All Small Six Should i go with a 38 Weber ?

[districtqc]

Hi ! I am in the process of building a 200. Here is what i done so far :

Headers
Hei distributor
Weber 32/36 on adapter

This week i swapped the small log head for a 1975 large log one that i had rebuilt by a machine shop converted to 2v direct, milled to keep my cr right and 3 angle valve job. This head doesnt have the oversize valves unfortunately.

Bottom end and Cam are still stock , cr will stay around 9.2:1

My question is, should i keep the 32/36 or its worth it to go for a 38 ?

 

[DON]

Take vacuum readings before and after the swap. There are guys here ( Frank ) that can understand the readings and enlighten you. You will probably be ok with what you have except for high end rpm’s. You can do a carb swap later at no extra cost vs doing it now

 

[78_200_C4]

I would go for the 38. You will have more off idle power and throttle response than a progressive 2 barrel.
A log head six likes 2 fuel air plumes.

 

[aussie7mains]

The 32/36 is widely regarded as a good thing down here, it was used on the 200 and 250ci crossflow sixes, which would have a much more power than your old log 200, I would stay with it.

 

[78_200_C4]

The log head six likes 2 air-fuel mixture plumes. One for each 3 cylinders. 2 plumes are better than one which has to ghost back and forth.
2 air-fuel mixture plumes will provide much more low end torque and throttle response at low throttle angles like in normal driving.
The 32/36 is basically a 1 barrel in normal driving. A 2 barrel at a low throttle angle will out perform it when it is operating on 1 barrel.
I have actually tested 1 vs 2 barrel low throttle angle performance in normal driving situations. The 2 barrel won.
My 200 now has a 500 CFM (V8 rating) Rochester marine large base 2 barrel.
I would not even give a 32/36 a second thought especially on a "converted to 2v direct".
My 500 CFM V8 rated carb actually flows around 353 CFM at the 2 barrel rating method.
This 2V carb. was a great performance increase over my old 270 cfm 2 barrel carb.

 

[clochard68]

I had a 32/36 on my small log 200, now a slightly rejetted 38/38. It feels stronger on the low end, and has definitely more power on the highway (less throttle needed for same speed)!

I would say go for it if mileage is not a concerne...

 

[gb500]

The 32/36 is widely regarded as a good thing down here, it was used on the 200 and 250ci crossflow sixes, which would have a much more power than your old log 200, I would stay with it.

Ford australia used the 34 ADM weber on the 200 /250 crossflows ( XE and XF model Falcons approx 1983 to 1986).
Ford Australia sold about 1/2 million xe +xf falcons here ( not all wth 34 ADM's) - so 34 ADM are cheap to buy here.

34 ADM used 27/ 29mm venturis .

Ford managed to use the same spec ( except for minor items - power valves) on the 200(3.3l) and 250 ( 4.1l)


32/ 36 used 26/27mm venturis


Ford Australia Training bulletin here:

Ford Registered Technician Bulletin - 34 ADM Weber Carb

Got these off my old man from his Ford dealership days. This one refers to the Weber 34 ADM Carburettor used on both 3.3L (200 cubic inch) and 4.1L (250 cubic inch) crossflows in the XE Falcon/Fairmont and ZK Fairlane. Possibly FD LTD if any of them were carby. Very similar to the carby used on X...

www.ozfalcon.com.au

Specs here:

 

[78_200_C4]

The authors head is 1975 large log that he had rebuilt by a machine shop converted to 2v direct
Aussie crossflow carb comparisons are just silly fallacies not practical log head six experience.
My 78 log head six runs great with a much larger CFM true 2V carb than a Aussie Weber progressive carb. which is a 1 barrel at low throttle angles.
Common sense and practical experience say run 2 air-fuel mixture plumes for increased low end torque and throttle response on a log head six..
Aussie's have never got over not getting Ford muscle car big block Ford V8's so they compare their sixes to the mom and pop daily driver log head grocery getter sixes that were the lowest performing OHV six ever made. This makes them feel like they and and their sixes are superior.
Ford is based in the USA. The US log head six is more reliable than any non log head so-called Aussie six which is actually a based in the USA Ford product.

 

[ActionYobbo]

The authors head is 1975 large log that he had rebuilt by a machine shop converted to 2v direct
Aussie crossflow carb comparisons are just silly fallacies not practical log head six experience.
My 78 log head six runs great with a much larger CFM true 2V carb than a Aussie Weber progressive carb. which is a 1 barrel at low throttle angles.
Common sense and practical experience say run 2 air-fuel mixture plumes for increased low end torque and throttle response on a log head six..
Aussie's have never got over not getting Ford muscle car big block Ford V8's so they compare their sixes to the mom and pop daily driver log head grocery getter sixes that were the lowest performing OHV six ever made. This makes them feel like they and and their sixes are superior.
Ford is based in the USA. The US log head six is more reliable than any non log head so-called Aussie six which is actually a based in the USA Ford product.

Wow that’s some crazy claims.
I am not a big Ford guy but your claims seem far from reallity

 

[Dragonlich1961]

I ran a 32/36 for a year or two, and fought contast fueling issues, pining issues and drive-ability issues. I have an afr guage installed, and noticed at wide open, i'd start to lean out, and ping. I'd throw jet after jet at it, and all it did was richen the bottom and middle of the secondaries. no change at wide open. Mind you- this is a genuine weber. Switched to an amazon special 38/38, and most of my pining went away( hot days, while up a hill still persists), AFR is rock steady at wide open, and feels better on power.
200, t5 combo, 3.73 8.8 axle, 68 block, 78 head, shaved for roughly 9.2-9.5 compression, comp 260h cam, 38/38 with adapter, dual outlet header to a 2.5 single exhaust, with msd and a Ds2 distributor.

 

[tichman]

The authors head is 1975 large log that he had rebuilt by a machine shop converted to 2v direct
Aussie crossflow carb comparisons are just silly fallacies not practical log head six experience.
My 78 log head six runs great with a much larger CFM true 2V carb than a Aussie Weber progressive carb. which is a 1 barrel at low throttle angles.
Common sense and practical experience say run 2 air-fuel mixture plumes for increased low end torque and throttle response on a log head six..
Aussie's have never got over not getting Ford muscle car big block Ford V8's so they compare their sixes to the mom and pop daily driver log head grocery getter sixes that were the lowest performing OHV six ever made. This makes them feel like they and and their sixes are superior.
Ford is based in the USA. The US log head six is more reliable than any non log head so-called Aussie six which is actually a based in the USA Ford product.

Lol sounds like someone's suffering some size anxiety with the ole "mine is bigger" tripe huh. Crossflows do far more Kms than many of the log motors mentioned on this site going by how many seem to have cracked or clapped out in one way or another. Falcon Taxis with crossflow 6's in Aussie did hundreds of thousands of miles without the head being removed, with later OHC versions of essentially the same motor running over a million in many cases. As far as your argument goes if your lacking power down low with the weber then put your foot down further and still use less gas. PS, seems there is plenty of envy stateside for the Barra 6..... jus sayin...