Fist let me say 'Sorry' for not doing this earlier. I said I'd do it years ago but just now go to it. First the parameters: What I have is an original Tri-Carb intake of the AZ variety. Two things will stand out about it. 1) I cut down the center dividers 2) It has been Extrude Honed. My goal is to give anyone who is interested an apples to apples comparison of the two intakes. In the pics you can easily tell the original by it's patina, it's dull and slightly surface rusted. The Parts Place one is a much darker gray color and is oiled slightly. I've tried to cover various angles and views.

Main overview
1) The Parts Place (PP) piece is visually very nice with it's dark gray color. It does pop
2) The cast iron used is obviously different. The Original Intake (OI) has a much smoother overall texture. Like an 80 grit compared to a 36 grit for the PP.
3) The font used for the PP unit is not the same as the original, not even close. They are slightly larger overall and much fatter in width when comparing the lines. They are basically in the same places but not nearly the same. There is obviously some factory stamps that are missing or incorrect and unique to the OI.
4) There is what appears to be core shift (?). It's very obvious in the head bolt holes which appear to be skewed to the upper part of the bolt pads. Having bolt holes skewed to the top of the pads on both sides was a red flag to me. I have not mocked it up on an engine so I have no idea if there is any mismatch. Caveat Emptor. Inside the venturi holes way down inside you can also see a lip protruding in a couple of them. It's small maybe 1/16 - 1/8 at most but nonetheless there. The OI does not have these.
5) Weight: The PP was 56# compared to the OI at 51#. This can easily be attributed to my cutting down of the center dividers and the Extrude Hone process.
6) When measuring from the carb pad to the runner floor the PP unit is on average a 1/10th of an inch deeper. Just an observation.
7) Probably most noticeable was the shape of the ports. They are not pure rectangles and vary greatly. Some are nice but the variances from top to bottom measurements stood out. Several of the ports have large bulges at the midline which close down the port substantially. It's not to say the OI ports are perfect but the variances are much tighter. We're talking thousandths for the OI compared to hundredths if not greater for the PP.
8) Shipping and packing...just plain sad. The intake came in a plastic bag inside the box just as you see it. The exhaust cross over block offs came in a smaller plastic bag and I have to say I was lucky they remained in the box after looking at the ripped and broken cardboard box. When my OI intake was Extrude Honed it was shipped back to me encased in building foam and a cardboard box. I could have dropped it off my roof without damage. Just a poor job on PP for that.
9) Casting lines were ground down on the PP unit and all machined surfaces look like they were 'wiz wheeled' to remove sharp edges etc. Very noticeable on the china rails. Not sure I like that being done to mating surfaces.

For the numbers people out there here are a few dimensions.
Venturi hole diameter OI 1.690 vs PP 1.680
1# intake port
Top Width: PP 1.191 OI 1.250
Bottom Width: PP 1.181 OI 1.243
Length top to bottom: PP 2.215 OI 2.208
Front Water Passage
Length: PP 2.083 OI 1.92
Width: PP .823 OI .885

That's all I have, enjoy

 

Nice job on your review, it sounds like with a hi speed cutting tool and some time you could make a good functioning tricarb manifold out of the repop..well done

 

Thanks for the details. I won't get into what I do for a living but let's just say I've been engineering cast parts (iron and aluminum) for close to 30 years. The technology existed in the '90's to make a digital master of that original intake and duplicate it exactly. When I say exactly, I mean exactly. The difference in appearance and function is not due to lack of capability to reproduce it, but lack of interest. There are any number of iron foundries and machine shops that can make a part look visually nice but, as with anything, the devil is in the details and that's where it starts costing real money. I understand the market for these reproductions is small so companies like TPP need to keep their costs in check. That drives them to the sub-suppliers who really only have to make the finished product look good. Attention to detail, durability and performance is secondary.
The variation you describe is obviously due to the part being made but not engineered. Surface roughness is a function of the pattern finish and sand/binder used. All the issues with the runner size, shape, depth, etc. are due to the core(s) used. Likely too few and of very poor quality control in relation to the pattern. The font and identification is a no brainer. That mismatch you see in the machined mounting holes is not necessarily due to core shift (you'd see that more in the port locations). There should always be cast datums that set up the machining pattern to keep it consistent and machining always gets done in a described order. Variation here shows the supplier does not have his order of operations under control. Finally, all of the final grinding you see done makes it clear the part was cast on the cheap.
Apologies for the long description. This is the type of thing you work to avoid when making parts for OE customers.

 

Thanks for doing this.

My brother in law does a lot of sand casting design for a major pump manufacturer. He runs the pattern shop. I talked to him about 10 years ago about reproducing the tri-carb manifolds. We looked at some pictures and he told me for about $3000 we could point scan an original, create a reusable mold for the sand casting, cast it, and machine the final product. The catch was, to recreate the internal passageways and make sure everything was correct (including the positioning and font of the original, we would have to cut apart an original manifold. All told the cost to produce the initial run, including procuring an original manifold, was about $10k. Obviously the way The Parts Place (or their supplier) chose to do it cut a few corners or maybe, due to copywrite issues, they had to do it this way

 

The PP intake is junk IMHO. The runner shape is enough for me,they are really out of tolerance for my taste. At $750 you get what you pay for & if you're one of the "that's good enough guys" you get what you paid for. I had a friend who bought one and brought it for me to see and when I saw the runners,ugh.....................
Has anybody actually bolted one up to see if it even fits>

 

I had purchased one of the aluminum repop tri power intakes for a pontiac car I had because the factory tri power intake cracked internally.. I had to spend a solid 3 hours smoothing out that lip in the center venturi you talked about as well as I port matched the runners and cleaned up internal casting flash.. Pain in the *** but once done it functioned every bit as well as my factory intake. This Oldsmobile intake may be able to be worked to function as well too. I dont know because I haven’t tried to fit one etc..Trip Deuces, do you have a engine to mock mount this on? Be interesting how it fit etc.

 

Andy I do actually. I have a 455 block and some C heads I could slap on it.
It took me a few years to do this today so don't hold your breathe. If it were me I'd just enlarge/elongate the holes if there was any mismatch. I have not checked casting thickness on it but I'm willing to bet there's enough meat there to somewhat fix the ports. I don't have measurements on a unmolested stock manifold. That I would love to see. All my port measurements were done within a 1/32nd of an inch from the port mouth. I didn't get fancy and check any further down the port.

 

TripDeuces had a previous thread where he reported the fit on his engine was not at all good or good enough. I have heard the same out in the real world. Yet, people are still buying them.

My fear when the plans for a reproduction came closer to reality was the repro would be close enough to the original where it might be difficult to tell original from repro. That is not the case in fact not even close by any standard. This has also been discussed in other threads.

One wonders how the aftermarket can achieve replacement manifolds for production engines fitting just about perfectly with allowable tolerances for things like steel shim head gaskets against metabestos type head gaskets, yet they have and do. A Edelbrock X2 6X2 cross ram for Pontiac, no doubt a complicated casting job for production, was the worst fitting manifold I ever worked with, yet a bit of clearancing on the bolt holes and on it went, and sealed well with decent port match.

Our pros might weigh in, but I think cast aluminum is a one set of manufacturing parameters with cast iron being another. Also aftermarket manifolds fitting very well on 90° V-8 engines have been made for something like 70 years, machined in shops using equipment which was not and is not exotic. One wonders how with all the advancements of today in manufacturing, machining and control the result in this case strikes one as being a bit crude, even at the price point being discussed.

 

"TripDueces", when you mock it up, check fit with feeler gauges, top to bottom and from end to end. I would suspect the port flange angle might be inaccurate and the port faces aren't on the same centerline.
I was thinking someone in this site bought one of those manifolds in the last few years. The intake to head flange needed machining for some reason. His local machinist hit hard spots when machining and dulled his cutting tool.

acavagnaro, allyolds68, very informative and useful information. Thank you.

 

The problem is the PP doesn't really care or don't care enough. They had issues with the repo W-30 aluminum manifolds too. I have seen it with a lot of their repo parts and the common denominator is being Chinese or Tiwanese. I had a copy of the factory blueprints for the 3x2 manifold @ one time but don't remember who I loaned them to..The correct way is to use blueprints but who knows how they went about making them.. As with most repo parts they hurt the value of the OEM parts even though they are not of the same or lesser quality.

 

If I mock this up I'm not about to waste a set of head gaskets. This may sound stupid but will a set of 330 head gaskets bolt to a 455 block? I'd only need them for the spacing off the block and under the head. I have my old 330 I can tear down and it probably has original steel shim gaskets.
Or can I do this clean with no gaskets? I'm thinking that way won't be very accurate.
I'm willing to do this but want something worthwhile to show the community and not some hack work. Any ideas or suggestions would be appreciated.

 

Yes the 330 head gaskets will fit the 455 block.All 64 up V8 Olds heads have the same bolt pattern.

 

Beautiful. Looks like a have a 330 to disassemble. Anyone interested in a steel crank?

 

If the 330 still has the steel shim gaskets and most use the thick composition gaskets now you might get some variation.

 

Here's a link to the Parts Place manifold. Thanks for the review.👍

https://www.thepartsplaceinc.com/pro...n-398238/98705

 

No doubt Mike. That's why I'm trying to be accurate but within reason. This is just a simple fact finding mission. The purists here already know the shortcomings of these reproduction manifolds, parts, etc. There's even a whole thread on parts that don't fit so for the most part people here are informed. I have misgivings about many parts from The Parts Place. I try not to bash manufacturers but if the shoe fits...
I want to thank all those who commented and expressed their expertise on the various processes here. It was very informative and highly interesting.
My 330 is for sale in part or whole but I will be tearing it down shortly to clear space in the garage.