Original Message
RE: 427 MR intake vs. CJ
By Royce Peterson - 05/30/2002 6:10:12 PM; IP 198.81.17.176
All the intakes you mention are basically the same. I 1967 the Medium Riser and PI used the same intake. The CJ is slightly different in the area where the pushrods go through, just a simplification of the casting. The CJ intake is also made of cast iron.

You will notice that the port on your intake is smaller than the head vertically. Do not lower the intake port, it works great as is. If you decide to port the intake or heads it should be upward or wider.

Royce Peterson
This thread, so far...
Skip Navigation Links.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=13177&Reply=13177><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<a href="#" id="anchor13177" onclick="return false;">427 MR intake vs. CJ</a>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Ted Young, <i>05/30/2002</i></font><script type="text/javascript">
new HelpBalloon({
dataURL: 'replyb.aspx?ID=13177',
contentMargin: 60,
icon: $('anchor13177')
});
</script>
 427 MR intake vs. CJ -- Ted Young, 05/30/2002
Collapse <b>RE: 427 MR intake vs. CJ</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Royce Peterson, <i>05/30/2002</i></font>RE: 427 MR intake vs. CJ -- Royce Peterson, 05/30/2002
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=13180&Reply=13177><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<a href="#" id="anchor13180" onclick="return false;">Thanks Royce</a>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Ted Young, <i>05/30/2002</i></font><script type="text/javascript">
new HelpBalloon({
dataURL: 'replyb.aspx?ID=13180',
contentMargin: 60,
icon: $('anchor13180')
});
</script>
 Thanks Royce -- Ted Young, 05/30/2002
 RE: Thanks Royce -- Royce Peterson, 05/30/2002
 RE: 427 MR intake vs. CJ -- joe schepker, 05/31/2002
Post A Response
Name:
Email Address:
Subject:
Post:
Upload Image:
Human Check:   Enter the code 20248540 in the box