493 street/strip intake help

[BSB67]

....... but at least it’s readily available.

Exactly.

The 337 seems like such a good manifold and fills a real gap on intake options. It seems like the best flat hood option for supporting a 700 - 725 hp deal. I guess the 700 hp BB Mopar flat hood society is too small for someone to reproduce it.

 

[33 IMP]

@PRHeads , sir, if i may ask without derailing the thread....what pan was the problem? And which pan fixed it?

 

[PRHeads]

The first pan was a Hemi pan.

The second was an 8qt Charlie’s fear sump pan with an external oiling system.

I didn’t do much investigation as to exactly what the problem was, but my feeling is that the extra windage from the 4.5” stroke crank, and possibly poorer oil drainback from the World block is where the root of the problem was.
I was pretty sure it was simply the oil leaving the pan faster than it was returning.

I have run stock stroke/stock block motors to over 7k with Hemi pans, so I know under those conditions they work fine.
But on the 572, after about 9 seconds of WOT the oil pressure would start fluctuating/dropping.

It didn’t get retested on the dyno after the pan swap, but there are no problems with the new pan on the motor with it in the car.

 

[Dan64]

Found it. Closer than I thought. Looks like between 5 - 25 hp difference, depending on manifold modifications and spacers. Not sure you can use a 1" spacer on a flat hood with the 2D. I'm using a 1/2" spacer, and my carb to air cleaner lid to hood is as tight as I dare.

Also interesting, and similar to my results, milling out a portion of the divider not only helps up top, it doesn't appear to hurt down low much, somewhat flying in the face of conventional wisdom. I guess 4000 rpm on a 570 inch motor isn't really "down low".

Would you happen to have a link or be able to tell me where i can find this test info ?,would be very interesting to see.

 

[383man]

As Dwayne said my heads are the Indy EZ heads that Dwayne opened to Maxie ports with the Indy dual plane intake. I went that way because some day I may want to step it up a little but I have seen cars with the standard port heads work as good as my combo for sure. I would love to try the 337 intake one day just to see how it works on my car but I am very happy with the Indy dual plane as it got my car into the 10's and has great driveability for the street using my 850 DP carb. I also cant go any taller on my intake as I only have about a 1/4 room now between the carb stud and hood. My scoop dips in the middle and gives almost no more room for a taller intake but I like the original factory size scoop and wont run the taller Maxie scoops. Ron

 

[33 IMP]

Ron, what do you use for a valley cover? I want a 337 for the cast-in valley cover. I've got a set of iron max heads that i want to use with a single four barrel. I have a modified tm7 welded up to max size, but the valley cover is problematic. The iron max has openings between the ports at the deck, so the typical aftermarket valley covers for aluminum heads wont work.
I have used the stock cover opened up, and the top part of the ports cut off, with homemade gaskets on both sides. It worked ok, but the 337 is a much more elegant solution.

 

[PRHeads]

The EZ heads have raised intake ports, so the cast type valley cover is an easy fit.
For factory style MW heads(non-raised ports), the 337 has the valley cover incorporated into the design.

On raised port heads, you can either make spacers to fill the gap on the end rails, or use the cast type of valley cover below the 337 manifold.

 

[33 IMP]

Dwayne, thats exactly why i want one! Lol.

I tried to buy one from my local dodge dealer when they were still available. I either ordered the wrong number or they sent the wrong manifold. I got the one for stage six heads, so it didn't work at all, but i didn't realize i got the wrong one till they were gone!

 

[PRHeads]

Just keep checking the ads, eBag, race junk, etc...... they pop up from time to time.

 

[383man]

The EZ heads have raised intake ports, so the cast type valley cover is an easy fit.
For factory style MW heads(non-raised ports), the 337 has the valley cover incorporated into the design.

On raised port heads, you can either make spacers to fill the gap on the end rails, or use the cast type of valley cover below the 337 manifold.

That's just what I was told. I was told I can leave the Indy valley plate on my eng and the 337 Intake will set just high enough to clear it and the end bolts that hold it down. Basically I can unbolt my intake and bolt the 337 right on even with it having the valley pan made in it. That's with the EZ heads of course. Ron

 

[383man]

Ron, what do you use for a valley cover? I want a 337 for the cast-in valley cover. I've got a set of iron max heads that i want to use with a single four barrel. I have a modified tm7 welded up to max size, but the valley cover is problematic. The iron max has openings between the ports at the deck, so the typical aftermarket valley covers for aluminum heads wont work.
I have used the stock cover opened up, and the top part of the ports cut off, with homemade gaskets on both sides. It worked ok, but the 337 is a much more elegant solution.

With the Indy EZ heads I had to use the Indy valley plate setup. I like it because the intake only uses paper gaskets now and I don't have to worry about the valley pan gasket when I would change intakes. Ron

 

[Dan64]

Add me to the list of guys looking for a 337,lol. Ron ,love your car ,exactly what i'm looking to achieve. Thanks for all that posted ,great info that is very helpful.

 

[383man]

Add me to the list of guys looking for a 337,lol. Ron ,love your car ,exactly what i'm looking to achieve. Thanks for all that posted ,great info that is very helpful.

Thank you for the kind words. Ron

 

[Firefighter3931]

The first pan was a Hemi pan.

The second was an 8qt Charlie’s fear sump pan with an external oiling system.

I didn’t do much investigation as to exactly what the problem was, but my feeling is that the extra windage from the 4.5” stroke crank, and possibly poorer oil drainback from the World block is where the root of the problem was.
I was pretty sure it was simply the oil leaving the pan faster than it was returning.

I have run stock stroke/stock block motors to over 7k with Hemi pans, so I know under those conditions they work fine.
But on the 572, after about 9 seconds of WOT the oil pressure would start fluctuating/dropping.

It didn’t get retested on the dyno after the pan swap, but there are no problems with the new pan on the motor with it in the car.

Here is a pic of the Charlie's oil pan that Dwayne installed on the 572. Rock solid oil pressure with zero fluctuations. Fits with the stock K-frame, stock mounts and even power steering. The center link passes through the pan so that adds an extra step when doing engine R&R. I also had to slightly clearance the K-Frame to clear the side exit oil pump fitting but that took all of 10 minutes with the grinder.

You can also see the 337 manifold mounted on the engine with Indy EZ CNC cylinder heads. Clears the Stock hood on my 68 Charger with a drop base air cleaner assembly.

Ron

 

[Firefighter3931]

Here is a pic of the Charlie's oil pan that Dwayne installed on the 572. Rock solid oil pressure with zero fluctuations. Fits with the stock K-frame, stock mounts and even power steering. The center link passes through the pan so that adds an extra step when doing engine R&R. I also had to slightly clearance the K-Frame to clear the side exit oil pump fitting but that took all of 10 minutes with the grinder.

You can also see the 337 manifold mounted on the engine with Indy EZ CNC cylinder heads. Clears the Stock hood on my 68 Charger with a drop base air cleaner assembly.

Ron

View attachment 844597

Here is a side pic of the Charlie's pan with the engine brackets and headers. Everything fits fine in the car. Power steering has been deleted to reduce weight so there is even more room now.

Ron

Ps. I'm a big fan of the Holley Street Dominator with a std port head. I have one on the shelf for a future 493 build for my other Charger.

 

[PRHeads]

Hey Ron,
Do you have the sheets for the 440-2D vs the 337, where the same carb/spacer combo was used on both intakes?

 

[Firefighter3931]

Dwayne,

Here are the sheets as requested :

(1) ICH dual plane with 1/2in spacer & Demon 850
(2) MP 337 with 1/2in spacer & Demon 850
(3) MP 337 with 1in spacer and Quickfuel (4150) 1050

*Configuration #3 is how it's run in the car

Ron

 

[Dan64]

^^^ Perfect,thank you. That's what i was wanting to know.

 

[PRHeads]

One thing to note is the 337 was run right ootb, and the port exits are typically on the small side.
We didn’t test it so I don’t have anything to indicate what the results would be if the intake had been opened up to the size of the heads........ but since the Indy single plane made more hp than the 337, and it had been port matched, I think a little work on the 337 would have been worth a little something.

 

[Firefighter3931]

As Dwayne stated the 337 was box stock. The ports are between standard port and max wedge. No doubt a port match and some runner scalloping would yield positive results. The 337 is shorter with smaller runners than the ICH 440 single plane.

Not an apples to apples comparison but here is the dyno sheet for the Indy single plane which is a true MW intake port manifold. This combo also used Dwayne's 1150 Dominator with an adaptor. More rpm's and higher peak power....with slower fall off past peak power. Basicly a 15hp improvement but some of that is most likely the larger Dominator carburetor.

This means that the 337 is a bit small for the pump gas 572 and really needs some port/plenum work to keep up with the rest of this combo. At some point i'll be sending the 337 out for some work.


Ron