TOP SECRET ACCUFAB 5.0L FORD INTAKE-NEVER BEFORE TESTED. PLUS STOCK VS ROLLER ROCKERS-HOW MUCH HP? 

You got that right! Richard is a treasure trove of dyno information, especially in the Ford 5.0 HO world. His Ford 5.0 dyno tests book is some of the best reading a car guy can get 👌👍🏻

​@@robertwest3093love his books! Bought the Honda one, when I started building up my B18C swap engine for eg civic.

The Autolite inline 4 barrels.

Cross Boss

No not even close.

@@knutbjornlarsen4435 well ‘it reminds ME of one’ work for you? No?

If that Accufab works AT ALL, it'll only be at the top end...where the heads will stop the party.

I had one on a 1971 Torino coupe, 351 Cleveland, 4 speed, 3.00 gear. The dual port didn't care if there were a 4 hole spacer, open spacer, front half/ back half spacer, the mileage remained the same, 20-22 at 70mph. With a 'cobra jet' cam, higher lift, slight overlap, Rhoads lifters, headers and different carbs, stock Motorcraft, Holley 600 vacuum secondaries, 750 Holley also vacuum, it would rev to 7,000 in first, 6,000 in second, 5,000 in third, then I chickened out (way past 120 mph). I never considered fuel starvation until Years later. Some idiot never thought to put a new harmonic balancer on, breaking the crank just in front of the second main. ):

I’ve always wondered….

That’s impressive for sure!

rising rate throttle opening is beneficial as it an altered bore shape that reduces low-throttle angle flow, but this was not that

I bought a 95 Mustang and like you say...it ran well to just past 4000 then pretty much was done. Replaced the rockers with Ford Racing (made by Crane) 1.7's and threw the stock heavy spring retainers (that had rotator's in them) and wimpy springs away for some Comp Cams lightweight retainers and springs. Along with some relieving of the airbox and a little ignition timing bump it would run strong to the 6250 rev limiter and absolutely crush a stock HO. That was a fun little car back in the day.

They don't even produce any torque. But they sound good

@@Christdeliverme it was pretty good, for the time.....

Road race engine!

I had a 94 351W Bronco that ran just fine. Had plenty of low-end torque and just what you need in a 4X4 with an E4OD.

we've already many, many runner length tests with boost-it does the same as na but a blower mounted on the end of the manifold like you described would be cool

Autolite Cross Boss

@@richardholdener1727 Have you ever had your hands on one?

​@richardholdener1727 You too can own one @ $10k a you get a penny back. Buyer beware, it's used parts.

YEP

Run the upper up to 4400 RPMs, then lift off the upper above 4400 RPMs...

@@buzzwaldron6195 It was far simpler than that with my 1st generation Titan. I swapped a PDQ90 manifold on it. The PDQ90 was an Infiniti M45 manifold with spacers and ported for a 90mm LS throttle body. The M45 manifold had dual length runners. It worked fantastically well matched up with the variable intake valve timing on the Titans 5.6L. Best of both worlds, stump pulling low-midrange torque and I had the RPM window switch set to where it would open the short runner path up at about 4,600 rpm and scream to the top end. Took about 30 dyno pulls to optimize the runner switch rpm point and play around with VVT on the intake cams to smooth out that torque dip during the switch but once it was right it was a very seamless and smooth curve.

@@chrisreynolds6520 - That doesn't sound simple... I was just suggesting something for the Ford... maybe mount the upper on a hinge and swing it up at 4400... LOL!

They share at WOT

The motor doesn't need more flow-it is restricted by the stock lower intake, heads and cam timing. None of the changes you suggested would do anything when those things limit power.

@@richardholdener1727 I was saying that the total flow is restricted by the flat plat area of the the shafts and plates. You are saying the absolute flow from the intake, the cam timings, are the restriction? I am saying that at partial throttle settings, restriction can be lost by increasing flow around the plates. It would just respond quicker. I raced motorcycles, were you seldom can ride wide open for long. "Responsiveness", can you measure that as rpm/time? I think this goes along with port matching and casting flash removal. For wide open power it might be a small benefit and so not worth doing? It is probably just mental, but I think they run smoother and rev faster with all the "little" gains. Thanks for the come back.

I've already tried it once on a BBC with less than stellar results. It is possible (Saab did it but I was never aware of Indy motors doing it.) It will be less responsive (Saab used a very small turbo) and doubtful it would add any power

those R hard to find and expensive

@@richardholdener1727 *Yeah, So?...hahaha LOL Good Video KUTGW*

Accufab makes the reg on the rail-Aeromotive makes the reg on the dyno

yes-see the big head test video number 1

agreed

I autocross a Boss 302 in 78/79… My machinist had a single carb Cross Boss for $275. Like an idiot I offered 225…. Geeez. In 87/88 I auto crossed a 5.0 LX for which I wanted to build an eight butterfly version of that Accufab Maybe I’ll do it for the old Bronco with long tubes leading to filters…. Hmmm …sleepless in Texas…

yes

what do you mean by thoughts

me too

they do the same thing under boost

you could stack plenolic spacers

But they rave on about a 5.0, don't they

@@mikes.1882 maybe 5.0 is fuel eficint for the power is has?. but is heavy. i dont know the 0-60 from that cars

I don't tune stock ECUs-good luck

noice

I have not

a better intake would be the best (like a dual plane carb intake)

you would have to ask Accufab

The torque ain't coming back that way. Those long runners resonate at the lower rpm and via inertial supercharging force more air into the cylinder at the lower rpm, that will not come back by making a bigger plenum.

you could add spacers with runners in them-but then you lose top end

​@@richardholdener1727Maybe Wilson could whip up a TAPERED 8-hole spacer.

at small throttle openings they gulp air and loose charge speed, it needs a progressive throttle opeing mech.

easy math for you with the provided data

@@richardholdener1727 even easier if you just put in on the screen next to to the HP gain.

it was on during the two runs selected for video-usually not

radiused entries (exits) at the bottom will hurt flow into the non-radiused lower manifold

This is what I was thinking it needed, the port entry holes into the lower manifold should have had a nice radius on them. I think if they combined a billet spacer plate say 1" thick with nice radius port entries it would have been better. Also I'd like to see what effect thinner throttle plates and with flats on the spindles, or those shaftless type bodies. Finally it would be nice to see what a 2-1 collector joining the headers and a longer exhaust system do to the performance on the dyno.

THAT IS THE TOP PART-NO AIR CLEANER (IT WAS A 1 OFF RACE PIECE)

no truck

-6 IS FINE

Tunnel Rams are not long compared to the stock HO or GT40 etc...

it is the only one ever made

I'm guessing being it wasn't mass produced that it had minimal gains, if any. Richard is about to let us know.

Very interesting. Look forward to more testing.

there is only 1

runner length

@@richardholdener1727 ??

WE RUN BOOST ON A LOT OF 10.0:1-11:1 NA MOTORS-THEY MAKE MORE POWER THAN AN 8:1 OR 9:1 MOTOR, JUST NEED THE FUELOCTANE /TIMING TO BE SPOT ON

I don't know what your question is

​@@richardholdener1727 I can see why, you don't understand my question. It's all over the place.Sorry. I guess a simpler way to put this would be. I'd like to write a thread on a Mopar forum, and the subject would be, "Revisiting swapping the 6.1 top end onto a stock 2005 5.7 short block 20 yrs later." Back than, (and the post still exist) there was a bunch of talk about the 6.1 heads being way too much for the 345 CID. Yet if you go forward in time, the Eagle motors sort of argues against that as being true. Sure the VVT really smooths stuff out for a broader power band, but once you starting installing cams that are similar to the original SRT8 specs, don't you need to start limiting the VVT function? I'm wondering if the issue back than with using the factory parts to swap onto the 5.7 and end up with okay results had more to do with people Hen pecking parts. IE: Installing the cam alone, or the cam and intake with the 05 heads. Not installing all the pieces as a recipe. Also, the notion that hand held tuning devices being readily available, ( for GM guys a predator was no new thing) were a cure all. That people were more naive and just install a canned tune. "Joe went to the swap meet, and purchased a 6.1 cam, some springs, and rods, installed them, and his hand held canned tune worked, because their were no codes." I don't understand how people back than were saying the swap was a total failure, it only netted 20-25hp, and it was time consuming and expensive. ($$$ I do understand) I'd like to install the cam at 113 LSA and data log, I'd also like to take advantage of the correct head gasket, and a reasonable boost in compression. Than, see if today's email tuning guys will net better results. ( I have zero expectations that I get anything near the results you get in your book, "since the heads, and your book have yet to arrive, I've only been able to preview what google books will show me.' due to a lot of factors.) All I'm saying is, if you don't have a combo, in which parts match together, maybe the backyard mechanic is inevitably bond to a coin toss, maybe, maybe not. (As will I be, since no success stories from than exist today on the internet, or the Wayback machine,)

How did Indian Jones say it? "I'm make things up as I go along."

@@richardholdener1727 -So what I ended up with is 6.1 heads/ with 8 bent intake valves. The story is, there's an offset dowel, and a run of those have been bad, to epidemic proportion. The engine was cranked, popped and that was the end. The heads look new, clean. The intake valves look bent but not the stems. (wishful thinking.) So I'll probably need valve guides. While waiting on the valve spring tool. I filled the exhaust ports with ATF for half, and hour, and there were no leaks. When the tool arrives I'll pop the locks, and have the head inspected. The damage around the combustion chamber looks like scratches that lead to the head gasket mating surface. I've seen worse on Iron from people storing them in basements. At worst, the 74CC chambers will get a slight taper, and the heads will get a minimal milling. I'll cc them, and ask for advice on gaskets. Once a valve is bent over, and left like that, I don't know if the compressed springs lose there memory. So as a precaution, I don't think I'd reused the springs. I think your book nailed it. While I've had a off the assembly in 5.7 and installed the XFI273, and put 50K miles on it, that wasn't with 6.1 heads. The comp HRT 260H-14, is probably better than the 6.1s stock cam adv 4 degree, due to milling, and chamber work, I could end up in left field with a hand grenade. Maybe if I cam find a cheap gasket, I could test the V to P clearance with some clay, but for time constant purposes, it's a no go. NEXT>

(Hope I didn't just reply in the wrong box, oops.) Years ago, before XV had come and gone, they sold me a used trophy truck engine. Back than nothing was offered for gen III hemi's. The story was: In order to get a forged assembly, they turned down the crank to used chevy rods, and it was more cost effective. I just read a similar story recently about using a 392 truck crank, in a pre-eagle engine by turning down the snout .065, and the journals for chevy rod, and the result was 400+ cubes, on the cheap. I don't know whether that is opening a can of carnivorous brain eating worms, or if it's genius . I think I'll leave that alone.