrenging on any of
your work,or ideas.He is just wanting to upgrade his stock parts.


Thanks Randy
 
Last edited:
<~~IN BEST SOUITHERN ACCENT

YALLLLLLLLLLL NEED TO REEEELAX

Ok that being said..I personally feel without any proof of course that Ford put the triangle there for two reasons..

1 To help properly distribute the air

along with

2 For support of the intake itself and or a byproduct of teh casting process

Personally I dont see why you couldnt raise the top or drop the floor of the intake. I just personally dont like cutting out (TRIANGLE) peices of tehintake that may be there for a very good reason. Ford wouldnt have put it there iwasnt good reason too.

With the SC setup you are pushing all of your air through the back of the intake. Just as with poorly designed intakes air can be unevenly distributed through the intake ports. I would have to say FORD put the triangle there to help with this distribution. It may have also been needed as a part of the casting process. That I am not sure of.

Regardless I would really be hard pressed to remove that triangle and raise or lower the floor without knowing how that will effect my air distribution during boost as well as during part throttle. Even if it made a power difference you could be also making certain cylinders run extremely lean due to an imbalance. I just dont know. I do know Ford put a hell of a lot more research into this then any of us.

On that not my 671 and 144 blowers I have had in the past both had seemingly restrictive pancake type lower manifolds..I had noproblems making power with them.

NOWWWWWWWWWWW...I very much like the article RIch at MN12 put together showing exactly what to port and I agree with it. I WOULD not remove the triangle however. I also like the idea of enlarging the return adaptor as I feel that is also very restrictive.

Now with all this said I'd still like to see before and after numbers when removing the triangle (dyno not flow numbers) along with associated A/R at all RPMS.

I am personally not trying to discourage anyone from experimenting with thier cars. If anything I highly encourage it. If anything I wish I had the time and equipment to do such things myself but it will never be a reality.

I dont need to mention names but I think it is great thing that all of you have done for this community as far as bringing to us SC parts. (you meaning people that fabricate or bring us new products) Because hell...Noone else will.

We have a great car that just was tossed aside and if not for all of you and this community.....How many of us would still own one?

Anyway....with all that said I still dont like the idea of messing with that triangle!
 
Through my manifold project, I've decided that lowering the bottom is not a good idea.

The layman's explanation is this: Sure it increases manifold volume which is good for modified engines (meaning heads and cam), but you are being counter productive since the air flow that is already being pushed down at the inlet of the manifold has to come back up to go into the intake runners.

Simple volume is not always best. If anything, I would both raise the floor and the roof of the manifold, maintaining roughly the same, or slightly more volume but increasing flow since you have a more straight airpath.

So if you're asking whether you should, I'd say no. Not to shoot down your idea, but because from the little I know of fluid dynamics, you will not really gain anything anyway. You stand to gain much more from raising the top.
 
I am also playing with the return plenum opening. I am goig to try and build-up the portion in front of the opening a bit. I hope to smooth the opening into more of an angled entrance, rather than a striaght downward entrance, then the flow will not be so stright down, and perhpas more straight back...

I dont see the difference with the floor being lower than the ports, vs the roof being higher than the tops of the ports. Once the manifold is pressurized, unless the force of gravity pulling down is a major factor...

In a lowered floor intake, if the flow has to go down then back up to get to the ports; then a in raised roof intake, wouldn't the flow have to go up, then back down to get to the ports?


Thanks for all the input guys! I really appreciate the thoughts!
 
Actually on my design, the top of the manifold is even with the top of the intake runners. So the air won't have to travel "down" to the intake runners. With raising the floor as well, the air doesn't have to travel up to get into the runner. It would flow better (less turbulence) with fewer directions the air has to travel to get into the runners. Less restriction is better flow. Bigger is not always better...

Here's a cut away so you can see what the inside looks like. I've got some additional air directions added in after this picture....
 

Attachments

  • manifold1.jpg
    manifold1.jpg
    42.9 KB · Views: 95
Damon.I can explain through my wet flow test.
But I did not spend a few grand to just give it away.I will
not help others that want to copy for profit .I will help
others that want to build a part for them self though.
I can explain off line to you or mike or anyone.but theavin
profiteers.I would even be happy to show you two if guys
if you lived closer,or anyone for self help on there projects.

Damon your right,Though my test the triangle is for low
speed flow,and casting reasons.When the triangle is
reamoved welding and porting can bring the manifold back
to flow even more ,in any RPM range.This is done
with a air-vain,much smaller than the triangle.

Sizemore
I have not done any testing on a drop floor.I would not think
it would be any good to do this.With keeping the rest of the
stock style SC bird design intake system.If you raise the top
will will get a straighter flow to the heads ports and pick up
plenum volume.

And I don't mean for this post to make anyone mad.If it does
well you can kiss my midwest ***.

RANDY
 
Last edited:
Back
Top