SBF 289/302 Weber CROSSRAM! Is it true?

[Sizzler]

Originally Posted by DavidNJ

Two questions:

1. Who makes the 351C manifold? Do they have a website?

2. Why not use a TrickFlow R or other big chamber on a TrickFlow or other port injection base if you are going to use a single TB?

I did not know Mickey Thompson made such a crossram for the 289, much less that is was for 58mm webers. About time that little piece of information made it to my synapses. I've seen that setup before and always assumed it was two of these adapters on a 2x4 intake


1) As for the 351C crossram, I can only point you towards
Australian Muscle Parts
Australian phone number - 011-613-59402337
California Distribution phone number - 562-428-9764

Don't know if they're still in business or if that version is still produced. A lot of stuff sticks around on the web long after it's gone in real life. It IS for a 351C though.

2) Use whatever you want. It all depends on YOUR engine combination and projected usage. I've personally always liked the BXR, just for looks. It does need either DIS or a front drive distributor. Reading the comment above about the Ford EDIS, I am apparently seriously behind the times, because I did not know the EDIS was controllable by any other ECM other than Ford's own EECxx boxes.

As for injected crossrams. It's all a big moot point nowadays as even the factory 5.0 injection manifolds are basically crossrams; they have the long runners and deal with transition with injectors mounted at the ports. They're taller than the cleveland and mocked up windsor versions, and that's for the reasons already mentioned: valve cover clearance and simple access to injectors mounted at the ports instead of on top of the runners.

But the mock up is for a DCOE crossram, and it's about time.

[Mike Simard]

Originally Posted by Sizzler

Reading the comment above about the Ford EDIS, I am apparently seriously behind the times, because I did not know the EDIS was controllable by any other ECM other than Ford's own EECxx boxes.

The early years of EDIS consist of a module that sits on the fenderwell that everything is wired to, it sends a signal to the ECU and gets one back. In 96(?) EDIS was integrated into the ECU, you would look for the early ones with the seperate module. here's some info: http://www.dainst.com/info/edis/edis.html

[What'saCobra?]

Thanks for that address & no.

i would reserve judgement just yet that M/T made an SBF crossram for the 289. If someone wants to absolutely say so, that's fine, but most of M/T's stuff was Chevy supported and only for Chevy motors, particularly in the early days. Further, clearly a 58MM unit is way too much for a 289, unless it is sleeved down to just around or just over 40. Why do all that when the 40DCOE is cheaper and easier to find. 58's might be OK on a stroked W or a nice 427/8/9 something.

In later years, M/T did make FORD stuff also, but crossrams were early bits, way before Dominators and open plenums etc were so effective.

But, as you point out, we could have missed that fact somewhere in our cortex mush.

But, that polished crossram injector system is really beautiful.

[vintagewebers]

Here is a photo of the 58mm crossram I own with a set of sidedrafts. It's not as pretty as it could be but i'm still doing restoration work on the carbs. I don't know about you, but to me that is the ultimate sex appeal for the SBF.

[*13*]

Damn Sexy if ya ask me

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by vintagewebers

Here is a photo of the 58mm crossram I own with a set of sidedrafts. It's not as pretty as it could be but i'm still doing restoration work on the carbs. I don't know about you, but to me that is the ultimate sex appeal for the SBF.

just curious, it's hard to see, but do the intake runners decrease in cross sectional area as they start from the carb base and pass to the opposite side of the intake, with most runners being sandwiched between two other runners? Or do the runners have equal cross sectional area the entire length?

Originally Posted by What'saCobra?

Further, clearly a 58MM unit is way too much for a 289, .

I thought that somebody said that the weber 58mm downdrafts were developed for ford 289 "indy" engines, and I believe that several magazines in the early 1960's spotlighted these carbs/indy engines. obviously, I would think Indy engines run at WOT at max rpms, most of the time, at least at the Indy 500.

Weber has a chart that recommends a certain size carb based on engine size as well as max rpms. The higher rpm you run an engine, the bigger size weber carb you need.

[What'saCobra?]

Ant
The Indy '289' is another whole kettle of fishes. Of course, it was really an all aly 255 in2 DOHC and turned perhaps 8000+rpm in good fettle. The 255 was also used in the initial GT40 MKI's, but was replaced rather quickly with 'normal' 289's because of poor torque coming out of corners, wacko costs and fussy to maintain...

That engine, no normal SBF, was no streeter or road racer with the 58's. If the rpm dropped under 4500 it was in big trouble. But, it could draw enough from 58's to work nicely at high rpm on an oval as long as speeds didn't get too slow.

My guess is that a modern stroker W with the best hi-flow heads available would 'use' the 58's to better effect, but it will take some work to get them to transition nicely and come off the line without popping/leaning or loading plugs at idle. Those sewer pipes aren't going to like just-off-idle air flows and will even make starting a pain on a small displacement engine.

Given that someone could do that work, wouldn't they be great lookin'?