Help I.d. This Manifold

OK....Thanks guys. So far- A. That manifold of 44bz's 198 looks like this one, but-
B. This manifold was bolted (sort of loosely) to a 225 that I have in storage. So it does fit a 225.
C. The carb opening looks like small bore 2G
D. Rich- so you have this on a 225? And if so is it the same casting number? (1376398)
E. Somewhere way back in the cobwebs of memory, I sort of remember a car 225 passing through my dad's shop, so this could be from that.

 

But why would a marine intake have a heater port?

 

For what it's worth, I'm still leaning toward the manifold being used on a 198 cu. in. engine. I can easily find additional photos such as the one below that indicate the manifold being used on the 198 engine. Something else that troubles me because it contradicts Fireball's (who's knowledge and skills I respect) comments is the only data i could find regarding the 225 and 198 spec's. On Team Buick's website the deck height for both the 225 and 198 is listed at 10.187". The 231's deck height is listed at 9.535".

https://i.imgur.com/fQdtMbV.jpg

General Specifications for the 198 and 225 Cubic Inch V-6 (teambuick.com)

 

This is troubling. That pictured manifold is it. So, does it matter? Will it work on a 225 is now the question.

 

Yeah, I found that info too. The page title says 198/255 specs but the specs only seem to be for a 225. I'm going by other things I've read, I've never had a 198 in my possession before.

I'm still pretty sure a 198 manifold doesn't fit a 225 so maybe that's an early 1964 225 manifold and they changed the casting later? I don't know. But as the saying goes "if it fits, it ships". I don't see any reason not to use it.

 

I just realized this looks exactly like the intake on Truckee4x4s '65 Tux:


If his is original to the Jeep, it would seem it's an early factory Dauntless part.

 

Fireball, I don't know what we would do without you. Good eye, And now we know that it should work on a 225. I am curious (as always) as to why the difference, could still be from a Skylark or something. Now my next problem-getting the corroded hose barb out. That sucker won't move, even with heat. Soaking in Kroil this week, see what happens.

 

And that is my recollection as well. But my manifold was bolted to a 225, as well as truckee4x4's, so we are off the 198 theory.

 

Again, if referencing information from Team Buick's website, they list head casting numbers for 1962-65 198s and 1964-67 225s. Their listing shows at least one instant where the same head casting number is used for both engines.

 

Here's a marine manifold with marine t/stat housing.

 

This has the same casting number and rear heater port as the "normal" 225 manifold- 1378704. So apparently they maybe just adapted the tstat housing for purpose.

 

Out of curiosity I looked in my sizeable pile of Jeep junk and realized I have one of each type of manifold:





Both are definitely 225 parts. I know for a fact the one with the rear water port came off a '71, so the other one must be from an earlier engine.

 

Thanks for taking the time to show this. That is very helpful, and I think we have our answer.

 

Never thought to look in the parts manual, if you haven't already.
3 different 2bbl manifolds listed depending on the engine code.
These are part numbers NOT casting numbers:
Part number 1376387 used with DLH and DMH engine codes
Part number 1378703 used with DNH and DRH engine codes.
Part number 998095 used with DSH engine code.

Also from our trusty parts manual:



From our trusty service manual:


Also from the service manual. Note the angled position of the temp outlet next to t/stat housing location.

 

Has anybody ever seen this "high profile" 2bbl 225 marine manifold mentioned by engine code?

 

Thanks, no I did not think to look in the book. So this likely is the '65-'66 DLH or DMH 9 to 1 CR. Why don't the casting numbers reflect the part number?

 

On some things they do, but not on this one.
Shrug ? Don't know.