Author Topic: Horsepower curves ??? (Read 13136 times)

bombi · « **on:** January 13, 2014, 03:03:13 PM »

Anyone have any horsepower curves for a 1979 Ford Pinto 2.3liter or similar ?

Clydesdale80 · « **Reply #1 on:** January 13, 2014, 04:16:48 PM »

This is what CamQuest comes up with if i put in everthing as close to stock as I can. It must be in the ballpark because the peaks I found online said horsepower 88 @ 4800 RPM, torque 118 @ 2100 RPM. Just drop everything a little for smog equipment. Graph starts at 1000rpm, each vertical line is another 1000rpm, each horizontal line is 10hp/10ft-lbs

This is at best an estimation, someone else can probably give you a better answer.

bombi · « **Reply #2 on:** January 14, 2014, 08:28:17 AM »

thanks for taking the time, every little bit helps.

amc49 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 15, 2014, 05:05:04 PM »

That's close when power drag is figured in. Old school gross measurements had around 100 hp at crank and 125 ft.lbs. torque........ ......

dick1172762 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 15, 2014, 06:32:02 PM »

And that was when NEW! Buy a ricer if you want hp. Buy a Pinto if you want lasting value and style. When was the last time you saw a 71/80 ricer? Oh! I forgot, that they didn't rust proof them. Oh well, live and learn so they say.

slowride · « **Reply #5 on:** January 16, 2014, 10:45:11 AM »

Nothing constructive to add, but almost spit out my coffee when I saw the subject line.......

Pinto and horsepower aren't normally synonymous.

bombi · « **Reply #6 on:** January 23, 2014, 01:31:52 PM »

LOL.....

just looking to see if replacing the torque converter in will help in this application, and what stall speed to go with...
thanks.

slowride · « **Reply #7 on:** January 23, 2014, 07:57:05 PM »

Quote from: bombi on January 23, 2014, 01:31:52 PM

LOL.....

just looking to see if replacing the torque converter in will help in this application, and what stall speed to go with...
thanks.

I've been looking at another TC, but not necessarily for stall. Believe it or not, the tweaks on the 2.3 make it launch hard. I just don't want it coming apart at a stoplight....

Clydesdale80 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 23, 2014, 09:01:12 PM »

I've been playing with that program more and what it shows would make me agree with Slowride. It seems that the 2.3 (atleast how CamQuest models it) responds to some fairly basic mods with a surprising increase in torque. Exhaust and intake gains are substantial. I ran it with my planned build and it gave me this...

This is a more involved n/a 10:1 build with porting/valvework, headers, 4bbl, and stock cam. I feel that the numbers it gives are probably quite optimistic but I also think it shows that there is potential gains.

slowride · « **Reply #9 on:** January 24, 2014, 10:37:02 AM »

If I can get my hands on a turbo intake for a reasonable price, I'll be modifying it to be a dual plane, and run a 38 Weber. While I have made the wagon launch hard, the mid-range torque (even with the Comp Cam I picked) is what makes this car "slow". With the runner layout on the stock intake, I'm just beating my head against the wall (and wasting gas) with a useless secondary on the 5200.

Clydesdale80 · « **Reply #10 on:** January 24, 2014, 12:13:38 PM »

to get that long flat torque curve I basically set everything up for low rpm torque and then added big valves which made the torque hold on for another couple thousand rpm. If I can build an engine thats even close to that graph it should be very drivable and fun, especially with a T-5 behind it.

slowride · « **Reply #11 on:** January 24, 2014, 04:37:19 PM »

Bigger valves will give it more RPM potential (if flow is holding it back), but my feelings are the crappy A/F distribution is holding it back far more. These intakes are notorious for running #2 & 3 fat and 1 & 4 lean. On top of that, you open a secondary (right over the #2 & 3 runners) and it compounds the problem.
I run an auto and it's a bit deceiving having the torque multiplication at low RPM and having it go away in the mid-range. Give me just a bit more mid and I'll forget about more RPM.

Clydesdale80 · « **Reply #12 on:** January 24, 2014, 04:53:00 PM »

I agree, the stock intake is terrible for fuel distribution. This simulation had a long, approximately equal length runner intake with a 390cfm four bbl. I have an offenhauser dualport that I plan to start with on my engine but eventually i'd like to make something from scratch.

dick1172762 · « **Reply #13 on:** January 24, 2014, 05:12:38 PM »

The stock intake is bad but the problem is the carb and the intake. Put a 38/38 Weber on the stock intake and the engine will come alive. Why you ask? On the 38/38 both barrels work together at all times, not just when your foot is in it. The GT-Pinto class in SCCA requires a stock intake with a 500 Holley two barrel carb. Those Pintos run as fast as new Vetts on a road race track. I saw one clocked at 145MPH at Summit Point race track. Cheap way to fix that "bad stock intake".

ToniJ1960 · « **Reply #14 on:** January 24, 2014, 05:50:19 PM »

Quote from: dick1172762 on January 24, 2014, 05:12:38 PM

The stock intake is bad but the problem is the carb and the intake. Put a 38/38 Weber on the stock intake and the engine will come alive. Why you ask? On the 38/38 both barrels work together at all times, not just when your foot is in it. The GT-Pinto class in SCCA requires a stock intake with a 500 Holley two barrel carb. Those Pintos run as fast as new Vetts on a road race track. I saw one clocked at 145MPH at Summit Point race track. Cheap way to fix that "bad stock intake".

Now look I lpve my Pinto and my Corvette, but be rel ok. Maybe an 84 like mine, but not a new Corvette

slowride · « **Reply #15 on:** January 24, 2014, 07:23:08 PM »

The 38/38 is one half of the plan. The other half is the modified EFI intake. The gray areas are where the dividers are milled out to create a dual plane intake (1&4, 2&3). Since the 38/38 is tunable for each barrel (and plane), it should be miles ahead of a stock carb intake. The black circles are the barrels. Mill a small equalizer slot in the divider between the planes and it should help smooth the intake pulses and give a better idle signal.
Theoretically of course

dick1172762 · « **Reply #16 on:** January 24, 2014, 10:54:31 PM »

I don't know what your picture is of, but I have two EFI intakes in front of me and both have four holes below the carb. Explain please.

slowride · « **Reply #17 on:** January 25, 2014, 12:47:17 AM »

The gray areas are where the 4 holes will be milled to create 2 planes. The black circles are where the venturis of the 38/38 will be.
I just got a stock turbo intake off a XR4TI for $38 shipped, so now to find a deal no a Weber.....

dick1172762 · « **Reply #18 on:** January 25, 2014, 09:36:08 AM »

Do like I did. Get a 1.08 to a 1.21 Motorcraft / Autolite two barrel carb. Dirt cheap even if you buy a new one. Got mine for $25.00. The new ones are 1/2 the price of a 38/38. The 1.21 is a 351 CFM and the 1.08 is 280 CFM. On the mini stock web site (4m.net) the racer like them better than the Holley's. Every part for them is still for sale, and there is several sites on you-tube on how to rebuild the carbs. Look at Mikes Carburetor-Parts.com to see how to's and parts for sale. The carbs also use Holley power valves. They also are not bothered by 4 cylinder vibration like a Holley

74 PintoWagon · « **Reply #19 on:** January 25, 2014, 09:55:24 AM »

Hey Dick, are these the ones you're talking about??, they're about as simple as they can get..
http://www.carburetion.com/ford2v.htm

dick1172762 · « **Reply #20 on:** January 25, 2014, 10:50:56 AM »

ART! That's them. The people on the mini-stock web site (4m.net) say you can put one together in the dark. Much stuff on you-tube about the carbs. Mikes carbs is very good. He's been building them for 45 years. Looks like the cheap way to go. They were on Ford pick up till they went to fuel injection. Thanks for the web site.~~~Dick

slowride · « **Reply #21 on:** January 25, 2014, 11:24:29 AM »

That carb can work too. All that's needed carb-wise is a 2 barrel synchronous rather than progressive (or secondary). The modification to the manifold won't work with a progressive.

74 PintoWagon · « **Reply #22 on:** January 25, 2014, 12:14:07 PM »

Thanks Dick, thought those were the ones, I've rebuilt a ton of those, heck you can do them in your sleep, LOL, In fact I may still have a couple of them in the junk pile I'll have to look, if they work on the EFI intake that'll be an easy setup.

74 PintoWagon · « **Reply #23 on:** January 25, 2014, 12:25:47 PM »

Wow, there's a ton of it on U-Tube..

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Ford+2150+autolite+carbureter&page=1

dick1172762 · « **Reply #24 on:** January 25, 2014, 05:16:41 PM »

Quote from: 74 PintoWagon on January 25, 2014, 12:14:07 PM

Thanks Dick, thought those were the ones, I've rebuilt a ton of those, heck you can do them in your sleep, LOL, In fact I may still have a couple of them in the junk pile I'll have to look, if they work on the EFI intake that'll be an easy setup.

Art! They'll only work on an EFI intake if you make / buy an adapter. Just like a Holley (they have the same bolt pattern) Go for it. Its all bolt on. Even a Vega owner could do it, well maybe.

74 PintoWagon · « **Reply #25 on:** January 25, 2014, 05:32:31 PM »

Quote from: dick1172762 on January 25, 2014, 05:16:41 PM

Art! They'll only work on an EFI intake if you make / buy an adapter. Just like a Holley (they have the same bolt pattern) Go for it. Its all bolt on. Even a Vega owner could do it, well maybe.

Yep, think I'll go that route be an easy deal, ain't nothing to make an adapter... A Vega owner, now that funny, lol..

CRUISEWAGON77 · « **Reply #26 on:** January 27, 2014, 01:39:35 AM »

What year do the four barrel intakes come on turbo coupes?

slowride · « **Reply #27 on:** January 27, 2014, 03:07:10 PM »

No 4 barrels on turbos. Though it LOOKS like a 4 barrel pad, an upper intake bolts to this flange. The issue I have with "knifeblading" or adapters (or both) is you are not addressing the biggest issue. The A/F mixture is still in shear trying to go sideways into a runner. What I'm going to try is machining plenums that will DROP the floor and smooth the transition from venturi to the runner. The added benefit is rather than the carb seeing individual vacuum signals creating a "pulse", the plenum should combine the pulses making a smoother vacuum signal, and (hopefully) smoother idle.

CRUISEWAGON77 · « **Reply #28 on:** January 27, 2014, 03:40:59 PM »

Are there better intake/carb setups to look at for a lightly modified 2.3 (big valves, light port work, mild cam, .30 over bore)?

dick1172762 · « **Reply #29 on:** January 27, 2014, 05:07:23 PM »

WEBERS WILL DO THAT.

News:

Current Classifieds

Author Topic: Horsepower curves ??? (Read 13136 times)