PINTO CAR CLUB of AMERICA
Welcome to FordPinto.com, The home of the PCCA => General Help- Ask the Experts... => Topic started by: rowdyrunabout on November 12, 2014, 05:21:11 PM
-
I have installed an offy 6114dp. I tried to get a 4150 to fit, but it was too big. I now have the Holley 8007 4bbl. It does fit. But I do not know how it is supposed to be orientated. Even the intake plate is directional so it makes a difference which way it turns. Does anyone have pics of this set up? Then the next question is how do I set up the accelerator linkage? Any help would be appreciated.
-
simple fix really. Just do exactly what I do when I have issues. Take your car to "rowdyrunabout"s garage and let him fix it! Works every time! ....so far!
-
Looking at a picture of the manifold (assumed correct image from Google images) it looks like there is an adapter needed, thus making it a two piece manifold. I assume different adapters for different carbs.??? Basically given the need for fuel/air distribution it appears the carb needs to be mounted sideways so the primaries/secondaries go front to back not side to side. Unless there was some oddball linkage originally designed it would be wise to use a cable setup for the throttle.
How large was the 4150? The 8007 is listed as 390 CFM and should be more than large enough. Possibly too large if you haven't modified the cam and exhaust (maybe to ports too) to use all that extra air. As a comparison point the 2.3 is about 144 CI. A lot of the 260/289 guys find a 450 CFM carb large enough on a stock motor. So, a 289 is twice as large, but only using 60 CFM more than the 8007 is providing your 2.3 (144).
Anyway, I have no experience with your setup, I'm just presenting general aspects for contemplation.
-
I have one of these on one of my Mustangs. I actually have a Holley 600 on it and it runs great! The engine is actually a mini-stock racing engine. The carb mounts sideways. Mine came with a linkage kit that bolts to the carb base that allows the factory throttle linkage to be adapted to it. I may be able to send you a pic tomorrow if you need it. You could possibly find the kit by googling it.
-
Here is a link for an intake with the linkage kit that I have. I can't find the number for it yet but you can see in the pic what it looks like. http://www.ebay.com/itm/NOS-Offy-Offenhauser-ford-2300-up-to-1982-4-barrel-intake-bronco-mustang-ranger-/151459467483?pt=Vintage_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item2343b010db&vxp=mtr
-
"I actually have a Holley 600 on it and it runs great! The engine is actually a mini-stock racing engine."
Well, that would likely explain why. In this case I'm assuming the rest of the engine is stock.
-
Most of the 600s out there being vacuum secondary, there is no way of telling if engine is using all of that and I'm betting no.
-
I run a holley 4412(500cfm 2v) on mine. I run high compression, big cam, big valves with header and 2.5" exhaust. The 4412 has been built to run on this motor, and it's still more than it really needs... mostly. Even the ess motors I've seen run the 4412. A 600cfm, with out a doubt, has more flow than the 2.3 could ever justify using. And down tuning a carb is just bad juju.
You'll want the 1", or so, manifold plate. For a few reasons, but mostly to help get the fuel mix into the cylinders in even quantities. And a low profile air cleaner.
-
Most of the 600s out there being vacuum secondary, there is no way of telling if engine is using all of that and I'm betting no.
It would have to flow some HUMONGOUS numbers for a 600 to open all the way, very simple way to find out how much though is with the paperclip trick, put it at the top of the arm and make a pass, then see how far the paperclip moved...
-
Go to the mini stock web site (4m.net) and you will see how a 600 cfm any kind of carb is way too much. With a FULL RACE ENGINE all say to run a 500 cfm two barrel Holley on a long track (over 1/4 mile) and to run a 350 cfm two barrel holley on a short track (under 1/4 mile). None say to run any kind of a four barrel carb on any kind of a track. The 8007 (390 cfm) carb is not the same as the old 390 cfm Holley as the old one did not have a power valve and the new one does. The 8007 is made for V-6's and small V-8's. Plug the power valve and it MIGHT work on a 2.3. Easy to tell if it would work. Holley tech says that is what you need to do to use it on a 2.3, but they also said that they had never tried that in the lab. Only one way to find out. I have used the old 390 cfm carb on a 2.3 with only a header add on, and it ran great. Seemed like it picked up 50 hp. And which way to mount the carb? I have seen it both ways and it worked the same.
-
I would mount carb so the primaries feed the higher port halves. Most of the flow is there anyway as the bottom of the port flows like pure crap and why the D port head was later made.
a 600 is one half of a 1200, when was the last time you saw a 289 or 302 V8 flow a Holley Dominator carb? Why I said what I did, HIGHLY unlikely. The back barrels may never even open and more like a 360-400 cfm carb at the 2 bbl. carb rating of 3" Hg vacuum then. 4 bbls. rate at 1.5 " and totally different rating. It takes a kick-ss 2.3 to flow a 4412 all the way out, that's half of a Holley 800 there.
Hotrod did a story way back and the 2.3 wouldn't flow the 600 until it was WAY MORE than a ministock engine, it was absolutely undriveable on the street but made 270 hp. @ 7500 rpm. NA not turbo. Didn't begin to even think about making any power until 3500 rpm. But 4500-7500? Watch out! Pure high rpm only race engine.
-
Ok, thanks for the help all around,. denmach1....ve ry funny! You posted the pic of what I installed on my car. that's what I bought off ebay. The exact item with linkage. So that's good- I'm on the right track. A little follow up.. My motor was built by B & R speedshop. was bored and has had a little headwork for compression. Has an aftermarket bigger cam. I'd have to find the tech sheet to get details. Has a speedway 3" header, but had to reduce at the frame to 2.5 to fit. Is a 4 speed too. My pinto has not run with any pep since it was built. The stock 2bbl intake and carb was from a 74 mustang- I think. At idle the motor shakes back and forth, and got 10-13 mph. The speedshop suggested the 4 bbl stating that I had way more cam and motor than fuel. They let me use the holley 4150 double pumper, but it just ran into the valve cover. So the offy intake says use the holley 8007 with 390cfm. I believe it's a vacuum secondary. If anyone does have pics of this set up. I welcome the help and any advice. Thanks!
-
The esslinger head has twice the flow, out of the box, as any oem cast head (even ported). And they almost always have a 4412 on them. There is just no way it can pull enough flow to ever use the 600cfm. It's just math.
-
I appreciate everyone's opinion and knowledge. When I put the 600 on my 2.3, I thought it would be too much. Well, the proof is in the pudding. She runs like a scalded dog and I wouldn't change a thing. I have a T5 behind it with a 3.55 rear. There are quite few disappointed 5.0 Foxes in my town who can't believe a little 'ol 2.3 just crushed their hopes and dreams. :\'( Just saying
-
Since the 600 is working for you, how is your engine modified?
-
It should run. But there are many issues with too much carb, and anyway you look at it a 600 on a 2.3 is too much. You are likely only getting part of the carbs potential flow, which throws off it's vacuum, which throws tuning. And jetting so far down and probably having the valves too restricted at idle, just because 2.3 liters won't draw, in the range the carb had been designed. Vacuum, fuel and air. It's all about the perfect balance and atomization. Pudding or no, imagine if you had the perfect carb on her!
-
I'm not sure what the internals of my engine are. I bought it years ago as a crate motor from a shop in Texas. The story as I remember is that this shop built a lot of these for the racing community and the economy tanked and they slashed the prices. Great deal for me. My first 2.3. Been hooked ever since.
-
Yeah, they're fun as hell! And coming from an old school mopar background, they're cheap to play with.
-
Doesn't matter what the internals are; the engine will not flow that much, you don't have enough swept displacement there. The 'running like a scalded dog' verifies it as well, the back barrels are not opening fully and what vacuum secondaries do. They will not open until the engine flows enough to pull them open. Stick a 600 DP on there (won't fit of course) and that engine will puke its' guts out. Not enough motor, I don't care how radical it is. More radical really does not effect pressure drop in no way like engine physical size does.
-
I believe you guys need a new thread. We have gone off the track. I'm using a 390cfm and I need some pics of a 4 bbl on a 2.3 please? Thanks
-
I believe you guys need a new thread. We have gone off the track. I'm using a 390cfm and I need some pics of a 4 bbl on a 2.3 please? Thanks
Why? We have already told you ever thing you asked for in your original post. Do what you want with that information and let us have our fun.
-
Go to http://www.cookieboys.com then to cookieboys toys, then to the 79 bobcat pictures of a 4 barrel carb on a 2.3 engine. Enjoy.
-
alright- I'm good now--thanks.
-
Make that website www.cookieboys toys.com
-
Make that website www.cookieboys toys.com
That's a nice collection! I believe it's an affliction at that point. I should be so lucky.
-
Pics of carb on manifold do not tell the whole tale there. Holley uses pull throttle, the linkage ends up backwards with carb in correct position of front barrels on the high deck of the intake. You have to pull, then push and pull again to recover proper Holley carb action. Why the linkage goes under carb to end up on the other side.
-
OK, I sat my carb just like the 79 bobcat pic. The offy linkage kit looks like it will work, but it will not. The plate that goes on the carb bolts does not fit. It will not go under the bowl to the studs without hitting. It's an inch or so short. I also don't like this offy linkage, because it has about 10 adjustment screws that on a motor are going to fall out! It does have to pull, then push, then pull the other side. Too much to be reliable. Now the bobcat pic uses a stock cable with a simple homemade bracket. Nothing to fall apart. It pulls like stock, just from the opposite side. I want to do the same thing. I can make that pretty easily. New problem. My accel cable will not reach. The bobcat has a much longer accel. cable than my 76 pinto. How can that be? Is there another vehicle that has a longer accelerator cable? is a 76 and 79 cable different?
-
here are a couple of pics to help.
-
As you can see, the linkage on the 79 Bobcat is home made with the primary barrels pointed toward the valve cover. Has to be a longer cable to reach that far. I have seen the primary's pointing both ways. If you can't get it to work, you can sell it on our site. Maybe even to me. LOL
-
Simple. I used a fox mustang 2.3 FI throttle cable circa 1987 or so and fabbed a simple bracket off the back carb stud to mount the cable housing. This cable even has built in return spring. Wish I had a pic to show just how easy.
-
The manifold there has two levels, an upper and a lower. If the pics I've seen (not the best quality mind you) show the decks there correctly, then the driverside two barrels are the upper deck. Running the carb backward like picced there is a bad mistake, the front barrels then feed into the lower deck and it flowing by itself flows like absolute CRAP. Best way I can think of to toss 50% of the all around performance that manifold can make.
-
I sat it on like the 79 bobcat had it pic'd. Yes the driver's side is the upper side; however, the lower side where i have the butterfly -- looks to have much more volume and flow to the 4 cyls. the top side seems smaller in area and primarily feeds what looks like 1 and 4. If I turn it how you say the linkage will be next to impossible. I might be able to rig it to pull at the bottom of the linkage, but that would likely really stress the cable.
-
Your stuff and do as you will but I'm telling you, a mistake with your thinking. Why the linkage is made the way it is. The primary is ALWAYS smaller than secondary, ever look at a spreadbore carb before? It's for better driveability at slow cruising and better mileage as well. The primary feeds the top of the port as well, where 80% of the port flow on a 2.3 is, they are DEAD when feeding the bottom part of the port like you propose.
Open area is NOT necessarily flow and often the indicator of lack of it. I'd think about why no intake on the planet is not simply an open box with short hole directly into the head yet you have never seen that except on dog engines with no power. In my view bolt that carb up like that and toss 10 hp right off the bat. The longer runners of the higher level make more torque at lower rpm. Go to the opposite level and all that goes out the window. One of the biggest shortfalls of a stock 2.3 is that the intake runners were too short. You're doing that all over with a different manifold.
I note of course the Bobcat has the carb backward as well. Funny how most people who do things like that will then tell you later of course how the car was so fast and had so much power. Blah, blah, blah....... Then take them for a ride in yours and they are astounded of course. I always laughed at that.
Yes, lots of places for that crackerjack linkage to come loose repeatedly to cause trouble, dial the linkage in, be sure it works correctly and to wide open and back fully to dead idle; then stake, loctite or even spotweld the major parts of it solidly in place and it will never ever trouble you. But you have to be dead competent at setting it up correctly first. I could make that setup dropdead bulletproof.
But again, your stuff.
-
Eh, just tie piece of speaker wire to the linkage, run it thru a firewall hole and tie to the pedal. Or if you want to do it right, use some duck tape.
-
Momma always said there would ALWAYS be at least ONE in every crowd......... ............LO L
-
Eh, just tie piece of speaker wire to the linkage, run it thru a firewall hole and tie to the pedal. Or if you want to do it right, use some duck tape.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
tonight's update--- called offenhauser and spoke to their tech. The 6114dp is designed to have the primaries dump in the lower larger port. you want the lower deck to run as the constant. Condensation and residual would gather if the secondaries ported to the lower. That's what he had said! Thanks for everyone's help here though. I'll try to follow up with how it turns out once we get above 30 degrees.
-
You will have condensation and residual in whichever deck is not used commonly. What unused intake volume does, simple physics. ALL dual ports do that. From normal reversion that all engines do. You will always get a reversion spike when the intake stream then hits a closing intake valve, some bounces backwards. Having a manifold that has part of the volume in downtime allows that to stack up in that space. One that is active all the time keeps that residual swept out.
Hot Rod Magazine March 1981 shows the correct way to mount the carb, can't help it if people want to throw away free power to make something easier, I watched it happen (as well as corrected it) at the garage all the time. We worked on and built hotrods of all types. Seeing an Offy on a car made it easy, one of the first things done would be yank that for an Edelbrock if one existed.
The Offy guy saying one thing means nothing, when you take people who could not make a Quarter Pounder 3 times the same way right and then promote them and move them further out into society, well what you get. I hear of lots of retarded information coming out of the speed parts makers nowadays and why Offy is still (not) killing the world with sales now.
The Offy cutaway manifold used for nationwide ads shows lower deck used but it is only half the volume of the upper.
The whole dual port thing was a sad lackluster gimmick when Edelbrock was stomping the crap out of them with repeat product like 180 hi-rise, Torker, Tarantula, the list goes on and on. Edelbrock actually redesigned to come out with totally new product never seen before every time. Offy takes the same crap 360 Equaflow and then adds a cheap divider to say they have totally redesigned which was a copout, any existing that were converted to dual port had the same shortcomings as the unconverted part. Most like the 2.3 one have no true 'runners' as such, they are simply convoluted and constantly varying space that does nothing as far as engine tuning through length or diameter. '50s company still stuck in the '50s even now. Why any Edelbrock manifold will almost always surpass an OFFY by a LOT in most back to back tests. They did back then as well. In the case of our AMC engines like 50 Hp. difference between a Torker and a supposedly high rpm manifold the Offy 360. It couldn't touch the Edelbrock.
Your car, do as you will.......... .........wait till you see the mileage set up like that, it should suk using the shorter bigger runner and low down in the port 99% of the time. Longer smaller runners increase part throttle fuel mileage, more physics. Looking around on the web at others including V8 ones showed differences, some had lower on primary, some had higher on primary and bigger area runner or smaller runner on primary, expected nonsensical application like Offy often does.
After looking at enough V8 dual port pics something insidious even begins to show. They set up the primary to flow WORSE on purpose so that the driver perceives fantastic gains as the secondaries open up since the primary performs so bad. Or catering to the seat of the pants for advertisement there rather than giving you more all around power doing what would have been more logical. Can't brag nearly so much doing that. They are actually killing achievable low and mid range on their own product to bump up top end only. That's just plain cynical to me.
Luck.......... .......
-
Every application is different, the true test would be to try it both ways and record the outcome... Just sayin......
-
lots of well meaning replies in this thread. too bad they seem to conflict. who to listen to? What's gonna work? Im with the guy who said to try em all...well.... maybe not the duct tape, and record your results.
good luck rowdy!
-
One other thing......... .............. .the link to the linkage kit on page 1 post 5 clearly shows by the pic it is an Offenhauser kit. Kinda blows that Offy guys' information into the water there. He doesn't even know what their own linkage kit works like.......... .............o r why it would be set up like that. Another ex-McDonald's employee?
If by simply using my wits I can tear one way of doing a thing to shreds but not the other way no way would I be wasting time doing it twice, that's why I have the brain, to weed that out with logical reasoning. Why bother if you are going to not rely on thinking to avoid wasted work. And I RARELY end up doing things like this twice, the first time it works well enough, there is no need. I have worked so many carb/intake combinations now I cannot count, you get an eye for what pretty much works and what doesn't. So far I have not run across the Offy manifold that I've liked yet. I've got an Offy 2X4 bbl. AMC intake that looks cool but I'd bet more than a dollar it won't touch my Torker at all in power output.
-
There's a few tid bits on a racing site, that has a lot 2.3 racers on it, and they all seem to mount as amc49 is saying. Not a lot on there about the 390cfm, but some. Also, I'd get your $ back on the linkage, and get a spring loaded cable setup. Simple is better.
-
Also, I'd get your $ back on the linkage, and get a spring loaded cable setup. Simple is better.
As Rocky Balboa would say, "ABSOLUTELY."
-
OK, say it... "I told you so." Put the Holley 8007/ 390cfm on the offy dp. Had a lot more/ faster/ throttle/ etc. But
I walked around the car and was shocked to see header pipes 3 and 4 glowing like the iron under a blacksmith's hammer! Have a 3" header narrowed ton 2.5 out. I do have a muffler. My machine shop said sounded like the exhaust wasn't getting out fast enough. On line it said fuel was not getting burned causing it to burn out the header.
so I guess I'm back to too much carb------or the offy intake really is crap. And I'm back to what to do. I hate to put a stock carb back on and go back to no power. Maybe one last thought. The carb had problems. Did look like one primary was dumping more than the other.
-
Why not put a lower EFI and small Autolite 2100 on it???..
-
'Did look like one primary was dumping more than the other. '
One really generally cannot tell that but if you are sure you can, then something afoul in carb that should be easy enough to find.
-
Just remembered a story in popular hot rod a zillion years ago where they had a running story about a duel port 360 intake on a sbc. On the dyno they found more hp by cutting the divider at the head surface back .750 (3/4"). Never said why they did it. I think they also put a radius on the divider after the removal of the .750. Any ideas on this????
-
The divider may well help low end torque but it is a choke to top end power. As well, with no divider the port is round and wave tuning then has some effect, with a divider you can kiss any effect from wave tuning goodbye. Divided intake runners cease to be true runners at all if they are half circles, they don't flow for spit on a flowbench. Why the whole Offy 'dual port' gimmick was just that, a gimmick only. The 'C' type competition one did away with the divider entirely.
-
Hi Guys
Just jumping in here with my setup. A lower EFI manifold modified to fit an
oval port head, opened up to create a small open chamber for fuel distribution
between cylinders. I machined an adaptor plate for the 390 Holley carb, this seems
to work very well, as several people have discovered. lol
-
And obvious the major problem there with that intake. When you lower divider walls to create a plenum the runner entries will flow worse because you have removed the turn radii at the top of the runners that eases vertical flow into sideways. The outsides are much worse in that respect than the insides. I personally would put more plenum on top with a spacer and leave the top 1/2"-1" of intake alone (radius the runner edges slightly) so that the flow enters the runners better. That sudden right angle turn when the mix hits the flats to have to turn sideways is a power killer. Problem also, the extended plenum higher makes for hood clearance issues IIRC. A 2'' thick spacer like Esslinger looks gangbusters there. Just gotta fit it under the hood.
-
Hey amc49
Wher did you get your info from? Are you an engineer? I have been doing
this kind things for 40+ years with people telling me "that won't work", and
trust me they have had to eat their words. Have you ran any tests that says that
my modifications are in your words "are a major problem"? I would like to
know why this manifold is so bad & works so well ?? Just wondering.
-
You don't have to be an engineer to realize that two runners that gently drop down to gradually swing out will flow different from two where the mix has to hit a flat then hard turn sideways, but I have been porting things for easily that long as well. With lots of study on how air flows and DOESN'T flow, which is just as important. The information is out there, you just have to look.
Nobody said manifold was bad, just the quick copout that most take that makes it worse with porting work. Raise the plenum up instead of down which crams room tighter and it allows more air turn space and it gets even better but if you don't do it you'll never know. Basic rule of thumb-the straighter the port the better the flow, if port must turn then doing it gently ALWAYS flows better than hard forced turns. The outboard runners there already have a pretty hard turn before one even thinks about opening it up to make the turn even harder, the manifold was designed for dry flow (EFI) not wet and why it does that. When your reversion pulse from closed intake valve filters back up the runner it will then clearly interfere with mix feeding into the inner runners. You want that pulse to go UP to dissipate into the bigger plenum area, not sideways where it can mess with your other pair at the entry. Removing much of the top turn into the outboards has predisposed the reversion to do that.
Most use the one inch adapter, two inch is far better flow wise, put one of each on manifold bottom, look in the top and compare and it becomes instantly obvious. You then do not have to butcher up the top of the lower part other than radiusing the hole edges. Much of the thought needs to change up slightly depending on whether 2 or 4 bbl. used too.
Air needs room to turn and always........ ....cram the turn into a shorter area and you always lose flow. Why you can throw a one inch spacer on top of almost any 4 bbl. V8 intake out there and pick up 10-20 hp. The extra height then allows for a more gradual turn into the top of the runner and shields the turn to a degree from the straightline inertial effect of full open butterflies.
A very few manifolds actually intend to hit a flat to slow air down so it can make a turn better but the distance doing that is generally very critical and off only 1/4" in spacing can cost half the power of the intake. The Smokeram SBC single 4 bbl. crossram was like that, just like the 2X4 bbl. crossrams. They were extremely sensitive to distance spacing and easy to screw them up. We used to run the AMC version used on 2X4 390 AMX SS/C Hurst replica cars.
At the family garage we ported out scads of different engine heads and other parts, lots of SBC and BBC as well as plenty of others. I personally ported plenty of inline 4 and 2 stroke bike as well. We built lots of drag race engines too, the GM dealer across the street flooded us with work.
-
OK, say it... "I told you so." Put the Holley 8007/ 390cfm on the offy dp. Had a lot more/ faster/ throttle/ etc. But
I walked around the car and was shocked to see header pipes 3 and 4 glowing like the iron under a blacksmith's hammer! Have a 3" header narrowed ton 2.5 out. I do have a muffler. My machine shop said sounded like the exhaust wasn't getting out fast enough. On line it said fuel was not getting burned causing it to burn out the header.
so I guess I'm back to too much carb------or the offy intake really is crap. And I'm back to what to do. I hate to put a stock carb back on and go back to no power. Maybe one last thought. The carb had problems. Did look like one primary was dumping more than the other.
Want to sell that linkage kit? I know a guy looking for one. Let me know if you do.