Hot Rod Forum banner
61 - 80 of 114 Posts

·
'23 T-Bucket Pickup
Joined
·
1,857 Posts
I think any Ford is bad on mileage.
Ford liked to run the square bore 4 bbl carburetor, where Chevy would run the spread bore Quadrajet carburetor with the tiny primaries. Quadrajet is still my favorite carburetor. Just don’t take any shortcuts rebuilding one. There are 14 critical adjustments for a properly operating Quadrajet. I’ve never built one that disappointed me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Discussion Starter · #64 ·
The old motorcraft carbs were horrible on gas. The jetting and/or metering rods on the primary venturies are a major determining factor in fuel mileage. I’ve seen it proven many times that better fuel mileage can be obtained with a 4 bbl versus a 2 bbl carburetor. Ford had a habit of putting big 2 bbl carbs with huge jetting on 351 V8s. I gained 3mpg on my 75 Nova SS with 350 by changing out the factory 2 bbl Rochester in favor of a Quadrajet and factory manifold from a 327 275 hp. Performance increase was like shifting into passing gear. Btw. Car cam with factory 3 on the floor. It also got headers when the factory 12,000 mile warranty warranty expired. I’d get 24 mpg on the interstate running 70 mph.
So what you are saying, is that 1. I would need to get a 4 bbl carb. and 2. upgrade to a performance manifold?
As I was already thinking about those kind of upgrades that would be awesome if it improved fuel mileage. Would an edelbrock intake do the trick?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Discussion Starter · #65 ·

·
More for Less Racer
Joined
·
20,559 Posts
Ill look for one. My brother , strongly, discouraged me from the 351 windsor for some reason
Probably because he doesn't know any better. The 351W is a great base to build off of, if you wanted you could build it clear up to a 408" to 427" stroker in the stock block.
Weak point is just about every stock head ever put on one, so with stock heads its just like every other small block ford with the same problem....intake ports are just too small.
Put an aftermarket head on it and watch it wake right the hell up.

Just shop for a 351W short block....you don't need the rest of a stock motor because everything else is going to be an aftermarket part.....heads, rocker arms, pushrods, valvecovers, intake, waterpump, oil pan, oil pump shaft, distributor, headers, carburetor/fuel injection.
I think any Ford is bad on mileage.
Take a look at the 5.0 Mustangs, 1984-96-ish.. Decent power, easily hopped up and still get good mileage 25-26 mpg hwy.
 

·
More for Less Racer
Joined
·
20,559 Posts
Also, would this deal be kind of what you guys are talking about?Single-Quad Manifold and carb Kit for Small-Block Ford 289-302
Something like that would be fine....but wait until you find an engine before you jump and buy that....the 289/302W manifold and 351W manifold are not the same size....the 351W is a "tall block" basically....289/302 block is 8.2" deck height and the 351W is 9.5" deck height.
They use the same cylinder heads but the 351W mounts them up higher and farther apart, so the intake has to be bigger and wider.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Discussion Starter · #68 ·
Something like that would be fine....but wait until you find an engine before you jump and buy that....the 289/302W manifold and 351W manifold are not the same size....the 351W is a "tall block" basically....289/302 block is 8.2" deck height and the 351W is 9.5" deck height.
They use the same cylinder heads but the 351W mounts them up higher and farther apart, so the intake has to be bigger and wider.
So I found a 302 sbf for 300 that will ship. I just went in between the 289 and the 351w. Its got good power and with the carb and intake, it should up the mileage a bit. Before I get the intake and carb combo, i need to look into quarter panels and front fenders for it. Thats going to bring the cost up a lil but it will be worth it in the end.
Probably because he doesn't know any better. The 351W is a great base to build off of, if you wanted you could build it clear up to a 408" to 427" stroker in the stock block.
Weak point is just about every stock head ever put on one, so with stock heads its just like every other small block ford with the same problem....intake ports are just too small.
Put an aftermarket head on it and watch it wake right the hell up.

Just shop for a 351W short block....you don't need the rest of a stock motor because everything else is going to be an aftermarket part.....heads, rocker arms, pushrods, valvecovers, intake, waterpump, oil pan, oil pump shaft, distributor, headers, carburetor/fuel injection.

Take a look at the 5.0 Mustangs, 1984-96-ish.. Decent power, easily hopped up and still get good mileage 25-26 mpg hwy.
also would it be easier to find a kit that would supply the rockers arms, pushrods, valvecovers, ect.?
 

·
'23 T-Bucket Pickup
Joined
·
1,857 Posts
So what you are saying, is that 1. I would need to get a 4 bbl carb. and 2. upgrade to a performance manifold?
As I was already thinking about those kind of upgrades that would be awesome if it improved fuel mileage. Would an edelbrock intake do the trick?
You don’t want anything other than a dual plane manifold for streetability and fuel mileage. Stay away from tunnel ram intakes. As far as a specific manifold, I am not familiar with aftermarket parts, specifically. I’ve only built stock engines. For street use you don’t want large cc intake runners or large port heads. The only benefit you would get from those would be at rpms above 4000. Not ideal for cruising or around town. I actually rebuilt a .060 over 350 for my 78 K10 4 wheel drive using stock cam, heads, intake manifold and tuned Quadrajet carburetor that got 21 mpg with 2.76 gears. Seriously. Many skeptics on the fuel mileage, but I verified it many times. On the downside, the power pretty much flattened out @ 4,500 rpm. But it was a torque monster at low rpm. So it really all depends on what you plan to use the Mustang for. If it’s for a daily driver with street manners or looking for power at higher rpm will determine heads, camshaft, intake and carburetor choice.
 

·
'23 T-Bucket Pickup
Joined
·
1,857 Posts
You don’t want anything other than a dual plane manifold for streetability and fuel mileage. Stay away from tunnel ram intakes. As far as a specific manifold, I am not familiar with aftermarket parts, specifically. I’ve only built stock engines. For street use you don’t want large cc intake runners or large port heads. The only benefit you would get from those would be at rpms above 4000. Not ideal for cruising or around town. I actually rebuilt a .060 over 350 for my 78 K10 4 wheel drive using stock cam, heads, intake manifold and tuned Quadrajet carburetor that got 21 mpg with 2.76 gears. Seriously. Many skeptics on the fuel mileage, but I verified it many times. On the downside, the power pretty much flattened out @ 4,500 rpm. But it was a torque monster at low rpm. So it really all depends on what you plan to use the Mustang for. If it’s for a daily driver with street manners or looking for power at higher rpm will determine heads, camshaft, intake and carburetor choice.
I’ve had good success with tuning Edelbrock carburetors for fuel mileage and performance also. I’m just a Quadrajet junkie. As I said earlier, I’m not a good source for recommending an intake. But that said, I’m sure Edelbrock makes a good dual plane intake. Just don’t buy a race manifold for the street.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Discussion Starter · #71 ·
You don’t want anything other than a dual plane manifold for streetability and fuel mileage. Stay away from tunnel ram intakes. As far as a specific manifold, I am not familiar with aftermarket parts, specifically. I’ve only built stock engines. For street use you don’t want large cc intake runners or large port heads. The only benefit you would get from those would be at rpms above 4000. Not ideal for cruising or around town. I actually rebuilt a .060 over 350 for my 78 K10 4 wheel drive using stock cam, heads, intake manifold and tuned Quadrajet carburetor that got 21 mpg with 2.76 gears. Seriously. Many skeptics on the fuel mileage, but I verified it many times. On the downside, the power pretty much flattened out @ 4,500 rpm. But it was a torque monster at low rpm. So it really all depends on what you plan to use the Mustang for. If it’s for a daily driver with street manners or looking for power at higher rpm will determine heads, camshaft, intake and carburetor choice.
So, I would have to choose between daily driver and power? I was thinking on driving it daily to school and through town. Would I need to find a different intake and carb then the ones I showed?
 

·
'23 T-Bucket Pickup
Joined
·
1,857 Posts
So, I would have to choose between daily driver and power? I was thinking on driving it daily to school and through town. Would I need to find a different intake and carb then the ones I showed?
I didn’t look at the intake that you listed. I have a couple things do do right now, but I’ll get back with you. There are also many camshafts that will provide street manners and power up to 5,500 rpm. I had a Sig Erson street master in a small block Chevy that came alive @ 1800 rpm and was good up to 5,500 rpm. It would have been better at takeoff if I had put a looser torque converter in the T-bucket. I was running a turbo 350C with a stock converter. The cam had a slight lope at idle. Still definitely nice street manners. Made the little 305 come to life, even with everything else being stock other than valve springs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Discussion Starter · #73 ·
I didn’t look at the intake that you listed. I have a couple things do do right now, but I’ll get back with you. There are also many camshafts that will provide street manners and power up to 5,500 rpm. I had a Sig Erson street master in a small block Chevy that came alive @ 1800 rpm and was good up to 5,500 rpm. It would have been better at takeoff if I had put a looser torque converter in the T-bucket. I was running a turbo 350C with a stock converter. The cam had a slight lope at idle. Still definitely nice street manners. Made the little 305 come to life, even with everything else being stock other than valve springs.
Ok, im going to have a look at some dual plane intakes and probably will have dual carbs. Thanks for the advice, also with the camshaft ill have a look at lunch or some time. When I looked, the intake was different.
 

·
'23 T-Bucket Pickup
Joined
·
1,857 Posts
I didn’t look at the intake that you listed. I have a couple things do do right now, but I’ll get back with you. There are also many camshafts that will provide street manners and power up to 5,500 rpm. I had a Sig Erson street master in a small block Chevy that came alive @ 1800 rpm and was good up to 5,500 rpm. It would have been better at takeoff if I had put a looser torque converter in the T-bucket. I was running a turbo 350C with a stock converter. The cam had a slight lope at idle. Still definitely nice street manners. Made the little 305 come to life, even with everything else being stock other than valve springs.
I had actually gotten my camshaft recommendation from an engine machine shop. What you don’t want is a camshaft that has a higher rpm number at the bottom of it’s power range. A 3500 to 6000 rpm camshaft would be terrible for an everyday driver. Camshaft builders can recommend the proper stall speed converter for your camshaft choice. I’d stay away from any camshaft that recommended a stall speed higher than 2500 rpm.
 

·
'23 T-Bucket Pickup
Joined
·
1,857 Posts
Ok, im going to have a look at some dual plane intakes and probably will have dual carbs. Thanks for the advice, also with the camshaft ill have a look at lunch or some time. When I looked, the intake was different.
I definitely would NOT do dual carbs. No way is it necessary to flow that much. Even full blown race engines only run single 4 bbl carbs. I have a friend who made a total dog out of a 68 Ford police car with a 428 Police Interceptor engine. Dual Quads were only used before large cfm carburetors were made. And only on race designed engines. Like a 1962 Chevrolet 409 cubic inch 425 horsepower which was the subject of a Beach Boys song. “ MY FOUR SPEED DUAL QUAD POSITRACTION 409. Both Ford and Mopar hated that car because it do the drag strip. Google the song. I think you’ll enjoy it.
 

·
'23 T-Bucket Pickup
Joined
·
1,857 Posts
I definitely would NOT do dual carbs. No way is it necessary to flow that much. Even full blown race engines only run single 4 bbl carbs. I have a friend who made a total dog out of a 68 Ford police car with a 428 Police Interceptor engine. Dual Quads were only used before large cfm carburetors were made. And only on race designed engines. Like a 1962 Chevrolet 409 cubic inch 425 horsepower which was the subject of a Beach Boys song. “ MY FOUR SPEED DUAL QUAD POSITRACTION 409. Both Ford and Mopar hated that car because it do the drag strip. Google the song. I think you’ll enjoy it.
The 429 dominated the dragstrip. My friend didn’t upgrade his 428. He only put on the dual quad intake and carburetors.
 

·
'23 T-Bucket Pickup
Joined
·
1,857 Posts
The 429 dominated the dragstrip. My friend didn’t upgrade his 428. He only put on the dual quad intake and carburetors.
I built a.030 over 454 for a buddy just a few years ago. The engine is stock from an 87 Chevy Suburban with an Edelbrock dual plane intake and a single 650 cfm Edelbrock carburetor. It never starves for fuel. A street 302 would never flow even 650 cfm. So dual carbs would definitely be a no/no
 

·
'23 T-Bucket Pickup
Joined
·
1,857 Posts
I built a.030 over 454 for a buddy just a few years ago. The engine is stock from an 87 Chevy Suburban with an Edelbrock dual plane intake and a single 650 cfm Edelbrock carburetor. It never starves for fuel. A street 302 would never flow even 650 cfm. So dual carbs would definitely be a no/no
BTW the 454 (now 460) is in a 67 Camaro that came with a 250 cube 6 cylinder. He’s running 3:42 gears and is quite happy with that, but plans to upgrade to a 6 speed transmission for highway driving.
 

·
'23 T-Bucket Pickup
Joined
·
1,857 Posts
This was my T-bucket. I always ran it with the top off. The last configuration was a 5.7 Vortec totally stock other than an 850 cfm Quadrajet and off brand polished aluminum spread bore intake. 700R4 transmission with 3.38 rear gears. It was scary quick all the way from off the line to 130 mph. It had more top end than that but I backed off when I remembered that I didn’t have high speed rated tires. Back problems caused me to sell it in 2019.
 

·
'23 T-Bucket Pickup
Joined
·
1,857 Posts
This was my T-bucket. I always ran it with the top off. The last configuration was a 5.7 Vortec totally stock other than an 850 cfm Quadrajet and off brand polished aluminum spread bore intake. 700R4 transmission with 3.38 rear gears. It was scary quick all the way from off the line to 130 mph. It had more top end than that but I backed off when I remembered that I didn’t have high speed rated tires. Back problems caused me to sell it in 2019.
I looked at the Edelbrock kit. You’ll notice that it comes with a 500 cfm carburetor. That’s all your 302 will ever need. It’s up to you if you want to spend that much for an intake. Personally I wouldn’t. Skip White sells many aftermarket parts that are comparable at much lower prices. I would be wary of an off brand carburetor, but I’ve had good results with the 3 off brand intakes that I’ve bought. I’d check eBay. I’ve bought some awesome valve covers also. I’m partial to polished aluminum, but you can go with chrome everything if your pockets are deep enough. Even chrome Edelbrock carbs.
 
61 - 80 of 114 Posts
Top