Having never examined the ’56 2X4 intake in detail, I’ll just take a wild guess and assume it’s not going to perform as well overall as the ’57 2X4 intake especially where the head flow has been increased signficantly.  As intake manifolds get more restrictive, the lowend torque values do improve to a point but at the expense of the horsepower being lower.

 

At the bare minimum, port matching the Ford ECG-D 2X4 intake to the heads is expected to show a slight improvement.  Then interior port work and using Lincoln Teapot carbs would be next on the list.  Switching out to the Edelbrock 2X4 intake manifold would be the next logical change as it looks to have a better placement of the carbs over the intake ports as well as less restrictive intake runners.  Testing is really only the only way to validate many of these changes though as sometimes what looks like it will or will not work works out to be completely opposite.

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

Ted,

Were the 3-2 Strombergs unmodified? I'm wondering if the carbs might be restricting that intake.

It's interesting that the torque peaked at nearly the same RPM for all but the ECG-D 2-4 manifold.


Lawrenceville, GA

After going over the graphs a couple of times - I'd like to know how the "B" manifold stands up when modified the familiar way (open slots on the carb mounting deck) and a bigger carb is installed. There is about a 10(?) foot-lb difference in peak torque as it is - and the 465 CFM carb is pretty much out of breath from there on. 

 
 Steve Metzger       Tucson, Arizona

Another couple of pics showing the open runner design of the Cain.

Pete, one of the Aussie mob. Beechworth, Victoria60 F100 Panel Van, Y-block. 65 Galaxie Country Sedan 390

The 57 ECG 2-4 intake could be modified for better performance but as Ted pointed out some low end will be lost.

STOCK. I think the passage on the right has been opened up some.

Radius upper runner entry and increase diameter of passage to lower ports.

Ports are smaller than gasket opening.

http://ford-y-block.com 

20 miles east of San Diego, 20 miles north of Mexico

The Stromberg 97’s are unmodified and still jetted the same as when they were used in the 3X2 intake manifold testing that took place a short time ago.  The increase in vacuum in the higher rpm ranges points to the 97’s being on the small side for serious horsepower but being undersized does help to make the lowend torque numbers as good as they are.  With Barry Grant, Edelbrock, and Speedway all manufacturing brand new carbs for the older 3 bolt carb flange intakes, chances are good that overall performance can be improved without sacrificing lowend torque.

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

Haven’t tested slotted versus non-slotted on the B intakes.  Have bored out bores in the carb flange of the stock intakes though so they would accommodate larger bore carburetors but haven’t tested these against a dead stock intake manifolds either.

 

The stock intake is not overly responsive to the larger sized carbs and that’s simply due to the bottlenecking attributes (low flow numbers) of the factory intake.  The total engine package or combination must be considered when making changes and that means head and/or port work as well as any exhaust system mods must also be considered if contemplating intake manifold modifications.  The factory intake appears to be well matched to the stock heads but ends up being a bottleneck as the rest of the combination is being upgraded around the intake.

 

Here are a pair of graphs comparing the Mummert intake and a stock ECZ-B intake on a +030 312 (317 CID) iron headed engine combination that was dynoed recently.  The engine had a 228/238 cam ground on 110° lobe centers and installed 2° advanced.  The G heads being used were mildly ported and designed specifically for street use and with an automatic transmission.  A variety of carbs were also tested on this engine.

 

 

 

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

Here are a pair of graphs from previous testing on the +060 312 dyno mule with stock G heads where a pair of ECZ-B intake manifolds were tested in a back to back test.  While one of the manifolds was stock, the other had its plenum opened up by removing the center out of the four holes that were present and the center divider itself was also lowered.  Both intakes used a 520cfm Holley and Reds Headers.  The modified intake was using a 2½” cloverleaf (semi-open) carb spacer that matched the opening at the intake flange while the stock intake used a Moroso 1” four hole spacer.  Based on the results, there was not much change in the horsepower values and only a subtle change in the torque.  As usual, this is just food for thought.

 

 

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

I've been told that the biggest improvement to the B is to open the Carb holes front to back to two eliptical holes. Then radius the area where the runner drops down to the rear two cylinders. Hard to reach that area until you open the plenum entry holes up. Has that been tested or is it conjecture?

Frank/Rebop

Bristol, In ( by Elkhart) 

What is the approximate flow for a Stromberg 97?


Lawrenceville, GA