What is wrong with the S divider?

Discussion in 'Small Block Tech' started by MrSony, Sep 7, 2018.

  1. 436'd Skylark

    436'd Skylark Sweet Fancy Moses!!!!!


    The problem everyone is an internet expert and parroting what they heard/read.

    The only actual real data I've ever seen was a test Gary Paine did with one. He ran it back to back against an edelbrock performer intake at the track. Swapped in the pits no other change. It was slower than the performer by a tenth. BBB of course. This was in a gsca article from back in the day.

    I ran one on the 430 and switched to a performer and felt no seat of the pants difference.

    It's a weird design for sure but until someone posts dyno results or track results all we're hearing is "someone told me it sucks and now i think it sucks too..."

    That being said I'd love to see real data. It is an odd design but the casting/ports are decent and it's a high quality piece- it'll fit right and not leak etc. I doubt it's slower than a stock unit.

    Oddly enough it's well known and accepted the TA intake is not any better than the stock piece besides the weight savings.
     
    chrisg likes this.
  2. cruzn57

    cruzn57 cruzn57

    initially ,I just read all the comments, then started looking at different manifolds,
    most dual plane manifolds have a divider, (just like postons) the diff I see, is that postons is a single plane,.
    and didn't see any other single planes with a divider,
    yrs back I owned a dyno, ( 50% owner) and we did testing on BBC , with different manifolds,
    and made dividers for some of the single plane manifolds, used open spacers and 4 hole spacers,
    I have not kept the data from back then, but a divider in a single plane improved low end torque, and did not hamper
    top end power,
    but, it was not as good as a dual plane for low end torque and HP,

    I've never seen a S divider, but will this week end, as the car I'm buying has one on it,

    I question anyone that has an "idle problem" with these manifolds,

    I am not sticking up for these manifolds, it seems alot of people condemn them .
    without any facts, just rumor,
     
    Harlockssx likes this.
  3. TrunkMonkey

    TrunkMonkey Well-Known Member

    I have a '68 Canadian "SP" 'lark. (low compression) ST300 and 2.56

    It had the S-Divider and a squarebore.

    Put a 1 inch open aluminum spacer and the Q-jet and dual snorkle air cleaner, and the Mk1 Mod Zero Butt Dyno™ said "Wow!"

    It was a very nice improvement over the square bore. It would likely do much better of it were a high compression engine and had good breathing heads.

    Since I am building a BBB to go in, I am not doing anything else, but it is not "junk", may not be worth the trouble and cost to put one on over the money spent on other power makers, but if you get one already installed, maybe the "lift kit" for the carb will help.

    (I prefer a Q-jet over the square bores and had a new rebuilt QJ sitting on the shelf, so that is why I went that route).
     
  4. LARRY70GS

    LARRY70GS a.k.a. "THE WIZARD" Staff Member

    If you look at the Poston catalog page I posted on page 1, post #11, it explains the theory that was the basis for this manifold. Here are 2 GSExtra articles I could find on the S Divider.

    PostonSDivider1.jpg
    PostonSdivider2.jpg
     
  5. gsjohnny1

    gsjohnny1 Well-Known Member

    when you cut the top off, it does look weird because of not be accustomed seeing the runners in the normal made position. it is a somewhat clean designed running(runners) area. but I cut it up(flat top intake) to accommodate for the use of a supercharger. none of t/a's intake allow this.
    I see only 2 options for this intake....it's lighter than a stock one and it can be used for a supercharger.
     
    Mart likes this.
  6. 436'd Skylark

    436'd Skylark Sweet Fancy Moses!!!!!


    The takeaway from this may be the choking point is still the heads. Any of the available intakes are capable of "keeping up" with heads. The intake is a moot point.
     
    300sbb_overkill likes this.
  7. Fox's Den

    Fox's Den 355Xrs

    Need those heads and Another Year has Passed.

    I don't think the GS club ever did any more tests with the intake so we never found out if it was as good as was said in Larry's post.

    That's the thing hardly anyone tests these things before they are sold or at least not enough back toy back tests to get real results .

    I hope the new heads are not treated this way. We should not be the ginnea pigs for these new parts.
     
    MrSony likes this.
  8. 68Rivi_In_Cali

    68Rivi_In_Cali Well-Known Member

    I have one on the 70 Skylark. I helped my buddy swap it in but let him know What I had heard at the the time. It ran fine and was mainly used to swap the 2bbl to 4bbl.

    I now own the car and kept the intake on until I pull the engine for a build. So far I drove it with an Edelbrock 750 carb with no real issues.

    I currently am running a Sniper EFI system on it and it seems to run just fine. Never really had an issue with idle. Used to run a 1 inch spacer but removed it when I installed the EFI since the linkage was not going to line up.


    I would say it is more for weight reduction and to replace a 2bbl. I also had a TA 350 intake on a 69 Skylark 350 and felt like performance was the same. Again Dyno testing would be best.


    Based on my EFI the car seems to be running at the Target AF mixture and no issues with the poston at the moment . Unless the 455 intake was the one that was really flawed
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2018
  9. TABuickMike

    TABuickMike Michael Tomaszewski Jr

    I have yet to see proof that this is true. That rumor started a few years ago by someone not fond of us and spread because people posted it every instance that they could. I never saw a dyno sheet proving anything. A stock engine doesnt require much, so there will be minimal gains on a stock engine. Anything other than stock will see an improvement, with the gains growing the more radical the engine is. This was our first product so it was heavily tested back in the 80's. The average gains were 10-15hp on a hopped up engine.
     
  10. cruzn57

    cruzn57 cruzn57

    I appreciate the fact we have a company that specializes in our boats ( buicks)
    and common sense tells you an aluminum intake makes more hp,than a cast iron, alum dissipates heat
    much better than cast iron, (denser intake charge) (notice GM went to alum intakes on 80's sbc)
    I seriously doubt when making their alum intake, that TA just copied a cast iron, intake,
    their goal was to improve , (make more HP) the intake.
    on a stock motor, it is doubtful you would see much if any improvement, (more hp)
    but when upgrading heads, cam, exhaust, then the alum intake shines well above a cast iron intake,
    I have never flowed as cast iron or alum buick intake, but just looking as both (side by side)
    it is obvious the alum intake can ( and does) flow better, and make more hp.
     
  11. 300sbb_overkill

    300sbb_overkill WWG1WGA. MAGA

    It would be nice if TA made an air gap high rise dual plane intake good to 6,500 RPM! Those ones made for the other brands work really well.:(

    It doesn't matter how "good" or only "good as stock" as whoever that was that started saying that(wasn't me), the low rise TA dual plane stage 1 intake starts running out of steam around 5,000 where it starts falling off. Was probably a good thing though or a lot more people would of broken rods but on the other hand we probably would of had aftermarket rods a lot sooner!?:)

    Wonder if anyone has over revved their factory rod sbb 350 with the new SP3 and broke a rod or 2 yet?:eek:

    Man, wouldn't it be cool if there was a company that made aluminum heads for the sbb 350?! THAT would be REALLY cool!:cool:
     
    BeatersRus and Houmark like this.
  12. Swagon

    Swagon Well-Known Member

    mine saw 6300 quite a few time before I realized the heads were the restricting part of the engine, lowered shift point to 5800-6000 and engine felt faster. All I need is a better head, I honestly wouldn't be afraid to shift at 6500.
     
  13. Swagon

    Swagon Well-Known Member

    and I agree a high rise dual plane would be the ticket, Id probably go back to a dual plane if they made one that flowed well up to about 6500/6800 rpm
     
  14. UNDERDOG350

    UNDERDOG350 350 Buick purestock racer

    Mike. Don't get the wrong impression from us 350 guys. We really do appreciate all that TA Performance does for the Buick owners. That said I may be to blame for the statement of the intake being a copy of a stock intake and not making any more power than a stock intake. However I've used the TA intake on 3 different builds of my own and did not pickup any additional power. 15 HP should show up on the time slips. My engine only makes 340 HP, maybe on higher output builds it comes alive. I still use them for the weight savings over iron intakes and for 4 barrel conversions as good iron intakes are getting hard to find. They are very well made as all TA products are.
     
  15. 300sbb_overkill

    300sbb_overkill WWG1WGA. MAGA

    "starts running out of steam around 5,000"

    Even though it will spin past 6,000 RPM with the Stage 1 dual plane intake doesn't mean the power is rising, like you noticed when you shift at a lower RPM that it felt faster. Maybe if you shifted even earlier it might of been ever so slightly faster?

    The SP3 doesn't run out of steam after 5,000 though.
     
  16. gsjohnny1

    gsjohnny1 Well-Known Member

    the rpm for the single plane on the 350 is unknown. ours shifted at 7500. I seen 10k before the wall hit. only damage was rod bearings were worn out.
    with the s/c it still sees 7500. i'll say it again, build it right and a lot of things are possible.
     
    300sbb_overkill and alec296 like this.
  17. Swagon

    Swagon Well-Known Member

    I have the sp3 on my engine. I dont think the intake is running out of steam I just think the heads cant keep up with the air coming in from the intake so Im not feeling much power after 6,000
     
  18. 300sbb_overkill

    300sbb_overkill WWG1WGA. MAGA

    Depends on what cam you're running too as well.

    If you have a low RPM cam, its the cam holding the engine back from revving higher. If you're looking to rev higher with your SP3, then a TA 212 cam isn't going to get you there, well not get you there and still make power anyway.

    Can't really blame the factory heads if you're not making power past 5,800 RPM if you're running a cam that is rated to make power from off idle to 4,800! The SP3 gave you 1,000 more over what the cam is rated for if that is the case?

    What cam are you running?
     
  19. Jim Weise

    Jim Weise EFI/DIS 482

    Johnny's motor will rev high because of the supercharger.. .anyone else that spins a naturally aspirated 350 with stock or ported heads past 6K, goes contrary to every dyno test I have ever seen on that engine, with no boost..

    Doing a twin turbo 350 right now, with fully ported iron heads and SP-3 intake w/efi, that will be interesting.. low boost setup..
     
    patwhac likes this.
  20. Swagon

    Swagon Well-Known Member

    True didnt think about that. The cam is a TA roller 230/237 .525/.531 on a 110lsa all specs are at .050
     

Share This Page