How many here have experience running the 300 with a CARB?

clintonvillian

Famous Member
I am hoping to get quite a bit of input.

What setup are you running? (Single plane, 390 - DP, 390 - ETC.)

What type of fuel mileage are you seeing, and with that what RPM does your motor spend most of its time.

How reliable has your setup been?

If given the choice between multi-port efi with cpu timing, and a single carb and hotter distributor, would you switch over?

If it cost you another $1000.00 would you still consider the switch?






The reason I ask is it is time to make the decision and I simply CAN'T. I just about everything to do the switch except the carb, and efi controller. With the carb setup, I am anticipating 350 ftlbs, and 260 HP. My drive train in the truck is only rated to 300 ftlbs. So with more power comes more upgrades.

I wish I had a comparison of weight to power in the F100 I am building. I just can't find anything in that weight range (3500 lbs) with 350 ftlbs of torque to compare the feel to.
 

1964f100240

Well-known member
i ran a 240 9.5.1 small cam homemade intake and header 70mm turbo 500 2bbl holley 325 gears 1.1 trans 2800lb i got 20 mpg on the freeway at 65mph then i melted it lol 30lb all 6 pistons came apart granted that was with points and no controllers i like carbs for the big reason i dont have a lot of money its all what can can afford and make the best out off it good luck.
 

johns3524

Well-known member
I'll raise my hand.

In my Bronco 4wd I have a:

90' block 030 over, heated Clifford, Autolite C3 1.02, manual choke, manual fuel pump, 16-18 mpg, town/hwy, 3.50 r/a, direct drive tranns, EFI exh manifolds. It pulls from idle thru the risk of a speeding ticket in high gear (direct) with 30" inch tires.

I drive one of these for the simplicity, and when I open the hood I can see the ground. I can run it on points if desired, and it doesn't have a serpentine belt. (I personally don't like the one-belt works everything concept..and the ugly brackets it comes with)

For me there are no advantages in adding anything to do with computerization, or automation especially if there is any cost involved. I try to operate it at or near peak torque when possible.

My own personal want that I would consider spending money on would be a roller cam/follower/lifter set.
 

motzingg

Famous Member
Mine is a '91 short block, I'm running a '85 head (ported very lightly) with the rockers and pushrods from the '91 (bolt down)

The exhaust is a restrictive stock 2" (might be 1_7/:cool: pipe with some sort of tractor muffler, attached to stock exhaust manifold

The intake is stock but milled out for a 2 barrel 'conversion' with an adapter plate.

I've got a 1.22 Autolite 2100 carb, 35 or 40 jets, can't quite remember, and an el-cheapo 8" air cleaner.


Drivetrain is a M5 trans running to a 3.70 rearend.


Lots of torque and good pickup. Had it up to about 70 so far but a driveshaft/ pinion vibration is keeping me from going much over that. Even in fifth gear i can accelerate 50-70 going up one of the big overpasses that I take into work. It could probably use a bit more compression, I think if i were building it as a NA engine I would have gone to a flatter topped piston or the 240 head. By my reckoning its around 8.5:1 compression and it feels like it.

The 2 barrel has been an awesome upgrade, it meters fuel well across the board, starts easily and has been super reliable. I think its sized just right for the application and even has a little bit of room to make more power with a cam or a free-er flowing exhaust. It feels like the carb could handle a lot more engine behind it, but it isn't over carbureted on the low end.


If I was doing an NA engine from scratch, i'd go with the EFI exhaust manifolds and put a 2-4 adapter on an offy C and use that. I can definitely see why people like to build these to rev out a little further than stock, the torque curve on my engine is remarkably flat, which is good but it also doesn't give you the rush of power that you expect to feel with a more performance oriented engine (duh!)


I've got to fix this driveline thing and get my house in order, but i'm trying to schedule some dyno time for no reason other than to just get a baseline power before setting up the turbo.
 

motzingg

Famous Member
clintonvillian":36c5n3m7 said:
What type of mileage are you getting?

haven't driven it long enough to tell. the truck also leaks gas out of numerous locations and the jetting is on the rich side from a dirty air filter.

i was getting a solid 16 mpg with the 3.03 and the 240 with the same carb setup; i'm hoping to nudge it closer to 20 with the overdrive trans, plus i can already tell i'm not nearly 'in it' as hard making it run at highway speed.
 

MechRick

1K+
VIP
clintonvillian":3gn8wb0j said:
What setup are you running?

My last one was a Holley 390 on an Offy DP. Comp 268H. 1986 FSB.

clintonvillian":3gn8wb0j said:
What type of fuel mileage are you seeing, and with that what RPM does your motor spend most of its time.

I was getting between 14-16 mpg with a best of 16.6. Coincidentally the exact mpg I'm getting with EFI on my '94.

clintonvillian":3gn8wb0j said:
How reliable has your setup been?

It was very reliable. Not so much with Carter/Edelbrock carbs. Had problems with Nevada heat warping them and boiling the fuel out of the bowls.

clintonvillian":3gn8wb0j said:
If given the choice between multi-port efi with cpu timing, and a single carb and hotter distributor, would you switch over?

Carbs are great for the simplistic repairs. Nowdays EFI is almost cheaper. My engines seemed to run stronger on the top end with the carb/DP combo, compared to the stock EFI manifold. But closed loop EFI is much better for any vehicle driven with the top off or windows down. Carbs have to be kept inherently dirty for best driveability, which means you *will* smell yourself as you drive. Can't get around it with the aero of Broncos/trucks.

Having said that, I'm currently building a 4 cylinder Bronco II that will be carbed. I flat *know* I can beat the pathetic 118 HP of the stock Cologne V6 with a well-tuned Lima four. I've taken to calling it my apocalypse vehicle because I could fix it with two screwdrivers and a few wrenches. Bring on the zombies. :rolflmao:
 

clintonvillian

Famous Member
Do you have a build thread for the LIMA? I almost went that route for the 56, turboed of course. I still want to do one in a 32 coupe someday.
 

motzingg

Famous Member
haha i want to do a lima for my next project, but unfortunately i'm stuck with a 2.5L chevy in my boat

have you seen the 'horsepower TV' build of an Esslinger Lima?

They have it singing at 8000 rpm, 300 some horsepower on the dyno... what a beast!

I had two of them in rangers when i was in high school and they were tough little trucks. Only thing that stopped them was blowing holes in the piston.


Back on to topic, Looking at the stock ford EFI manifold, it looks like the manifold itself is the big top end restriction. I think a plenum style upper half would probably go a long way toward improving top end, combined with a little porting. I'd say EFI is the way to go for a mostly stock engine, and for radical off the wall stuff, but for a mildly upgraded naturally aspirated engine, carbs are going to be spot on.

Most people that go EFI don't see much performance or economy gain right off the bat, unless their carb was way out of whack. The big gains from EFI are the ability to run over a range of operating conditions and driveability/starting/etc.
 

motzingg

Famous Member
yeah i'd like to do one of those old formula ford open wheel cars from the 70's, using the stock truck motor with motorcycle carbs... just dreamin :hmmm:
 

johns3524

Well-known member
MechRick":y3cmvvzn said:
clintonvillian":y3cmvvzn said:
What setup are you running?
....
Having said that, I'm currently building a 4 cylinder Bronco II that will be carbed. I flat *know* I can beat the pathetic 118 HP of the stock Cologne V6 with a well-tuned Lima four. I've taken to calling it my apocalypse vehicle because I could fix it with two screwdrivers and a few wrenches. Bring on the zombies. :rolflmao:

I made a little progress on that type of project..I am curious what type of transmission combo will you use to get that power to the ground? (a great engine btw, I could actually pick up that block and put it on my engine stand)...

I found most of the stock Lima/4 bell housings offered (Ranger) were a little "weak".. THEN you can choose what trans you want to turn..Unless you go the C5 route...not a bad option. (BTW, at least the Cologne motor HAD a gear driven cam..not a belt, it also could handle a 2100/2150 bolted directly to the stock manifold...)
 

MechRick

1K+
VIP
clintonvillian":1mk7nkbz said:
Do you have a build thread for the LIMA?

I was actually looking for a forum to post one. I'll probably end up on one of the Bronco ones. If I do I'll post a link here.

johns3524":1mk7nkbz said:
I am curious what type of transmission combo will you use to get that power to the ground?

I'm hoping for 130 HP, nothing too extreme. I'll use the stock Toyo-Koygo trans to start with. My goal is to beat the Cologne in reliability, mileage and HP, something Ford could have easily done.

I'm actually getting to know these little boat anchors well. This is my seventh ground-up build.

motzingg":1mk7nkbz said:
Back on to topic, Looking at the stock ford EFI manifold, it looks like the manifold itself is the big top end restriction. I think a plenum style upper half would probably go a long way toward improving top end, combined with a little porting. I'd say EFI is the way to go for a mostly stock engine, and for radical off the wall stuff, but for a mildly upgraded naturally aspirated engine, carbs are going to be spot on.

I loved the way the Holley 390 runs on a DP-equipped 4.9L. It's a peppy package. I drove it that way up and down the west coast with no worries. As far as EFI, i would love to extrude hone or port the stock manifold. It seems like the runner cross section is there for more power. Certainly more power than the head can produce...
 

motzingg

Famous Member
My first ranger had the 4-speed (1984) second one had the 5-speed. The four speed was a much better trans. Not sure if toyo-kogyo is the mazda M5R1 or the 4 speed. I've never heard either referred to by that. The 4 speed had 2 motors and nearly 300k miles on it, probably 3 or 4 clutches... smooth as butter. I think it was full of gear oil too, instead of ATF.

My m5r1, the 3rd gear, then 2nd gear synchros went out. The 5th gear was squealing like it was about ready to go, and 5th gear was pointless anyhow because the truck both went faster and got better gas mileage in 4th, the 2.3 stock couldn't pull overdrive, especially with big tires (high school... what are ya gonna do?)
 

johns3524

Well-known member
MechRick":1b5x1cby said:
I'm hoping for 130 HP, nothing too extreme. I'll use the stock Toyo-Koygo trans to start with. My goal is to beat the Cologne in reliability, mileage and HP, something Ford could have easily done..

In my neck of the woods, the TK4 or 5 is preferred over any other Ranger 2.3, 2.5 compatible transmission and it's EXTERNAL slave as well..++...good luck
 

Dr Jay

Well-known member
Presently my 1978 F100 Shorty is a fresh short block, 240 head, Clifford with water passage, 390 Holley, MSD 6A, Comp Cam 252,
Fuel injected exhaust manifolds, Walker Y pipe and single 2 1/2" all the way out with a Biiiiig round stock muffler. Transmission is a TOD 4 speed, and a 9" with 3.25 ratio.
Despite my changes this truck has never left me anywhere. After reading your respondents, I am hot to bump up to 3.50 rear end ratio or so. I digress. This truck commutes at 75 mph (TOD has a .8 or so overdrive), and can leap away from lights but I want more. Holley is running a 53 jet and gets 14 mpg. The truck feels light and runs well at all temps. It is my daily driver and I really enjoy its uniqueness, performance and durability.
I have never owned a injected 300. I love changing anything I want, then tune the Holley and advance curve on my DS II distributor
drive, and change again. What I have found is, take a light hand on changes in tune, it is always closer than I think.
PS: stock serpentine setup is UGLY. V belts are not real performance assets either.
 

MechRick

1K+
VIP
motzingg":2vlrpu7p said:
My first ranger had the 4-speed (1984) second one had the 5-speed

johns3524":2vlrpu7p said:
In my neck of the woods, the TK4 or 5 is preferred over any other Ranger 2.3, 2.5 compatible transmission and it's EXTERNAL slave as well

With the moderator's permission, and to stop thread-jacking, may I move the Ranger/Bronco discussion (and start a build thread) in either the Truck Stop or Orphan Inlines categories? Saves me from signing up elsewhere...
 

bubba22349

Top Poster
Staff member
VIP
Supporter 2021
Supporter 2019
REDLINE 10K
Sure go ahead and post in the Orphan Inline forum, I also like those 2.3 / 2.5's :nod:
 

johns3524

Well-known member
I suppose I should confess..I also drive an 83 E150 powered by a stock 4.9L, Stock everything, including the 1BBL Carter YFA, stock exh/int. I am noting this here because I enjoy driving it just as Ford shipped it from the factory. Under-achieving.. maybe, but smooth, and economical..etc..not to boar those in this forum who must modify everything which I like as well but,..that "dog-house" for a van doesn't allow for much in the way of goofing around. (I HAVE been measuring it for a Clifford intake though along with an Auto-lite 2100. I think it'll fit, maybe.)

I bought it a month ago, and haven't even checked the plugs, or timing, just put a carb kit in it, new choke cover and feed system, and it runs. But I'm into simple...

Good luck with your survey OP, but I must vote for a simple approach for a simply built strong long-life motor...
I used to have a few EFI pieces around here from some core motors I have bought, If I can find anything, I'll give you a PM and freely donate.
 
Top