MTFCA Forum

I have one of these on the '23. It was on the car when I bought it along with a Z head. The motor ended up with a new block, new crank, some rods and an E-Timer. While it was apart I found out that it had an older Chaffin "driver" cam and I had 351 Cleveland valves installed by the fellow who set up the lower end. This is a peppy T and was never last on club tours.

Now I'm working on a '19 engine in a '14 Touring. That motor seems a bit weak to me and I'm not sure if it is tired or if it is just a stock motor pulling a heavier car along. I see no smoke out of the exhaust nor excess fumes coming out of the throttle rod passage between the cylinders. I have not run a compression check yet.

I'm not interested in speed and have been told the '23 cruises at between 35 & 40 mph by people who were following me. I would like a little extra poop on the hills. The '14 seems to slow right down when climbing.

I have both a Pruss head & a 280 Prus cam for eventual installation in this motor.

I went ahead and ordered one of the high flow manifolds as these are supposed to be on this year car even if it doesn't match the motor year. I have heard this manifold may need some grinding to fit, we shall see.

It has been said that not all "speed" equipment is suitable for all applications. That makes sense. The hi flow may work great at WOT but not so well at partial throttle. Sometimes the rough surfaces may actually help with atomization of the fuel mixture. Not knowing the details I'm wondering if the high flow manifold is a boon to a stock motor? It certainly doesn't seem to hinder the '23 but that is no longer a completely stock motor.

Has anyone had real experience with the high flow manifold on a stock motor?

Paul

The more air you can cram into any motor produces more power.

Henry redesigned the manifold to cut down on customers’ speeding tickets.

I would think the '14 is definitely lighter than the '23. And cruising at 35-40??? Sounds like top speed to me and a lot of wear on the engine. Clara, my '13, just purrs nicely at 29-31-ish and can take a hill like it's not even there when needed. I think you got a very tired engine.

TWrenn wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 26, 2024 7:33 pm

I would think the '14 is definitely lighter than the '23. And cruising at 35-40??? Sounds like top speed to me and a lot of wear on the engine. Clara, my '13, just purrs nicely at 29-31-ish and can take a hill like it's not even there when needed. I think you got a very tired engine.

Do a compression test. Get some #'s.
That high volume manifold will improve performance with the new cam & head. That same combination produces 80# in a fresh motor.
The correct manifold was a high volume iron unit used in 14 only. Same as earlier T's but iron. Will improve performance @ higher speeds. Not so much @ 35. Infact, you may loose some low rpm performance due to less mixture velocity on your tired? stock motor.

My 26 touring has a stock engine. The crankshaft is counterbalanced but the standard stroke. I was given a high volume intake manifold as a door prize at one of the tours. I installed it on my car. The car was faster on level ground but MUCH slower on hills. If you think of sucking in with your mouth open as opposed to puckering your lips you get the idea The air to fuel mixture would be more air and less fuel at lower speeds. Anyway, I took it off and they auctioned it off at one of the meetings. I live in the mountains and need low end pulling torque. Downhill I can go as fast as the brakes and steering will allow me. It would only be good on more level ground such as the plains.
Having said all the above, This manifold might work well with other speed equipment such as longer stroke and different cam with a high compression head, but not on a stock engine in hilly country.
Norm

I've been messin' with T's and other old Fords all my life and have rebuilt several dozens of motors from Model T's to FE's over the years. That being said, I simply don't understand how a "high volume" intake can make any performance improvement if the inlet (carburetor) and outlet (intake port/valve size) remain stock. To me, the flow is restricted (limited) by the smallest diameter in the circuit and this intake seems to be like a having a small inlet going to a much larger pipe and then back to a similar small outlet. I always thought that turbulence with maximum flo was an asset in mixing the fuel-air mixture and dropping the velocity in a bigger section of the same path seem counter-productive. Now, using this "high Flow" intake and enlarging the inlet (carburetor bore) and enlarging the port/valve diameter would make sense and certainly increase fuel mixture flow especially at higher engine speeds. What am I missing?? Bruce

Can't be a 19 block if you are looking for excess fumes out of the throttle shaft passage between the cylinders.

I almost put a high volume manifold on my car but changed my mind after doing some research. A person whose opinion I respect told me this: "Under the expectation that the T was a low-reving engine, the early engineers designed the manifolds to be long and narrow to keep velocity up...remember the "high volume" manifold was not described or treated as such and was abandoned quickly by FORD. I suspect that the narrower manifolds also aided in hand cranking, too." While you might see a slight improvement at higher speeds, the opposite is true on the low end. I doubt a high volume manifold will make much of a difference.

You didn't mention what kind of carb you have. I swapped out my Holley G for a NH and saw a performance improvement....even more so when I added a Scott Conger "full-flow" float valve. I have a "Z" head which is a definite improvement. I would go ahead and install the Prus. The cam can be added later.

One thing about the earlier Fords was the "Low Head". It had higher compression than the later heads. From what I read in the books about the T is that during WW1 the octane of the fuel dropped and the higher compression would cause a knock, so the high head was installed and remained until the last Model T's.
Norm

Head Compression how high is "High Compression" vs "Low Compressions"
Torque measures the turning force produced by a vehicle's engine and the engine's ability to perform work, horsepower measures how fast the engine can perform the work. Therefore, high torque makes an engine accelerate faster from a stop, and high horsepower makes for higher top speed.
-- --
-- --
--

As I had begun to suspect, this is not a simple matter of "bolting on horsepower." There are many other considerations which include the condition of the motor and the other equipment added. I am currently running an NH on both cars. The real problem is comparing results. I have rarely ever driven a T other than my own. The Museum T I drive is only in parades and it is in such poor shape that at anything much over parade speeds the front end shimmies. No valid info to be had there.

I value sweet running & tractability over power but would still like some help on the hills and we have plenty of those here in this mountainous area. My home is up at 4200' which saps power even more when those hills are encountered.

I have been working on this car off and on all summer and now its fall with winter right around the corner. I had jumped to buy this high flow manifold to install while the manifolds were off the motor hoping to do this job just once but had second thoughts once a pal from the Orange County club expressed his reservations. I have it now but may just set it on the shelf and decide later about using it.

I had never heard that Ford considered the high flow manifold a failure. Where does this info come from? There are other possible reasons they might have made such a change.

Paul

If a high flow or high volume intake is detrimental to a T's performance, why did T owners wanting more speed or power, adapt Model A and B intakes and carburetors to their vehicles at the time before more recent aftermarket manifolds became available? Using a Model A or B intake and carburetor used to be a very accepted cheap way of aiding a motor's power output.

Depends on where you will be using the car. at more level ground, the throttle is closed farther so the vacuum is higher. When you open the throttle, it sucks in more air and less fuel. It might work better with a different type carburetor, or longer stroke. Since climbing steep hills the engine will go slower with a wider throttle and less torque. Anyway, what it amounts to is the high volume is good for higher speeds on level ground but much slower pulling hills and likely would cause you to downshift more often to keep the engine revved up.
So it does not work very well in the mountains.
Norm

To add my 1 1/2 cents to the discussion, I put a high flow intake manifold and Chaffins dual exhaust manifold on our 23 touring. I had been running a Stipes .280 cam, Z head, and NH carb at that time. I noted in putting on the exhaust and intake manifolds my low end torque dropped but my top end increased significantly. Since the car has a Ruckstell, I don’t find hills a problem. I’d be very hesitant about driving in hills with this combination without the Ruckstell. I’m sure I’d be in low pedal before others on the tour.

ModelTWoods wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 27, 2024 1:44 pm

If a high flow or high volume intake is detrimental to a T's performance, why did T owners wanting more speed or power, adapt Model A and B intakes and carburetors to their vehicles at the time before more recent aftermarket manifolds became available? Using a Model A or B intake and carburetor used to be a very accepted cheap way of aiding a motor's power output.

I failed to mention in my above post, that I had a Stromberg OE-1 updraft carburetor rebuilt by the late Stan Howe. I told him that I was going to use it on a Model A or B intake/exhaust manifold on my T. He said, in his words, that just the addition of the carb with the mentioned manifolds, would make a T, "Go like stink", and he wasn't being sarcastic. I will try this set up on a T motor I'm presently building, If it doesn't perform as desired, I can change the carburetor to a Model B Zenith. If this doesn't perform to my liking, I have numerous T intake manifolds, iron and aluminum, that i can try with any number of side draft carburetors.

Try a Winfield MA on a Winfield manifold.

I have an MB, but that matching manifold is unobtainium.
Been looking for 50 years.

big2bird wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 27, 2024 8:54 pm

Try a Winfield MA on a Winfield manifold.

I have an MB, but that matching manifold is unobtainium.
Been looking for 50 years.

In my neck of the woods, Winfield carburetores in working condition are make of Gold and Unobtainium.

ModelTWoods wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 27, 2024 9:00 pm

big2bird wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 27, 2024 8:54 pm

Try a Winfield MA on a Winfield manifold.

I have an MB, but that matching manifold is unobtainium.
Been looking for 50 years.

In my neck of the woods, Winfield carburetores in working condition are make of Gold and Unobtainium.

Sadly, the choice of metal made them very suseptible to damage. They are fragile. I wish Kevin would make a batch.

Still searching for 66B.

Getting back to the topic with the Model T, Ford did change the intake manifold during early production. The first ones were shaped differently even though they did have comparably the same internal measurements. When Ford went to what we call the standard intake iron manifold, he did increase the internal measurements for better air flow. The torpedo engine had a different intake manifold which was a longer distance manifold from mounting to where the carburetor attached only to increase gas flow from the tank to the carburetor. And yes during the 1914 run he did change from cast iron to aluminum. But as we know about his penny pinching, he changed casting metal from aluminum back to cast iron. Years ago I did have the cast iron manifold with a larger bore measurement, and also I did have the torpedo engine manifold. Both of those are history in my collection... I currently use The Ford issued aluminum intake manifold with the raised part number in the casting.... I do have this matched with a straight through NH carburetor along with the cam gear with the 7° advanced timing feature. At one point I did change back to the standard cast iron intake manifold on our 26 Runabout, only to notice a negative power response. The Model T engine is only 20 horsepower rated, some people expect more, but with the larger intake manifold the engine does breathe better giving a bit more pep.

I do not know which bolt on device adds which % boost in both low end and high end performance but my heaviest Model T (centerdoor) runs like a scalded ape! With a standard cam, I wouldn’t trade my Waukesha Ricardo, Simmonds carb and original aluminum hi vol intake.

George House wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 28, 2024 9:57 am

I do not know which bolt on device adds which % boost in both low end and high end performance but my heaviest Model T (centerdoor) runs like a scalded ape! With a standard cam, I wouldn’t trade my Waukesha Ricardo, Simmonds carb and original aluminum hi vol intake.

The Ricardo. Higher compression adds more "thump."

"more thump"? I thought modern, wild, high performance cams for race cars, made a thumping noise because of the duration and overlap.That's why Comp Cams calls their series of camshafts, 'Thumpr' and 'Mother Thumpr'.

Yes, high speed cams have a lot of overlap. I always called them "lopey" at idle. Their power band is much higher revs.

By thump, I mean more bang for buck with a better squeeze.

big2bird wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 28, 2024 2:37 pm

Yes, high speed cams have a lot of overlap. I always called them "lopey" at idle. Their power band is much higher revs.

By thump, I mean more bang for buck with a better squeeze.

Thanks for clarifying. I kind of figured you had something else in mind.

I was looking through our suppliers offerings, there is a suggestion not to use the 7 degree advanced cam with other than a standard Ford cam..... What problems are suspected if you use a cam with higher lifts?....... Has anyone successfully used a high lift cam with the 7° advanced cam gear?