The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop Edelbrock manifold for 216/235 - will it fit a 1960 235 "848" Cyl head?

Hi guys,

I'm looking at intake manifolds for my 848 head and seem to recall that the 216 and the late 235 intake manifolds do not interchange?

Not sure, Any help appreciated, thank you.

Dave

The intake ports are probably for a 216 (and early 235s). Adapter rings are available.

Search eBay for 216 235 intake adapter rings

Main problem is bolting 216 intake to 235 exhaust or visa versa. If you stay with all 216 or 235 you are good.

I was considering using an old Edelbrock dual carb manifold on my 261 with an 1960 848 head... and the guy selling it is saying that it fits 216/235....

Adapter rings- does that mean that the 216's had smaller intake runners? I don't want to do anything to restrict airflow...


Thanks!

Yes. the runners and ports are smaller. The carb for a 216 is also smaller and won't bolt up to a 235/261 manifold. Nor will a wider 235/261 tbolt up to a smaller 216 manifold.

There are many reports of dual 216 carb's working very well on a 235 and also being workable on a 261.
Altho harder to find, stock 261 Rochester carbs have larger ventri's and jets than the same bolt pattern sized 235's but when you go duals on a 261 it has been posted that dual 235 carbs worked better.
You run into decreased air flow when you over carb
these old Stovebolt powerplants.

Thanks Volfandt- that was exactly the info I was needing.

If you have a little mill or a friend with a small mill, it isn't much effort to bore out the head size of that Edelbrock to match the rings on 848 head. You won't need the adaptor rings if you do that and a little grinding inside the manifold will smooth up the entry to the rings. The inside runners of that manifold are the same size as the inside of the head runners and the 235 manifold rings. Use Carter YF964S carburetors as they have a little larger venturi diameter, at 1 7/32", than do some of the other 216 carbs. The 235 version of the Edelbrock manifold has the words power glide above the center runner. I have the 216 dual set up ready to go on my 261.
Dave

Wish I had a mill, or knew someone who does...it would make a LOT of things a whole lot cheaper & easier!

Slow and careful with a die grinder and carbide cutters will accomplish the same thing. Just don't get impatient and cut too much too soon.
Jerry

Gives me an excuse to buy more tools- I like that part...

2 X carburetors = more air flow, not enough fuel flow.

With internal combustion engines, isn't air flow a direct result of vacuum created by the piston going down while the intake valve is open and is a fixed amount? And as such, wouldn't installing an extra carburetor divide that fixed amount of air volume by 2 through each carburetor? From what I have read on this site,choosing over-sized carburetors results in a too rich condition, caused by too little air flow through each carburetor.
Carl
Here to learn.

Carl, carburetors mix air and fuel by venturi velocity. Air flowing through a venturi creates a vacuum- - - -the faster the flow, the more the vacuum. If the flow is divided between two carbs, the velocity slows down- - - -plenty of air, not much velocity, very low venturi vacuum, so little or no fuel gets mixed with the air. The ONLY solution is to put two SMALL carbs on the engine to try to keep the velocity in the venturis high enough to draw the fuel from the float chambers into the air stream.

Putting two of the same carbs that work as singles on an engine is a recipie for disaster- - - -it gets terminally lean and surges, backfires, hesitates, and generally runs like crap. Putting MUCH bigger main jets in helps a little, but the problem is too much air going too slow to create vacuum in the venturis.
Jerry

Thank you Professor Lincoln!

Seems to me they just need some kinda blower to make more air happen then no?
In truth that's a joke but in theory...

That's the reason fuel injection got invented! Spray the gas into the airstream under pressure! The Wright brothers' first airplane was powered by a fuel injected V8 engine- - - - -there's your trivia fact for the day!
Jerry

I think the engine used during the famous flight was a straight-four?

http://www.wright-brothers.org/Info...03-Wright-brothrs-engine-cutaway_242.jpg

Maybe one of their later designs? I've seen plans for the V8 somewhere, and it does have a primitive injection system.
Jerry

The only reason I knew about the engine is last Spring I went to the excellent NPS Ranger's lecture/demonstration at KItty Hawk. The story of how they made the plane/engine/controls and made the "first flight" (with significant and invaluable local/"yokel" support) is an incredible story (better than I ever knew).

Edelbrock intake, 848 head, 2-2bbl Carter-Webers... I regularly achieve 19+ mpg on highway ~15 in-town driving. At least 40k miles with this set-up on a daily driver only vehicle.

And don't forget the horse shoe on the threaded support rod...

Carl, the horse shoe represents another 1/4 horsepower!

Good one! Your setup sure makes for some nice eye candy, but no one can deny your engine's longevity and reliability.