When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
A little bit of a setback on this project. As I feared the original 64/65 461 intake is way to small in the ports to line up with the Brodix heads and it does not have nearly enough “meat” on it to port it to match. Has anyone encountered this and have the solution to it so everything fits under the stock hood?
Edelbroch Performer?
Airgap manifold?
suggestions? Looks like I will have a nice 461 manifold for sale soon.
The Air Gap is relatively high for a dual plane but great if you have the clearance. I've had much success with the Weiand Street Warrior ( Also called the Stealth) with my DP Holley 750 carb. I wanted a polished intake on my BP 383 so I bought it from Summit port matched then installed it. I left the plenum but you can drop it down 1/2-3/4" " with a grinder before install for power bands to be a bit higher. It's idle-6,700rpm if you roll your solid lifters that high. The non-polished surface is about of course much cheaper.
Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I decided to weld up the 1965 original 461 intake for port matching the intake to Brodix heads the best we can. This will give me the factory 365 h.p. engine look I want without any hood clearance problems. I hope to have this engine running in the car in the next two weeks. Of course I have project creep, you know “as long as it’s out” trans synchros, new clutch, pressure plate, trans insulation, etc.
Here’s my 383 stroker. Intake is an eldebrock C3BX. No clearance issues and no holes in valve covers. I’ll admit to not being an expert so I don’t understand why some do that. As you can see the PVC vents to the oil intake tube so maybe that’s why? Good luck on your build
Here’s my 383 stroker. Intake is an eldebrock C3BX. No clearance issues and no holes in valve covers. I’ll admit to not being an expert so I don’t understand why some do that. As you can see the PVC vents to the oil intake tube so maybe that’s why? Good luck on your build
That was not my issue with this original 461 intake, the ports didn’t line up with the Brodix heads. This block does not have a draft tube hole but I will be taking fresh air into the engine from the air cleaner to the rear of one of the valve covers and the exit side will be the standard 1965 hose from the oil fill tube to the carb.
My block doesn’t have a draft tube hole either. Wonder why I don’t have a problem?
Well, are you using oil? I would think you would be as your carb is sucking oil rather than just taking the vapors out of the crankcase as it should be. I’ll bet at the very least your plugs fowl sooner than they should. The whole idea is to suck clean air into the crankcase and just skim the hydrocarbons out to be burned in the combustion cambers. Without a suction side the engine is building up pressure and sucking too much oil rather than just the hydrocarbons.
May wanna consider this approach. Took me a while to figger it out but it seems to be ok.
Had to modify some of the pieces shown and still I have only 1/8-3/16” clearance between the hose and firewall, but this a 57 Chev 2dr sedan. You would have more real estate, hopefully. Good luk
Last edited by jwindarwin; Feb 11, 2023 at 08:17 AM.
If there's no fresh air inlet to the crankcase, air will be drawn in somewhere else. A friend put a 454 crate motor with aftermarket valve covers in a C3 and didn't think about that. Every time the motor was started it made a squealing noise he couldn't trace. I told him it was air getting sucked in, as it turned out through the rear crankshaft oil seal! After putting in a proper air vent there was no more squeal. Not every motor would necessarily make the same sound, but there is air getting sucked in somewhere, count on it. If the rings are good there should be about 2 inches of vacuum in the crankcase at idle with no air intake.
May wanna consider this approach. Took me a while to figger it out but it seems to be ok.
Had to modify some of the pieces shown and still I have only 1/8-3/16” clearance between the hose and firewall, but this a 57 Chev 2dr sedan. You would have more real estate, hopefully. Good luk
Yes this is what I will be doing on my engine on the suction side. Since it is the suction side I don’t expect I will need a baffle inside the valve cover. Does everyone agree with that?
I felt if I were pulling a vacuum inside the valve cover then it would pull oil mist into the hose and deposit it in the PCV. The fitting inside my valve cover is an oil baffle and I added a “disc” of a Scotchbrite pad inside the baffle to further break in any oil that could possible be “ inhaled” by the vacuum.
W/O a baffle it will suck in oil when running, I feel.
I felt if I were pulling a vacuum inside the valve cover then it would pull oil mist into the hose and deposit it in the PCV. The fitting inside my valve cover is an oil baffle and I added a “disc” of a Scotchbrite pad inside the baffle to further break in any oil that could possible be “ inhaled” by the vacuum.
W/O a baffle it will suck in oil when running, I feel.
Maybe you are not understanding what I am sayng or how my system will work. Just like the original 1965 system my car had with the 300 h.p. engine the 365 h.p. air cleaner has a tube at the back with a spark arrestor on the inside of the air cleaner housing. The tube originally went to the draft tube hole that flowed through the “tomato” can in the intake valley then the airflow would go into the crankcase and the hydrocarbons (I don’t know if it is really that much of a “mist”) and would be sucked at a controlled rate through a .090 orfice in the fitting in the base of the carb. I know the “tomato can” acted as a baffle but it was really a hold over from when the earlier models used a reversed flow and the actual draft tube that sucked the vapors out and into the atmosphere via the drafting effect from the moving car. So I shouldn’t think there would be any blow back from a simple suction hole in the back of the valve cover. If someone has tried this and found the baffle to be “necessary” I would like to hear about it so I can plan for this ahead of time.
Maybe you are not understanding what I am sayng or how my system will work. Just like the original 1965 system my car had with the 300 h.p. engine the 365 h.p. air cleaner has a tube at the back with a spark arrestor on the inside of the air cleaner housing. The tube originally went to the draft tube hole that flowed through the “tomato” can in the intake valley then the airflow would go into the crankcase and the hydrocarbons (I don’t know if it is really that much of a “mist”) and would be sucked at a controlled rate through a .090 orfice in the fitting in the base of the carb. I know the “tomato can” acted as a baffle but it was really a hold over from when the earlier models used a reversed flow and the actual draft tube that sucked the vapors out and into the atmosphere via the drafting effect from the moving car. So I shouldn’t think there would be any blow back from a simple suction hole in the back of the valve cover. If someone has tried this and found the baffle to be “necessary” I would like to hear about it so I can plan for this ahead of time.
I see what you’re saying. Forgot the air cleaner is the source for the incoming air for the crankcase. So your oil fill cap is not vented around the bottom?
In my case the air flow is reversed as I have a 63 FI unit with a PCV on the side of the plenum and incoming air enters the oil fill tube
Sorry for my confusion
