What Are They Thinking? - Page 3 - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Engine
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2004, 08:51 PM
Max Keith's Avatar
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Fort Madison,Iowa
Age: 66
Posts: 2,391
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
wwtt?

more pix
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	intake 5.jpg
Views:	89
Size:	17.1 KB
ID:	2843  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2004, 08:58 PM
Max Keith's Avatar
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Fort Madison,Iowa
Age: 66
Posts: 2,391
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
wwtt?

last pic
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	intake 7.jpg
Views:	87
Size:	11.4 KB
ID:	2844  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2004, 09:22 PM
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: over there, next to that.
Posts: 210
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Interesting pix. I was gonna pm my thoughts but it wouldn't let me post pix unless I saved them somewhere on the net, so I will try to put them here.


I know your not done and given where your at and its your idea, you have probably already thought of this but here it is.


I would blend the lower intake ports until they just touched, until they were more of a square shape, to allow a smooth transition of flow into the ports. Did I make any sense? (first picture)

Second I would try and get rid of the majority of the middle area in the plenum opening to the lower intake, I am sure you already thought of that though..haha...kind of a given huh?

Only thing that caught my attention besides the blending of the ports, would it be possible to mount the carbs sideways or would the progressive linkage be an engineering marvel? Don't the dual carb roots blowers mount the carbs sideways?
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	intake 5blend.jpg
Views:	101
Size:	20.5 KB
ID:	2847  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2004, 10:27 PM
Max Keith's Avatar
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Fort Madison,Iowa
Age: 66
Posts: 2,391
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
wwtt?

I do plan to blend the runners into the plenum, mostly its going to be a deep radious job and the ports will remain round at the top, however the upper ends will be radioused out and slightly squared off as you suggested.
I plan to fill in along the sides and front and rear of the plenm with epoxy, to make a smoother transition down to the runners, rather than leaving it so angular inside. I think that should sufficiently reduce the cross section and volumn of the plenum.
Sitting the carbs sideways would be great if my fuel bowls had center hung floats. The problem with sitting them sideways, as production carbs would be that the fuel would flow to the back of the bowls under acceleration and starve the forward venturi, and possibly flooding the rears. Another problem would be total starvation when taking a hard rt corner, and sitting up a linkage would be a nitemare to work out, unless I was running all 3 carbs at the same time, then it would be a simple matter of just hooking the linkages straight to each other. The problem with that would be like syncronizing motorcycle carbs and running into jetting and power valve selection.
Some carb setups on roots blowers are sideways, but then I think most of those run center hung floats.
the cross piece you see in the bottom of the plenum will be removed, as it blocks two of the intake ports in the lower half. The reason for that piece being left in there was I used a 302 gasket as a pattern and that strip would have covered the heat riser or EGR port going to the upper half of the EFI intake. That piece of engineering marvel is absent on the 351 intake.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 10-20-2004, 08:00 AM
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: over there, next to that.
Posts: 210
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Yeah after you mentioned that, I remember you stated you used a 302 gasket, I know what your talking about.


Too bad they cannot be mounted sideways.


In a perfect world a block of aluminum and a cnc machine would really make the transition a work of art huh?


Instead of epoxy, would it be easier to make a V shaped insert out of metal?


What about this, instead of facing the carbs forward or sideways what about staggered? Probably another complicated linkage. For some reason I don't like how the two barrel ports sit sideways and have to transition into inline ports...probably more aesthetics than functon, who knows?


Just throwing ideas out there, later
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 10-20-2004, 08:21 AM
spinn's Avatar
More dogs than bones
 

Last journal entry: This makes a huge difference
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,212
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 67 Times in 65 Posts
x

Last edited by spinn; 10-21-2004 at 09:08 AM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 10-20-2004, 09:24 AM
Max Keith's Avatar
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Fort Madison,Iowa
Age: 66
Posts: 2,391
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
wwtt?

One of the basic truths of performance is enhanced fuel/ air distribution, and that is where a 3 duece setup will out perform a 4 bbl., and it has nothing to do with cfm, at that point. Proper positioning of the carborator venturis over the intake ports is an essential criteria. As a rule, for instance, running 3 dueces of total cfm flow of a singel 4 bbl carb, will inhance the dynamics of the flow, especially at WOT, since there are less bends and curves to go around to get to the cylinders, as well as less sharing of the venturis per cylinder. In the same respect, dual quads of the same total cfm of a single 4 bbl will do even better at that point. If the singel carborator were so superior a setup, then why do people continue to run multiple carboration on race cars, and even on a lot of production vehicles. Im not even going to get into the EFI and TPI discussion, as its not germane here.Dyno testing over the years has born this out. Dont argue with me on this one, argue with the guys that do that stuff for a living.
As for the gas mileage, my old 61 Ford 390, with the factory, 3 dueces got consistand 17-18 mpg driving 65-70 on the highways, where most of the people I knew that had the single 2 bbl 390's of the time were lucky to get 17 mpg, and I did this with out disconnecting the outboard carbs. I will have to go with what I experienced on this one. There are many ways to stage carborators, for opening event etc. One of the main killers of multiple carboration on production vehicles was the added expense of making these more limited production items for the mass market, and of course, other things like wanky attornies that have nothing better to do with their time than to be a pain in the rear of the general population, by trying to force their ideas of what should and shouldnt be, by use of litigation and twisted evidence, and make millions in the process. Speaking of thinking outside the box, I do believe that is exactly what I am doing, not going with conventional norms here. And yes, while this 3 duece setup may look like a 900 lb gorilla sitting on my engine, aesthetics isnt the reason for constructing it. That is only a bi product. What I am searching for is increased horsepower at the mid and upper rpm bands with some modicum of driveability in more docile situations. As for hard core, I cut my eye teeth on a 46 Merc coupe with a 53 Merc flathead running 3 dueces, shaved flywheel,ported & relieved,3 angle valve job, Isky 404 cam, fenton headers, 60 overbore, and Offenhouser heads, backed with a 3 spd crash box. That was in 1962. Is that hard core enuff for you? Still going strong here.

On the point of using sheet metal to reform the inside of the plenum chamber, using epoxy will allow me to get the exact shape of plenum floor that I want, where with sheet metal, I would be somewhat limited to straight angles and cutting compound corners to make it fit. With the epoxy, I can put in as much as I want or as little to get the job done. The sheet metal wouldnt have the flexibility I need. Staggering the carbs would necessitate a wider plenum box. If I had the parts to do it and the desired carborators, I would have opted for going with a 4 duece setup or even a dual quad unit. The biggest problem with going with dual quads is that I dont have two 4 bbl carbs of 350 to 400 cfm each laying around. Over carboration can hurt you more than being undercarborated. As we used to say, you can always over wind an engine but you cant underwind it. In case you are wondering, the NASCAR guys are getting 600 plus hp out of their engines using a 390 cfm carborator with a restrictor plate under it that cuts that effective flow down to around 300 cfm, and they are turning over 7000 rpm doing it. just imagine what they would be getting out of them with say 700-800 cfm carbs?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 10-20-2004, 11:59 AM
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: over there, next to that.
Posts: 210
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I thought the v shape would be restricting, as well, I was gonna suggest a thin gauge insert with some hand formed curves...might take forever though huh?

Your right though the epoxy would be easier, I just don't have much faith in chemical creations, not that it wouldn't work, just not something I wanna deal with.

Your about to think I am nuts, but I was looking at a motorcycle carb and thought, it would look pretty slick having four weber side draft carbs. Every other one facing the opposite direction.



If nascar is able to make make that small a carb really perform, it would be interesting to see what they could do with more cfm.


Well keep us updated on where your at with the project and don't forget the pictures, later
Attached Images
File Type: bmp crapola.bmp (77.9 KB, 48 views)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 10-20-2004, 12:35 PM
spinn's Avatar
More dogs than bones
 

Last journal entry: This makes a huge difference
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,212
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 67 Times in 65 Posts
x

Last edited by spinn; 10-20-2004 at 06:28 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 10-20-2004, 01:28 PM
Max Keith's Avatar
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Fort Madison,Iowa
Age: 66
Posts: 2,391
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
wwtt?

In 1969, I helped a shipmate of mine install 6- 34 mm amal monoblocs on his new 69 Mustang with 250 c i I-9. This was done with the aid of a template published in a Hot Rod magazine in early 60's; the template was designed by Acton Miller, a well known road racer during the 40's and 50's. The 250 as did all that series of 6's had an integral cast intake on teh head. The setup worked quite well with the inclusion of some porting work and a slightly larger cam, and clifford Viper headers, oh yes and a .040 inch cut off the head to bump compression. This engine ran extremely well, using all 6 carbs at the same time. We managed to get them sycronized with the help of an old Brit bike racer. The only problem we observed was a slight stumble at about 1500 rpm, and hard pulling from there on out, clear up to and even over 6500 rpm. Looking back, I think we would have been better served by going with some slightly smaller bore carbs, say around 32 mm. The fun part was when he would dust off V-8's with more than 100 cid over him and to open the hood. Many insisted he had a Jag or some such exotic engine, in spite of the rather obvious engine design and the stock "Powered by Ford" rocker cover. In later years I also saw such setups applied to V-8's of varying sizes and displacement. Some ran well and some not so well. The key, I think was to get the proper carb set up in the first place. I think some were actually over carborated.

The epoxy I have to use on the intake is an aluminum base product, and should have no problem adhering to the plenum. I plan to drill small holes at random inside the plenum to force the putty down into to act as pegging points to further increase the bond. And no, I do not think you are nuts by now. To ask such questions is how one learns more about our hobby. Your incites have even made me go back and recall exactly how I did plan to handle some aspects of the project. Thanks for your incouragement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 10-20-2004, 05:27 PM
spinn's Avatar
More dogs than bones
 

Last journal entry: This makes a huge difference
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,212
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 67 Times in 65 Posts
well buy it and let me know what happens.

good luck
spinn

Last edited by spinn; 10-20-2004 at 06:29 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 10-20-2004, 05:35 PM
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: over there, next to that.
Posts: 210
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Spinn


I think you have it all wrong. Max Keith isn't buying anything per say, he is creating something. Its a project, if you feel you can offer some sort of insight into problems that he might encounter, then supply them, I am sure he would be interested in others thoughts.

People don't respond so well to sarcasm.



Max Keith


You might consider starting a new thread, I am sure many have taken one look at my initial post and haven't given it a second thought. There may be a couple internet surfers that would be interested in such a project or have some useful insight but didn't read far enough or even open the topic to see what your doing. Who knows? So where do you stand, any change of plans, forward movement or still planning? later
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 10-20-2004, 05:38 PM
Tazz
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: amherst,ohio
Age: 65
Posts: 2,049
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
If I had more disposable income....

but I don't so I'll stick with my Edelbrocks!!!


Tazz


Rat Rods Rule!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 10-20-2004, 08:16 PM
Max Keith's Avatar
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Fort Madison,Iowa
Age: 66
Posts: 2,391
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
wwtt?

Who has a lot of disposable income? So far with everything I have to work on the project, including my epoxy, the rebuild kits for the carbs, the lower half intake, etc is less than $100. I figure, by the time I get done, not including the time invested, (which is worth more than Heintz 57), I will have less than $200 in the project. Ya cant get more bare bones than that.
And thank you for your support and input, 357.
Curious! Am I talking over someones heads here?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 10-21-2004, 06:39 AM
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: over there, next to that.
Posts: 210
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Not sure...seems there is some underlying hostility.


I see it as a possible cost effective project that is gonna require a complex approach to tuning, and hope your successful.


I don't think tm454 realizes, they don't make dual carb setups for 351w engines much less triple, until barry grant comes out with a $2500 bolt on miracle for fords. If a person wants the dual carbs on the 351w, then it costs another $200 to purchase the spacer to use the 302 dual intake...that sux.


I am not certain where spinn is coming from at all.


Do you have any thoughts on an ideal stock type carb that would work on a mild 351w in a multiple carb application and be user friendly and reliable, for either a two or three carb setup?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Recent Engine posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.