Didn't stumble on anything related with search, and figure this is most appropriate section for this topic.

On my recently acquired Clifford alum 4 Intake, there is a a decent sized I assume water cavity with two pipe fittings on the bottom. Looks to be to replace the intake manifold heating formerly achieved by the eliminated on this manifold exhaust.

I'm in So Fla, manifold heating is seldom needed I suspect, and when it is, I'll just take a little longer.

My question is, since everyone knows cooler intake air is a performance plus in many ways, could I use this system to pipe chilled water/liquid for short terms for a performance benefit? Has anyone done this in this fashion> Does it work well? I would only try this once EFI is in place, to account for IAT variations, and manifold would be now "dry". Not sure how consistent each cylinder would be, where best then to place IAT, and is there a chance of ice buildup if I went all out with a dry ice/alcolhol/glycol concoction. There is no reachable limit to a lower temp for performance benefit.

Well, am I crazy?

Is this for a naturally-aspirated application? I wouls think it might be a bigger help in a boosted environment where the intake charge had been heated to some degree (no pun intended.)

_________________
1964 Valiant 4-door sedan, 225 turbo/904

Yes, NA, I agree, a higher starting temp makes it easier to achieve greater or any temp drops, but regardless, the net effect should the same, no matter what the starting temp, is my thinking. I just trying to use what is easy and right there in front of me, that has little other useful purpose in my application. This whole sub forum is mainly about increasing air intake density, and why i'm asking it here for ideas.

I could be rightfully accused of being crazy, myself, for being such an avid advocate of forced induction, when it comes to a "fresh" build of a slant six that is slated for some high-performance activity, like drag racing.

I don't have a lot of experience with slants OR turbocharging, but in the six or seven years I have been a student of trying to get several hundred horsepower out of our favorite engine, one thing has stood out as obvious and has become abundantly clear: The design and capabilities of the cylinder head on this engine has effectively stood between power output and the individuals who have tried, tooth and nail, to wrest a decent amount of grunt, in naturally-aspirated efforts, for the time and money involved. This has been demonstrated to the extent that it seems almost like pushing a pebble uphill with your nose, to achieve a reasonable result, naturally-aspirated.

The sad fact is, unless you are running a race car that fits a class that is based on pounds-per-cubic inch, like the old Gas Coupe and Altered classes were, back 40-50 years ago, you need to be running a 225 motor. The problem with that is, the cylinder head you are forced to use (because there are virtually no other heads that fit this block,) then you find yourself trying to make power with a set of valves and ports that were designed, originally, to work with a short-stroke 170, an engine only three fourths the size of a 225. Bigger valves can be added, and the ports can be opened up somewhat, but in no way can you ever achieve the kind of flow numbers from that head that are required for power production in te 2.5-hp-per cubic inch territory. You can spend countless dollars on fuel injection systems, exotic ignition systems, scienced-out headers, and cams that have excellent characteristics, and still only make a little over 300 horsepower on gasoline. It's an uphill battle to achieve even that number, and that's only 1.3 hp/cubic inch. The original close bore-center spacing dictated the small, 3.4-inch bores the slant six is blessed with. You can thank the front office for that little circumstance. The design-parmeters they mandated, dictated that the engine for the new 1960 Valiant, be an inline six, with as short a dimension as practical, from the fan-to-the-firewall, necessitating the smallish bores. That made large valves impossible; no room for them. Strangulation was unavoidable, once it became a 225.

BUT there was a set of design features in this engine that provided a wonderful, but little-used, remedy for this unfortunate breathing situation.

The original plan was to make the engine out of aluminum, and they did that to the tune of 60.000-copies, before production problems dictated that cast iron was going to be the material of choice from now on. The cheapest way to change the block to cast iron was to simply pour the molds that had been designed for aluminum, with a few changes to the deck and cylinder design, full of the ferrrous stuff and call it done. So, that's what they did; the design parameters that had served well for aluminum ended up "over-built" when cast iron was the material of choice, but it was cheaper than redesigning the entire engine for thinwall casting processes. so, we end up with an engine block that is more like a Diesel than a gasoline engine, and is strong beyond what anyone would suspect. Add to that, the short, 4-main-bearing FORGED crankshaft, with main bearings the size of a 426 Hemi's, deck-thicknesses in the head and the top of the block, that are half-an-inch thick, and what you have is an engine that will withstand boost levels that would blow the crank right out onto the ground, of most V8's. I have a friend whose 225 has endured 37 pounds of boost with no apparent damage.

I recently ran my car for the first time, on a set of clocks and even though I was only running 10 pounds of boost because I was just starting out with this car, it made one horsepower per cubic inch, which I thought was not too bad at only 10 pounds of boost. I have two friends who routinely run their 225's with boost levels of 28 pounds, and they each make a little over 500 horsepower at that level. These cars have one 4-bbl car, (no fuel injection,) and don't turn over 5,500 rpm. That enables them to use valve springs that won't damage the cam. It's also beneficial in terms of engine longivity. RPM kills motors, not boost...

So, if you are still awake, I would recommend investigating forced induction (Turbo- or Supercharging) for your next slant six build.

It s not cheap, and it is not easy, with a steep learning curve for the tuning phase of the build. but the rewards are so impressive, I REALLY DO believe it's worth the time and money you put into it. Having a slant six-powered a-body that will stand toe-to-toe with most V8's in the quarter mile is unusual, impressive and totally satisfying!

Thanks for listening to my two-cents...

Bill Dedman in Conway, Arkansas

_________________
1964 Valiant 4-door sedan, 225 turbo/904

I wrote some inaccurate information in that last rant, and I apologize for the just plain wrong scenarios I put down as fact... I made it appear that the 225 cast iron engine was a (later) offshoot of the aluminum engine, when in fact, they had been making cast iron verisons since the beginning. The aluminum engines were all 225's, I think, with no aluminum 170s ever produced, to my knowledge. But, I do think, if there had never been an aluminum version of this engine, the cast iron version wouldn't be the "built like a brick pagoda" version we enjoying boosting to the moon... it is SO stout!!!

The 170 is an unbeatable racing engine wherever specific output (horsepower per cubic inch,) is a factor, but for the street or bracket racing, the 225 is enough bigger that it's just easier to get a LOT of power out of, I think.

Again, I apologize for writing that "wrong" version of how the 225 cast iron motor came to be; it's 1 a.m. and has been a L-O-N-G day...

Blil, in Conway, Arkansas

_________________
1964 Valiant 4-door sedan, 225 turbo/904