Yeah you can Reno.
But thats too easy.
There are bolt in Central (or theottle body) FI systems out there. But the multiport design gives the best (argueable) atomazation since its right beside the valve. Plus there is no need to worry about having a puddle area in the runner for fuel. Check out a first gen 924 engine for that. The early Bosch FI was a constant fuel feed system.
That intake you posted has pedistals in the cast that can be machined to accept an injector. The IH mani doesn't. And welding cast iron is a rather touch and go procedure. More often than not it results in both parts being scrapped. The high carbon content of cast, as well as the internal stresses the carbon clusters make, doesn't make that operation to appealing.
The way I understood it, you want to basically make a set of velocity stacks that bolt to the heads and then connect them to a common plenum with silicone hoses. Basically I would have to make it out of tube and "square" the ends by clamping it in a vise. I can get it close but there would be a significant amount of filler rod put in it to cover the holes. Not to mention a possiblity of uneven flow. With the fairly abrupt change from square to round, the pressure wave bouncing back from the now closed valve would have its momentum reduced signifcantly. (Think of how sound comes out of a tuba bell.) Thus reducing the effectiveness of optimum runner length.
The problem with the square vs round port is rather simple. The more velocity of the incoming air charge, the better the low lift cylinder filling, the better the low end torque. With a round port the best flow (highest pressure) is dead center. Right where the valve stem is, and the fattest part of the valve. With a square port the high pressure flow area is a bit more spread out and can give a "window effect" around the head and stem of the valve.
In a race head you want as much window as you can. Air goes straight through. I've actually stuck a light in the spark plug hole of a Truck engine and could see it shine past the open valve and up the entire runner. Check out the intake port on an GM LS series, very tall retangular port (to enlarge the window area). The LS engines are the culmination of 50 years of R&D on the pushrod V8. Everything that really works is on it.
The best example in reference is the Tunnel Port 302. In 1968, Ford took the tunnel port idea from the Grand National (NASCAR) Tunnel Port 427 and put it on the 302 for the SCCA Trans Am Mustangs. The big problem was that the design had great top end HP. But much less torque compared to a high port FE. But then these engines were built for Daytona and 'Dega.
The season was a trainwreck. The little 302 had no usable torque range. The drivers were regularly spinning them up to 8 & 9K just to get enough power to pull the car out of the corners. In a time before advanced metallurgy, you can imagine they didn't last long. More often than not, more Mustangs DNF'ed due to engine failure than finished.
The big FE had enough CID to pull massive amounts of air to get a usable torque range until the high flow design reached its operating range. The Windsor didn't and had to result to extremely high engine speeds to stay competitive. Square vs. round, square wins.
I know too much history, but if you don't laern from it, you're doomed to repeat it.
