[gtorich]

Sorry guys, seems like I'm beating a dead horse here...........I'm at the point now getting new aluminum heads is easier than getting a gasket to fit this stupid manifold right.

You can see on the pics, I just used a marker to show where I'm at with these gaskets, the fel pro 90123 is pictured, if I grind it to match the 295 kre heads.......doesn't look like any way that is gonna seal right.

I really don't want to add weld unto the manifold...........then it becomes a useless manifold unless you have the 295 heads.

The one pic with the stock manifold gasket seems to be the best for a seal, but its gonna be too small for the head.

I'm probably overthinking this as usual.............but what are my options besides adding weld to the manifold.

Other thought was just give up on the tripower deal all together, but after looking what a manifold & carb would be...............on not that far off from just getting different alum heads.

Sorry for driving you guys nuts

Rich

[Richie Hoffman]

I’m building a engine now with aluminum tripower intake we welded top of ports so it fits eheads

[Navy Horn 16]

Get the aluminum heads. You won't be sorry.

[gtorich]

Originally Posted by Richie Hoffman

I’m building a engine now with aluminum tripower intake we welded top of ports so it fits eheads

Hey Richie, thats what im trying to advoid.....any other way around this.

Rich.

Navy horn..........sorry for the confusion, i already have kre alum heads, just having issues trying to fit a stock Tri power man to them.

Rich

[Navy Horn 16]

Gotcha. I've got E-Heads ported by KRE (320). I use SCE 128103, and they fit perfectly under a well ported HSD.

http://scegaskets.com/store/pontiac/...number-128103/

I've also used a RA IV gasket and used a razor blade to port match it to the heads. I've always put my gaskets on the heads, then put the intake on.

Best of luck.

[gtorich]

I know you want the gasket to match the head, but say i use the stock gasket , it will be a little smaller than the actual head.......is this gonna be a major issue.........or can i just use the larger gasket that will match the heads and not port them but use some right stuff where i was gonna grind them to make the gasket fit better for a good seal.

Rich

[Tom Vaught]

If the gasket matches the intake port then an expansion into a larger runner is NOT going to be an issue and could even help with reducing REVERSION of fuel and air on the port.

If you have too large of a gasket then the gasket just seals the port from outside air but the fuel/air flow is disrupted by the "Intake Port" then "Expansion", then "Contraction" and you get a lot of flow issues at that point on anything with any performance capability.

Wilson Manifolds, at one time when I was at their shop a lot, took a great deal of time to EXACTLY scribe lines on the heads and manifold and match these with the gasket PERFECTLY. They did that for a reason.

They FIXED either the head or the intake to get that match perfect on their heads and intakes.

Can you explain why you do not want to modify the parts to make them "right" with each other?

Tom V.

[Cliff R]

"If the gasket matches the intake port then an expansion into a larger runner is NOT going to be an issue and could even help with reducing REVERSION of fuel and air on the port."

+2

Folks don't realize that having a perfect match at the intake gaskets isn't a big deal at all.

We did the very first engine to test the new (at that time) KRE heads. We didn't touch the heads or intake anyplace, and there was considerable "miss-match" as the entrance on the KRE heads is pretty small. It made great power and nearly identical numbers to several 455's we did at later dates using nearly the exact same parts but with considerable time taken to match the heads and intake exactly to the gaskets.

In other words I'd be worried more about sealing area a the top of the ports than having perfect match, and unless you port the intake way back into the runners opening it up right at the gaskets isn't going to improve airflow anyhow.....IMHO......Cliff

[Steve C.]

But IF PRACTICAL as a rule of thumb you'd like to create uninterrupted flow paths for both intake and exhaust passages. This from many tech articles and sources, I can remember Jim Hand touting it.

So what can happen with a mismatch...


http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...low+velocities



.

[gtorich]

Originally Posted by Tom Vaught

If the gasket matches the intake port then an expansion into a larger runner is NOT going to be an issue and could even help with reducing REVERSION of fuel and air on the port.

If you have too large of a gasket then the gasket just seals the port from outside air but the fuel/air flow is disrupted by the "Intake Port" then "Expansion", then "Contraction" and you get a lot of flow issues at that point on anything with any performance capability.

Wilson Manifolds, at one time when I was at their shop a lot, took a great deal of time to EXACTLY scribe lines on the heads and manifold and match these with the gasket PERFECTLY. They did that for a reason.

They FIXED either the head or the intake to get that match perfect on their heads and intakes.

Can you explain why you do not want to modify the parts to make them "right" with each other?

Tom V.

Can you explain why you do not want to modify the parts to make them "right" with each other?

Tom, one reason is I bought a 1st run manifold for the car to eventually replace the Parts Place one, just thinking this may or may not look right..........also the cost of doing this right.

Then after doing this to the manifold, it becomes useless to anyone unless they have ported heads. Dave Hillard did this motor in 2010 for me, I remember him saying he had to double up on the gaskets to get it to seal right...........believed he used the gaskets from tin indian, the ra iv ones.

Just so I get this right in my head.........are you saying I could use that gasket (Stock) one in the pic that fits good and this would be ok with the bigger heads opening.

I'm hoping I can get some idea of costs of all these stuff.............might be easier to just get the kre stock heads.............mine are at 295 cfm now, just wondering if I would even notice any difference without the porting. Cam is an OF from SD.

Thanks for all the help from you guys............I have a hard time explaining myself in print, so sorry for any confusion.

Rich

[Cliff R]

"But IF PRACTICAL as a rule of thumb you'd like to create uninterrupted flow paths for both intake and exhaust passages"

Little if any difference on the dyno from what I've seen with that sort of thing, but of course everyone has an opinion on here. Of course you'd want the intake openings a little smaller than the openings in the heads if looking at if from a common sense standpoint.

I'd also add that if the intake runners and ports are considerably smaller than the openings/ports in the heads, the RIGHT way to do the intake is to get the grinder out or have them CNC ported as far back in as possible with a nice transition from the actual smaller ports back at the turns leading nicely out to the larger openings in the heads. Just doing 1/4" or so back in to the intakes runners isn't going to do anything for it......IMHO.......Cliff

[Steve C.]

Cliff I agree 100 percent. As you know I match my intakes to my cylinder heads including proper blending of the runner, remember you did one for me, the Tomahawk intake that took a bunch of work to match the 2.300" tall ports on my heads.


I've done back-to-back dyno testing of different intakes on a few occasions with my different engines. For interest I tested with a 'as cast', out of the box, borrowed Torker II intake which had much smaller ports than my cylinder heads in use. The results suggested the manifold was a DOG with numbers not even close to what others had reported with their Torker II intakes with very similar combos. I'm convinced the reason was the transition of the smaller manifold runner into the larger cylinder head port, as in the information I previously communicated here in the link I attached, and not the intake itself.


.

[Steve C.]

As cast the Edelbrock catalog says the Torker II port exit dimension is 2.030" tall. The ports on my cylinder heads were 2.300" tall. A big mismatch = crappy dyno results.

Maybe on the street by the seat of your pants you would not notice !


.

[Firebob]

In mind mind I always would see the charge passing from a smaller intake port opening and as it passes that edge and enters the larger head port it swirls and begins to slow down a bit after losing some of its confinement and being churned up.
Yes or no?
On the other hand if the charge is happily sliding down the intake and bangs into blunt surfaces sticking out ,as in if the head port was smaller than the intake, one might see how that would definately cause turmoil in the flow pattern as well.

[tom s]

2X Steve.I have been driving a RA V with the not the best port match,It made great HP on the dyno also.Tom