Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Not a whole lot to be said for the old 302's huh?
Anonymous

Date:
Not a whole lot to be said for the old 302's huh?


Well of all the forums I must say this one is lacking.....

And for good reason! biggrin

I mean the 302 was a dog until PFI and roller cams come along!

__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 1442
Date:

Fuck this forum...... fuck this bullshit site....... fuck Rex!!!!!!!! This is a big waste on the WWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

__________________

 

 



OUT-OF-HAND

Status: Online
Posts: 9076
Date:

Yet you keep posting away.

__________________

State of Michigan Certified Master Auto Mechanic +2

Specialty Certified Since 1994



Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 1442
Date:

And I will continue to post..... so shut your fucking mouth, ASSHOLE!

__________________

 

 



OUT-OF-HAND

Status: Online
Posts: 9076
Date:

Yawn yawn

__________________

State of Michigan Certified Master Auto Mechanic +2

Specialty Certified Since 1994



IN THE RUNNING

Status: Offline
Posts: 1677
Date:

Yo People,

Any of these older push-rod OHV V-8's, will unleash anywhere up to 50HP just by fitting a reasonable 4-barrel carburettor and manifold ! The crappy 2-barrels supplied by the factory were only to save production costs. A well matched set-up will give you the same or most likely better fuel consumption, as well as unleashing those extra horses from the stable !!! A dual-plane intake manifold ( like the standard one probably fitted ) with the 4-barrel carb of your choice will maintain the Torque and Power characteristics where they already are in the RPM range, just a lot more urge inbetween ! A single-plane manifold will give you less low-down power and poorer running when cold...However, fit a good performance camshaft along with a free-flowing dual exhaust, and you'll blow the dual-plane package away using the same 4-barrel carb at RPM's above 4,500...

Cheers,

Rastus

__________________


IN THE RUNNING

Status: Offline
Posts: 1677
Date:

Yo people,

It makes a lot of sense to further elaborate as to why the fitting of a 4-barrel carburettor will unleash these ponnies hidden in your motor, & why your intake manifold choice will further enhance / alter the power-curve characteristics of your engine.

CARBURETTOR CHOICES

There are so many carburettor/manifold combinations to choose from, that it's quite easy to get confused, & just as easy to make a mistake, whereby you'll lose good drive-ability manners, if-not horsepower...Most of the manufacturers out there nearly always offered some-sort of performance package that usually involved the fitting of a factory carb & manifold set-up, that almost always had the "bugs" ironed-out, provided a "legal-tender" set-up, & unleashed the missing horsepower & torque. These should be the first to consider, if only because they work-well, & they're legal !

Alternatively, there are many & varied 4-barrel designs to choose from, & experience has shown me that a "spread-bore" design will always offer great mileage & drive-ability, whilst releasing all those horses when needed. They do this by having small primary barrels, that allows the carb to see the induction pulse from each cylinder as a much-stronger-negative-pressure-signal that will always provide better fuel atomization, and therefore better throttle-response with no-holes or dips. It should be remembered that the carburettor is actually a fuel-supply-pump whose job is to provide the correct amount of atomized fuel for the engines needs at all RPMs where possible. It must do its best to convert a liquid into a near gas-state to get the most energy out of the fuel supplied.

At a certain point in the RPM range, the primary side of the carburettor will reach a "full-saturation", & will no-longer be able to provide the air & fuel demands of the engine. At this point, the larger secondary side of a progressive 4-barrel carburettor will start supplying the engine with more air & fuel to meet these new demands. The beauty of the progressive type of 4-barrel carb is that the actuation of the secondary side is almost always controlled by the engines demands, usually by the means of an air-flap ( like a choke-valve ) above the secondary-side venturies, so that only the correct amount of fuel & air is delivered as per engine demands, regardless of poor throttle control. These set-points are also adjustable that will allow you to tune it to your own engines needs.

Surprisingly maybe to some people, a great carburettor to fit onto many differing engines ( & sizes ) is the Rochester Quadrajet. It's capable of flowing up-to 730-750 CFM, depending on year-model, & will work very well on engines of a capacity anywhere from 250 inches & up-to say 350 inches, when a " Duel-plane" intake manifold is used. Typically the primary barrels will have 34mm diameter, & the secondaries will have a massive 54mm diameter barrels. Because of this carbs operating principal, even if it's too-big for the job, it will only supply what's needed to your motor when correctly ( & relatively easily ) set-up. Nothing exceeds like excess LOL !

The general rule to follow when deciding on a carb for your engine, especially when using a "duel-plane" manifold, is to use a carb who's flow-rate capability is 1.8 - 2.3 times the cubic inch capacity of the engine your using. eg. Using a 302 Windsor ? Then 302 x 2.3 = 694.6. This would indicate that a carb of around 650-700 CFM will do the job just nicely ! If you've fitted a cam that makes the engine produce more power higher in the RPM-range, then this carb has an extra 50 CFM of air/fuel flow to provide your engine with...

DUAL PLANE MANIFOLDS

Put very simply, the "dual-plane" intake manifold basically divides your V-8 engines intake tract into 2-halves...Or if you rather, into 2 x 4-cylinder engines...The reasons for doing this were to provide relatively-even fuel distribution to all of your cylinders, as development tests proved many-varied air / fuel distribution problems at different operating RPMs occurred when using a single-plane design. This occurrence happens because of firing orders, & hence intake-valve openings of some cylinders that are side-by-side to each other, causing one of the two cylinders to be starved of air & fuel, at different operating RPMs. Also, sometimes two cylinders will be drawing the mixture on the same cylinder-bank one-after-the-other, causing the same issues when the air/fuel mixture is needed to be yanked back-across to the other bank. I won't be more specific since different makes of engines will have numbered their cylinders differently to one-another, & therefore have a different "firing-order", yet the physical pattern of this "induction-flow" will be near identical, if not the same.

Possibly the most important thing to realize here is that with the "dual-plane" design, each of your engines cylinders "sees" only 1/2 of your carburettors flow capacity, since each cylinder is only exposed to two of the 4-barrels. This obviously enhances the negative-pressure-induction-pulses from your cylinder, & aids greatly to fuel distribution plus atomization, but will almost always have a limit as to how-far your engine will freely rev-out to. This type of manifold has other unavoidable hurdes in that each intake runner is a different length, & almost always meets into a "T" intersection where the air/fuel then gets redirected into cylinders on opposite banks. On a more positive & realistic note, should you find that you only rev your engine out to say 4,500 - 5,000 RPM, then this type of manifold design will be exactly what you need !

SINGLE PLANE MANIFOLDS

When all-out power & revs beyond the say 5,00 RPM threshold are desired, there is no better choice ! This manifold is designed to have "relatively" straight, direct & equal length runners, & the problems associated with fuel distribution are considered secondary when compared to the out-right performance gains...Especially since they abate a little when the engine is at full & stable operating temperature, & continued / sustained high RPM use is evident. The "bugs" can be "tuned-out", if not ironed-out completely by various methods, often by extending the the length of the intake-runner of the cylinders that fire one-after-the-other & when side-by-side on the same cylinder bank...Carburettor selection is much more difficult to generalize here since each cylinder sees all 4-barrells of the carburettor, hence the full flow capacity potential is available to each cylinder. As a general guide though, for say a 5.0 ltr capacity engine that will comfortably rev to say 6,000 - 6,500 RPM, a progressive 4-barrel carb of between 500-600 CFM would probably provide reasonable drivability through-out the entire rev-range, without sacrificing top-end power, but it all comes down to a lot of variables, not least of which is valve over-lap ( cam ) & your own specific requirements. You will however drink more fuel & have poorer running when the engine is cold, but you can still quite successfully use a set-up like this on the streets !

Cheers,

Rastus

PS There's nothing quite like the induction-roar heard on a V-8 with a 4-barrel carb at WOT !!! Even SELLC will say it's just as nice as a CISE 560 at WOT, if not better LOL !



__________________


FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Status: Offline
Posts: 3612
Date:

I'm a believer in Annular venturi carbs like the Autolite 4100, some Demon carbs, and the new Summit carb which is a cross between the Autolite 4100 and a Holley.

What does Rex think?

__________________

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."     Lyndon B. Johnson



OUT-OF-HAND

Status: Online
Posts: 9076
Date:

Rex thinks digital ignition, coil over plug, direct injection and 4 camshafts is the way to go.

But in terms of bang for your buck aka lower cost horsepower I like the Edelbrock carbs, which are basiclly re-branded Weber's.

For whatever reason, Holly carbs like to crap out often plus I never was a big fan of Chrysler which was the only OE installer of Holly carbs that I am aware of. Quadra-Jets are okay, but the feedback carbs were a pain in the ass, and even then all the QJ's are a pain in the ass to rebuild, however I will give the Rochesters this ---- they were pretty fucking tuff and packed a good punch for factory GM vehicles. Then again I bet if you built a shit ton of any of them it would soon be childs play, but that's my point... The Edelbrock / Weber carbs were the ones that could handle a backfire and several years of abuse with no need to mess with it.

But that's just me. Carbs were on there way out when I was on my way in.



__________________

State of Michigan Certified Master Auto Mechanic +2

Specialty Certified Since 1994



RIP - Veteran User

Status: Offline
Posts: 337
Date:

In all honesty, there is nothing quite like the sound of a big inch (or even a medium sized) 90 degree V8 with a long cam. "Back in the day" we would spend hours unraveling the secrets of cams and carbs.... toting a grab bag of jets and maybe some step up rods, depending on your carb of choice.

Where I live is an affluent area. Many friends prefer "modern" cars..... a 2006 Viper, 2006 Corvette and even a 2013 Shelby. Others are "retro" kinda guys who prefer the satisfaction of carb tuning and distributor ignitions.

Rastus.... the quadrajet wasn't the only spreadbore carb to ever see production. The Motorcraft (Autolite) 4300 series was fitted in place of the Motorcraft 4100 square bore found on older engines. Part of the spreadbore idea was improved throttle response and drivability at low RPMs. Even Holley offered (might still) a spreadbore that wasn't up to the task. We need to remember that the Q-jet has a better fuel metering system.

Carb choice has much to do with driving choices. If your vintage ride sees nearly daily driver use in the summer, a spreadbore or Edelbrock is likely a good choice (the Edelbrock is derived or based on the Carter AFB) simply because of improved fuel metering. I work on a couple of cars where the throttle is either at idle or it isn't - the only consideration is filling the "fuel hole" when the throttle is opened.

Choosing an intake manifold isn't an arbitrary decision. There are a lot of considerations to be made when opting for a dual plane or single plane configuration.

__________________


IN THE RUNNING

Status: Offline
Posts: 1677
Date:

Hi PogoPossum,

Thanks for your insight & quality post ! Yeah, I agree that there's nothing like the sound of the larger V-8's at WOT running with long-period cams, & I think it's a shame that the younger generation of people are left with the modern EFI engines with arguably very limited tuning options, & very expensive ones at that ! This whole thread was pretty vacant of posts for a long time, & it seemed to me to be a door to open to the not-so-distant past, & to remind people that once upon a time there was quite a few and many varied tuning options for all makes of engines, V-8's or otherwise. You could have fun & experiment with things even with a limited budget, & make your own unique combination of "Go-Fast-Parts" & have fun with your friends.

Anyhow, you're correct in saying that there are a lot of elements to consider when choosing an intake-manifold, particularly a single-plane design, & I was only trying to show that not so long ago, you had a smorgas-board of options to choose from, single-plane manifolds being one of them, & that the power out-puts of these engines still provide comparable & even superior out-puts to even the modern-day engines, all-be-it without modern-day refinements etc.

Anyhow, the point for me is that you can still have an older car that is more than capable of delivering the goods, & have plenty of money in the bank to play with things, plus have the potential to out-perform some modern cars for a fraction of the cost. The only problems would be the law & how legal-tender your modifications hold up...

Cheers,

Rastus

__________________


RIP - Veteran User

Status: Offline
Posts: 337
Date:

I'll begin by stating that I live in Alberta, Canada. We currently have zip for emissions laws and zip for anti-tampering laws. Some think this is great - I don't feel quite the same about it and would like to see many modifications outlawed. Of course, those that have CARB certification would be a pass but, certainly, the "rolling the coal" diesel mods can die in agony for all I care.

I am unsure, but I think this applies for most of Canada and probably most of the US as well - simply choose a model year that didn't have any emissions requirements (seems to me that Ford introduced the Thermactor pump on California engines in about '67, the year before I began my apprenticeship indenture). In '68 I purchased a used Mustang vert with the 289/225 horse - basically a 289 with an Autolite 4100 and a cast iron dual plane manifold. Being young and knowing everything there ever was to know, the go fast stuff resembled a 289/271 horse configuration with no consideration for the bottom end. A late night encounter and a missed 2-3 shift had the engine fitting real loose in a 5 gallon pail (if you catch my drift).. Before life as I knew it changed, the car was a biatch to start when it was hot, idled at 1200ish and could soak the airfilter with gas because of the fuel stand off if left to idle.

This summer, my buddy suffered another mid-life crisis and purchased a 2013 Shelby (two, actually - the first was written off with 678 kilometers on the clock - that the second nearly matched the first exactly was amazing). It has an idle that sounds "ok, I suppose" but without the character of the long camshaft idea. He has made few mods - air intake and TB, programming, suspension mods with some noticeable gains and no change to the idle 8^(.

He bought the wreck off the insurance company for "a decent price" but decided not to do anything with it and sold it later. Imagine that powertrain in a Raptor or an old cruiser.

The old days when cam grinders had little for help desks and we were happy if the headers fit without to much reconstruction - those were the days when a youngster could actually be involved in making horsepower (I spent a lot of time playing with fuel and timing curves) - unlike todays "computer program off the rack" mods. But I can remember when my Dad brought our first TV home......

__________________


IN THE RUNNING

Status: Offline
Posts: 1677
Date:

Hey PogoPossum,

I'll bet you've been very-careful with your 2nd-3rd gear-shifts ever since ! I think you're right in suggesting finding a "pre-emission" compliant vehicle, not so much because you "can" modify them to a certain extent, but simply because the overall performance of even a standard engine was surprisingly pretty-good ! Even the factory performance options were more than subtle improvements over standard, & they combined a full-warranty to go with this option ! For me it's not so-much that the performance of todays cars is less ( finally after 25+ years they actually go quite well again ! ), but they lack "personality"...Who knows, in 20 years time I'll probably be driving something that's "new" today, & saying the same thing LOL !

Still, let's all hope that they keep finding the "crude" to keep piston-power going strong, because I think it a sad day should we all be forced to drive electric cars ! Can you imagine them trying sling us a $100:00 dollar-bill to re-charge the battery at the service station ?...

Cheers,

Rastus

PS One of the main reasons why I bought my little 1973 3.5ltr SLC was knowing that by the end of the 1980's, it actually produced about 30 more horse-power than the 4.5ltr...And also because it happily revs to 6,300rpm in standard trim with no-mods. Combine that with to-days ever increasing fuel costs, the 3.5 "should" be reasonably easy to afford to run for the next ?- many years... Around 600ks per tank of gas to me is better than 500ks per tank (4.5ltr), especially since it's $1:80 per litre for 98 octane fuel now down this way...That's about $6:80 US per gallon...

__________________


RIP - Veteran User

Status: Offline
Posts: 337
Date:

Not sure what "SLC" might be.... is that a Rex kinda thing? 1973, though.... mmmmmmm - egr valves and catastrophic converters. Good for us but bad for "us", if you catch my drift.

__________________


IN THE RUNNING

Status: Offline
Posts: 1677
Date:

Hey PogoPossum,

The tag "SLC" (I'm pretty sure) stands for Super Light Coupe...which was always a laugh even at its release by the Germans, - ( they called it the "panzer-wagon" ) as the car weighs in at 1650kgs with fuel, but no passengers. It's basically a 107 chassis vehicle, ( Think of the 107 SL ) with a fixed roof, & "real / proper" rear-seats...I think the chassis was lengthened from where the door ends by about 6-inches to provide the extra, though still limited rear-seat comfort. Nice looking cars...The motor(s) feature OHC's, aluminium cylinder heads & intake-manifold, - ( with large round ports ), 4-bolt mains, steel forged & nitrided cranks & rods, EFI, & the ability to sit at red-line all-day long ( for years ) without breaking or wearing out. Though only 214 cubes, it did make around 205bhp when new & was capable of around 130mph when fitted with a manual 4-speed box. The 4.5 ltr was good for 225bhp & more top-speed, I'm pretty sure around the 140mph mark...So how fast do you want to go ? The best thing though is that the safety features for the time were amazing. Too many to list here !

Here in Australia, the pollution laws didn't start taking effect until around 1976, egr-valves & air-pumps etc...We didn't get Unleaded fuel until 1986, & with that came our first Catalytic Convertors. So 1973 meant that we still could get cars as the designers originally intended them to be, without all the "bolt-on"- power-robbing emission components. Actually, Australia has been really lucky in the sense that we've always had the top-spec models of any-make imported, so the original performance of any-ones engines was never compromised until much later ! Even our local branch of General Motors ( Holden ) offered us six different V-8 & gearbox options at one-time ! For memory we could get the 10.25:1 350 Chev, the 327, the 307, the 283, plus our then new Australian-made 308 & 253 V-8's. All high-out-put ( for the time ) engines ! Hope this gives you a little insight into the land of Oz !

Rastus

PS Since this "is" a Ford thread...I better add that we got all that Ford had to send us, plus, strangely enough, we made our own 302 Cleveland here...True, it was unique to Australia only I think.



-- Edited by Rastus on Wednesday 18th of September 2013 02:10:45 AM

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard