Mustang5l5's Progress Thread - Archived Progress thread '08-'20.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The difference is minimal. Cobra gets extra points for looks. Tubular intake gets more points for classic looks.

It’s not though. That’s what the data showed.

they flow benched the entire intake and got 187 CFM on an explorer intake and 219 cfm on a gt40 tubular through the same runner. All untouched.

remember that video I posted of the dyno between a tubular gt40 and explorer upper on the same ported lower. The tubular made 10 more hp and 10 more ft-LBs
 
Last edited:
  • Sponsors (?)


It’s not though. That’s what the data showed.

they flow benched the entire intake and got 187 CFM on an explorer intake and 219 cfm on a gt40 tubular through the same runner. All untouched.

remember that video I posted of the dyno between a tubular gt40 and explorer upper on the same ported lower. The tubular made 10 more hp and 10 more ft-LBs
Years ago on a development engine that I calibrated, I received a rapid prototype layered aluminum intake manifold before the production-intent cast parts were available. This intake was pretty smooth. If the production casting was like a 220 grid surface roughness equivalent, the rapid proto intake was like an 800+ grit. In any case, the rapid proto intake made about 10 more horsepower peak than the production intake, and also saw a torque bump across the whole rpm range with no changes to EOI, cam positions, or spark. The performance gains were also backed up by an increase in the measured air flow and higher IMEP. This was on an NA high performance 4V V6 with a tuned induction system. Since I ran these numbers first hand, it made a pretty strong impression that the turbulent boundary layer along the walls of the plenum volume and runners is in fact significant. How much so probably depends heavily on the engine / manifold design itself.

I've been trying to find some real flow data for an extrude honed cast upper for years. There are a lot of anecdotal posts about extrude honed uppers "making a huge difference," but no hard data to show the flow benefit. I can see two potential benefits - runner smoothness and an increase in diameter. A light extrude hone which doesn't enlarge the diameter by much could reproduce the same benefits as the GT40 upper, if the fabricated intake's primary advantage is it's smooth wall tubing. I have a spare '94/'95 Cobra upper that I've been meaning to have extrude honed for some time, with the plan of getting it on a flow bench to document some real numbers. However, the cost has become prohibitive especially when you factor in shipping that big mass of aluminum back and forth. I might have to pick this back up and see if anyone in the Detroit area has extrude honing capability.

Beyond the smoothness factor, opening up the diameter of the runners will change the tuning of the intake in the right direction, albeit by a small amount. This would be a good thing for a performance engine since most of the Ford factory intakes are tuned for a low rpm torque peak with a displacement of 302 cubes. If you throw these intakes on a built motor with HCI or especially a stroker, it can push the torque down lower than you want it and it will result in the tuning going out of phase early at higher engine speeds for a lower peak power rpm than what your heads or cam are intended for. If you look at the intakes Saleen used on the S351s, they took a cobra intake and changed the plenum volume by a good amount to retune the Cobra intake for the 351 (you can see where they have a section welded into the middle of the plenum volume). The same benefit could be had on a built 302 or stroker motor. It would be great to find some CAD drawings of the stock intake manifolds to gather the exact dimensions and volumes. That info would make it possible to calculate the Helmholtz resonance rpms and determine how much volume to add to the plenum for a specific non-stock application and retune the peak torque and power points.
 
Ok, prep work done. Weld thru primer sprayed where it needs to be, and strut tower formed as close as it’s gonna get. I prepped my splice tube, and drilled out the 3/8” spot weld holes for it.

I’m taking Wed off from work and getting this done. Next time you see this it will be welded in.

70C32224-6248-4979-A7CF-B2DB28CD90A1.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Years ago on a development engine that I calibrated, I received a rapid prototype layered aluminum intake manifold before the production-intent cast parts were available. This intake was pretty smooth. If the production casting was like a 220 grid surface roughness equivalent, the rapid proto intake was like an 800+ grit. In any case, the rapid proto intake made about 10 more horsepower peak than the production intake, and also saw a torque bump across the whole rpm range with no changes to EOI, cam positions, or spark. The performance gains were also backed up by an increase in the measured air flow and higher IMEP. This was on an NA high performance 4V V6 with a tuned induction system. Since I ran these numbers first hand, it made a pretty strong impression that the turbulent boundary layer along the walls of the plenum volume and runners is in fact significant. How much so probably depends heavily on the engine / manifold design itself.

I've been trying to find some real flow data for an extrude honed cast upper for years. There are a lot of anecdotal posts about extrude honed uppers "making a huge difference," but no hard data to show the flow benefit. I can see two potential benefits - runner smoothness and an increase in diameter. A light extrude hone which doesn't enlarge the diameter by much could reproduce the same benefits as the GT40 upper, if the fabricated intake's primary advantage is it's smooth wall tubing. I have a spare '94/'95 Cobra upper that I've been meaning to have extrude honed for some time, with the plan of getting it on a flow bench to document some real numbers. However, the cost has become prohibitive especially when you factor in shipping that big mass of aluminum back and forth. I might have to pick this back up and see if anyone in the Detroit area has extrude honing capability.

Beyond the smoothness factor, opening up the diameter of the runners will change the tuning of the intake in the right direction, albeit by a small amount. This would be a good thing for a performance engine since most of the Ford factory intakes are tuned for a low rpm torque peak with a displacement of 302 cubes. If you throw these intakes on a built motor with HCI or especially a stroker, it can push the torque down lower than you want it and it will result in the tuning going out of phase early at higher engine speeds for a lower peak power rpm than what your heads or cam are intended for. If you look at the intakes Saleen used on the S351s, they took a cobra intake and changed the plenum volume by a good amount to retune the Cobra intake for the 351 (you can see where they have a section welded into the middle of the plenum volume). The same benefit could be had on a built 302 or stroker motor. It would be great to find some CAD drawings of the stock intake manifolds to gather the exact dimensions and volumes. That info would make it possible to calculate the Helmholtz resonance rpms and determine how much volume to add to the plenum for a specific non-stock application and retune the peak torque and power points.


I think the folks doing the porting have the data, but keep it somewhat close to their chest. I engaged one particult porter over the details of what he's seen and that's where I was put on to information regarding the differences in stock GT-40 type manifolds and how they are not all the same. It was a 30 cfm difference from the explorer, to the tubular.

Your point about the surface roughness is something I've always thought about, but lacked the resources to test. I've found some how-to's on building a flow bench, and most of it is equipment I can obtain/borrow, but never thought of what I would do with the data since i'm not building various combos day in and out and performing real-world testing.

Either way, my point was that I think the Explorer/Cobra/GT40 family is often overlooked and dismissed. There are better manifolds out there, yes. BUT, the fast majority of budget Mustang modders out there seem to run some variation of the GT40 family (more specifically the explorer) so it would be helpful to maybe revisit this. I never had faith any of the Automotive magazines with resources at hand would ever do such a thing, because they pay their mortgage helping to sell their vendors products, so they have no interest in pushing 20 year old junkyard explorer intakes in lieu of a slick, $700+ trick flow piece. Yes, there are performance differences, but not when running common GT40/GT40P heads.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: 1 users
Here are some pictures of the S351 Cobra intkae with the expanded plenum volume. It's not super noticeable at first glance, and pictures of these engines are somewhat far and few between.

S351_Intake.JPG
S351_Intake2.JPG
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Here are some pictures of the S351 Cobra intkae with the expanded plenum volume. It's not super noticeable at first glance, and pictures of these engines are somewhat far and few between.

S351_Intake.JPG
S351_Intake2.JPG

What did you gain by doing that? In my head, I see the extra volume creating a larger demand/force on sucking air through the throttle body and inlet tract. This should only happen at part throttle unless the TB is too small or the inlet tract is restricted. The only thing that comes to mind immediately is an increase in throttle response?

It still seems like the runners would be the limit unless you were getting uneven air to some cylinders.


I probably just missed a thread somewhere. :D
 
In my cartoon mind I picture the expanded plenum offering a larger volume of air available and moving the torque/hp around in the rpm range, not sure if it moves up or down, I would guess with a larger engine the numbers may move up
:shrug:
guess I could look for some dyno test.
Nah, busy today.
 
What did you gain by doing that? In my head, I see the extra volume creating a larger demand/force on sucking air through the throttle body and inlet tract. This should only happen at part throttle unless the TB is too small or the inlet tract is restricted. The only thing that comes to mind immediately is an increase in throttle response?

It still seems like the runners would be the limit unless you were getting uneven air to some cylinders.


I probably just missed a thread somewhere. :D

He didn't do it. Saleen did it for use on their S351 Mustangs. The extra volumn was needed to adjust the powerband. I would imagine with a standard cobra intake, it fell on it's face at higher RPM
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Decided to weigh the uppers.

Took them down to similar stages of "dress" in terms of fittings and lines. I weighed the explorer upper with a 75mm EGR spacer, since the cobra intake has it's own built in EGR.

Explorer upper plus EGR: 22.0LB (realized i didn't include the 5.0 HO plate)

Cobra upper : 18.8 LB.


SO there is a 3.2lb difference. Not significant.
 

Attachments

  • CD6265F2-420C-419E-9209-80068D5C944C.jpeg
    CD6265F2-420C-419E-9209-80068D5C944C.jpeg
    318.5 KB · Views: 65
  • 259D75EC-4F38-462D-90B4-1B4D6D4A736D.jpeg
    259D75EC-4F38-462D-90B4-1B4D6D4A736D.jpeg
    197.7 KB · Views: 68
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
What did you gain by doing that? In my head, I see the extra volume creating a larger demand/force on sucking air through the throttle body and inlet tract. This should only happen at part throttle unless the TB is too small or the inlet tract is restricted. The only thing that comes to mind immediately is an increase in throttle response?

It still seems like the runners would be the limit unless you were getting uneven air to some cylinders.


I probably just missed a thread somewhere. :D


He didn't do it. Saleen did it for use on their S351 Mustangs. The extra volumn was needed to adjust the powerband. I would imagine with a standard cobra intake, it fell on it's face at higher RPM

More than likely has to do with adjusting the Helmholtz resonance of the intake. Essentially adjusting the volumetric efficiency of the plenum when equalizing the flow between the cylinders. Increased airflow demands in each runner due to the increase of displacement in each cylinder will effect the Helmholtz resonance of the plenum due to a increased high pressure reversion pulse that occurs when the intake valve closes. This is assuming the runner size/length has not been changed. By adjusting plenum volume, you can "tune" the intake to deliver as much air as possible through existing runner size by optimizing the VE of the intake.



EDIT: Annnnnd, I just realized @WhiteCobra95 already explained this a few posts back. :doh:
 
Last edited:
Ok, well I committed to running the Cobra. I’m likely going to powdercoat it, but can’t decide color. I want something a little different than argent

anyway, stripping the intake down. Lather it in Citristrip, bag it up (to keep it moist) and let it sit.

EDBD508C-569F-48E3-8DA0-6C7C75E1FBF7.jpeg

E7B91AC6-7988-4A1C-8327-1866831E68AA.jpeg


welding day has been moved to Thurs due to my job actually needing me to do something on Wed that I can’t pawn off. Burning the rail in is something I want a full day to focus on to make sure it’s correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Status
Not open for further replies.