Scottso wrote:Just to clarify... My comment was not meant as a flame nor dig,just my opinion of something I see consistently which is posts with no facts to back it up.
.
I've stayed out of this. It has come up before. There are pleanty of facts around the Aussi biult 282 that are not avalible to you Scott in the USA. That doesn't mean they don't exist nor that some one from the USA would go looking abroad for them.
There are also AG engines that were never used on the truck side, with different manifolding and acc that were based on the same block lay-out as the 220 block. It would take some work to find what would fit and what wouldn't. Because IHC never intended nor married two parts (so never are shown in parts books) doesn't mean it can't be done. Rodders for years have pushed the envlope by doing such things. In such a case, there is no "proof" unless someone has done it, but untill someone tries it can't be ruled out either. In such cases, parts books can be a start, but not the be-all and end-all of what is possable. It takes a open mind, to find new solutions and new possibilitys.
If a manufacture can adapt a basic design without changeing things like castings, they can save a whole lot of money. If a basic lay out of an engine block can be used (even if deck height changes) the cost saveings are substaintial, allowing "different" blocks to be machined on the same assembly lines. It stands to reason that many part may be interchanged in ways that the mfg didn't invision.
The orignal post was about split exhaust manifolding, One would have to check port size on the 282 engine vs that of the the smaller 6's, but regardless, it is a good bet that it will bolt on either way for the reasons mentioned above.