C9-M head 2V or 3x1?

[Falcon62]

I'm looking for some input on which way to go with this head. I have 3 NIB Weber 1Vs (ICTs or ICHs, can't remember now), a NIB Weber 32/36, and a reman'd H/W 5200. I would also consider a Holley 2300 or Motorcraft 2100 as an option. Assume this is to go on a well prepped short block, with an actual compression ratio of 9.0:1 or better. The head will have 1.75" intakes and will use 144 intakes for the exhaust (have an NOS set). The head will be properly ported, cc'd, and surfaced.

The wow factor of the 3x1 is one thing, but I'm interested in how well this set up can resolve uneven mixture distribution in the standard log head. I'm not interested in EFI, or adding an imported 2V head, so that's not part of the equation.

I'm looking for hard data, real world experience, not 'bench engineering'. I know the Schjeldahl brothers have been successful with the Motorcraft 2100 conversion on their sixes, so I'd like to hear from others and how/why you'd proceed.

 

[CobraSix]

Phil,

Does butt-o-meter experience work? I ran the Offy 3x1V for about 6 months before scraping it. I didn't scrap it because of lack of power, I scraped it because I started to realize a few months before I put the head back on that the Offy was not keeping in the spirit of what I wanted to do with my 6. I wanted to KISS (keep it simple stupid). Offy is anything but that. But I wanted mroe power, so I am going Aussie (mike shipped my head today actually).

But...to your question. The sheer WOW factor of the Offy was great as shows. I got so many comments about that. I think the V-8 guys were jealous.

Performance. It did improve the performance. The plugs looked better and more even. With a T5 and a 3.20 rear, I could fairly easily make the tires spin (or should I say tire, no posi) shifting from 1-2nd gear. The car sounded like a beast, especially when you really stepped on it. It did not sound like a 200.

In ways I kind of regret getting rid of it. It was cool...but in other ways, tuning 1 carb is going to be so much easier and more reliable. My mustang is a daily driver, 100 miles a day, 3-5 days a week, 7-8 months a year. That is what drove my end decision to be the AUssie. If I only drove 100 miles a week, the OFfy would still be on there. Also, my wife drives the stang a lot, so I wanted it to be simple in case she had problems with it.

Slade

 

[Anonymous]

I'd go with the Holley 2300 series (500cfm) myself!

I dont have any experience with the offy 3 1V's but I did run 2 carter yf's one summer about 2 or 3 years ago (remember that setup??) and the Holley I have now will run circles around that!
Linkage is a lot easier to fab up for a 2 bbl and you dont have to worry about the constant tuning once you get it dialed in.

I keep close tabs on how the engine runs and I have not noticed any distribution problems whatsoever...

I really cant believe that more people dont modify the log intake to accept a 2 Bbl! IIRC, the Schjeldahl brothers and myself are the only ones on the board that have done this...

I have to go out to the shop tomorrow to take a picture for Mike, so I'll quick and pull the plugs in order and take a picture so we can see how the distribution looks like for a modified "turd head".

Later,

Doug

 

[XFlow_Fairlane]

I think the tripower is more suited to the early heads where mounting a 2v is tougher and that flow in the log is much lower and the extra ports are needed to overcome the flow problems. myself...

my c5 head is getting homebuilt tripower on it and the c9 head I am picking up is getting a 2v on it.

nick

 

[67 Falcon]

I run a small Holley on an adapter for about 2 years now. Set the carb up and has not been touch sense. If I had the money I would love to have the Offy with the Webers, they just kick ass. Russell

 

[Falcon62]

Well, this is why I asked for your thoughts. The problem is, whichever way I go will be irreversible once done. I know there are some guys here with the 3x1 setup, but not many. The 2V modification is very popular, and also very tempting. Then I think about the distribution issue. We discussed this at length on the Cliffy board a long time ago, and I thought the consensus was the 3x1 would resolve, or at least mitigate the distribution problems. We've seen a lot of different stuff since then (Doug's dual YFs for example, Jack's crossflow, the Aussie 'invasion', Argie's etc.).

Linkage would be somewhat of a challenge, but once it's done, it's done. Same thing with setting up the carbs, I would think the Webers would hold tune pretty good - but maybe not. I don't mind tinkering, but I don't want to have to tune things up every time I want to spank some bent 8's.

I have time on my side, and this is a medium term project as I don't have another 200 block ready yet. I do, however, have access to a full blown automotive machine shop and a fabrication shop with CNC equipment to make any adapters I want all for the cost of materials. I need to make up my mind so I can get the work done before I graduate in June.

Keep the ideas coming!

 

[CobraSix]

Let's think outside the box and closer to Doug's ideas.

what about a 2x2v? Set up similar to dougs 2x1V. Block off the center 1V base. Cut the head up so the venturis run parallel to the log head. Use a 2V carb with a progressive secondary and place the primary venturi just a little forward of #2 intake and #5 intake. If you used non-progressive 2Vs, consider centering each carb over each group of 3 cylinders. Use some really small Autolite 2100s. 1.08 venturis flow 287 CFM and are the most common 2100, so look for some .98 or 1.01 or 1.02. here are the flow rates:

.98=190cfm
1.01=235cfm
1.02=240
1.08=287
1.14=300
1.21=351
1.23=356
1.33=424

two .98 2100s would be almost perfect.

Slade

 

[xctasy]

Falcon62 said

I'm looking for hard data, real world experience, not 'bench engineering'.

Me too. But if you can get the fuel air ratio right, and a linkage that works, you'll get a sensational result!

 

[Anonymous]

I run the 3x1 with the Webers. I have been very pleased with the results. I also upgraded the ignition at the time of the install, and put a dual out header with flowmasters. I have driven the car some, its a weekend crusier, but I think the rear main seal is leaking as oil is getting on the clutch and forcing it to slip, so I have not driven it as much as I would have liked.

I agree with CobraSix, the wow factor is very cool. I do get lots of looks, and it doesn't sound anything liek the 200 should. I think you shoudl do whatever you want, but what you use the car for, could help drive your final choice.

Feel free to ask any uestions on the set up.

Bill

 

[66200i6]

That is exactly what I was thinking Slade. Use the later flat top log and prep the surface to accept 32/36 adapters in the same fashion as the Offy. By using the adaptor you have the choice of clocking the float bowl at either forward or side position.

The linkage is another issue, but aren’t all of these setups? I have a number of the 32/36 DFV, DGV and 5200’s to choose from. The only scary thing is modifying a perfectly good head before I even get the rebuild finished.

Keep us up to date Phil on what you decide to do, Ric.

 

[XFlow_Fairlane]

well with the early cars with a pull rod setup you could mount a 5200 sideways with no linkage problems (was looking to do this/still am)

nick

 

[Falcon62]

Well, my plans are to push the envelope a bit in a NA application. While the dual DGVs sounds interesting, I only have one C9 head and don't want it to be a guinea pig, IYKWIM, hence my thoughts on the 2V vs 3x1.

I figured I'd try and decide on a course of action with the head and build the rest of the engine to match. Drivability won't be a concern, as I want it to be strong and powerful. I have no vacuum accessories anyway, so a big lumpy cam will be just fine. The only issue will be whether to go with a T-5 conversion or a built C4 and a loose converter.

I'll fab my own headers, already have the flange kit. Mine will fit the Falcon chassis the way Clifford's should have. :roll: I'll run an aftermarket ignition, either a pooped up D-II, D-II/Jacobs, or a D-II/MSD combo.

 

[Anonymous]

I really cant believe that more people dont modify the log intake to accept a 2 Bbl! IIRC, the Schjeldahl brothers and myself are the only ones on the board that have done this...

I have to agree but I think for most it's an issue of modification experience. I mean most feel comfortable with "bolt on" applications but when it comes to cutting, drilling, grinding, etc. it tends to get a little scary. For me it's an issue of fabricating a plate to mate to the log head. I want it to look nice, not cheap.

I do, however, have access to a full blown automotive machine shop and a fabrication shop with CNC equipment to make any adapters I want all for the cost of materials.

Again, most don't have access to this type of equipment or expertise to create an adapter plate. Hence, not many have performed this performance upgrade.

Phil, you will to make one for me? Heck for that matter, anyone else?

 

[Falcon62]

Again, most don't have access to this type of equipment or expertise to create an adapter plate. Hence, not many have performed this performance upgrade.

Phil, you will to make one for me? Heck for that matter, anyone else?

Guess I should clarify my comment, I have access to, not use of (nor the experience to runn most of the stuff) these facilities. One of the "bennies" of being a student in an auto tech program. All I need to do is provide them the with the details and the raw materials. Here's why I'm leaning toward the 3x1 (well, that and the 3 NIB Webers in the garage):http://www.quickercad.com/falcon/63Falcon200.html

Be sure to check out all the photos of the adapters and the linkage. I also like his solution to providing adequate header/starter clearance (bet he's got a Cliffy header :roll: ). Anyway, I think he did an awesome job. 8)

 

[Anonymous]

That's cool.

Funny, that was one of the first websites I came across when I started looking for modifications for my 200. Then I came across this site.

I think the 3x1 would be alittle easier (just my opinion) than a 2V adaptation. It just seems like less modification work to be done - which is what I elluded to earlier. Most people don't have the knowledge or ability to adapt the 2V directly to the log.

I might try modifying my head in the spring time but until then, I'll be using a Clifford adapter for this modification. Besides, I've run out of money on my restoration project for this year.

Well, the best of luck Phil - especially if you have a garage.