Register now to get rid of these ads!

Technical What would be the "era correct" intake for a SBC?

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by deto, Aug 15, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. falcongeorge
    Joined: Aug 26, 2010
    Posts: 18,341

    falcongeorge
    Member
    from BC

    Yea, I would agree with that. Most guys dont even know about the early carbs anyway. If it were me, and close enough was close enough, I'd use an avs instead, it looks just as much like an early afb as the later large neck carbs do, and its a superior carb.
     
  2. need louvers ?
    Joined: Nov 20, 2008
    Posts: 12,903

    need louvers ?
    Member

    ...And again, '62 is well within the discussion at hand. The two, although obviously different, are close enough at a glance that it works. The slightly later stuff as you said uses the larger neck that is common to the Edelbrock to this day. That would be on of those deals where I would be tempted to run the later stuff with a few tweaks (yankin' the logo and dulling it down) until I could find the true earlier stuff. You, me and about 6 other people on this planet are really gonna know the difference.
     
    1Nimrod and enloe like this.
  3. falcongeorge
    Joined: Aug 26, 2010
    Posts: 18,341

    falcongeorge
    Member
    from BC

    He actually said pre-62 in his first post. Chip is right that most arent going to know the difference, and that being the case, if you arent gonna do it right anyway, why not run the AVS with its 3 stage metering rods and more important, an easily adjustable air door? But if you are gonna throw down the gauntlet and call it "period-correct circa 1961" be prepared for someone to call you on it, because eventually, someone will. In those dreaded "musclecar" circles, its pretty common knowledge when the E-series came out.
    If it were me, and I was trying to piece together a set-up within the parameters of this thread, (period correct, low buck, 380 hp) I'd use a C355B with three rochesters.
     
  4. squirrel
    Joined: Sep 23, 2004
    Posts: 55,941

    squirrel
    Member

    That would be the way to go. I wonder if you could get away with putting a 283 damper on it, too? we'd notice that just as quick...and the modern heads...etc
     
    1Nimrod likes this.
  5. Well these particular intakes are all the way on or all the way off performance. You could tweak them a little and make them a little more street worthy.
     
    1Nimrod likes this.
  6. falcongeorge
    Joined: Aug 26, 2010
    Posts: 18,341

    falcongeorge
    Member
    from BC

    I'll make one more comment here. Just speculation on my part (based on 30+ years of flowbench and tuning experience) The C4B would probably improve a LOT if you milled the septum into two ovals, cut the divider down around 1/4 to 3/8", and smoothed and radiused the tops of the runners where they enter the plenum.
     
  7. I think that is pretty good speculation. A cross over helps about any of 'em.
     
    1Nimrod likes this.
  8. need louvers ?
    Joined: Nov 20, 2008
    Posts: 12,903

    need louvers ?
    Member


    Hey George, what issue was that in? I remember it, but not which one.
     
  9. falcongeorge
    Joined: Aug 26, 2010
    Posts: 18,341

    falcongeorge
    Member
    from BC

    July 2010. Its got a blondie pin-up in front of a bunch of old magazines on the cover, with a smaller photo of a red Model A coupe in the upper right-hand corner.
     
  10. need louvers ?
    Joined: Nov 20, 2008
    Posts: 12,903

    need louvers ?
    Member

    Thanks man, I'll go pull it now.
     
  11. tcbigblock
    Joined: Aug 18, 2014
    Posts: 27

    tcbigblock
    Member

    I go with an offenhuser 2x4 lowrise with a pair of 450-500 cfm afb's easy to tune and still streetable and it wont brake the bank .
     
    1Nimrod likes this.
  12. deto
    Joined: Jun 26, 2010
    Posts: 2,620

    deto
    Member

    You guys are great. Thanks for all of the insight and knowledge.

    Posted using the Full Custom H.A.M.B. App!
     
    1Nimrod likes this.
  13. deto
    Joined: Jun 26, 2010
    Posts: 2,620

    deto
    Member

    Is this manifold still reproduced or is it gonna be a swap meet find

    Posted using the Full Custom H.A.M.B. App!
     
  14. tcbigblock
    Joined: Aug 18, 2014
    Posts: 27

    tcbigblock
    Member

  15. landseaandair
    Joined: Feb 23, 2009
    Posts: 4,485

    landseaandair
    Member
    from phoenix

    Thanks for the numbers. Have a really nice C4B, just want to cruise with it. Top end charge may be lacking but could really shine down low and with economy.
     
    1Nimrod likes this.
  16. falcongeorge
    Joined: Aug 26, 2010
    Posts: 18,341

    falcongeorge
    Member
    from BC

    Yea, I'd think it would probably give good part throttle fuel economy numbers...
     
  17. Swap are always a possibility; saw a couple 3x2 set-ups at the swap this weekend. Picked
    up this C357B and 97's with linkage a couple years ago at much better than new parts prices.

    3x2.jpg
     
    1Nimrod likes this.
  18. deto
    Joined: Jun 26, 2010
    Posts: 2,620

    deto
    Member

  19. deto
    Joined: Jun 26, 2010
    Posts: 2,620

    deto
    Member

    Correct intake

    Posted using the Full Custom H.A.M.B. App!
     
  20. deto
    Joined: Jun 26, 2010
    Posts: 2,620

    deto
    Member

    they mention it being a small cube motor. just how small was it?
     
  21. 316. .060 over 283 with a 327 crank. Wouldn't that like be glorified way of describing a .60 over 307.
     
  22. deto
    Joined: Jun 26, 2010
    Posts: 2,620

    deto
    Member

    I might just go belly button and run a 350 but every once and awhile a nice 283 or 327 pops up on Craigslist. That's a good over view of what to expect. Thank you.

    Posted using the Full Custom H.A.M.B. App!
     
  23. deto
    Joined: Jun 26, 2010
    Posts: 2,620

    deto
    Member

    @falcongeorge what were the cam specs?

    Posted using the Full Custom H.A.M.B. App!
     
  24. falcongeorge
    Joined: Aug 26, 2010
    Posts: 18,341

    falcongeorge
    Member
    from BC

    Well yes, Rich, and thats the way I would usually describe it, but here on the HAMB, its a "stroker 283"...:rolleyes::D
     
  25. DSC_0431_1024x742.JPG
    Weiand Dual Quad
     
    1Nimrod and enloe like this.
  26. tcbigblock
    Joined: Aug 18, 2014
    Posts: 27

    tcbigblock
    Member

    I am sure the 3 twos could be made to work better to maintain the right air fuel ratio with the right linkage and tuning, finding the right carbs can be tuff , and the cost ?? 2x4s is much easer and cost effective . and they look COOL !!
     
    1Nimrod likes this.
  27. 4 pedals
    Joined: Oct 8, 2009
    Posts: 958

    4 pedals
    Member
    from Nor Cal

    Where did Offy come in? Weiand? Others? Seems there used to be plenty of old intakes kicking around with tubes in the front of them.

    Devin
     
    1Nimrod likes this.
  28. tcbigblock
    Joined: Aug 18, 2014
    Posts: 27

    tcbigblock
    Member

    Another thing to look at is the car set up
    a heavy car with 3:08 gears 8:1 compression and a small cam stock converter will like the 3x2 setup
    a light car with 4:11 10:1 and up compression mild cam 26 " 28" tire will love the 2x4s
     
    1Nimrod likes this.
  29. An off the shelf 307 had a bad deck height. When people were stroking 283s using a 327 crank you could buy pistons with the proper piston pin location off the shelf. I have heard that TRW still makes the proper piston but I can't remember the part number and the guy at the counter is not going to know it or know how to find it. You can buy custom pistons from companies like JE.

    Anyway in answer to your question NO.
     
    1Nimrod likes this.
  30. tcbigblock
    Joined: Aug 18, 2014
    Posts: 27

    tcbigblock
    Member

    Yup, that sounds right, 307 was a torque motor ok, but I would not build one .
    I liked the 302 setup 327 block 283 crank but its hard to find a small journal 327 block
    opps I am off topic , sorry
     
    1Nimrod likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.