I think modifying an A iron manifold would be a good thing to try.  Bolt the adaptor on the manifold and then port as for a B manifold.  The main improvements are not the oval holes, they are: the better transitions out of the carb into the runners and; eliminating a pinch point where the runner goes down to the lower passage.

Doug T

The Highlands, Louisville, Ky.

J.D.  There are no plans to put the ECZ-A manifold back on the engine.  The dyno mule is currently sitting here with the ‘B’ intake on it and that one will be run again with the Teapot on it just to confirm the performance of the ‘B’ intake with the smaller carb.

 

But I do plan on testing the Edelbrock 548 aluminum 4V intake on the mule engine with the same Lincoln Teapot that was used on the ECZ-A manifold.  That will be a simple test in which to compare the Edelbrock 548 and ECZ-A intakes against each other.  I do have a Merc WCFB carb here but it needs a kit and because I only had one of those carbs, there were no plans to use it on the dual quad intake test.  Hence  the Merc WCFB carb was not kitted.  I do have a nice matching pair of GM WCFB's with mechanical secondaries that I am going to use in the dual quad test but the venturies on those look to be larger than the Merc units.

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

Frank.  I can run the Lincoln Teapot on the ‘B’ intake but the 600 Holley that was used on the ‘A’ intake manifold test will likely be gone by the time the dyno mule gets back on the dyno.  I currently have a Chrysler engine on the dyno awaiting a new intake manifold for an upgrade in performance.  Because the Holley 600 carb used in the ‘A’ manifold test belonged to a customer and was used on the 312 dyno mule to simply sort it out after a freshen up, that carb is scheduled to leave the shop before I get a chance to put the 312 with the ‘B’ intake back on the dyno.  But I think just a simple comparison of Lincoln Teapot to Holley 750HP will suffice in determining what kind of differences these two carbs exhibit when used with the ‘B’ manifold.  Comments always welcome.

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

What was stated above were the peak HP numbers and the different manifolds do peak at different rpm values.  But I see what’s being asked so here’s a chart with the HP values in 500 rpm increments that should make everything clearer.  All this is still with the 750 carb as that's the only data sitting in front of me right now.  I'll have to dig deeper for the other carb data.

rpm	ECZ-A Intake - 1956	ECZ-B Intake - 1957	Mummert intake - 2012
2500	147	143	139
3000	185	185	186
3500	211	213	225
4000	228	240	261
4500	238	260	293
5000	240	271	302
5500	230	273	308
6000			311

 

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

Great info Ted. It will be interesting to see the the smaller carb HP up to 3500. If you have the torque numbers that would be great too.........Thanks again for your work...........JD

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

Ted and DougT thanks for the vote of confidence. I'll go for it. I see the "A" manifold can hold its own below 3000 rpm. That would make it a good performer in a parade.



Mark

Mark

1956 Mercury M100
1955 Ford Fairlane Club Sedan
Delta, British Columbia

Thanks Ted. That clearly shows that in normal street use it is just the same what intake you are using. But if going to strip or track once in a while, it is good to go with B or Johns. It is question of money you spent and a speed you get.

 Seppo from Järvenpää, Finland
www.hollowheads.net (just click the hole in the head to proceed)

Ted, that'd work. I may send you a Lincoln teapot to try. Part of the curiosity is that when I changed over to the Edelbrock 600 on my car, I gained nothing in MPH. Probably proves zip because the manifold is undoubtedly the bottleneck on the F code. John told me he encountered the same thing on the Hurricane with a 600 Holley, I think. The Edelbrock is a much better all around , easier to tune, more modern carb, but the Teapots, at least on the F codes worked pretty well.

Frank/Rebop

Bristol, In ( by Elkhart) 

I agree, for what Mark wants the A should work fine and sloting the intake should show some improvement in airflow following Thashers input on what he did to his B intake.

-Gary Burnette-

Thanks again for all the great work Ted,  I read your dyno results and it always starts something turning in my head.

Doug T., I used a cast factory "B" intake (on a 292 +.060 flat top cast pistons modified C1TE heads)with the same mods that you show on the Uni the first three runs out at Bonneville last year and ran 120 mph on all three passes.  When I switched to the ECZ-G heads that were originally on Charlie Burns' "Yellow Brick" plus an extrude honed Blue Thunder intake on loan from Ted we gained 7 mph.  From Teds cylinder head dyno test I know that the "G" heads made 30 more HP than did the modified C1TE heads. With this info I think you can draw some conclussions about how well a modified "B" intake performs.

   God Bless.   Tim                           http://yblockguy.com/

350ci Y-Block FED "Elwood", 301ci Y-Block Unibody LSR "Jake", 312ci Y-Block '58 F-100, 338ci Y-Block powered Model A Tudor

tim@yblockguy.com  Visalia, California    Just west of the Sequoias