Cross-Ram VS Ford's IR Dominators

[crossboss]

Boys,
As you know during the '69 T/A season, Chevy used the Cross-Ram 8V set up and Ford used their IR dual Dominator carbs…Question is do you think Ford 'violated the rules'? OR took advance of the rules?

[Jon Mello]

I would say they took advantage of the rules but I don't know if Ford officially homologated those carbs in '69 or not.  I assume they must have.  Pontiac and AMC used the Dominators that year a few times but Chevrolet never did.

[crossboss]

Jon,
Yes AMC did use them also…Btw, the Dominators were approved by SCCA, since they were homologated parts from Fords FIA records. That said, do you think Ford 'stretched' the rules by using IR Dominator Holley's to try and create a 'cheap' Weber type of induction?

[crossboss]

Jon,
Here is a pic of the Ford IR Dominator intake from 1969.
Click on pic to enlarge.

[Jon Mello]

Jon,
Yes AMC did use them also…Btw, the Dominators were approved by SCCA, since they were homologated parts from Fords FIA records. That said, do you think Ford 'stretched' the rules by using IR Dominator Holley's to try and create a 'cheap' Weber type of induction?

Ford was always trying to stretch the rules to their advantage. They spent a lot of corporate money and expected wins.  All the manufacturers wanted to win but I think Ford was the most aggressive, i.e. the 15x9 wheels with offset that made them look like a 15x8, the Tunnel Port 302 that was never a production engine, the special front suspension components for '68, etc.

[crossboss]

Jon,
Yes AMC did use them also…Btw, the Dominators were approved by SCCA, since they were homologated parts from Fords FIA records. That said, do you think Ford 'stretched' the rules by using IR Dominator Holley's to try and create a 'cheap' Weber type of induction?

Ford was always trying to stretch the rules to their advantage. They spent a lot of corporate money and expected wins.  All the manufacturers wanted to win but I think Ford was the most aggressive, i.e. the 15x9 wheels with offset that made them look like a 15x8, the Tunnel Port 302 that was never a production engine, the special front suspension components for '68, etc.

Jon,
Absolutely correct. Remember the Cross-Boss intake and Autolite Inline carb? SCCA banned that one for the '70 season…for the same reason..'stretching the rules'.
--Scott.

[69Z28-RS]

Some call it stretching the rules...   racers call it 'creative interpretation of the rules'... 

[crossboss]

Some call it stretching the rules...   racers call it 'creative interpretation of the rules'... 

The late great Smokey Yunick said "You ain't cheating until your caught…and everyone in racing cheats!"
He WAS the man who invented the 'creative interpretation of the rules'

[klvn8r]

According to Kaplan, the IR Dominators came to him by way of some Ford drag racers near his shop in Chicago.  The Javelins showed up with them at Michigan, race 1, 1969.  I'll add a pic of the AMC t-ram later.

[PHAT69AMX]

klvn8r - ? Do you have a picture of the inside of the Traco AMC Dual Quad Trans Am Intake to post ?

[klvn8r]

I have TWO of the intakes in my shop. 

[JohnSlack]

Jon,
Yes AMC did use them also…Btw, the Dominators were approved by SCCA, since they were homologated parts from Fords FIA records. That said, do you think Ford 'stretched' the rules by using IR Dominator Holley's to try and create a 'cheap' Weber type of induction?

Ford was always trying to stretch the rules to their advantage. They spent a lot of corporate money and expected wins.  All the manufacturers wanted to win but I think Ford was the most aggressive, i.e. the 15x9 wheels with offset that made them look like a 15x8, the Tunnel Port 302 that was never a production engine, the special front suspension components for '68, etc.

Did Chevrolet have any specific head castings for their 1969 or 1970 Trans Am engines? If so what was special about those T/A cylinder heads?
John

[camaroboy68ss]

Jon,
Yes AMC did use them also…Btw, the Dominators were approved by SCCA, since they were homologated parts from Fords FIA records. That said, do you think Ford 'stretched' the rules by using IR Dominator Holley's to try and create a 'cheap' Weber type of induction?

Ford was always trying to stretch the rules to their advantage. They spent a lot of corporate money and expected wins.  All the manufacturers wanted to win but I think Ford was the most aggressive, i.e. the 15x9 wheels with offset that made them look like a 15x8, the Tunnel Port 302 that was never a production engine, the special front suspension components for '68, etc.

Did Chevrolet have any specific head castings for their 1969 or 1970 Trans Am engines? If so what was special about those T/A cylinder heads?
John

I dont think they did, but Im not an expert of any kind on the trans am cars as they were way before i was even a though. Though I have yet to see any odd ball casting numbers when it comes to small block heads that have listed in a book that were Z/28 specific. My guess is they were standard 2.02 heads (possibly the angle plug head?) that were then cleaned up with a good port and polish.

[Jon Mello]

Chevy Camaros did not use a unique head for the Trans-Am series in that era although the factory did tool up and do development on a special head and intake set-up that was in response to the threat posed by the Boss 302. These were canted valve or semi-hemi heads as seen in the following article.  https://hotrodenginetech.com/1969-z28-canted-valve-302/

After much testing and development, these were found to not make any more appreciable horsepower than worked over stock 2.02 production heads. They were never made in enough quantity to qualify for the series and the effort was dropped.  It's too bad because they sure do look awesome.

[JohnSlack]

Jon,
Yes AMC did use them also…Btw, the Dominators were approved by SCCA, since they were homologated parts from Fords FIA records. That said, do you think Ford 'stretched' the rules by using IR Dominator Holley's to try and create a 'cheap' Weber type of induction?

Ford was always trying to stretch the rules to their advantage. They spent a lot of corporate money and expected wins.  All the manufacturers wanted to win but I think Ford was the most aggressive, i.e. the 15x9 wheels with offset that made them look like a 15x8, the Tunnel Port 302 that was never a production engine, the special front suspension components for '68, etc.

Did Chevrolet have any specific head castings for their 1969 or 1970 Trans Am engines? If so what was special about those T/A cylinder heads?
John

I dont think they did, but Im not an expert of any kind on the trans am cars as they were way before i was even a though. Though I have yet to see any odd ball casting numbers when it comes to small block heads that have listed in a book that were Z/28 specific. My guess is they were standard 2.02 heads (possibly the angle plug head?) that were then cleaned up with a good port and polish.

CBoy68SS,
Thank you for your answer, after I asked the question I read through the Traco thread and from Pigpens comments I kind of had the feeling that was the case. It sounds like the castings we're hand selected from production parts. Unlike the probably nefarious FoMoCo habit of making "slightly different, maybe better than production parts" with almost the same part number. I appreciate your time and answer.

John

[crossboss]

Chevy Camaros did not use a unique head for the Trans-Am series in that era although the factory did tool up and do development on a special head and intake set-up that was in response to the threat posed by the Boss 302. These were canted valve or semi-hemi heads as seen in the following article.  https://hotrodenginetech.com/1969-z28-canted-valve-302/

After much testing and development, these were found to not make any more appreciable horsepower than worked over stock 2.02 production heads. They were never made in enough quantity to qualify for the series and the effort was dropped.  It's too bad because they sure do look awesome.

Jon,
These are the heads you are referring to from the article. IF my memory is correct, I believe Smokey had some input on the designs. They do look very similar to a Boss 302/351 Cleveland cylinder head. I believe Chevy had it right, use what you have. The Boss heads were way too large.
Click on pic to enlarge.

[camaroboy68ss]

Chevy Camaros did not use a unique head for the Trans-Am series in that era although the factory did tool up and do development on a special head and intake set-up that was in response to the threat posed by the Boss 302. These were canted valve or semi-hemi heads as seen in the following article.  https://hotrodenginetech.com/1969-z28-canted-valve-302/

After much testing and development, these were found to not make any more appreciable horsepower than worked over stock 2.02 production heads. They were never made in enough quantity to qualify for the series and the effort was dropped.  It's too bad because they sure do look awesome.

Jon,
These are the heads you are referring to from the article. IF my memory is correct, I believe Smokey had some input on the designs. They do look very similar to a Boss 302/351 Cleveland cylinder head. I believe Chevy had it right, use what you have. The Boss heads were way too large.
Click on pic to enlarge.

Smokey did have a hand and ended up with a few of the engines as payment when Chevy abandoned the project. I believe Smokey tried working on developing them more, but never got any better results. I know one of those engines got stuffed into a 68 Camaro. They did look cool and with the crossram setup were quite an oddball looking small block. 

[crossboss]

Chevy Camaros did not use a unique head for the Trans-Am series in that era although the factory did tool up and do development on a special head and intake set-up that was in response to the threat posed by the Boss 302. These were canted valve or semi-hemi heads as seen in the following article.  https://hotrodenginetech.com/1969-z28-canted-valve-302/

After much testing and development, these were found to not make any more appreciable horsepower than worked over stock 2.02 production heads. They were never made in enough quantity to qualify for the series and the effort was dropped.  It's too bad because they sure do look awesome.

Jon,
These are the heads you are referring to from the article. IF my memory is correct, I believe Smokey had some input on the designs. They do look very similar to a Boss 302/351 Cleveland cylinder head. I believe Chevy had it right, use what you have. The Boss heads were way too large.
Click on pic to enlarge.

Smokey did have a hand and ended up with a few of the engines as payment when Chevy abandoned the project. I believe Smokey tried working on developing them more, but never got any better results. I know one of those engines got stuffed into a 68 Camaro. They did look cool and with the crossram setup were quite an oddball looking small block.

Yep. Those heads with the Cross Ram are wild! I'll bet to a casual observer, most people would guess its a Big Block..lol

[william]

Yunick briefly worked under De Lorean at Chevrolet. First project he inherited was the sb hemi-head. He described it a "...one half-million dollar trip to Shitsville." He gave up on it after three months. Claimed around a dozen engines were built along with 200 sets of parts.

It wasn't just a matter of parts. The block had to be modified for pushrod clearance and a different cam was required.

[70z28lt1]

Interesting in that photo of the semi-hemi head the absence of basic roller rockers.  Still using the error-prone and heat producing stamped steel rockers.  Comments?

[camaroboy68ss]

Interesting in that photo of the semi-hemi head the absence of basic roller rockers.  Still using the error-prone and heat producing stamped steel rockers.  Comments?

My guess would be they were using as much off the shelf stuff they could. If the intent was to actually make the engine available to the public, via RPO or COPO, it would have left with the stamped rockers as they were not going design a roller on a very low volume engine. The option price would have been extremely high most likely as i look at how expensive the ZL-1 option was for Gibb and that was no where near the development work than designing the semi hemi head and the more special parts would have made the engine that much hard to sell.

[JohnSlack]

Interesting in that photo of the semi-hemi head the absence of basic roller rockers.  Still using the error-prone and heat producing stamped steel rockers.  Comments?

My guess would be they were using as much off the shelf stuff they could. If the intent was to actually make the engine available to the public, via RPO or COPO, it would have left with the stamped rockers as they were not going design a roller on a very low volume engine. The option price would have been extremely high most likely as i look at how expensive the ZL-1 option was for Gibb and that was no where near the development work than designing the semi hemi head and the more special parts would have made the engine that much hard to sell.

IF Chevrolet was going to homologate the semi hemi can't valve head for Trans Am it would have required the sale of the correct amount of production units. SCCA got bit by FoMoCo and their Tunnelport heads in 1968. By 1969 SCCA was verifying that production was being met. And for 1970 the numbers produced for homologation went up drastically. That engine would have had to be sellable to the public.
John

[crossboss]

Interesting in that photo of the semi-hemi head the absence of basic roller rockers.  Still using the error-prone and heat producing stamped steel rockers.  Comments?

My guess would be they were using as much off the shelf stuff they could. If the intent was to actually make the engine available to the public, via RPO or COPO, it would have left with the stamped rockers as they were not going design a roller on a very low volume engine. The option price would have been extremely high most likely as i look at how expensive the ZL-1 option was for Gibb and that was no where near the development work than designing the semi hemi head and the more special parts would have made the engine that much hard to sell.

IF Chevrolet was going to homologate the semi hemi can't valve head for Trans Am it would have required the sale of the correct amount of production units. SCCA got bit by FoMoCo and their Tunnelport heads in 1968. By 1969 SCCA was verifying that production was being met. And for 1970 the numbers produced for homologation went up drastically. That engine would have had to be sellable to the public.
John

The same holds true for Pontiac's Tunnel Port 303 T/A engine. That said, Pontiac had in my opinion a 'better chance' to become production worthy. PMD engineers had envisioned 303, 366, 400 and 428 versions of the TP engines. Too bad the SB Chevy canted valve, and the Pontiac TP engines never made it into production…that would have been awesome competition on the track and in the showrooms!

[PHAT69AMX]

Muscle Car Review June 2011 - the 302 in this Camaro has those Heads on it does it not?

[Oldtimer]

Not sure this is the right place, but Bring a Trailer just posted this auction:

Ford Cross Boss Intake and Autolite 875 Carburetor

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/original-ford-cross-boss-intake-matching-autolite-850-carburator/?utm_source=dailymail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2019-01-11

[crossboss]

Not sure this is the right place, but Bring a Trailer just posted this auction:

Ford Cross Boss Intake and Autolite 875 Carburetor

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/original-ford-cross-boss-intake-matching-autolite-850-carburator/?utm_source=dailymail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2019-01-11

Yes, seen that one for sale. It belongs to one of the members over at the Boss 302 site. I used to have one of those on my car. I drove it on the street and Vintaged raced with the Cross-Boss and Inline carb. BTW, Its not a 'bolt on and go' deal…requires lots of tuning.

[crossboss]

For reference here is a pic of my Cross-Boss and Autolite Inline from my old Boss car.
Sorry for the bad picture quality.
Click on pic to enlarge.

[Swede70]

Greetings,

A couple of other things to toss into the mix here.  For reviewing the old softbound copy (it's orange and absurdly expensive used) of Don Farr's BOSS 302: Ford's Trans Am Ponycar, plus for searching online a bit, one will pick up on a preliminary design for a Cross BOSS intake that really was more akin to a 'cross' configuration in the style of the Chevrolet cross ram and the Edelbrock STR (street tunnel ram) designs.  Here too the identification lettering is cast-in.  If anything, the wording is larger and certainly unmistakable.  With the development of the Autolite inline carburetor and the parallel development of the single and double inline configuration intake lids, apparently they clung to the 'CROSS BOSS' name even as we might now be voicing the words 'BOSS INLINE' with equal reverence.  See the following thread and view the four inset photos half way down on the first page to spy the original Cross BOSS intake design then: 

http://www.boss302.com/smf/index.php?topic=54261.0

Also, and just in passing, the Holley Dominator carburetor was largely nameless across much of '69, instead being identified as the 4500 series.  Hence the smart alecky answer to whether AMC or even Ford 'ran Dominators...' in '69 is no; i.e. they ran 4500's in point of fact.  It is recommended not to walk into a bar, consume alcoholic beverages in excess and answer so amidst heated conversation...

The announcement of a contest by Holley/division of Colt Industries in the November '69 of Hot Rod Magazine speaks of a contest to name it, with the results to be announced at a drag meet known as the NHRA Winternationals held at Pomona when the '69 Trans Am season and the era of multiple carburetors was all over but the shouting.  Given this is where NHRA's new Pro Stock category was debuted and the embrace of the design by competitors across the class, it all makes sense.  Through struggling I am to turn up a precise date, it would seem the '70 Winternationals would take us into early February of the new year at the very least.  With this, any 'Dominator' reference made before whatever contest decision was arrived at by Holley post November 15th of '69 is to be getting ahead of the story strictly speaking.  As for the naming contest, you had to have your submission for a name in before November 15th, 1969 as identified in the Hot Rod Magazine print advertisement, hence my identification of the cut off.  And lastly, it would seem the winner was flown out to attend the NHRA event and gifted an example of the carburetor on site.  Can you imagine it - ...gee Dad, do you think we could fit it to the new Maverick at home? 

Funny in a sense it is to contemplate other entries and suggestions contemplated and ultimately dismissed by Holley here; i.e. 'The Main Drain', maybe 'The Big Leak', or perhaps 'The Certain Sucking Sound'?  Passing reference to the roll out of the 4500 is afforded within the following brief historical review of Holley's product, and is worth a quick glance.  See: 

https://www.rodauthority.com/tech-stories/fuel-cooling/historic-holley-carburetor-milestones/

Asbestos suit donned, although just light trimming and editing of the main story is all that this constitutes...

Mike K./Swede70

[crossboss]

Greetings,

A couple of other things to toss into the mix here.  For reviewing the old softbound copy (it's orange and absurdly expensive used) of Don Farr's BOSS 302: Ford's Trans Am Ponycar, plus for searching online a bit, one will pick up on a preliminary design for a Cross BOSS intake that really was more akin to a 'cross' configuration in the style of the Chevrolet cross ram and the Edelbrock STR (street tunnel ram) designs.  Here too the identification lettering is cast-in.  If anything, the wording is larger and certainly unmistakable.  With the development of the Autolite inline carburetor and the parallel development of the single and double inline configuration intake lids, apparently they clung to the 'CROSS BOSS' name even as we might now be voicing the words 'BOSS INLINE' with equal reverence.  See the following thread and view the four inset photos half way down on the first page to spy the original Cross BOSS intake design then: 

http://www.boss302.com/smf/index.php?topic=54261.0

Also, and just in passing, the Holley Dominator carburetor was largely nameless across much of '69, instead being identified as the 4500 series.  Hence the smart alecky answer to whether AMC or even Ford 'ran Dominators...' in '69 is no; i.e. they ran 4500's in point of fact.  It is recommended not to walk into a bar, consume alcoholic beverages in excess and answer so amidst heated conversation...

The announcement of a contest by Holley/division of Colt Industries in the November '69 of Hot Rod Magazine speaks of a contest to name it, with the results to be announced at a drag meet known as the NHRA Winternationals held at Pomona when the '69 Trans Am season and the era of multiple carburetors was all over but the shouting.  Given this is where NHRA's new Pro Stock category was debuted and the embrace of the design by competitors across the class, it all makes sense.  Through struggling I am to turn up a precise date, it would seem the '70 Winternationals would take us into early February of the new year at the very least.  With this, any 'Dominator' reference made before whatever contest decision was arrived at by Holley post November 15th of '69 is to be getting ahead of the story strictly speaking.  As for the naming contest, you had to have your submission for a name in before November 15th, 1969 as identified in the Hot Rod Magazine print advertisement, hence my identification of the cut off.

Funny in a sense it is to contemplate other entries and suggestions contemplated and ultimately dismissed by Holley here; i.e. 'The Main Drain', maybe 'The Big Leak', or perhaps 'The Certain Sucking Sound'?  Passing reference to the roll out of the 4500 is afforded within the following brief historical review of Holley's product, and is worth a quick glance.  See: 

https://www.rodauthority.com/tech-stories/fuel-cooling/historic-holley-carburetor-milestones/

Asbestos suit donned, although just light trimming and editing of the main story is all that this constitutes...

Mike K./Swede70

Mike,
The 'original' Cross-Boss intake was designed for two Holley carbs as you stated. It DID require many special engine components (expensive) to make it actually useable. The second Cross-Boss intake that was developed for the Autolite Inline carb (btw, Ford did intend to call it the Dominator/Max Performance carb. in early designs!) is still a cross ram design and is a leaner/cleaner design (no overhang on the sides) because of the Inline carbs 'inline' design. That said, it was interesting that all the manufactures created designs to 'out do the others' attempting to gain the upper hand for winning races. That WAS a special time that we will never see again in motorsports competition.
--Scott

[BULLITT65]

A very cool looking set up, but after reading a bit about the development and usage, it seems it was all show and no go for racing, as the stock carburetor set up out performed it. Here is one link that gives some more details:
http://www.mustangandfords.com/featured-vehicles/mufp-0609-1967-shelby-mustang-gt350/

[crossboss]

A very cool looking set up, but after reading a bit about the development and usage, it seems it was all show and no go for racing, as the stock carburetor set up out performed it. Here is one link that gives some more details:
http://www.mustangandfords.com/featured-vehicles/mufp-0609-1967-shelby-mustang-gt350/

Yes, and no. Like I mentioned its not a 'bolt on and go' set up. With racing, and street driving I fine 'tuned' mine over the years. I hope this does not come off as an ego trip, I most likely have more 'hands on' experience with the Cross-Boss and Inline carb than anyone. With some trial and errors, engineering internal flow modifications to the intake and carb, it will come alive and become a highly competitive unit. Yes, its not recommended for low RPM usage, however, a Boss 302 engine is not a torque monster anyways….aka RPM is where both the engine and intake/carb combo really shines.

[Swede70]

Thanks CrossBoss,

Indeed - you beat me to it given I thought of updating my message across the day that was.  The inlet runners underneath whatever carburetor configuration is employed pick up charge if you will from near the opposite bank of the vee - hence 'cross' and 'ram' too.  Besides, the Smokey Ram is appreciated as a single 4 bbl intake design with a like large open plenum situated below, and more or less matching features from what came before.  Sorry for the sloppiness and thanks for your informed input!


-

...also and just in passing, a question for you.  Period race reports from Laguna Seca relate almost casually that Bud Moore Engineering showed up with the Cross Boss and Autolite inline carburetors, but that such were disallowed.  O.K., we all kind of know that, but what I'd be curious about is did they actually attempt to roll through tech with them in place, was it a conversation with SCCA Technical Inspector John Timanus whereby the setup(s) quietly rested in boxes on the equipment transport, etc., or just what?  The David Friedman photo collection accessible via the Benson Ford Research Center, while huge and valued, doesn't have a single image of the inline setup in place on a car, so I'm thinking some editorial license was used by those scribes doing their duty in-period.  Surely more would have been said or known at this point I do think...

-

Just a throwaway observation this.  I does happen for increased knowledge that parts, assemblies, entire chassis, etc. that proved resistant to ready development in-period do in time see their fullest potential for studied application by those who have them now.  Look at any classic or vintage F1 grid and one will witness what were no-hoper combinations from the past well-polished, thoroughly sorted out, reliable, and unquestionably fast too.

Oh - and do you think the Holley 'Name That Carburetor Contest' was fixed?  A total scandal then, while to those looking on - you read it here FIRST (ha!).

Mike K./Swede70

[crossboss]

Thanks CrossBoss,

Indeed - you beat me to it given I thought of updating my message across the day that was.  The inlet runners underneath whatever carburetor configuration is employed pick up charge if you will from near the opposite bank of the vee - hence 'cross' and 'ram' too.  Besides, the Smokey Ram is appreciated as a single 4 bbl intake with a like large open plenum below, and more or less matching features from what came before.  Sorry for the sloppiness and thanks for your informed input!


-

...also and just in passing, a question for you.  Period race reports from Laguna Seca relate almost casually that Bud Moore Engineering showed up with the Cross Boss and Autolite inline carburetors, but that such were disallowed.  O.K., we all kind of know that, but what I'd be curious about is did they actually attempt to roll through tech with them in place, was it a conversation with anyone on the scene whereby the setup(s) quietly rested in boxes on the equipment transport, etc., or just what?  The David Friedman photo collection accessible via the Benson Ford Research Center, while huge and valued, doesn't have a single image of the inline setup in place on a car, so I'm thinking some editorial license was used by those scribes doing there duty in-period.

-

Oh - and do you think the Holley 'Name That Carburetor Contest' was fixed?  A total scandal then, while to those looking on - you read it here FIRST!

Mike K./Swede70

Mike,
Bud Moore did test the CB and Inline, I believe it was at Riverside with George Follmer at the helm. Lap times were pretty good, the only reports that I have heard were of a lean stumble coming out of the turns. This was a problem that can be 'fixed' with the one of the internal mods that I referred to. Bud, the ever cautious and creative man he was, heard rumors that SCCA was going to ban the CB and Inline and had a back up plan: The Mini-Plenum intake ready in the wings. That said, I believe IF the SCCA allowed the CB and Inline legal, I'm sure more R&D time would have made it perfect.
BTW, It is my opinion, Chevrolet's Cross-Ram was a 'better design' out of the box, and a superior performer on the street than the Cross-Boss intake.
Lastly, do I think Hot-Rods contest was fixed? Well….magazines are advertising generated, so you can come to your own conclusions.

[BULLITT65]

BTW, It is my opinion, Chevrolet's Cross-Ram was a 'better design' out of the box, and a superior performer on the street than the Cross-Boss intake.
Lastly, do I think Hot-Rods contest was fixed? Well….magazines are advertising generated, so you can come to your own conclusions.

The cross ram may have been a better design for the track, but from everything I have read in regards to test drives from performance mags of the day, the cross ram only lived up to the hype in the higher rpm range. (and once you were already moving at a good click), and more than 1 magazine that tested it with the off road cam, said that the single 4V would outperform it.

[crossboss]

BTW, It is my opinion, Chevrolet's Cross-Ram was a 'better design' out of the box, and a superior performer on the street than the Cross-Boss intake.
Lastly, do I think Hot-Rods contest was fixed? Well….magazines are advertising generated, so you can come to your own conclusions.

The cross ram may have been a better design for the track, but from everything I have read in regards to test drives from performance mags of the day, the cross ram only lived up to the hype in the higher rpm range. (and once you were already moving at a good click), and more than 1 magazine that tested it with the off road cam, said that the single 4V would outperform it.

Correct. As you mentioned for high speed runs the Cross-Ram/Cross-Boss intakes WILL out perform their 4V counterparts. The 'theory' behind the design, with the large plenum, and long runners create mass volumes of air/fuel, so when the intake valve opens and the piston is on its downstroke it sucks it all in 'filling' the cylinders to maximum capacity..hence the term 'Ram'. Cross-Ram intakes are essentially a sideways tunnel ram that fit under a hood. Example, take a look at NASCAR intakes from the late 1960s through the '70's most teams used a form of 'Ram-Box' intake for maximum performance.

[JohnSlack]

Thanks CrossBoss,

Indeed - you beat me to it given I thought of updating my message across the day that was.  The inlet runners underneath whatever carburetor configuration is employed pick up charge if you will from near the opposite bank of the vee - hence 'cross' and 'ram' too.  Besides, the Smokey Ram is appreciated as a single 4 bbl intake with a like large open plenum below, and more or less matching features from what came before.  Sorry for the sloppiness and thanks for your informed input!


-

...also and just in passing, a question for you.  Period race reports from Laguna Seca relate almost casually that Bud Moore Engineering showed up with the Cross Boss and Autolite inline carburetors, but that such were disallowed.  O.K., we all kind of know that, but what I'd be curious about is did they actually attempt to roll through tech with them in place, was it a conversation with anyone on the scene whereby the setup(s) quietly rested in boxes on the equipment transport, etc., or just what?  The David Friedman photo collection accessible via the Benson Ford Research Center, while huge and valued, doesn't have a single image of the inline setup in place on a car, so I'm thinking some editorial license was used by those scribes doing there duty in-period.

-

Oh - and do you think the Holley 'Name That Carburetor Contest' was fixed?  A total scandal then, while to those looking on - you read it here FIRST!

Mike K./Swede70

Mike,
Bud Moore did test the CB and Inline, I believe it was at Riverside with George Follmer at the helm. Lap times were pretty good, the only reports that I have heard were of a lean stumble coming out of the turns. This was a problem that can be 'fixed' with the one of the internal mods that I referred to. Bud, the ever cautious and creative man he was, heard rumors that SCCA was going to ban the CB and Inline and had a back up plan: The Mini-Plenum intake ready in the wings. That said, I believe IF the SCCA allowed the CB and Inline legal, I'm sure more R&D time would have made it perfect.
BTW, It is my opinion, Chevrolet's Cross-Ram was a 'better design' out of the box, and a superior performer on the street than the Cross-Boss intake.
Lastly, do I think Hot-Rods contest was fixed? Well….magazines are advertising generated, so you can come to your own conclusions.

Scott,
As you know Bud did not feel stuck with the Mini-Plenum at all he preffered it. FoMoCo developed the CROSS-BOSS for the BOSS 302 and also the Autolite inline carburetor for several engines. Bud never wanted to run that intake. I got that straight from Bud Moore when I called him years ago. He had already by the first race in the 1970 developed the Mini-Plenum, even though there were additional port changes done during the season. The ramps were in the intake because he had to sell them to anyone who wanted to buy one, however Bud's intakes had them removed....his son Greg told me that they were a "flaw" cast into the intakes on purpose because Bud knew he was going to be racing against other people who had bought his intake.
John

[crossboss]

John,
Yes, correct. Swede70 asked IF Bud tested the Cross-Boss and Inline carb and the answer was yes he did. Was it his favorite intake? No, and the rest is history as we know it.