Author Topic: Anyone know about this Edelbrock set-up? (Read 18099 times)

79prostreet · « **Reply #30 on:** December 17, 2013, 08:24:47 PM »

It's funny I come to the Pinto site and find the CBX being added to the conversation. The 1979 was the bad boy or them all, 103 hp (others 98hp) and a total rev monster. The pic I post is one I restored in 2009 and sold in 2011. The white 1982 I've owned since 1983.

74 PintoWagon · « **Reply #31 on:** December 17, 2013, 08:27:45 PM »

I bought that book when it came out along with a few others, good info if you're not familiar with Holleys.

74 PintoWagon · « **Reply #32 on:** December 17, 2013, 08:41:23 PM »

Quote from: dick1172762 on December 17, 2013, 05:29:24 PM

The 350 will fit on a 2.0 intake (with an adapter). The 390 will not. In this case, cheap is better. The original 390 has been out of production for 25/30 years. The new 390 carb is for small V6's and V8's. It has a power valve unlike the original which had none. Use it and block off the power valve? Who knows. No one has tried that as far as I know. You could be the first.

Have to look at an intake and see what it looks like, maybe a little machining and an adapter could make the 390 fit???, don't want to plug up the PV though, you have to go up on the jet to compensate and that will make it run fat as heck and kill mileage big time, but on a race deal with a big ole bump stick(with no manifold vacuum)that's a different story, PV's don't work then.

74 PintoWagon · « **Reply #33 on:** December 17, 2013, 09:25:58 PM »

Just stumbled onto this, anyone ever use one of these???..

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1971-1972-1973-1974-1975-1976-1977-FORD-PINTO-2-0-OFFENHAUSER-4V-INTAKE-6000-/151187050246?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item2333734f06&vxp=mtr

dick1172762 · « **Reply #34 on:** December 18, 2013, 07:34:58 PM »

Look on you tube for Honda RC166 @ Twin Ring Motegi , 11 July 2012 To hear and see that wild sounding 6 cylinder Honda. Also look up Motor Bike 6 Cylinder: Incredible Sound By Guy Coulon. ENJOY.

dick1172762 · « **Reply #35 on:** December 18, 2013, 07:41:05 PM »

Quote from: 74 PintoWagon on December 17, 2013, 11:19:04 AM

Isn't the 390 primaries smaller than the 350 2v?, smaller primaries would give better mileage on cruise.

I think when one drives a Pinto just for pleasure, he or she would not worry about gas mileage. They were never very good on mileage anyway. Just drive it and enjoy that you have some thing special.

dick1172762 · « **Reply #36 on:** December 18, 2013, 08:18:26 PM »

It would be really hard to put a 390 on a 2.0 intake as the 350 is bigger than the hole under the carb. After you install the Racer Walsh adapter, you have to blend the metal under the adapter plate to prevent a step under the carb. You also can use the ERG plate from a 2.3 intake in place of Walsh's adapter plate. No carb that you can put on a 2.0 or 2.3 will give you better mileage than the stock Holley / Weber as long as it is correctly set up. Putting on a EFI lower intake even with a stock carb will be a BIG improvement on a 2.3. The stock carb is plenty big for the street, just the 2.3 intake is JUNK spelled with a capital J. The 2.0 intake is near perfect and there's not much you can do to one.

74 PintoWagon · « **Reply #37 on:** December 18, 2013, 08:25:21 PM »

Quote from: dick1172762 on December 18, 2013, 07:41:05 PM

I think when one drives a Pinto just for pleasure, he or she would not worry about gas mileage.

Tell that to the wife it's her daily driver, lol..

74 PintoWagon · « **Reply #38 on:** December 18, 2013, 08:28:22 PM »

Quote from: dick1172762 on December 18, 2013, 08:18:26 PM

It would be really hard to put a 390 on a 2.0 intake as the 350 is bigger than the hole under the carb. After you install the Racer Walsh adapter, you have to blend the metal under the adapter plate to prevent a step under the carb. You also can use the ERG plate from a 2.3 intake in place of Walsh's adapter plate. No carb that you can put on a 2.0 or 2.3 will give you better mileage than the stock Holley / Weber as long as it is correctly set up. Putting on a EFI lower intake even with a stock carb will be a BIG improvement on a 2.3. The stock carb is plenty big for the street, just the 2.3 intake is JUNK spelled with a capital J. Then 2.0 intake in near perfect and there's not much you can do to one.

So, the thing to do would be to put a 2.0 intake on with the stock carb and a good header and a good ignition curve then.

amc49 · « **Reply #39 on:** December 18, 2013, 08:38:33 PM »

The Offy 'Dual Port' and what the 390 4 bbl. fits on. Entire manifold is split into two sections, upper and lower. Front two barrels feed upper level and back two barrels feed bottom level. Ford fours like that since they are so sensitive to fuel dropout. Only half the manifold area being used in normal driving keeps mixture velocity up.

Silly to mod to get a 4 bbl on a two barrel manifold like the 2.0, no way will it work unless using two barrels only.

74 PintoWagon · « **Reply #40 on:** December 18, 2013, 08:57:53 PM »

Well, guess I'll just put a 2.0 intake on and keep the stock carb and put a Mustang header on then, first thing will be to re work the crappy ignition curve.

dick1172762 · « **Reply #41 on:** December 18, 2013, 11:01:34 PM »

2.0 intake on a 2.3 requires a MAJOR adapter as the two intakes are different in every way. It can be done, but lot's of work, as the adapter will need to be about 1/2" thick and as big or bigger than the intake gasket off the 2.3. Go EFI lower as its the best, and the 350 Holley will bolt right on the adapter plate. Junk yards are full of them on Mustangs and Rangers.

74 PintoWagon · « **Reply #42 on:** December 19, 2013, 07:00:15 AM »

Crap, I thought they were a bolt on guess I could fire up the mill,lol. So, an EFI intake works maybe I'll look into that then..

amc49 · « **Reply #43 on:** December 19, 2013, 08:07:24 AM »

You match the adapter plate's holes to the 2.0 intake rather than the 2.3 head port. That allows the round port to fall very close to the round inner 2.3 ports and it falls also at the round area of the outer two oval ones. Then only very light matchup needed to make it work, you let the rest of the mismatch fall where it may and it works great, engine never sees the ugly there. I used 1/2" aluminum plate on mine and no mill facing of the surface that I fitted to the 2.0 intake, then after adapter pulled up tight on a 2.0 gasket I had the whole thing refaced flat at head surface and since then treat the double part as one and inseparable. Use 2.3 gasket on the outboard. Need to use a longer neck oil pressure switch and careful around the distributor. I had to make up a custom cap that had two plug wires coming out of the side of cap lower down. Worked like a top.

74 PintoWagon · « **Reply #44 on:** December 19, 2013, 08:47:52 AM »

Hmmm, don't sound like too big a job.

dick1172762 · « **Reply #45 on:** December 19, 2013, 09:02:25 AM »

Sounds like you used a dual Weber intake. We did that (long time ago in a land far away) and we had all 4 plug wires come out sideways. Much better than the S shape Weber intake for the 2.3. The EFI lower intake is the way to go, and really easy. I plug the injector holes with pipe plugs, do a little porting where the carb goes, and buy or make an adapter to go between the intake and the carb. The one I'm doing now is the same except I'm going to TRY to use a stock cab(Holley / Weber) for the street. May have to make both barrels work together. The D port intake bolted onto an oval port head works very well. So easy a caveman could do it.

74 PintoWagon · « **Reply #46 on:** December 19, 2013, 09:07:33 AM »

Ok, just looked in the shop manual at both heads and I see the difference now, don't look like it would be hard to make an adapter and if the 2.0 intake is that good, seems like it would be worth the effort to make one??, but if the EFI intake is just as good I guess that would be the easiest route.

amc49 · « **Reply #47 on:** December 20, 2013, 08:06:40 AM »

I never ran the EFI lower but that would've been my next move as well, I looked at them back in the day and liked what I saw.

The 2.3 head is designed like the manifold continued into the head and then someone cut the manifold in two at the head surface. 4 different ports on the 2.3 and calculated to make even flow impossible. The outer port angle is ridiculous and how Ford did that and thought it was good is beyond me. The actual 2.3 intake not so much a manifold as a dumping ground. Fuel dumped there and just happens to go into the cylinders, pretty hilarious. Who cares which one?

74 PintoWagon · « **Reply #48 on:** December 20, 2013, 09:47:01 AM »

Looks like the EFI intake is the practical way to go I guess, think I'll start looking for one of those. Sounds like the 2.3 intake was a real boner on Ford's part.

dick1172762 · « **Reply #49 on:** December 20, 2013, 11:28:30 AM »

The stock 2.3 intake was made the way it is for one reason, and only one reason. CHEAP to cast as all the runners are straight with no turns. There are way to make it work, but I never found them. I tried changing the angle of the ports under the carb, I tried putting a divider to block the ports from feeding each other. Every thing I did made it run worse, and it idled like a top fuel dragster. I then called a friend at Ford and asked him what to do next. He told me that when they tested 2.3's on a dyno, that it made no difference what carb they used as the HP stayed the same. We also tried screen wire wadded up under the carb(1963 trick on 427 Fords), but no improvement. Plain and simple, get a EFI lower intake and you'll see a big improvement in both idle and HP. Worked for me.

74 PintoWagon · « **Reply #50 on:** December 20, 2013, 11:46:51 AM »

That settles it, I'm going with the EFI for sure.

BTW, is there a particular year or are they all the same?..

dick1172762 · « **Reply #51 on:** December 20, 2013, 12:36:24 PM »

Only difference I've ever seen, is that some of them have a hole about 3/8" in diameter right in the center of the flange where the 4 holes (ports) come together. No big deal because you can plug it several different ways. And if you don't go wild on blending the ports most any thing will work. To use the stock carb, you will have to use a adapter on top of the adapter as it is made for a Holley 350 / 500 two barrel carb. I THINK you can use the stock part that your Holley / Weber bolts onto. Never tried that but it should work. That's what I'm planning to do on my 80 Pinto (I hope). Stock carb is plenty big for the street and will improve mileage too.

74 PintoWagon · « **Reply #52 on:** December 20, 2013, 12:45:39 PM »

Cool thanks, adapter is no biggie I can whip one of them up easy enough if I have to, I'm just gonna use the Holley/Weber on this one for the mileage and keep the wife happy, lol..

amc49 · « **Reply #53 on:** December 20, 2013, 10:29:34 PM »

'He told me that when they tested 2.3's on a dyno, that it made no difference what carb they used as the HP stayed the same.'

I heard similar to same thing, that if you modded the stock carb that you didn't mod hardly at all before the manifold itself became the limiting factor rather than carb. After better flowing aircleaner, remove one choke plate to run one only, clean up throttle shaft of screws sticking out, past that and wasted effort until the manifold was ditched. Further mods showed on carb alone but put carb on manifold and nothing, it disappeared. Manifold sucked and hard to fix as made with much thinner casting thickness than earlier stuff; any heavy grinding where you need it and hit water really quick. I myself thought to lengthen the two short ports but then that killed entry from above, just an all around fudged up part there. What with the EGR plate just metal everywhere you did not want it and hollow spots to be filled everywhere. Never seen a part that needed so much work, you'd be a freaking' design engineer by the time you were done.

74 PintoWagon · « **Reply #54 on:** December 21, 2013, 07:27:35 AM »

Ok, is this what you guys are talking about???..

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1991-1993-MUSTANG-4-CYLINDER-UPPER-LOWER-INTAKE-MANIFOLD-2-3-SKU-MT133-/141144492767?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&fits=Model%3AMustang&hash=item20dcde0adf&vxp=mtr

dick1172762 · « **Reply #55 on:** December 21, 2013, 08:17:28 AM »

NO WAY. I'll try to send you a picture. Computer is acting up.

amc49 · « **Reply #56 on:** December 21, 2013, 09:00:59 AM »

As he says, there is one better than that one........... ........the upper part is one piece rather than divided in two halves, the lower has 4 entry holes not 2............. ...the runners are almost equal length.

http://www.autozone.com/autozone/repairguides/Ford-Ranger-Bronco-II-1983-1990-Repair-Guide/ENGINE-MECHANICAL/Intake-Manifold/_/P-0900c15280077ed9

Go down to '2.3 EFI', a line drawing of it.

Ported........ ....

http://www.bo-port.com/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=18

Stock......... ......

https://www.google.com/search?q=ford+2.3+efi+intake+manifold&client=firefox-a&hs=v44&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&source=iu&imgil=m87C8Bqt3oScFM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcSAEE3VcEWJYJkvmRSSErLMx7yQFZlQa1mayt0xtAbrJ-EoINru%253B390%253B291%253B5uRyvE_znvZEXM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.bo-port.com%25252Findex.php%25253Fact%2525253DviewProd%25252526productId%2525253D18&sa=X&ei=bK61Urv4GbOjsQTq4YCAAQ&ved=0CD0Q9QEwAg&biw=1384&bih=895#facrc=_&imgdii=m87C8Bqt3oScFM%3A%3BAO-dpY3gBtIXeM%3Bm87C8Bqt3oScFM%3A&imgrc=m87C8Bqt3oScFM%3A%3B5uRyvE_znvZEXM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.bo-port.com%252Fimages%252Fuploads%252FLower_Intake.JPG%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.bo-port.com%252Findex.php%253Fact%253DviewProd%2526productId%253D18%3B390%3B291

dick1172762 · « **Reply #57 on:** December 21, 2013, 09:41:14 AM »

WAY TO GO AMC 49!!!! Good information and even better pictures. There one on E-bay for $54 shipped free. I payed $40 each 10 years ago for the two I have. Keep up the good work and keep the tech information coming. We need it!

74 PintoWagon · « **Reply #58 on:** December 21, 2013, 10:07:22 AM »

Thanks for the info, that one makes more sense super easy to make an adapter for it too, that's the one I'll be looking for.

dick1172762 · « **Reply #59 on:** December 21, 2013, 10:36:14 AM »

Quote from: 74 PintoWagon on December 21, 2013, 10:07:22 AM

Thanks for the info, that one makes more sense super easy to make an adapter for it too, that's the one I'll be looking for.

Here's what I an going to do. I'll put a 3/8" aluminum plate cut to fit on top of the intake. Then I'll put the entire Holey / Weber mount off of the 2.3 Pinto intake on top of the 3/8" plate. This will be necessary because the carb need to be at least 1" above the EFI intake. 2" would be even better if there is enough clearance. Easy mod but you MUST blend the ports of the EFI intake.

News:

Current Classifieds

Author Topic: Anyone know about this Edelbrock set-up? (Read 18099 times)