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

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

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

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

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)

Charlie, i came to same conclusion, the max figures seem to peak around 3600 rpm and that fits into everyday driveing range, most certainly any improvements on heads etc really keep the HP coming nearer top end range and should keep us further ahead of those other brands! Ted, big thanks for your informative graphs that make it easier to compare intake side of things.

  AussieBill            YYYY    Forever Y Block     YYYY

 Down Under, Australia

Then if sticking with the Ford dual quad intake,what would you suggest to up its performance capacitys?

Porting,perhaps different carbs???

Do you think the 56 manifold with its more restrictive casting in the carb pads would be better or worse for horsepower?

Oldmics

I'm liking the Edelbrock 573. Looks like it pretty well dominates for street use.


Lawrenceville, GA

The  Ford dual Quad intake turns out to be pretty respectable for a 50 year old design. Can't say much for the B though.

Frank/Rebop

Bristol, In ( by Elkhart) 

Using the same scoring methodology that’s been used in the past, here’s how each ranked from highest to lowest.

1885.4pts - Mummert intake with 1” 4 hole spacer and 750 Holley

1841.0pts - Ford ECG-D 2X4 intake with L1437 Teapot Holleys

1817.4pts - Edebrock 573 3X2 intake with Stromberg 97’s

1743.8pts - Ford ECZ-B iron 4V intake with 1” 4 hole spacer and 465 Holley

1728.3pts - Cain open plenum intake with 2” 4 hole spacer and 750 Holley

 

Here are a pair of graphs summarizing the overall performance of the various intakes that have been tested on the aluminum heads.  Interesting results to say the least especially in observing the torque curves.  You'll have to take into account that the 3X2 setup is essentially under-carburetted at this point as the manifold vacuum was increasing in the upper rpm ranges.

 

 

  

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)