Re: Need a new Toy?

[Stan Kafouse <skafouse@xxxxxxxxx>]

Gary
  I apoligize to you , I know I sounded like a know it all( or a plain a--). Im no smarter than you, I just look at things differently, sometimes that causes problems.  I didnt realize you had knowledge of intake building. Ive built some before and thats not something you just "build". You obviously have the knowledge to build an intake. If you have a combination that works go for it.I look at it from the standpiont that machine work and most parts are the same cost 318 to 440. Im a speed freak, I go for the big power. Spinning the tires from a 30 mile an hour roll is my thing. I have some ideas to pick up MPG if you'd like to try. The 318 in my ramchager gets 22 on the road. Little things add up to a lot.
Stan

--- On Fri, 5/6/11, Gary Pavlovich <glpavlovich@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Gary Pavlovich <glpavlovich@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Need a new Toy?
> To: 1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Friday, May 6, 2011, 6:05 AM
> 
> Stan,
> 
> I should have re-read my last post to your e-mail; I
> sounded like a defamatory horsepower's a--.  I
> apologize for appearing to demean your experience or right
> to an opinon...of course that is not what I intended. My
> data and build info.was meant to share some surprising
> output potential and real world gains using a modicum
> of  low-tech performance parts in a throw-away motor
> and my offering of information did not validate your
> "comments/opinions;" your experience far surpasses mine by a
> long shot.
> My last paragraph was pompous and arrogant sounding; the
> intent was with some Poly Hot-Rod mod info.you may realize
> that there was more power and design proficiency than first
> appears...though not meant to compete in the same arena as a
> true super stock Max Wedge or HEMI engine. 
> Additionally, a Max Wedge is Streetable if build for that
> purpose.
> 
> Thank you,
> Gary Pavlovich
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stan Kafouse" <skafouse@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 6:14 AM
> Subject: Re: Need a new Toy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are pretty short Im sure, there also small, keeps
> velocity up. Combined with small carb bores you'd get good
> thottle response.
> Neat engine to play with, but if the heads were any good
> someone would be expanding on there design. Dont get upset,
> this is just MY OPINION.
> Ive built stock and super stock max wedge engines and
> worked on a cup team as a machinst. I dont see how a tunnel
> ram on a small engine will have any streetability. Again
> just my opinion.
> 
> --- On Thu, 5/5/11, Gary Pavlovich <glpavlovich@xxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Gary Pavlovich <glpavlovich@xxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: Need a new Toy?
> > To: 1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Date: Thursday, May 5, 2011, 5:23 AM
> > 
> > Stan,
> > 
> > How long are the runners in a stock Poly dual quad
> intake
> > or the Weiand
> > single four Poly intake?
> > 
> > Gary P.
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stan Kafouse"
> <skafouse@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 3:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: Need a new Toy?
> > 
> > 
> > So... how tall is this "tunnel ram"? Carb
> > and air cleaner will take what
> > eight inches themselves? Plus clearance so engine can
> > torque over and not
> > hit hood. Is it an individual runner or common
> plenum?
> > Those short runners
> > will have no bottom end, and if manifold is any good
> at all
> > will flow more
> > than any poly head ever did. Got a cam and convertor
> to
> > match intake? Sounds
> > neat, dont think it will work, cept for some wow
> factor.
> > 
> > --- On Wed, 5/4/11, Gary Pavlovich <glpavlovich@xxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Gary Pavlovich <glpavlovich@xxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: Re: Need a new Toy?
> > > To: 1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > Date: Wednesday, May 4, 2011, 9:38 PM
> > >
> > > Yes, I don't think any modern intake can beat a
> Tunnel
> > Ram
> > > for Max HP & Torque, even the "old school"
> > Weiands...of
> > > course a tunnel is not a user-friendly manifold
> for
> > the
> > > average Hot-Rodder due to height (for one) which
> > requires no
> > > hood or a cut-out for clearance.
> > >
> > > I will be running a Tunnel Ram on my Poly but I
> > designed
> > > the manifold to fit under the hood...of course I
> have
> > more
> > > hood clearance than most people (approx. 16" from
> top
> > of
> > > block face) so I can get away with a "tall
> enough"
> > > tunnel ram to make it effective and still have
> the
> > stealth
> > > factor.
> > >
> > > Gary Pavlovich
> > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim
> Altemose"
> > <jaltemoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: <1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 8:51 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Need a new Toy?
> > >
> > >
> > > Indy refers to it as an "In-Line Cross Ram".
> > >
> > > Below is a comparison of the manifolds. Looks
> like
> > > the Tunnel Ram won out.
> > > http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/techarticles/engine/mopp_0911_intake_manifold_tests/index.html
> > >
> > > - Jim
> > > Jim Altemose, Long Island, NY
> > > '63 Polara 500 (Max Wedge)
> > > '63 Polara 500 (383)
> > > '65 Belvedere I (Street Wedge)
> > > '71 Bronco
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Roger Pettigrew
> > <dodger7998@xxxxxxx>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ok,,,,,will take your word for it,, would
> have to
> > see
> > > the intake it self to
> > > > understand,,,,,,, sure looks like an inline
> set
> > up to
> > > me
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In a message dated 5/3/2011 11:14:58 A.M.
> > Central
> > > Daylight Time,
> > > > mcreglow@xxxxxxxxx
> > > writes:
> > > >
> > > > actually that is a cross ram. that is the
> indy
> > > cylinder head x-ram,
> > > > and is the hot ticket for nostalgia super
> stock
> > > racing.
> > > > http://www.usaperform.com/indy-chrysler-cross-manifolds-p-231.html
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Roger
> Pettigrew
> > <dodger7998@xxxxxxx>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Nice toy,,,,,,,makes me wonder what the
> real
> > story
> > > is on cars that are
> > > >> obviously misdescribed in their
> > description,,,,,,,
> > > that is definitely
> > > > not a
> > > >> crossram on it, so makes me wonder what
> else
> > is
> > > not being seen
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> In a message dated 5/1/2011 4:03:10
> P.M.
> > Central
> > > Daylight Time,
> > > >> shelby_nut@xxxxxxxxx
> > > writes:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > http://ontario.kijiji.ca/c-cars-vehicles-classic-cars-1963-plymouth-savoy-W0
> > > >> QQAdIdZ279189587
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> [Non-text portions of this message have
> been
> > > removed]
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ----
> > > >> Please address private mail -- mail of
> > interest to
> > > only one person --
> > > > directly to that person. I.e., send
> parts/car
> > > transactions and negotiations
> > > > as well as other personal messages only to
> the
> > > intended recipient, not to
> > > > the Clubhouse public address. This practice
> will
> > > protect your privacy,
> > > > reduce the total volume of mail and fine
> tune
> > the
> > > content signal to Mopar topic.
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >>
> > > >> 1962 to 1965 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion
> > > Guidelines:
> > > >> http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html and
> > > > http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/general_disclaimer.html.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have
> been
> > removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----
> > > > Please address private mail -- mail of
> interest
> > to
> > > only one person -- directly to that person.
> I.e.,
> > send
> > > parts/car transactions and negotiations as well
> as
> > other
> > > personal messages only to the intended recipient,
> not
> > to the
> > > Clubhouse public address. This practice will
> protect
> > your
> > > privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine
> tune
> > the
> > > content signal to Mopar topic. Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > 1962 to 1965 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion
> > Guidelines:
> > > > http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html and
> > > http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/general_disclaimer.html.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----
> > > Please address private mail -- mail of interest
> to
> > only one
> > > person -- directly to that person. I.e., send
> > > parts/car transactions and negotiations as well
> as
> > other
> > > personal messages only to the intended recipient,
> not
> > to the
> > > Clubhouse public address. This practice will
> protect
> > your
> > > privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine
> tune
> > the
> > > content signal to Mopar topic. Thanks!
> > >
> > > 1962 to 1965 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion
> Guidelines:
> > > http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html and
> > > http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/general_disclaimer.html.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > ----
> > Please address private mail -- mail of interest to
> only one
> > person -- directly to that person. I.e., send
> > parts/car transactions and negotiations as well as
> other
> > personal messages only to the intended recipient, not
> to the
> > Clubhouse public address. This practice will protect
> your
> > privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine tune
> the
> > content signal to Mopar topic. Thanks!
> > 
> > 1962 to 1965 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion Guidelines:
> > http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html and
> > http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/general_disclaimer.html.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> ----
> Please address private mail -- mail of interest to only one
> person -- directly to that person.  I.e., send
> parts/car transactions and negotiations as well as other
> personal messages only to the intended recipient, not to the
> Clubhouse public address. This practice will protect your
> privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine tune the
> content signal to Mopar topic.  Thanks!
> 
> 1962 to 1965 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion Guidelines:
> http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html and
> http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/general_disclaimer.html.
> 
> 
>