PINTO CAR CLUB of AMERICA
Welcome to FordPinto.com, The home of the PCCA => General Help- Ask the Experts... => Topic started by: LongTimeFordMan on October 31, 2017, 05:42:23 PM
-
does anyone have any experience fitting a Schoenfeld header to a stock bodied 73 2.0 pinto.
I've been reading that you need to modify it to fit past the engine mount.
-
The Motor Mount has to be modified for clearance. Since the Unibody frame rails on the 74 pinto was wider and the early 74 cars were offered with 2.0L motors, before the Intro of the 2.3L. It's possible that a 2.0L in a 74 chassis needs no mods . It's likely that a 73 will need the mount clearanced to install this header. ( per Schoenfeld web site)
-
This header is NOT suited for the street! The header is very nice in every way except its a race car header with large tubing and an even larger collector (3 inch), and as such, it would be hard to connect up to the exhaust system (3" down to 13/4") plus the motor mount problem stated above. Why would you want a header on a 100% street driven Pinto. You need to turn a 2.0L above 4000 rpm to gain any power out of a header. In fact a header on a street driven Pinto would likely cost you low end torque. Not a good idea.
-
The last header on the site (the $159 one) does look like it can be necked down before it turns under the car. But a 2000 likely needs no more than a 2"-2-1/4" exhaust. And on the street likely the smaller of the two. I find it interesting that a lot of header story's I read in magazines long ago related to significantly large V-8's running through a 2" or under single exhaust. Well, of course headers with dual exhaust would improve that.
But on a street car unless the design is horrible headers likely make little difference. One of my favorite articles was on a Mopar site where they tested a mildly modified 360 (300 HP-ish). They tested everything from the lowly 318 cast manifolds to $800+ TTI headers. The difference at between the bottom (cast 318) and the top (TTI headers) was a mere 10 HP and that was primarily above 5,000 RPM.
When one thinks about it the exhaust gasses have to push past the exhaust valve and make a 90 degree turn in the head before the exhaust manifold or header even comes into play to make a difference. That is a lot of restriction to factor before the cast manifold or header. Look too at a turbo motor (such as the T/C). The log manifold does not show any similarity to a smooth flowing header. Then throw in the restriction of the turbine wheel and one would think there is a real issue. But, apparently all the air shoved in on the front end seems to find an efficient exit regardless.
I'm not imply in that some systems don't need help nor that some headers don't help. But if an aftermarket system shows improvement it is likely in a higher RPM range than any street car will likely benefit from. And as Dick points out probably reduces low end torque in the process.
Question, this site seems to sell the same header for the 2000 and the 2.3. Do they in fact have the same configuration? If so don't some of the Rangers have a decent designed cast manifold?
-
I wonder since the issue of a Header is for improved volumetric efficiency ( on a stock engine internally) and possibly better fuel economy is relevant, given the space restrictions and cooking the Battery in its stock location. My (currently unavailable Hooker Super Comp 4-1) header didn't work well with a stock intake and engine Until I installed the Weber 38 DGAS non progressive 2 bbl carb. Then the extra fuel and punch down low really woke up the torque delivery.
Look at the Pinto 2.0L Headers in Burton Power's web site (Simpson) and you can see why tubular headers have limited usage on street cars and the Pinto is a tight fit for even those with modifications to motor mounts. A rally engine is too hot to pass a smog test and these headers are off road usage primarily.
So find a UK SOHC 2.0L cast iron manifold and then pat yourself on the back :D
There's a UK member on this site with a 73 wagon that's gone through this with his "Donkey"
Enjoy all the Fun, it's like archeology
Pintosopher, Never hoping to come up "lame"
-
Hi.. thanks for the input...
I sorta had doubts about the benefit of a header over the factory cast iron manifold and had pretty much decided to stick with my factory manifold but my cam grinder suggested the header.
I will be using a 274 degree .440 lift cam, .040 head milling and a custom manifold for 2 SU HIF carburetors, pertronix ign.
Mostly just want some fuel mileage and midrange power 2000-4000 rpm for street and fwy driving.
-
Hi.. thanks for the input...
I sorta had doubts about the benefit of a header over the factory cast iron manifold and had pretty much decided to stick with my factory manifold but my cam grinder suggested the header.
I will be using a 274 degree .440 lift cam, .040 head milling and a custom manifold for 2 SU HIF carburetors, pertronix ign.
Mostly just want some fuel mileage and midrange power 2000-4000 rpm for street and fwy driving.
Possibly, given your engine mods, you could benefit from a Extrusion hone of the Stock exhaust manifold. Better flow within the stock casting, and easier than sourcing a UK manifold.
-
I have a friend who builds race engines for a living. He build the engine for the record setting car below. He once stated to me that, "You can only get so much torque out of a specific bore & stroke... it's where you put it in the RPM range that determines the HP." That is even more true with these smaller engines because comparatively they have less torque.
-
By extrusion hone were you referring to porting and polishing the interrior passages of the cast iron manifold?
Its not something I had considered but it does make sense.
I do have a spare cast iron manifold that I could work on.
-
I do understand the limitations of the 2.0 and that you neex to match all of the elements, cam, intake and exhaust to tune for a specific power range.
I built a 2.0 for a capri that had an isky .465 lift 310 devree cam, 390 cfm holly 4 bbl carburetor, milled head and hooker header that ran from 4000 to 7000 and i drove it on the street in los angeles. But it had no power under 3000.
Now i just want a docile midrange street and highway driver.. to do road trips and daily driving in.
Power from 2000 to 4000 shifting at like 4000-5000.
I used the same cam grind in several mgb's with the same carb setup and seemed to get good flexibility and max revs at 6000 with a pushrod engine.
I do have a 4 spd so that belps and will be fitting an adjustable cam pulley to get some cam advance for low end torque.
And the SU carbs offer a lot of tuning flexibility.
The only thing I am missing now is the crankshaft belt cog. Ive seen some on ebay ..are the 2.0 and 2.3 the same
-
The last header on the site (the $159 one) does look like it can be necked down before it turns under the car. But a 2000 likely needs no more than a 2"-2-1/4" exhaust. And on the street likely the smaller of the two. I find it interesting that a lot of header story's I read in magazines long ago related to significantly large V-8's running through a 2" or under single exhaust. Well, of course headers with dual exhaust would improve that.
But on a street car unless the design is horrible headers likely make little difference. One of my favorite articles was on a Mopar site where they tested a mildly modified 360 (300 HP-ish). They tested everything from the lowly 318 cast manifolds to $800+ TTI headers. The difference at between the bottom (cast 318) and the top (TTI headers) was a mere 10 HP and that was primarily above 5,000 RPM.
When one thinks about it the exhaust gasses have to push past the exhaust valve and make a 90 degree turn in the head before the exhaust manifold or header even comes into play to make a difference. That is a lot of restriction to factor before the cast manifold or header. Look too at a turbo motor (such as the T/C). The log manifold does not show any similarity to a smooth flowing header. Then throw in the restriction of the turbine wheel and one would think there is a real issue. But, apparently all the air shoved in on the front end seems to find an efficient exit regardless.
I'm not imply in that some systems don't need help nor that some headers don't help. But if an aftermarket system shows improvement it is likely in a higher RPM range than any street car will likely benefit from. And as Dick points out probably reduces low end torque in the process.
Question, this site seems to sell the same header for the 2000 and the 2.3. Do they in fact have the same configuration? If so don't some of the Rangers have a decent designed cast manifold?
The headers look the same but they will not interchange. Schoenfeld in the early 70's made a very nice 2.0L Pinto header for the street but as all go things go, they no longer make one. Hedman made a two piece header in the 70's and 80's that fit like a glove and made the most power. I see one on E-bay about once a year but all are used and in sad shape. All 2.0L Pinto headers will crack sooner or later due to the really strange vibration at rpm. On a street car who knows? Doesn't mater very much because 2.0L headers are as rare as the engines are now days. Any thing you do to the exhaust system (headers / bigger tail pipes / etc) will cost you torque unless other mods are made at the same time. All of the magazine story's about 50 hp increase are just that, a story!
-
By extrusion hone were you referring to porting and polishing the interrior passages of the cast iron manifold?
Its not something I had considered but it does make sense.
I do have a spare cast iron manifold that I could work on.
Extrusion Hone is a specialized process whereby a abrasive putty is forced through a manifold ( intake or exhaust) and in the process opens the volume of the gas passages. BUT it doesn't remove large restrictive bends or reshape the sharp edges. It will open the volume of the ports and usually leaves a Brushed finish inside. Great for Intakes on EFI aluminum, but less effective on Iron and is no substitute for Flow bench monitored grinding to achieve improvements. It's something you send your parts out to have done. Not DIY stuff. It must be followed up with common sense exhaust design.
-
I do understand the limitations of the 2.0 and that you neex to match all of the elements, cam, intake and exhaust to tune for a specific power range.
I built a 2.0 for a capri that had an isky .465 lift 310 devree cam, 390 cfm holly 4 bbl carburetor, milled head and hooker header that ran from 4000 to 7000 and i drove it on the street in los angeles. But it had no power under 3000.
Now i just want a docile midrange street and highway driver.. to do road trips and daily driving in.
Power from 2000 to 4000 shifting at like 4000-5000.
I used the same cam grind in several mgb's with the same carb setup and seemed to get good flexibility and max revs at 6000 with a pushrod engine.
I do have a 4 spd so that belps and will be fitting an adjustable cam pulley to get some cam advance for low end torque.
And the SU carbs offer a lot of tuning flexibility.
The only thing I am missing now is the crankshaft belt cog. Ive seen some on ebay ..are the 2.0 and 2.3 the same
My current Race motor Trw 10:1 pistons Norris cam 288deg duration .450 lift, 110 degree lobe centers . Still drivable on the street with the 4-1 hooker header and dual 40 DCOE weber sidedrafts. Torque not a issue , Cam not that radical and carbs small enough to be driveable. Was a daily driver for non gridlock driving and had decent fuel mileage. No shortage of power 2500 to 6000 rpm. ran OK on Pump gas 92 octane, better on 108 Sunoco or octane boosters.
-
Take a look at http://www.castheads.com/equipment-tools (http://www.castheads.com/equipment-tools) for the very best in stock manifold honing. This is where the stock car people go.
-
http://www.fordpinto.com/your-project/72-dutchwagon-rolling-resto/msg165393/#msg165393
reply #34 has a few pics of the European manifolds
-
Double outlet manifold looks like a 510 Datsun and as such would be a good mod for a 2.0L Pinto.
-
Double outlet manifold looks like a 510 Datsun and as such would be a good mod for a 2.0L Pinto.
This is reinforced by us Mk1 Vw USA 1.8l owners with the infamous "toilet bowl" exhaust manifold. The hot non header solution and worthy of the change cost is the dual outlet manifold and downpipe. It's worth a few ponies and with a Audi TB will wake up the 95 hp GTI. Headers only complicate an already insane shift linkage, and make rack removal impossible.
Pintosopher, Simple is best, usually for the better with stress management :P
-
Brzezinski's web site shown in reply 13 above states that two primary's into one tail pipe will work better than two tail pipes. (on a v8). Sound like the old California bs story that you need back pressure in your exhaust to run properly. Never seen any test on the subject except that the back pressure of one 90 deg turn in the exhaust is equal to 20 feet of straight pipe. Some muffler mfg say you need back pressure / some say that no back pressure is the way to go. Zero back pressure is almost never reached in any form and in a street car its never reached. And the beat goes on, and the beat goes on.
-
For more on exhaust headers go to http://www.mgexp.com/phorum/read.php?40,3172838 (http://www.mgexp.com/phorum/read.php?40,3172838) and read down the forum that comes up to post #8. Good info here.
-
There is a company named Pacemaker or something like that the sell headers on E-bay for way too much money. About $200 each for 2.3L headers. They might make a header for a 2.0L. I believe they are out of Tulsa. Worth a try?
-
There is a company named Pacemaker or something like that the sell headers on E-bay for way too much money. About $200 each for 2.3L headers. They might make a header for a 2.0L. I believe they are out of Tulsa. Worth a try?
Pacesetter makes a 2.3 model for 74 -80 Pinto, Not Smog Legal in Hotel California... :P
-
I wonder if you could remove a 2.3L header plate that bolts onto the head and replace it with a 2.0L part. Most of the work would be done for you. Both engines use the same pipe size. We used to do that when big block chevy header were put on a 500" Cad engine. Was not too hard if you had a good welder handy. Only problem I can see would be the distance between exhaust ports. Pipes would flex some or be able to be heated some to move closer or further apart. Really sounds very easy and would give you a new header. Unite you 2.0L Pinto owners!
-
There are TWO Pinto 2.0L headers on E-bay at pinto manifold. Not cheap but look good in the pictures. There located in Canada and the postage is bad.