Moving this over from the small block thread for more input...

I have a 93 351w converted to a 4bbl, and all the emissions are gone. I put an edelbrock 1406 on it in place of an oversized holley that came on it. The truck has always run rich. VERY rich. Blows alot of black, smells like gas, fouls plugs. Ignitions is good, brand new procomp set up. Fuel pressure is at 6 psi. Timing is set at 12 degrees. Plug gap is whatever stock setting would be for a 93 351 motor, motorcraft plugs. 8.8mm Accel wires. Im pretty positive its either timing, plug gap or the carb. After messing with it the other day I forgot to plug a vacuum line back into the manifold and ever since it has run like a scalded dog. Ive never had so much power out of it, but it still runs a little rich. Why would a vacuum leak cause an increase in performance?! How do I lean this pig out! (p.s. the carb is factory edelbrock calibration and I drive at 5500 to 6500 elevation....ive ordered the calibration kit to see if that helps)
<!-- / message -->

 

Personally, I hate Edelbrock carbs, I stopped working on them a long time ago. I'd put a 600 Holley on there. Ford used Holley carbs on their trucks because they're damn good.

p.s. a vacuum leak will increase power if the motor is running very rich, because the vac leak is leaning it out!

 

Oh, and how much initial advance and total advance is the motor running?

 

How do I measure this initial and total advance?

 

[/IMG]


Got it! Calibratin kit worked great. and I regapped from 47 out to 52. She runs like a top now

 

sweet good to here.

 

i don't understand why people bad mouth edelbrock? you tune them in right they're better than a power valve blowout holley. especially when you purchase the whole intake,carb, and cam kits. but hey your diesel driven bronco loves that holley huh? is that really a cummins? isn't that a dodge? i hope not. talk about soiling a good ford product.

 

Oh that's an easy one. The Edelbrock units are too much like the Rochester Q-jet which baffled guys who refused to even try to understand its superior design qualities. Smaller, more efficient, and utilizing a much more accurate fuel metering setup than any other carb of its time, the Q-jet was "just too complicated" for many who just didn't want to think there was a better way to build a carburetor. Sorry Ford, but this is one the Rochester Division @ GM actually got right. This is the same example I pull out when guys start carrying on about how much better and easier to maintain a carburetor setup is over EFI. Its a classic case of, "Well, I don't understand it and I don't want to take the time to learn it. But since I know this antiquated way of doing it, I will sit back and trash-talk the new way because I can't appear foolish in the face of something that works better". Its quite a classic response really. I've just grown so used to hearing it, I usually just ignore it now.

- steps down from soapbox, picks it up and walks off -

No offense intended here guys, I've just been around car folks for so long and heard so many excuses for clinging to old technology that are really rather ridiculous that I just end up laughing at them.

 

I'd rather ride a bicycle than put an edelbrock on my car. I build carbs for a living, well, not much anymore, for obvious reasons, but regardless, my hatred for edelbrocks isn't for lack of experience.

 

As for fuel injection; the '83 Bronco I built with a '95 5-speed and a '95 300 motor that I switched to carb was averaging more than 20 mpg, everyday for years, bringing me to and from work. The 1bbl carburetor I built mostly from 1972 pieces, and the distributor was an old rebuilt points unit.
I haven't encountered anyone with comparable mpg to mine on any fuel injected 300 trucks. How does the 40 year old technology do so well? Because it's simple and it does the job. It's also incredibly cheap, which honestly, is another reason I like it. The main benefit of electronic fuel injection is to allow people to have a nice running machine without requiring any tuning knowledge. They can just jump in and drive, and that's a good thing, but it's not for me. Complexity without benefit pisses me off more than anything. Now mechanical fuel injection, on the other hand, such as is found on diesels, I fully embrace.
Ironically, I've also worked as a computer hardware technician in the past, and I still build computers for family and friends when needed, so I'm certainly no technophobe, I simply don't want computers in my vehicles.

 

I honestly didn't think my ideas about why some folks don't like certain products applied to you personally, Am. Th. (I I wouldn't even begin the process of strapping a diesel into my truck for lack of knowledge on my part). The post just struck a nerve with me. No offense intended.

 

you two should get a room and stop hijacking threads for your soapbox derby's.

 

haha sorry about that

 

Oh, I wasn't sure about it, no offense intended by me either.

 

Ive started a war...haha