New carb ideas?
Thread Starter
|
Laughing Gas
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 873
Likes: 37
From: Ohio
Another option is to buy a teapot. I seen one on ebay the other day for $50. You would have to rebuild it to run it though. There are some drawbacks to the holley teapots but if you are just setting it on a stock engine in a vehicle you only drive casualy I dont see them being an issue.
Postmaster
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,688
Likes: 4
From: Southern Oregon
The 4100 series carbs basically came in two versions. 1.12 venturis at 600 cfm, and 1.08 venturi @ 480 cfm. The venturi size is cast into the carb body on its side. Also called a shoebox. The smaller version was used on 289 Mustangs. They keep rising in popularity, so a good used unit plus rebuild may end up costing as much as a new Holley 390.
Ford produced one version of the 1.12 venturi 4100 for the high performance K code Mustang, only. It wasnt used in any other model as I understand it. Havent heard of anyone trying one in a Y powered vehicle, but they are hard to find, easy to misidentify, and even more expensive.
4100s like their little brother the 2100s are great carbs. But on an "A" intake with adapter the 390 Holley sounds like the way to go.
Ford produced one version of the 1.12 venturi 4100 for the high performance K code Mustang, only. It wasnt used in any other model as I understand it. Havent heard of anyone trying one in a Y powered vehicle, but they are hard to find, easy to misidentify, and even more expensive.
4100s like their little brother the 2100s are great carbs. But on an "A" intake with adapter the 390 Holley sounds like the way to go.
Cargo Master
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,389
Likes: 58
On race Y's, 650cfm and higher is not uncommon. The Y in the engine masters ran a 950. In testing, a 1050 dominator showed an improvement but there was not enough time to build an adapter which fit the rules. So they can run much larger carb in certain circumstances. Like any engine, it depends a lot on how it is built and where it will operate.
Cargo Master
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,095
Likes: 2
From: Wahpeton ND
I am realizing they probobly used a stroker kit here but a 292 with perfect brathing capabilites would have to turn over 12,000 rpm to use a 1100 CFM dominator.
Large carbs are generaly a waste of money on street driven engines. The ammount of power gained by the larger carb is lost as it is sitting at the high end of the rpms. Would you drive around town in second gear at 5500 rpm to make power?
Large carbs are generaly a waste of money on street driven engines. The ammount of power gained by the larger carb is lost as it is sitting at the high end of the rpms. Would you drive around town in second gear at 5500 rpm to make power?
Cargo Master
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,389
Likes: 58
It is a stroker - a 4" stroke, for 375ci. It would make a very nice street engine. It would definitely be a performance engine but it has decent street manners and ran on 91 octane. It put out 386ft/bs @3000rpm, peaking at 415.9ft/lbs @4700rpm. The testing range was 3000rpm to 7000rpm. It idled at 900rpm. The Dominator put out even better torque. This goes to show that the build of the engine has a lot to do with the ideal carb size.
But, you are right, the engine used by unibody62 is mostly stock and by no means will a large carb be desirable, thus the reason we suggest something in the 400 to 500cfm area.
But, you are right, the engine used by unibody62 is mostly stock and by no means will a large carb be desirable, thus the reason we suggest something in the 400 to 500cfm area.
Cargo Master
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,095
Likes: 2
From: Wahpeton ND
Ive been telling 302 owners for years that a 390 or 450 CFM carb would give great milage, throttle response and power. No one can listen though.
Yes, I do realize that a highly modified engine turning high rpms can use 1000CFM. I belive that certain power packed 289 fords had in excess of 800 CFM from the factory.
Even though; most hot engines, of less then 350 CID do not need in excess of 600 CFM.
Yes, I do realize that a highly modified engine turning high rpms can use 1000CFM. I belive that certain power packed 289 fords had in excess of 800 CFM from the factory.
Even though; most hot engines, of less then 350 CID do not need in excess of 600 CFM.
Postmaster
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,688
Likes: 4
From: Southern Oregon
Ive been telling 302 owners for years that a 390 or 450 CFM carb would give great milage, throttle response and power. No one can listen though.
Yes, I do realize that a highly modified engine turning high rpms can use 1000CFM. I belive that certain power packed 289 fords had in excess of 800 CFM from the factory.
Even though; most hot engines, of less then 350 CID do not need in excess of 600 CFM.
Yes, I do realize that a highly modified engine turning high rpms can use 1000CFM. I belive that certain power packed 289 fords had in excess of 800 CFM from the factory.
Even though; most hot engines, of less then 350 CID do not need in excess of 600 CFM.
Dont want to dwell on this much more, but if a person thinks there is wiggle room for a 600 cfm Holley or Edelbrock on a close to stock 292 (I dont), there is none with a 600 cfm 4100, meant for the larger displacement FEs. Holleys are tuneable, 4100s were produced in many configurations each meant for a particular weight of car/truck, transmission, displacement, rear end, color...
Cargo Master
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,095
Likes: 2
From: Wahpeton ND
I will get off the issue, and back on track.
The autolite 4100 will not fit on the "A" type manifold. That carb uses the same bolt pattern as the holleys.
You need a "B" manifold Then I would use a 390 or 450 CFM holley or a tuned down 500 CFM edelbrock. The advantage to the holleys is that they are cheep and easy to tune to the application. The drawback is that they have a tendency to leak.
The autolite 4100 will not fit on the "A" type manifold. That carb uses the same bolt pattern as the holleys.
You need a "B" manifold Then I would use a 390 or 450 CFM holley or a tuned down 500 CFM edelbrock. The advantage to the holleys is that they are cheep and easy to tune to the application. The drawback is that they have a tendency to leak.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
Postmaster
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,688
Likes: 4
From: Southern Oregon
I will get off the issue, and back on track.
The autolite 4100 will not fit on the "A" type manifold. That carb uses the same bolt pattern as the holleys.
You need a "B" manifold Then I would use a 390 or 450 CFM holley or a tuned down 500 CFM edelbrock. The advantage to the holleys is that they are cheep and easy to tune to the application. The drawback is that they have a tendency to leak.
The autolite 4100 will not fit on the "A" type manifold. That carb uses the same bolt pattern as the holleys.
You need a "B" manifold Then I would use a 390 or 450 CFM holley or a tuned down 500 CFM edelbrock. The advantage to the holleys is that they are cheep and easy to tune to the application. The drawback is that they have a tendency to leak.
If it were me I would go with the earlier post that said forget it all and get a B, sell the A.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
muscletruck7379
Ford Inline Six, 200, 250, 4.9L / 300
1
Dec 28, 2011 06:02 PM
Knight70F250
Big Block V8 - 385 Series (6.1/370, 7.0/429, 7.5/460)
5
Dec 12, 2006 06:46 PM
sbishop
Ford Inline Six, 200, 250, 4.9L / 300
19
Jan 15, 2004 08:30 PM
btorear
Y-Block V8 (239, 272, 292, 312, 317, 341, 368)
2
Nov 5, 2003 12:39 PM
