Offy 3 vs. OCZ 2/4V

[schaferstephen]

I guess from where I'm coming... I know for a FACT that as long as I own the car, it WILL have a T5 in it eventually. Having said that.. I think I'm gonna stick with the tri-carb. Like you said, FalconSedan, proven results. It should be a relatively simple (and I know that it WON'T be) deal, and I think I have a decent idea what to expect with it. Also it just won't require as much head modification as the 2-carb would be.

I guess for me, a lot of the I6 upgrade is just for the "whoa" factor. If I wanted quick speed and power, heck I'd just go buy a V8. (Sacrilege saying that here

 

[bmbm40]

In my opinion you are on the right path with the T5 conversion. You should get a bit more power, the C4 is a small parasitic loss from what I understand, more fuel efficient with od, and way more fun to drive. Just need to know your axle ratio and change if needed.

 

[MPGmustang]

In my opinion you are on the right path with the T5 conversion. You should get a bit more power, the C4 is a small parasitic loss from what I understand, more fuel efficient with od, and way more fun to drive. Just need to know your axle ratio and change if needed.

Not so much in the HP range but the torque range yes, my peak hp was increased by 4 but avg increase was 2, tq on the other hand increased by 20! and MPG well... that's a given.

the Log head is NOT a good flowing piece

Don't I know it...

yeah stick with the 3x1bbl's will be much easier than 2x2bbl's... but maybe not as cool... I mean who else has 2x2bbl's?

 

[schaferstephen]

Holy cow dude!! That's a TON of torque!! Between the T5 to take care of my bottom end and the tri-carbs to take care of the high end (and a cam to take care of everything in between), I should be stylin!!

I can't wait, haha

 

[peugeot bill]

You might want to re think the 2 two bbl set up, it's just not practical for the street. It like lots of lumpy cam, solid. much compression and headwork, and a really loose convertor in front of a transbrake C4. and did i mention, lots of bucks. and throw in some 4.86 gears for good measure!
bill

g825/7971/picture038no.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

 

[Soldmy66]

You might want to re think the 2 two bbl set up, it's just not practical for the street. It like lots of lumpy cam, solid. much compression and headwork, and a really loose convertor in front of a transbrake C4. and did i mention, lots of bucks. and throw in some 4.86 gears for good measure!
bill

g825/7971/picture038no.th.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Do you expect that would also be the case if using two 32/36 progressive webers?

 

[peugeot bill]

we currently are running a a pair of 32/36 DGV's, highly modified. and they can be a pain to opperate, we plan to try a pair of rochester 1 1/4's and a pair of holley 500's soon. but we have the right equiptment to do it with!

 

[Soldmy66]

Thanks, and good luck. I am not aware of (because I've never looked into) the smallest commercially available, progressive two bbl. Still, it intiutively seemed (to me) that two small two bbls, with a divider where the original carb was positioned, would seem a really good solution.

 

[FalconSedanDelivery]

Thanks, and good luck. I am not aware of (because I've never looked into) the smallest commercially available, progressive two bbl. Still, it intuitively seemed (to me) that two small two bbls, with a divider where the original carb was positioned, would seem a really good solution.

Why would that be a really good solution ? , First progressive two barrels are still mechanical linkage ( when floored all 4 barrels will open up) , so an Automatic equipped car will need lots of converter and gear ( as stated above by me and someone who is trying just that ) 3 1barrels can easily feed as much as is required at WOT on a Log head Motor , you can make them progressive as well , I'm all for trying things , BUT not for The sake of trying , Id also like to see some real Data on this , Not a Buttometer , preferably time slips , as a Dyno ( especially a rear wheel dyno can be off as much as 30% from one to another ( this was proven in Car Craft or Hot Rod just last year ) but if you really want to try 2 Two Barrels have fun its your money

 

[Soldmy66]

No, don't take me wrong. Not only do I not have an I6 buttometer - I sold my 1966 Mustang, 200 C4 several years ago, so I don't have any current experience. Therefore, I live vicariously through all of you. I do have a 1957 Ch**y Wagon with a 350, 9in Curry Rear, Disks, dropped spindles, 700R4, etc., but I am still facinated with the 200/250. The Mustang was my first car ....

 

[bmbm40]

That is bad news about two progressive 2v. I think there was a 235 cfm H/W 5200 available, would two of those on a 250 and standard trans be a possibility? I know some use a 470cfm carb on a 250. I got started on this because schaferstephen said he had two 1v autolite, a head and a friend that does machine work.

 

[schaferstephen]

In light of all this discussion, I have a new question.. Let's say I get my new head/carbs/cam before I have a T5. How will all this perform with the C4?

 

[MPGmustang]

I'll restate what I said, work on suspension and brakes before engine, there is no point in haveing more power if you can't control where it goes and when it stops...

okay, that said, go for the engine before the trans, you might have to swap the converter but if you're doing head and cam with carb, then it will be easy. unless you're not pullin the engine.

 

[schaferstephen]

Been there done that, new shocks on all four corners, new leafs, new coils, UCA and LCA are new w/ new ball joints, Opentracker spring perches, new inner/outer tie rods, had all the drums turned or replaced them, new shoes, completely new brake hardware, all new brake lines, and a new dual-chamber master cylinder. (phew)

Having said that... I guess I'm ready to go! Not sure if I'll be pulling the block or not, guess we'll find out.. haha. Sure would make it a helluva lot easier.