PINTO CAR CLUB of AMERICA
Shiny is Good! => Your Project => Topic started by: slowride on April 28, 2010, 09:35:17 PM
-
I'm going to be playing with the wagon a bit, so I figured I'd start cheap and see what improvements I can make. I'll be adding a Hedman header in the near future, but I wanted to see what I could do with a stock intake. I picked one up from Fred and promptly disassembled it as soon as I got it home.
First, I'm keeping the stock Holley/Weber so the adapter plate will be staying. When you look at the adapter, you'll notice a couple things. The (for lack of a better name) flow plate on the backside of the adapter has a significant mismatch in the throttle bores. I figure it certainly can't help flow, so I'll start by smoothing the bores.
(http://www.vintagerodcomponents.com/toy/manifold1.jpg)
I've smoothed both bores, but have some finish work to do on it. Smoothing the bores more won't buy any more, but I have to have things a certain way. It'll be perfect. While I was at it, I tapped the EGR hole and plugged it, but if I ever want to put it back on I can.
In the plenum on the intake, the runners have very sharp edges as they enter the plenum. I know air doesn't like to turn corners, and it REALLY doesn't like sharp corners, so I've radiused the port edges to smooth flow into the runners. I'll be doing a quickie port match to the head when I replace the intake, but until then there's not a whole lot more I can do with this intake.
Hopefully these little changes will help not only smooth the flow for more rpm, but help atomization by keeping the air/fuel mixture from breaking down when going from the plenum into the runners. Will it wake it up more when I add the header? We'll see......
-
These pics should make the concept a little clearer.
This shot is with the adapter on the manifold. Looking in thru the throttle bores you can see the runner entrance to the plenum. As the air/fuel mixture goes down thru bores, it need to make a sharp turn into the runner.
(http://www.vintagerodcomponents.com/toy/manifold2.jpg)
There was actually a little casting flash at the edge of the runner making the turn even sharper than it appears. The yellow lines show where I radiused the edges to help smooth the transition to the runner.
(http://www.vintagerodcomponents.com/toy/manifold3.jpg)
This could all be academic, but in theory it should help atomization. When you stick your finger down thru the throttle bores you can feel how much smoother the flow should be. With my luck it'll give me another 50 rpm at 6k. ::)
-
I have a lot of appreciation for guys who work hard to get the most out of existing parts. I can't pull a head/manifold without taking a grinder to it if even just to clean the sharp edges. I hope you gain a lot for all your hard work. All the best.
Tom
-
Thanks Wittsend. I am hand-fitting each piece to make sure I'm doing everything I can to eek out every bit of power. I fit the adapter onto a spare 5200 carb and checked how the throttle bores on the carb align with them on the adapter. I'll post a pic tonight. Not too shabby for production car stuff......
-
Here's the adapter bolted to the carb. The alignment isn't too bad. What DOES concern me is usually I see the thick spacer gaskets between the carb and adapter. This creates a big gap under the carb (between the bores) that may cause flow problems. I have both the spacer type and thin gasket so I'll test both to see if there's any difference performance-wise.
(http://www.vintagerodcomponents.com/toy/manifold4.jpg)
-
When I was dirt-track racing and had to use the 5200 carb, I would spend about 8 hours modifying the carbs to increase flow. Every little bit helps, and anything in the way disrupts flow. I even cut the ends off of the screws that hold the throttle plates in! Hey, they were in the way! :lol:
-
I talked to the Ford enginner in charge of their R&D dyno room in the late 70's about the 2.3 intake manifold, and how to improve it. He told me that it was a bean counter manifold , and made as cheap as possible. Thats why two of the runners are 1/2 the length of the other two. He said that on the dyno, it made no difference in HP reguardless of what carb was bolted on. He said it was the same HP with a stock cab as with a 500 Holley two barrel. He said the flow rate was so poor because of the two short runners, that two runners would run pig rich at all times even when the other two ran lean. LOL.
-
I've looked at a couple intakes and there's really no way to equalize the flow and fuel distribution to the cylinders (in a carbureted app) without raising the plenum and bringing the runners in at the bottom of the plenum (similar to the EFI intakes). Adding more plenum would help, but I would think you'd have to poke thru the hood to do it. It is what it is. It'd be hard to make it worse, eh?
-
The 74/75 intakes are the ones all the mini-stock boys use when the rules require a 100% stock intake. Its the one with ribs in the bottom, inplace of the later ones with triangles on the bottom. They can be ported to work better, BUT never as good as an equal length manifold. Even Eslingers oval and d-port intakes are of unequal lengths. Only the Eslinger ARCA intake is close, and it wount fit a stock head.
-
I don't really see runner length as the biggest issue since runner size/shape can equalize it to a certain degree (if you wanted to spend that much time on a flow bench). My issue is with how to distribute the A/F mixture evenly considering the primary/secondary orientation. No matter how you change the carb position you are fattening some cylinders while leaning out others. That's why I said a tall plenum with runners at the bottom would provide the best distribution. Unfortunately that merely enhances something the 2.3 has no problem with.... a taller powerband. The manifold I'm playing with is a D5, but I don't know that at the power level I'm at the plenum floor would matter much.
-
Well, after having a few beers and staring at the plenum on this manifold, it looks like I need to find a mill and modify the plenum. The primary isn't the problem... it'll feed all 4 runners with little restriction (inefficiently, but relatively speaking). The orange arrows show the flow paths. The problem is the secondary. When the secondary opens, it can flow relatively unrestricted into #2 & 3, but for 1 & 4 it hits the "divider" creating a low pressure area behind it. My understanding of flow dynamics is that the flow hitting the divider will separate the fuel from the air/fuel mixture and create turbulence at the low pressure area behind the divider. So I'd have #2 and 3 richer that 1 & 4.
My plan is to mill the dividers out of the plenum and round all the runner edges to smooth the flow. In looking at it, it should flow smoother (and more equally) if the flow starts higher instead of moving horizontally in the plenum. This will require a spacer to lift the carb and extend the plenum higher. The downside is normally adding more plenum (like a tunnel ram) gives you more top end and not necessarily more torque down lower (where I need it).
There's only 1 way to find out...... :surprised:
(http://www.vintagerodcomponents.com/toy/plenum.jpg)
-
Well, it's been a while but I'm back to trying out the mods. The header (Hedman 48030) will be here next week and will be the first thing I try. The spare intake manifold will be milled and tested after the header is installed and tested. Last will be the carb spacer to add more plenum. This should give me a good idea what the mods do and how they react to other changes.
-
Interesting read. what cam are you goin gto be running with this build? or do you have one in mind? I have a suggestion if you are doing the full build.
-
For the near future I'm running the stock cam. When I get this work done, I'll be pulling the head for machining and possibly make a cam change at that time. This is my daily driver so baby steps are just fine.
-
Fedex showed up today ;D
We'll see if the muffler shop is open this Saturday to modify the exhaust
(http://www.vintagerodcomponents.com/toy/pheader.jpg)
-
I made up the air injection port plugs yesterday, pulled the manifold back, and put them in. Went to the muffler shop and set it up for installation on Saturday ;D I'm hoping to pick a couple miles per gallon as most of my driving is freeway at 60-70 mph. A little extra power wouldn't hurt either....
-
The header was installed Saturday and it's already been off 2 times. First thing about the Hedman header..... it's a 2 piece with a slip-on collector. What does that mean? It'll leak.... if it's assembled as is. I pulled it off as soon as I got home from the shop to see if maybe they overlooked something.... they didn't. I spoke with a neighbor that works for Doug Thorley and he said they all leak unless you use some type of sealant on the slip joint. That brings me to the second time (this morning). I bought some ultra-copper which may seal it for a short period of time (maybe longer). A ceramic sealant was suggested, I just have to find it. Pulling the header really isn't hard or time consuming, but it HAS to be pulled and assembled in 2 pieces as it won't fit past the bellhousing in one piece. No big deal. Here it is after reassembling it with the ultra copper. I need to give it as much time to cure as possible, so I won't know how well it worked until I leave for work tomorrow morning.
(http://www.vintagerodcomponents.com/toy/pheader3.jpg)
Here's a pic of the slip joint at the collector
(http://www.vintagerodcomponents.com/toy/pheader1.jpg)
It is nice how well the header tucks up and doesn't reduce ground clearance
(http://www.vintagerodcomponents.com/toy/pheader2.jpg)
If you're contemplating this, keep a couple things in mind.
Remove the battery and spark plugs..... you'll appreciate the extra room.
Clean the slip joint VERY well. I sanded the surface rust and wiped it down with acetone before applying the ultra copper.
As far as any extra power or gas mileage? I don't have any mileage on it yet to test it.... I'll have a better idea tomorrow. :D
-
So after 13 miles of freeway, it looks like the collector is sealed and nice and quiet. A little more power at what is probably around 3000 rpm (I haven't installed a tach yet), but the gas gauge didn't move! Hopefully that means better mileage, not another project of replacing the sender..... :smile:
-
Nice writeup and interesting topic. Thanks for sharing all of this.
Chris
-
My pleasure. After a few days driving it with the header I've become more accustomed to it's "feel". There IS more bottom end as I have a better launch from a stop. The powerband has moved down a bit as I have more pull lower in the powerband than I did before. Gas mileage appears better, but it's really too soon to tell.
Manifold and spacer mods are next and should be interesting.
-
After mocking up the carb on the intake, I chose to go with a 1/2" spacer. The flow plate under the carb is tapered.... a little less than 1/2" on the front, and a little more on the back). 1/2" will make adapting the throttle linkage easier, as well as (hopefully) keeping it under the hood. I ordered the Transdapt 2134 (open center) since I'll be milling the center so the flow plate just goes through the center. This will put the bottom of the flow plate right at the top of the plenum and provide a smoother bend into the runners.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31rG6veaV3L._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
-
This will give you an idea what the spacer will look like after milling (this is the bottom view). The flow plate will go down through the center of the spacer and be almost flush with the bottom. Below the plate will be open plenum.
(http://www.vintagerodcomponents.com/toy/plate1.jpg)
-
Well, adding the spacer will be delayed as I bought the one Transdapt makes and it won't seal against the rear of the plenum. The sealing surface at the back of the plenum is MAYBE 1/8" wide, and it also doesn't leave much meat to mill out for the flow plate. Looks like I'll be buying some 1/2" thick billet and making my own.... :-\
-
After spending WAY too much time and money trying to modify a commercial carb spacer, It came down to making one. I bought a piece of 5"x12" .5" aluminum stock, cut it to 5"x6" and started drilling. A mill would have made this go MUCH quicker, but you do with what you have.
This shot shows the carb angle and how the spacer adds 1/2" of plenum and should make the transition into the ports smoother.
(http://www.vintagerodcomponents.com/toy/baseplate1.jpg)
I tried to make the plenum hole as close to the flowplate's size as possible to keep the flow as smooth as possible. Theory is that a larger hole would disrupt the flow by creating a reversion (flow trying to go into the hole because of a low pressure area).
(http://www.vintagerodcomponents.com/toy/baseplate2.jpg)
Next is to make a spacer to raise the linkage bracket 1/2" and hope the kickdown rod doesn't need to be modified.
-
Yesterday the spacer went on. It took about an hour total to install, and the throttle bracket did not need to be raised. everything fits under the hood easily too. I have about 15 miles on it so far and about the only obvious difference so far is the idle is considerably smoother than before. I need a little more time to calibrate the "seat-of-the-pants" dyno, but so far it seems to have helped a little in the higher RPM's. Most of my driving is freeway, so I need more time to see if it's stoplight manners are better. Gas mileage figures will be available in a week.
-
Well, the seat-of-the-pants dyno is getting dialed in, and a few things are becoming evident. First. let me acknowledge one thing..... I know I'm tempting fate doing this to a car with a C3 trans. Ever since I advanced the cam, I couldn't really jump on it from a stop for fear of scattering it. I dialed in the carb and it wants to holeshot a tad better, but the smoothness of the idle is amazing (for a 2.3). Before, it would pull well in the upper rpm's, but when the secondary opened it was less than spectacular. It didn't "bog", but I had to get the rpm up to really feel when the secondary came in. Now, it pulls a little lower and doesn't bog. Don't get me wrong, it still wants the rpm, but puts a smile on my face when I kick it down a gear, the rpm comes up, and the secondary comes in.
If anyone has some time to play around and make a spacer, I'd consider it time well spent. Granted I haven't seen the gas mileage yet (and playing with it this much may LOWER it), but it has definitely made a difference. I can't help but think it would REALLY wake up a manual trans car. If you have smaller tires than me (225/60-15 on the rear) and a manual trans, this mod should REALLY get your attention!
-
The next step will be milling the dividers between ports 1/2 and 3/4 to see if the flow on the end cylinders can be evened out a bit. The change in the engine now is just with the stock intake.
-
Good work, I like the play by play! Any thing on mpgs yet?
John
-
I would like to know! I am going to pull the carb spacer/EGR plate off the next Pinto I find so I can do some of the work you have done and just swap them out when I am done. I would love to try the spacer plate as well. The more get up and go and smooth acceleration I can get from my 78, the better! Granted my 78 is a 4spd and I can change gears when I like, it's always nice to know you have a car that is using all the resources it has to drive and perform well!
-
Sorry for the delay, but other vehicles demanded attention.
I am actually taking a step backwards and removing the header and putting the exhaust manifold back on. Without a more aggressive cam. there is no benefit to the header, and to be honest, the slip-on collector on a Thorley header leaks like a biotch and has annoyed me to no end.
The main advantage of the spacer has been a bit more power, and a smoother idle. Gas mileage has increased maybe 1 mpg, but I also suspect I need to re-jet this carb.
-
So in ANOTHER twist, I pulled the head off for a little freshening before my machine shop shuts down. Of course there was tons of carbon on the valves, chambers, etc, but looked ok. I dropped it off at the shop and called a little while later for an update. Long story short, the cam, lifters and followers needed to be replaced as well as 4 new exhaust seats. Since the cam needed to be replaced, I spec'ed out a Comp Cams 252h for a bit more lift and duration. Nothing radical by any means since going bigger wouldn't help with the header removed.
Today's the first day of my normal driving and on the way in to work it ran flawlessly. More low and mid range torque, and I got a cramp in my right ankle because I didn't have to put so much pedal into it to go the same speed. I still have the spacer on it, and the machine shop is milling the plenum on the other manifold. I am cautiously optimistic about much better gas mileage, though that may go away when I test the modified intake. Now if it's appetite for new parts would calm down a little.....
-
slowride, while I understand and appreciate all the work you have done to your intake, that being said, it is a very flawed and limited design. the optimum option for flow purposes would have been to put all your efforts into moding a EFI intake. they are a waaaaaaay better design. the first thing a ministock racer does is toss that chunk of aluminum you have and convert to a efi unit.
-
Don, I may play with the EFI intake later, but this is just a $25 folly on my part. My concerns about an EFI manifold are twofold. First, the "D" port mismatch, and then the mounting issues for linkage and the stock 5200. I know I could go 4 barrel, but then that opens up another can of worms with an auto (kickdown linkage). This is my daily driver, so changes must be made in baby steps to keep it on the road day to day.
I have a "theory" floating around in my head, and this is just a quick and cheap way of proving/disproving it.
-
the D port missmatch is not an issue, it has been prooven to be the best flowing stock set up for the 2.3 engine even with the missmatch..
with the skills you have shown in working on the stock piece I'm sure you could come up with something for the linkage...
-
I have no doubt that due to the EFI's port layout in the plenum it will flow better and more evenly from port to port. I've already been mentally sketching out a mounting bracket for the stock throttle cable bracket assy. My limitations are that I just don't have the room to put in the equipment I need to do this kind of fabrication. This would be SO easy to do with a mill......
-
Good stuff going on in the next couple weeks. Finally ordered new carpet and went original.... dark saddle 80/20 loop.
The shift kit goes in this weekend, so I should get decent shifts out of the C3.
I've also been trying something called "Kreen" made by the people that make Kroil penetrant. You add it to the crankcase to dissolve the carbon buildup from the oil control and compression ring lands on the pistons. I've been running it for 2 days and have felt a noticeable increase in power (it's a 2.3... it's not hard to feel a little more power) and the idle has smoothed out a bit. The acid test will be when I fill up and check mileage. More on that later.....
-
Not a "mod" so maybe a bit off topic, but replaced the carpet over the weekend. It makes driving a lot more enjoyable than I thought it would. Less noise, somehow a few rattles disappeared, and it has that new car smell again. ;D
Installed an ACC carpet kit, and it fit reasonably well from the E-brake forward, but behind it on the tunnel it has an odd "hump" in the carpet that the tunnel doesn't. :-\ Still better than what was in there, and for a daily driver I can't really complain. I rate it a 7......
-
I have noticed the "hump" in the carpet behind the e-brake handle as well. I have ACC kits in both my 78 and my 73 and have the same issue. I think it has something to do with what they use to mold the carpet with.
-
So after running the kreen in the crankcase for a few hundred miles, I've gotta say you wouldn't believe what this stuff does. I'll be doing a second treatment, but this has freed up horsepower you can FEEL. Gas mileage has gone up a bit (< 2mpg), but I'd get even better mileage if I could keep my foot out of it. It's just too much fun to jump on it even with an auto. I can actually holeshotl v8's from a stop, but after a car length or two the lack of torque takes it's toll. The real problem is, I've never driven another Pinto to get an idea if what I've done has made a marked difference from stock, or has just it made run like "new" again.
-
Back from the dead! New engine, Turbo/EFI intake sitting on the bench patiently, but I want to see how much of a difference the Weber 38/38 makes over the 32/36 progressive on the stock intake. Finishing up the adapter, so it should be test and tune time in a couple weeks. Then go EFI intake...... :o
-
Sorry for the delay, but other vehicles demanded attention.
I am actually taking a step backwards and removing the header and putting the exhaust manifold back on. Without a more aggressive cam. there is no benefit to the header, and to be honest, the slip-on collector on a Thorley header leaks like a biotch and has annoyed me to no end.
The main advantage of the spacer has been a bit more power, and a smoother idle. Gas mileage has increased maybe 1 mpg, but I also suspect I need to re-jet this carb.
i thought it was a hedman header
-
That was a mistake. I had the Thorley on my quad cab.... what a POS. Cracked at each port at the flange as well as the collector. The Hedman WAS on the Pinto, sorry.
-
To bring this up to speed. The original engine was getting tired and I had a cylinder drop compression, so before it died I built a replacement.
(http://www.fordpinto.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=23260.0;attach=50140;image)
WHY did it drop a cylinder? Seems a 40 year old compression ring decided it had enough......
(http://www.fordpinto.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=23260.0;attach=50150;image)
-
Found this carb adapter for the turbo manifold that intrigues me. If I have the additional 2" of hood clearance, I might test it.
(http://www.pricemotorsport.com/assets/images/CS2300WEBA.jpg) (http://www.pricemotorsport.com/assets/images/CS-2300WEBC.jpg)
-
What web site was that on? Interesting to say the least. I take it was 2" tall.
-
It's p/n CS-2300 at pricemotorspor t.com. I like that no alterations to the lower intake are required and it extends the runners which should flow better. Now if I have 2" to spare.....
-
I like that, they have nice stuff. 8)
http://www.pricemotorsport.com/ (http://www.pricemotorsport.com/)
-
Don't know Art! Little or no pendulum with this adapter. BUT it sure will be easyer to try out the EFI intake this way. 2" plus air cleaner equals a big hood dent????
-
Yeah, it does lack plenum but for just a driver don't think it would hurt, air cleaner could be an issue wonder what the difference in height is between the Autolite and the Weber/Holley???..
-
Autolite looks lower, but the big problem it the air cleaners driver side corner, as that is the first place that will hit the hood. Just making the stock air cleaner 1/4" higher WILL hit the hood. The 80's Mustang hood scoop will really look good on your wagon.
-
No way would I be putting that flow killer part on my stuff. Fuel distribution will take a dump there. You don't run around at wide open throttle all the time, start thinking about what happens when throttle blades are open 25% or less and that adapter then looks HORRIBLE. Opening up the base instead of 4 holes addresses that to a point and better and better as the carb base to top of runner increases at least to 2-3 inches. Not thinking here, when carb only open to feed off say transfers (low cruise), one side of the carb is feeding straight air, the other side of butterfly is feeding air/fuel. Main booster venture has not activated yet. You're not allowing any verticle distance for those two streams off each butterfly to fully intermingle. Two cylinders will run richer than the other two. Why many V-8s pick up power from adding a spacer under carb, the spacer allows more turn room at top of runners but also allows better mixing up of the streams.
Can't use a 32/36 with that divider there.
Asking to make the runners longer there is a mistake, they already come far too close to carb base as it is. Why people who port the lower always end up lowering the 'X' center portion; that allows better interfeeding of all ports with each other. You cannot jam a carb base right up against individual ports without suffering pretty big power losses. Why the stock 2.3 carb manifold will not flow any more than the stock 32/36 carb even with every mod done to it you can possibly think of. 38/38 on one of those is a power detune. And thinking earlier in the thread that the D port intake was a problem? We should all have such problems, Edelbrock made millions doing the same thing with their Torker line of intakes. NONE of those match the head ports and all intentional. Some of the mismatches were quite dramatic, enough that they warned you against trying to match them back up, doing so was a massive low end power killer.
You can easily INCREASE plenum and gain low end as long as it is not out of shape size wise. There is a ratio there that all engines pretty much like, a 2 inch tall open base adapter on the EFI lower is not out of that range. I'm betting that simply using the two inch thick open base adapter will be about the same as putting on a 38/38 over a 32/36, or very close. Hood clearance is the problem there.
Look at pic on the left, you can easily see shrouding of a port by how shallow the adapter is. Big no-no there. And I don't care for the middle cross which has no gasket under it, thin enough it could crack from vibration, look at further pics on the website. It may be thin enough to crack as well if you put a 4 hole gasket under it. The squeeze may do it.
Biggest rule of porting for ANY kind of power, low or high end, regardless of how big or small ports are-------------you STRAIGHTEN things out. If you must turn then you figure out how to do it gradually, sharp turns can NEVER be made to flow well, you are defying physics. Anything doing otherwise costs you power. Shallow adapters that force fuel to go down then sideways and then down again are the bane of good power and a hundred manufacturers make them. They get two parts to sell instead of one for the money spent in material. One of Offenhausers' biggest flaws, they made wonky parts that defied physics to throw away big power. Much of their stuff looked cool but actually junk.
-
Well, I may try both with the Autolite and see what happens, what the heck..
-
Autolite looks lower, but the big problem it the air cleaners driver side corner, as that is the first place that will hit the hood. Just making the stock air cleaner 1/4" higher WILL hit the hood. The 80's Mustang hood scoop will really look good on your wagon.
Yeah I noticed that when I measured mine it's awful close, probably need to make a custom deal to move the element towards the center?... Hmmm, never thought about that scoop they do look cool..
-
Biggest rule of porting for ANY kind of power, low or high end, regardless of how big or small ports are-------------you STRAIGHTEN things out. If you must turn then you figure out how to do it gradually, sharp turns can NEVER be made to flow well, you are defying physics.
Had to narrow down a garbage post to this. So you'd blend a manifold and create MORE horizontal shear ? You did remember the throttle shafts on on a 38 (what my post was referring to) are parallel, right? Don't quote theory unless you can apply it accurately.... ....
-
Thank you very much.
The adapter picced is essentially not 2 inches tall if the manifold runners are continued inside it. Recreating the same problem the shorter 1 inch one does but for more money. Funny. You can buy the 1 inch thick one, save money and hood space.
When one takes mixture, goes straight down, turns ninety degrees sideways, then ninety degrees down again and all in a relatively flat top-to-bottom package you are making far more shear than I could ever do 'blending'. I would think that is not hard to understand but I guess I'm wrong there. You apparently have never looked inside an ultra high rpm drag race tunnelram before.
Cramped tight like that, flow to outside of all 4 holes will be blocking flow to inside and vice versa. Reversion pulses will find an easy upper 'cover' to bounce off of to rob cylinder of mixture at higher speeds, you better look at that broken piston/ring pic again. The obvious shrouding there only makes it worse. The pulsing issues there will be horrible.
When restricting the free movement of fuel/air by tightening up all airspaces there you create all sorts of oddball effects, exactly what a 2.3 stock manifold does. When you open up a plenum to a certain amount you allow the fuel/air intermixing to complete and then you don't get things like that burned piston you picced higher up. Overheating from lean and detonation jack, and most likely fuel distribution issue as well. I could point out other engines I worked on with crap adapters/manifolds like that and burned pistons in them as well, but garbage post to you.
You're focused on shear and not your issue at all.
Luck.......... ...........