Flathead Intake ?
- Thread starter 2935ford
- Start date
JM 35 Sedan
Well-known member
Terry has it correct....early '35. I believe he, David G. and Don Rogers all had something to do with educating me on the differences between '34, early '35, later '35, and '36. All four are easy to identify once you know the differences.
Somewhere in my picture files I have a picture of all four of these intakes side by side. I also believe this picture is in previous posts that were IDing intake manifolds, so could be found in archives. Maybe DD has it copied
Last edited:
Kube
Super Moderator
And the award for the correct answer goes to: Terry
JM 35 Sedan
Well-known member
Ol' Ron, it would be of great interest for me if you would post a picture of how that intake was hollowed out to make it run better on your stock car.
VeryTangled
Well-known member
V8COOPMAN
Well-known member
Hi Everyone, I know little about 34's.
School me about the generator mout being more forward on the lower intake please?
Hey Jeff....A couple of things going-on with that picture. Whatever lens was used is distorting the image somewhat at each end of the two manifolds. You can see this pretty clearly by looking at the distortion of the generator mount on the lower manifold. That is one reason your RED line is not telling a true story in lining-up those holes. In addition, those two holes are not aligned directly across from each other on a manifold...one will be slightly ahead of the hole on opposite side of manifold, determined by the layout of bolt holes in block. Secondly, if you use a straight-edge at the center of the manifolds, you'll see that the bottom manifold is sitting at least 1/2" (actual size) further to the left than the upper manifold. DD
ford38v8
Well-known member
Hi Everyone, I know little about 34's.
School me about the generator mout being more forward on the lower intake please?
Jeff, it's simply the camera perspective. The camera is centered on the lower manifold, the top manifold being a slight distance north, therefore appearing smaller, shorter. Confirm by looking down the barrels of both manifolds.
VeryTangled
Well-known member
Thanks, the mount isn't more forward. Got it.
DavidG
Well-known member
If you follow the attachment holes on the two manifolds it will confirm that it is a function of how the photo was taken as both DD and Alan have noted. In any event, in reality the two manifolds are the same length. It seems that my cropping the photo added to the illusion (see below)
Apart for the exterior appearance differences, the lower manifold weighs much less than the upper one and Ford referred to it as the "light" manifold. Each was from a different supplier as evidenced by their part numbers. The heavy version has a cast-in B suffix and the light version a cast-in B2 suffix.
The photo below lessens the illusion of a difference in overall length as it isn't cropped .
Apart for the exterior appearance differences, the lower manifold weighs much less than the upper one and Ford referred to it as the "light" manifold. Each was from a different supplier as evidenced by their part numbers. The heavy version has a cast-in B suffix and the light version a cast-in B2 suffix.
The photo below lessens the illusion of a difference in overall length as it isn't cropped .
Attachments
petehoovie
Well-known member
Yep, camera perspective,,,Here's two 20's, note back one looks smaller.
Click on Pic to Enlarge