If you're interested (I'm sure everybody knows this anyway) the long ram
manifolds which came out in '60 on all B engines were first toyed with by
people like Jim Thornton and Al eckstrand in an old ramchargers car - this
being an old thirties coupe with pretty wild looking induction and the long
rams were tuned to provide most torque delivery around the 2500 rpm range -
this being suitable for the heavyweights - the short cross rams appeared
also in the same year - the most obvious example being the 400 horse 413 in
the 300F. The 300E cars had a medium riser inline dual quad set up - nothing
that special whilst the older 392's used the same apart from those
unmentionables - the EFI cars. One thing I think a lot of people forget is
not only the huge amount of research that goes into these things, but the
obvious fact that a lot of hi po engines back then needed dual quads. Ever
seen an early WCFB? they're pretty horrible...AFB's are light years better,
tunings also fairly hard - one of the things one hardly hears is the exhaust
manifolds which were also unique - they had the heat risers for the carbs
that sat on top of them, also forget about plug changing...but damn they
look so good...the long rams were 30 inches long and the short cross rams
were 15" (these were the high rev ones) but funnily enough - from where to
where? port to first venturi? I think this kind of stuff can turn something
presently driveable into a real dog with very little effort - the factory
knew what they were doing...
>From: KerryPinkerton <pinkertonk@xxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: IML: single or dual carb setup
>Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 11:32:08 -0800 (PST)
>
>I was LUCKY a few weeks back and ran into a deal where
>I ended up with a COMPLETE set of these cross rams,
>long casting, spacers, exhaust manifolds, and risers.
>Included was another partial set AND a 60 Chrysler
>(non Imp) that runs. Really fell into it and got a
>great deal. One set is going on my 57 Imperial
>Roadster. The other will end up on Robert Soule's 65
>300 after we fabricate the missing pieces.
>
>Kerryp
>
>--- "D. Dardalis" <dardal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > At 05:01 PM 1/20/2002 +0100, r.v.lent wrote:
> >
> > >But what will happen when I make an intake manifold
> > like on the 300 D
> > >with one carb on each side of the engine ( Yes I
> > can make this myself )
> > Even if you could cast a dual carb manifold
> > yourself, I would not recommend
> > it. There is a lot of "science" into designing an
> > intake manifold. There
> > are lots and lots of parameters (like air flow off
> > the carb, and Air/Fuel
> > distribution) that its highly unlikely you will get
> > it right by
> > chance. The OEM's back then did these designs by
> > trial and error, and with
> > lots of the engines on the dyno, they tried to come
> > up with the best
> > compromised design. Now, these things are simulated
> > in computers removing
> > most of the required prototyping and testing. Also,
> > nowadays with port
> > injection, their work is somewhat simplified since
> > they do not need to
> > worry about A/F distribution and gasoline droplets
> > accumulating or staying
> > atomized, or manifold heating, etc.
> > >The long runners were optimized for high rpm use
> > and would run poorly as a
> > >street engine. A lot like running a tunnel ram
> > manifold on the street.
> > Correct, but this refers to the later model ram
> > manifolds on the 413s. I
> > don't think that ram manifolds were installed on the
> > early Hemis... These
> > ram manifolds are even tougher to design since there
> > is an additional
> > parameter, the pressure waves. Also, due to the
> > long distance between the
> > carbs and the ports, it must be a real design
> > headache to ensure good fuel
> > atomization. That proves the advanced engineering
> > of Chrysler...
> > D^2
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network