Dist. does, not positive about draft tube but I think it will. (My engine uses the block side filter/draft.) 

"FREE SAMPLE"

To fit the Edelbrock 573 three deuce manifold on my 292, I had to notch the top of the road draft tube. The back of the manifold kept it from bolting down.

I like the use of the smaller port manifold because of port velocity when the intake first opens. This is probably why Teds tests were good. Makes for great street driveability.  My dual quads use small base Carter WCFB's and I do not have a hood problem. I would however port match them as close as possible at least for the last 1/2" into the manifold, I like your choice of 465's, the forgotten Holley, and would drive on the rear for the the street. If they are mounted backwards the front one would be the one I'd try. I've never needed to run on both, I found that I had to also idle on the front one too along with the rear and only needed to squirt fuel into the front when the car/engine sat cold for a week. Any other time I do not touch the foot feed during any restart. 
Good luck...Any engine looks better with dual quads installed.

56 Vic, B'Ville 200 MPH Club Member, So Cal.

Looking at the intakes tested, there seems to be no clear correlation with port size and performance.  Large and small port are at the top end.  Large and small port are at the bottom end.  It's probably just a better port layout and overall design, or luck of the draw.

One problem with testing, as Ted has, is that the sample size for each intake is statistically insignificant.  It is impractical to track down enough of these scarce manifolds for the test to be statistically significant and probably also impractical to spend the time to perform the testing.  This means that if someone else acquired the same casting numbers for testing, but different manifolds than the ones that were actually tested, their list will be different, possibly significantly different.  Safe assumptions probably are that the top performers are better than the bottom performers but the ones at the top could be within margin of error and it probably cannot be said, for instance that the FM255 is better than the 257 with certainty.  More testing would be needed to find out if there is a trend and that's not likely to happen.


Lawrenceville, GA

Is there a reason You are not using a PCV Setup instead of the Draft Tube?

  

I have read different reports. The H4000 and/or WCFB will not interfere with the 57/ Dual Advance Distributor. The 4160 I am not sure of. Someone either here or on HAMB must have done it at some point.

EDEL put that pad more rearward for a reason (better flow). I bet EDEL was knowledgeable of what was coming later and had he stayed with FORD (MERC), things may have been different (IMO)

____________________________

I assume this means I won't be able to use my road draft tube and will need breathers in my valve covers? 

Yeah. why the road draft tube? Is it for looks?

To use breather caps on the FYB rocker covers is sacrilegious ...

____________________________

Here’s a Y with the Edelbrock ‘255’ dual quad manifold set up with the inline Holley model 4160 carbs.
 

 

 

 

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

No real reason for the road draft tube.  My car was stock when I bought it.  When I rebuilt the engine I retained the road draft tube.  I plan to change it to PVC.  Haven't got around to it yet.

I assume you could install a PVC with an FM255 intake?  In Ted's photos above, it looks like there isn't room.

I assume you could install a PVC with an FM255 intake?  In Ted's photos above, it looks like there isn't room.

That's a good question. Maybe Ted has the setup there?

Also, I do not see a vacuum advance unit on the DIST -

____________________________