i have a 66' with a 302 with 351 heads. i have been looking at putting a tri-power intake on it. i don't know if it is worth it. i have heard mix feelings about them. it's hard to find a original. does anyone have one? or know where i can find one? or have any info on them for me?

 

1st off Welcome to FTE, the FoMoCo Truck place on the net . . . .
2nd welcome to our world of "Slicks", these great 61-66 F Series Trucks.

No original Tri power set up FoMoCo ever made fits a small windsor block, 221-289-302-or 351 CID. This is especially so with a 221 -302 that has 351W heads on it. No OEM intake will fit that combination without some custom machine work. . . .
You'll have to purchase new, and purchase one to fit that combination [302 w/351W cylinder heads].

What would you use for carburetors? Most 2Bbl or 2V FoMoCo carbs when used in multiple are way over the CFM that a 302 runs best on. 3-400CFM 2V carbs = 1200 CFM at WOT, and 1200 CFM is enough to run nearly 3, 302 engines. 400 CFM is pretty average for a small 2V FoMoCo carb, and many are actually more than that.

Then you have linkage, fuel line diameter, pump capacities in terms of volume and PSI and all those issues to deal with. "Trips" are not very impressive when they run bad/ poorly to start with, and they usually do.

Three carbs don't impress me in a positive way even if/ when they run right. They're little more than a dose of glitz on later, SB, engines. Many of us simply say or mutter wonder why he would do a thing like that? But hey this is my take on it. . . .

For sure it's your project and you can do it up in any fashion you want to, except by using OEM parts & components that FoMoCo never made, it's aftermarket all the way.

just my $. 02 on the subject.

FBp

 

I agree with you about being much trouble with little improvement for the buck.
But not many of our fellow slick owners have ever had the unmistakable hair raising experience of sticking your foot down and listening to the roar of 3 unmuffled 2 barrel Holleys as they guzzle down the gas while you are pinned to he seat as a new factory 390 T Bird engine rated 340 hp and 425 ft lb torque doing its best to tear up a pair of 710 - 15 Dunlop premiim radials.
I put several 56 or 57 Shebbys in my rear view mirror while behind the wheel of a stripped down 58 Edsel Ranger with Ford's stout 3 speed thru a Hurst floor shift. That sound of the 3 2barrels delighting the ear of the lucky listener.
Trapper

 

3 deuces is a very outdated set-up. More hp and less headache with a single four barrel.

 

Oldtrapper,
Big difference between a HO 390 and a wimpy 302 that had its' compression lowered because it has those big chambered 351W Cyl Heads bolted on it, y'know?

I truly agree about the "throttle note" of a set of trips opening on an engine that can use them. There is really nothing like that sound. I could watch my fuel tank empty.

I think maybe 3/2s' on a Lo Comp 5.0L might balk & sneeze if it were stomped on like a 390 0r 427, or even a Poncho 389 or 421, doncha see?

I always stress "Recipe" method for engine building, and there's a world of difference between a FoMoCo, HO built, 390/406/410/427/438 FE and a SB Windsor with lowered compression & too much venturi area to pull up well off idle, or at least IMHO there is.

Two different engines two different functions. My younger brother used to have a 67 Fairlane GT 335-390 w/ 4 gear and strong FoMoCo 9", 3.89:1, locker. I'm remembering that sound right now and you're absolutely correct. The brother between us had a 66 Pony GT with the HO 289 & 4 gear. I had a 58 Del Rio with 66 428 SCJ (from a T-Bird) and a built C-6. when I put an OEM trip set up on my 428 I was king of the hill for a while.

If you mess with later EFI systems, like mid 90s GT, Shelby & SVO set ups, you know that on 5.0L, too much venturi area hurts them, but an infinitely increasing fuel to air ratio provided by a Mass Air Flow EFI system wakes them up & makes them truly nasty.

Unlike an FE, or a 385 (377-429-460) the SB Windsor behaves like a Blow Tie in that there is qwik response & higher RPM limits, but there ia also less torque & brute force power generated by them. They seem to make their best power with between 220 & 245 Sq mm of venturi area, which = a 70mm to 78mm diameter throttle body orrifice.
Over 80mm power falls off rapidly as area increases. Or so it would seem to me. . .
I gotta agree with instig8r63 that a well fit 4V with vacuum secondaries and jetted for internals of his 302 is where his "Bang For The Buck" is, aside from a MAFS/TP-EFI.

I'm probably puttin' my foot in my mouth in some folks opinion, but here I go anyhow. Altogether I think folks tend to go for "shock value" or impressions more than absolute function when considering engines and engine components. Of course I suppose it all depends on what ones' objective is to begin with. From my standpoint, performance is my primary objective. Reducing performance seems antithetical, diametrically opposed, or the opposite reason to tinker with a powerplant. IOW if I'm gonna work on it it's gonna be to improve its' performance and increase its' power & efficiencies as best I can. I believe that is the result of design and engineering, and not so much a result of what seems radical, kewl or superficially impressive to many.
Just my take on the subject. As afterthought, with Fuel $2.35- $2.40 a gallon I also think I need to maximaize all the power I can squeeze from every molecule of it I use.
What was that song lyric Bob Dylan had. . . . yeah! "The times they are a changin'"

FBp

 

Ford did make 3x2 intakes for the small block back in the 60's, they were over-the-counter item sold by the SVO equivalent of the day.

My Mustang magazines sell remakes of the whole tri-power setup; intake, 3 carbs, linkage, fuel rail, etc for about $1200. Pretty steep but no one can deny it's cool as hell. You could intake only for around $475.

You only run off the middle 2 barrel most of the time, in normal operation anyway, so I don't think your mileage would suffer that bad.

The 351W heads bolt up same as the 302/289 heads so I don't see why you would have any bolt-up issues.

Is this basically a stock 302, or has it been built up with a high performance cam and pistons with more compression, etc?

This is a good page on Ford Tri-Powe setups:
http://www.gerlecreek.com/documents/tptechnical.htm

Whichever direction you choose, good luck with your project.

 

Although 351W heads do boltup directly to smaller Windsor produced engine blocks,
the intake ports on 351s are taller than 289-302 are, causing a stock intake manifold for 289-302 to leak at tops of 351W intake ports. To check this out look at difference in the intake gaskets.

A 351 intake is too wide to fit 289-302 blocks, but a good machinist can cut[mill]it to fit but. There are however no FoMoCo 3/2s for a 351 from OEM.

Also. OTC parts [Over The Counter] are NOT OEM. Only the things sold on production vehicles are OEM parts/ equipment.

OTC is considered aftermarket, even if it comes from FoMoCo Dealer & has FoMoCo script on it, it's still a aftermarket item. I'm not saying nobody makes these manifolds, I'm saying the same thing instig*r-63 said it's old technology and there are better ways to get more bang for the buck. . . . Unless the bang one wants it having people react after seeing a trip set up.

FBp