I've been wandering around this web site for several years now and am intreged by the invative work that some of the guy have done to make power from the small six. the thing i Learned right off and can understand from looking at it myself is the intake is the bigest issue in making this thing run. I have no personal interest in building a High horse six myself but I do like to think. Heres my question. looking at the engine I was wondering if anyone has ever considered spliting the intake into 3 sections and installing 3 side draft carbs? the reason I pondered this thought is it looks to me that by using a side draft 1) you could gain access and port the intake runners, 2) you would get rid of the nasty bend the a/f mixture presently must make to get to the intake, 3) you would have a better location to build up a proper flange for transition from the carb to intake. Now I do Know that the shock towers are a problem in the car but on mine I put in a M-2 front suspension and could live under that hood if my wife were ever pissed at me. So space is not a problem.
side draft carbs on log head
- Thread starter iceman
- Start date
There is an old article titled "Go, Pony, Go!" written by the late Ak Miller in the "Complete Book of Engines" book published by the Hot Rod Magazine staff in 1967 by Peterson Publishing. The article outlined Ak's experimentation with up to four (4) side draft Honda 450 Keihin motor cycle carbs on the small Ford inline six log manifold. If you can find the piece on line, it might provide some insight to such a project.
Russ
Russ
There has been a fairly complete discussion on port area and air flow, the triple carb log adaptors for triple 1-bbls aren't nearly big enough, and Ak Miller was WAY ahead of the pack.
http://www.classicinlines.com/HA1.asp
I'm pro multiple carb, by the way, but I don't have my head up my butt thinking they are ever easier to service than a properly designed solid state piece of Detriot engineering. Dearborn has learned way to much to ever go back to multiple throttle body EFI for main stream cars. It still has a place in the halls of a wicked I6 or V8, but port on port induction has to have a single point metering system to be reliable in service, or some means to correct it if a physical setting falls out of range.
I've often thought about why a righteous conversion 200/250 kit didn't prosper, and it all comes down to 1.service,
2.throttle syncronisation,
3.hood clearnace and
4. meeting the US Clean Air Act.
A lot of the cool 60's stuff, the Holman Moody, Hilbourne and Ak Millers multiple port innovations couldn't be sold even through Ford Total Performance because the systems were too complicated, and even the best of Detriots production engineers couldn't package them to cope with heat soak, emissions and hook and ancillary clearance. I'd guess the cost of engineering I6 engines for EFI or multiple carb was out of proportion to a hot small block with a killer set of canted valve heads and a big 4350 Autolite. That's why the planned injected Mustang 250 engine which was promised never hit the show rooms....cost, packaging, and emissions. And just the 2-bbl 2v M code Aussie 250 six could hardly fit under the hood of a 69 Stang, even with the industry record of the thinest air cleaner ever at Cobra tri-power matching 1.5".
In fact, the historicals on the American multiple side draft I6 read a lot like Detriots 2 and 4-bbls verses whatever...like the ill fated Inline Autolite, the triple Weber i6 perfromance machines like the Vantage DB6 and DBS Astons with 314 to 325 hp were no match for a simple Boss 302 or 351C HO 4v. Simpler, cheaper easier V8s. The early EEC3's and then once EECIV port injection hit town, any I6, even with 24 valves and Bosch D injection was a lame duck. History shows one throttle body, one carb, one mutiple distribution point will be easy to syncronise, and with port EFI, there is a 19% power boost on average and a 7.5% torque boost on average over a 4-bbl I6, and as much as 25% and 10% torque over a 2-bbl
(1980 Mercedeas Benz 280S verses 280E w123 175 hp 4-bbl vs Bosch K Jetronic 216 hp, and 1985 2-bbl Falcon over EFI EEC4 Falcon, 131 hp vs 164 hp)
A good single throttle body port EFI system always kills any other carb system, independent runner or whatever, for service and reliablity, that was Fords saving grace in 1984 to 1985, when suddenly, 5.0 and 2.3 port fuel injection became cost effective, and warranty claims dropped while HP went up. It was just expensive to set up and engineer. For Ford, a 4.9 port EFI truck engine was more relaible than any other engine combo except the EFI 5.0.
And why did Ferrari, Lamborghini drop multiple carb Webered V8's and V12's in 1980's...because they wouldn't pass the 50 000 mile serivce requirments for emissions. So suddenly Bosch K jetronic systems got put in, and we have a loss of 25% power right off the bat in most cases.
If self service is your thing, you can spend as litle as 400 US bucks and get motorcyle flat side Mikunis in 3, 4 or 6 carb set ups, and get a 100% 2 time the rear wheel hp conversion together if you do your home work.
Ultimately, the big problem was always industry resistance to the side draft constant depression or varaiable venturi carb in any form. It could work superbly if left alone and the floats and jets were the only item of replacement, but the normal process is for people to fiddle with them. In the days of 240 and 260 Z's Datsun made the best carbs ever, the Hitachi 150's, and still people mucked around with them, a created some stress. As soon as the proper fully electronic 260Z, 280Z and 280ZX/ZXT's came out, reialblity sky rocketed. The English persisted with triple side draft SU carbs to 1969, then tried quad Stromberg Zeniths CDS175 carbs on the V12, and triples on the Aston Martin till 1972, then Jag ditched the twin carb XK engine set up in 1977, and whent EFI like Datsun. Aside from the control unit failure due to heat, the set-ups were dead reliable.
Proton, Toyota, Mitsubishi and Suzuki got Aisain to supply a special 46 mm 265 cfm Downdraft Variable Venturi carb after fileing for patent in 1984. It worked brilliantly, but some versions in the 1988 Tercel were defective, and that fairly well scuppered the carb for the US, although it is the best of its type, and way underated. Its still in production as a new replacement carb for the 14 variants the four Asian companies used it on, and it has no problems with hood height or fuel surge or sub standard quality like some carbs, and, unlike the Mikunis, its been a car emissin carb for the 17 years it was produced.
The side draft SU H series (HS6, HD6, HD8, HIF 44/HIF6/HIF7) and Stomberg Zenith (CD150/CD175, CDS150, CDS175 ) carbs fit fine, although they don't pacakage well with air conditioning or EGR emissions gear. Better still are some flat side Mikiuni RS 38 or RS40 carbs
And my Aisan VV carbed prototype log, which fits the Classic Inlines head, the log head, and allows full emission control EGR and air conditioning to fit, fits the tall 250 engine under the Fox body hood. It works best with the later iron exhasts, the aftermarket industry still hasn't gotten its head around emission with the 3.3 and 4.1 combos yet.
And the 1984 to 1990 twin carb Toyota Corolla 1452 cc 3A HU intake and carb set up I based it on.
http://tercel4wd.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1383
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMD0praeb3g
http://www.classicinlines.com/HA1.asp
I'm pro multiple carb, by the way, but I don't have my head up my butt thinking they are ever easier to service than a properly designed solid state piece of Detriot engineering. Dearborn has learned way to much to ever go back to multiple throttle body EFI for main stream cars. It still has a place in the halls of a wicked I6 or V8, but port on port induction has to have a single point metering system to be reliable in service, or some means to correct it if a physical setting falls out of range.
I've often thought about why a righteous conversion 200/250 kit didn't prosper, and it all comes down to 1.service,
2.throttle syncronisation,
3.hood clearnace and
4. meeting the US Clean Air Act.
A lot of the cool 60's stuff, the Holman Moody, Hilbourne and Ak Millers multiple port innovations couldn't be sold even through Ford Total Performance because the systems were too complicated, and even the best of Detriots production engineers couldn't package them to cope with heat soak, emissions and hook and ancillary clearance. I'd guess the cost of engineering I6 engines for EFI or multiple carb was out of proportion to a hot small block with a killer set of canted valve heads and a big 4350 Autolite. That's why the planned injected Mustang 250 engine which was promised never hit the show rooms....cost, packaging, and emissions. And just the 2-bbl 2v M code Aussie 250 six could hardly fit under the hood of a 69 Stang, even with the industry record of the thinest air cleaner ever at Cobra tri-power matching 1.5".
In fact, the historicals on the American multiple side draft I6 read a lot like Detriots 2 and 4-bbls verses whatever...like the ill fated Inline Autolite, the triple Weber i6 perfromance machines like the Vantage DB6 and DBS Astons with 314 to 325 hp were no match for a simple Boss 302 or 351C HO 4v. Simpler, cheaper easier V8s. The early EEC3's and then once EECIV port injection hit town, any I6, even with 24 valves and Bosch D injection was a lame duck. History shows one throttle body, one carb, one mutiple distribution point will be easy to syncronise, and with port EFI, there is a 19% power boost on average and a 7.5% torque boost on average over a 4-bbl I6, and as much as 25% and 10% torque over a 2-bbl
(1980 Mercedeas Benz 280S verses 280E w123 175 hp 4-bbl vs Bosch K Jetronic 216 hp, and 1985 2-bbl Falcon over EFI EEC4 Falcon, 131 hp vs 164 hp)
A good single throttle body port EFI system always kills any other carb system, independent runner or whatever, for service and reliablity, that was Fords saving grace in 1984 to 1985, when suddenly, 5.0 and 2.3 port fuel injection became cost effective, and warranty claims dropped while HP went up. It was just expensive to set up and engineer. For Ford, a 4.9 port EFI truck engine was more relaible than any other engine combo except the EFI 5.0.
And why did Ferrari, Lamborghini drop multiple carb Webered V8's and V12's in 1980's...because they wouldn't pass the 50 000 mile serivce requirments for emissions. So suddenly Bosch K jetronic systems got put in, and we have a loss of 25% power right off the bat in most cases.
If self service is your thing, you can spend as litle as 400 US bucks and get motorcyle flat side Mikunis in 3, 4 or 6 carb set ups, and get a 100% 2 time the rear wheel hp conversion together if you do your home work.
Ultimately, the big problem was always industry resistance to the side draft constant depression or varaiable venturi carb in any form. It could work superbly if left alone and the floats and jets were the only item of replacement, but the normal process is for people to fiddle with them. In the days of 240 and 260 Z's Datsun made the best carbs ever, the Hitachi 150's, and still people mucked around with them, a created some stress. As soon as the proper fully electronic 260Z, 280Z and 280ZX/ZXT's came out, reialblity sky rocketed. The English persisted with triple side draft SU carbs to 1969, then tried quad Stromberg Zeniths CDS175 carbs on the V12, and triples on the Aston Martin till 1972, then Jag ditched the twin carb XK engine set up in 1977, and whent EFI like Datsun. Aside from the control unit failure due to heat, the set-ups were dead reliable.
Proton, Toyota, Mitsubishi and Suzuki got Aisain to supply a special 46 mm 265 cfm Downdraft Variable Venturi carb after fileing for patent in 1984. It worked brilliantly, but some versions in the 1988 Tercel were defective, and that fairly well scuppered the carb for the US, although it is the best of its type, and way underated. Its still in production as a new replacement carb for the 14 variants the four Asian companies used it on, and it has no problems with hood height or fuel surge or sub standard quality like some carbs, and, unlike the Mikunis, its been a car emissin carb for the 17 years it was produced.
The side draft SU H series (HS6, HD6, HD8, HIF 44/HIF6/HIF7) and Stomberg Zenith (CD150/CD175, CDS150, CDS175 ) carbs fit fine, although they don't pacakage well with air conditioning or EGR emissions gear. Better still are some flat side Mikiuni RS 38 or RS40 carbs
And my Aisan VV carbed prototype log, which fits the Classic Inlines head, the log head, and allows full emission control EGR and air conditioning to fit, fits the tall 250 engine under the Fox body hood. It works best with the later iron exhasts, the aftermarket industry still hasn't gotten its head around emission with the 3.3 and 4.1 combos yet.
And the 1984 to 1990 twin carb Toyota Corolla 1452 cc 3A HU intake and carb set up I based it on.
http://tercel4wd.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1383
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMD0praeb3g
I grew up with dual side drafts on a log head six: Nash Ambassador. Carter YH I believe, also used on the Corvette six and on the turbo Corvair. I surprised a few V8s with it. Famous for winning class at LeMans though with a custom head. I notice FTF has two SU looking carbs on one of his crossflow 300s. I'd like to do a sidedraft 250 just because I could hardly get closer to that old gem, and we have a world class SU man right here in Salem
I love my SU's. My 998, 1098 and 1275 Minis used HS4's, my fav was the HS6 in my 1798 cc Marina and all of what I know about carbs is HS based from David Vizard. Then I progressed to 'normal' carbs. The problem is muliple SU and S-Z carbs were never as reliable as a single SU or S-Z, even with the best tuners. Throttle balance and setting kerb idle and having the same uniform diaphragm realiability or dashpot drop was a problem with these carbs. Not un solvable, but an issue that hurt the mandated 50 000 mile service requirments for Federal Motor Vehicle emissions. Ultimately, it killed the last of the SU set ups, the Rolls Royce and some TR8's and US market Rover 3500 was the last applications of twins in 1980.
We had 1-bbl Motorcraft VV's on itty bitty 1.6 and 2.0 liter Vans, they were no trouble backyard tuning, as SU's taught it all. The Ford 7200 is a favorite of mine, and along with the Asian VV carb in Tercel's, were the last EPA carbs to survive the sedan emissions era were those in Police interceptor form. I think the 4180 4-bbl was listed in trucks, then it was port EFI. CFI suvived as a carb replacement in GM and Chrysler sixes and eights only because a lot of money was spent on this set up, not because it was better than carbs or port EFI. Evaporative emissions killed the CFI.
The problem is general population just ridiculed SU and Stomberg Zenith carbs, and then the factory variable venturi carbs that followed, and had problems with the Marquess of Queensberry Rules weren't those of the average US service mechanic. Not to blame the son of sam, but First thing you do with a US overseas air force base Land or Range Rover with a 3.5 V8 is throw the twin SU's or Stromberg-Zeniths in the bin, and bolt on a 390 cfm 4-bbl or 350 2-bbl.
:mrgreen:
And that is the final summary of good fuel systems before the port EFI engines, variable venturi carbs were the last carbs to sucessfully function in the pre ODBII era.
We had 1-bbl Motorcraft VV's on itty bitty 1.6 and 2.0 liter Vans, they were no trouble backyard tuning, as SU's taught it all. The Ford 7200 is a favorite of mine, and along with the Asian VV carb in Tercel's, were the last EPA carbs to survive the sedan emissions era were those in Police interceptor form. I think the 4180 4-bbl was listed in trucks, then it was port EFI. CFI suvived as a carb replacement in GM and Chrysler sixes and eights only because a lot of money was spent on this set up, not because it was better than carbs or port EFI. Evaporative emissions killed the CFI.
The problem is general population just ridiculed SU and Stomberg Zenith carbs, and then the factory variable venturi carbs that followed, and had problems with the Marquess of Queensberry Rules weren't those of the average US service mechanic. Not to blame the son of sam, but First thing you do with a US overseas air force base Land or Range Rover with a 3.5 V8 is throw the twin SU's or Stromberg-Zeniths in the bin, and bolt on a 390 cfm 4-bbl or 350 2-bbl.
:mrgreen:
And that is the final summary of good fuel systems before the port EFI engines, variable venturi carbs were the last carbs to sucessfully function in the pre ODBII era.
If you look at the old Healey sixes, the intake is not much more than a log with three synchronized SU's. No reason that a set of HS4 or HS6 carbs won't work well on a 200 or 250. One of the best things about an SU is that because it's a CV carb, it's hard to over carburete an engine.
nightwatchman59
Well-known member
I'm in the right place..... my studies continue.....
You listen to Jack Collins when he speaks. He doesn't do it often and what he says is true.
This guy is a wizard. He yoked 50 i-Phones into an array that worked like a three screen large-monitor display. One time he found a bunch of electrical conduit and welded up sports car in his garage. He learned from his mom. I understand that she found a bundle of steel wool in her sewing kit and knit him a motor scooter for his tenth birthday.
This guy is still proofreading the Bible.
This guy is a wizard. He yoked 50 i-Phones into an array that worked like a three screen large-monitor display. One time he found a bunch of electrical conduit and welded up sports car in his garage. He learned from his mom. I understand that she found a bundle of steel wool in her sewing kit and knit him a motor scooter for his tenth birthday.
This guy is still proofreading the Bible.
I have to start visiting these forums more often!
My latest project uses a bank of 38mm Keihin carbs from a ZX9R motorcycle. We dropped a ported, cammed 2.0 Zetec with a T5 into my son's MGB and have been tuning it lately.
It makes really marvelous noise at 7500 rpm! The build thread is at http://www.focusfanatics.com/forum/show ... p?t=302371
My latest project uses a bank of 38mm Keihin carbs from a ZX9R motorcycle. We dropped a ported, cammed 2.0 Zetec with a T5 into my son's MGB and have been tuning it lately.
It makes really marvelous noise at 7500 rpm! The build thread is at http://www.focusfanatics.com/forum/show ... p?t=302371
Attachments
kboldin
Well-known member
I had a 78 MGB for a time, put a lot of work into that car. Completely went through the interior and fabricated all the trim pieces including the big hoop that runs around the inside rear of the cockpit. I also rebuilt the Zenith Stromberg carburetor and let’s just say I’m very familiar with how it works now. I would have likely kept that car a lot longer but the smog laws changed and I couldn’t continue the build in the direction I wanted to go in. Like all manufacturers of the era, the smog equipment was garbage and suddenly became very valuable around these parts. It made no since to own the car any more so I ended up selling it. I will say, I really enjoyed the Zenith Stromberg after we got to know each other.
Jack, you're a genius! I've had two MGBs, a 66 and a 76. Fun cars but those engines would make better boat anchors. This build is great (looked through the thread). I've really been toying with the idea of one of these engines in my Falcon (or a falcon, maybe not this one). This has me inspired!
xrwagon
Well-known member
in my experience, anything can be done, usually the best people to do these conversions are the ones that have access to machinery to do so and dont put a $value on there time, i cant see why it cant be done, firts thing would be is to get an existing weber manifold, remember some of these are 3 piece and size it up, another thing to do is get a stuffed head and dissect it, see what can be done.
Easier than that, just get a complete zetec including all the FI hardware and a t-5. That shorty exhaust manifold looks easy enough to work with and in a Falcon would make for an easy turbo setup. Only internal engine mod would be a thicker, better head gasket. Would need a new CPU, though, and some bigger injectors likely.
xrwagon
Well-known member
i have a dream, i will post up a picture of what i envisage as my engine, if i can do something similar to what i am thinking it will realise a child hood dream.http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxM...2eC16d,!w0E9szN,FL0BS!NR-RnP!~~60_12.JPG/url]
xrwagon
Well-known member
Hilbourne made one just like that....in two part numbers from 1962 to 1969
Ford US ran an MPI Aussie 2V headed Comete at Bonnville
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=68966
http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread. ... Bonneville
Ford US ran an MPI Aussie 2V headed Comete at Bonnville
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=68966
http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread. ... Bonneville
xrwagon
Well-known member
I have seen this setup on a boat motor for sale, its probably long gone but had vertex mag etc, the setup i looked at years ago is for full on strip or race, as trying to pill it for the street does not seem to work, i will have to make some choices as you still need driveability, so maybe the hillborn manifold into throttle bodys and spun trumpets will be the go, i am also looking at a crossflow head conversion, i have found a guy that has a cnc program for a crossflow head so this seems like a good idea, but then that changes the whole thing, of running a hot injected log, for purely nostalgia reasons i will stay with a hot log, or id just do the 408 stroker and get rid of the six, i am enjoying the six and toying with it, you only live once. Injected log for the win.
