Welcome to Club Hot Rod!  The premier site for everything to do with Hot Rod, Customs, Low Riders, Rat Rods, and more. 

  •  » Members from all over the US and the world!
  •  » Help from all over the world for your questions
  •  » Build logs for you and all members
  •  » Blogs
  •  » Image Gallery
  •  » Many thousands of members and hundreds of thousands of posts! 

YES! I want to register an account for free right now!  p.s.: For registered members this ad will NOT show

 

Thread: Dual plane vs. Single plane
          
   
   

Reply To Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    RJ & CJ's Avatar
    RJ & CJ is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Suffolk, VA
    Car Year, Make, Model: 1964 Falcon
    Posts
    134

    Dual plane vs. Single plane

     



    Thre wasn't a general engines section, so I figured the most popular engine section would suffice. This may belong in another section, seeing as how this is just a curiosity thing, so please move it if it does.

    I got this from an old thread.
    Originally posted by 390 bracket
    Correct me if I'm wrong: Along with a weight savings-(cast iron vs. aluminum)-aftermarket intakes generally will have better flow characteristics than oem jobs. You can get a single or dual plane intake. Single plane intakes are generally used for power farther up the rpm scale. Dual plane intakes generally work better at street usage rpm-showing better low rpm torque.They are much easier to drill for NoS WOOOOOPPAAAAAA
    My question is, why are the single planes more suitable for higher RPM's than the dual planes are? I tend to function better when I know the functions of things, so I would appreciate a technical explanation as to how a single plane will change the breathing up top and provide for better performance. I'm just looking for the operational difference in single and dual plane manifolds.
    Last edited by RJ & CJ; 02-13-2006 at 06:28 PM.
    Father and son working to turn a '64 Falcon into a street and track monster.

  2. #2
    Itoldyouso's Avatar
    Itoldyouso is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    fort myers
    Car Year, Make, Model: '27 ford/'39 dodge/ '23 t
    Posts
    11,033

    You've got it backwards. Single planes are better for high rpm applications, and dual are better for low rpm.......i.e: street usage.

    I don't know all the technical reasons, just that it is so. I't has something to do with flow characteristics at certain rpms, probably.

    One of our engine building experts will have the answer, I'm sure.

  3. #3
    RJ & CJ's Avatar
    RJ & CJ is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Suffolk, VA
    Car Year, Make, Model: 1964 Falcon
    Posts
    134

    Thank you, I got my words mixed up.
    Father and son working to turn a '64 Falcon into a street and track monster.

  4. #4
    techinspector1's Avatar
    techinspector1 is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Zephyrhills, Florida, USA
    Car Year, Make, Model: '32 Henway
    Posts
    12,423

    It has to do with cylinder filling and mixture velocity. With a dual-plane manifold, each cylinder sees only half the volume in the manifold as opposed to a single-plane, where all the volume is seen by each cylinder as it ingests its load of mixture. It doesn't take as long for a cylinder to pull a vacuum in half the volume, so a "half-volume" dual plane works better at lower rpm's due to a faster mixture velocity and subsequent better signal to the venturi of the carb. When the mixture slows down, the carb has a tough time calibrating the fuel to air ratio that it is going to feed to the motor.

    At higher rpm's, there is more air moving through the motor and using twice the volume of a single plane is not a problem.

    Look through Edelbrock's offerings and pay attention to the rpm range for each individual manifold. Every manifold has a minimum and maximum operating range depending on what you are using the motor for.
    Last edited by techinspector1; 02-13-2006 at 07:01 PM.
    PLANET EARTH, INSANE ASYLUM FOR THE UNIVERSE.

  5. #5
    RJ & CJ's Avatar
    RJ & CJ is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Suffolk, VA
    Car Year, Make, Model: 1964 Falcon
    Posts
    134

    Ohhhh, ok I'll have to do some more research as to how the specific designs affect flow, but I get the main idear now. Thanks a lot Richard.
    Father and son working to turn a '64 Falcon into a street and track monster.

  6. #6
    camaro_fever68's Avatar
    camaro_fever68 is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Bayou
    Car Year, Make, Model: 68 Camaro 69 Chevelle 78 Chevy Luv
    Posts
    525

    Richard (Tech) will fill in the spaces that I miss and straighten things out, but here's my take on it.

    Dual Plane(180 degree)-Divide the V-8 into two four cylinder engines. The V-8 has a firing pulse every 90 degress. The dual plane runners connect the cylinders that fire 180 degrees apart. Two barrels of a four barrel carb feed two cylinders on each side. Therefore, some runners have to pass under other runners, making it have a high and low plenum, which is the open area under the carb. The high plenum feeds the runners that cross over the runners from low plenum. The high side has a fairly easy job of getting the air/fuel to the cylinders because of it's height but the low side has a little difficulty, which in turn, results in a restriction in upper RPM levels. Also, a dual plane halves the amount of carb seen by each cylinder which limits the air/fuel needed in higher RPM levels. The reason they are better for low speed operation is that by splitting the carb/induction into half, the volume to a single cylinder is also half. This results in much less dampening of the intake pulse which leads to a much better booster signal at the carb. That results in a much better fuel atomization at low engine speeds, which means better low end torque and gas milage.

    Single Plane (360 degree)-The single plane intake has a common plenum that is shared by all cylinders. This dampens the intake pulse at low engine speeds, resulting in poor fuel atomization. Also, the runners are much larger along with the plenum, therefore dramatically slowing down the velocity in the runners going to the cylinders. On the other hand, once the engine speed is in the upper RPM's, the larger runners, along with the larger plenum volume let's the engine breath all it wants to on the intake side.


    High performance street engines are all about compromise. The better of the intakes on the market today that is a true performer of both aspects of this is the design of the Performer RPM Air-Gap manifold. It has high runners and a dip in the divider under the carb.
    RAY

    '69 Chevelle--385
    '68 Camaro--Twin Turbo
    '78 Luv--383

  7. #7
    pat mccarthy's Avatar
    pat mccarthy is offline CHR Member/Contributor Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    bay city
    Posts
    10,546

    Thumbs up

     



    both you guys tech camaro68 did good job better than i would

  8. #8
    camaro_fever68's Avatar
    camaro_fever68 is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Bayou
    Car Year, Make, Model: 68 Camaro 69 Chevelle 78 Chevy Luv
    Posts
    525

    Another interest that I have been wanting to experiment with, just lacking on funds, is the IR systems. The sponsor of this site, Inglese is a maker of these systems. They have individual runners and carbs to feed each cylinder. They break it down to where the V-8 seems as if it is 8 one cylinder engines. It will take a fussy, big cammed engine and make it idle like a fuel injected stocker. The overlap syndrome plays no part in booster signal loss. Engines equipped with these systems will generally make more low end torque and hp but are limited to the carb size and throats of the runners. A bit of a pain to tune I would imagine but that's half the fun.
    RAY

    '69 Chevelle--385
    '68 Camaro--Twin Turbo
    '78 Luv--383

  9. #9
    Dave Severson is offline CHR Member/Contributor Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Madison
    Car Year, Make, Model: '67 Ranchero, '57 Chevy, '82 Camaro,
    Posts
    21,160

    Well, the Inglese system sure are job security for the carb tuner!! The Webber setups on the 289's in the Cobra's and Mustangs made some great horsepower in their day. Would be a fun dyno exercise to see how 1965 Technology stacks up against 2006 Technology!!!!
    Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, Live for Today!
    Carroll Shelby

    Learning must be difficult for those who already know it all!!!!

  10. #10
    RJ & CJ's Avatar
    RJ & CJ is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Suffolk, VA
    Car Year, Make, Model: 1964 Falcon
    Posts
    134

    Appreciate the help camaro, your signature holds true
    Father and son working to turn a '64 Falcon into a street and track monster.

Reply To Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Links monetized by VigLink