STOCK 302 2bbl conversion on a 200

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
A

Anonymous

Guest
could I use use a stock vee eight 2bbl carb from a 302 on a 200 ci. if so what do I need to convert over the kit what adaptor??? i think its an Autolite 2100 it says motocraft. also wil this require engine workk cams head work etc.
 
pepsi:

You can get a single to a 2V carb adaptor from clifford. You have to drill the single base to match your manifold.

For a 200 and a Motorcraft 2100 you most likely will have to change the main jets to a #45 or 46. The 302 jets are likely to be #52 or 53's
 
Oscar,

Why would you have to lean out the carb when switching from a 302 to a 200?
 
Talking about a 200, this should be in the "small six" forum. Anyway, here's something I typed a long time ago concerning jetting:

benwantland":1r0tgm55 said:
The main priority for jetting is cam profile. A bigger cam requires bigger jets, because it has less vacuum for each intake stroke, due to the overlap. But engine size has comparatively little effect, because if two engines of different sizes have similar cam characteristics, they still need the same amount of fuel relative to the vacuum signal at the carb, it's just that the bigger engine is sucking it in faster. That said, if your engine is relatively stock, and that carb was set up for a stock 390, it should run about right on your engine. The standard jets and calibration are the best place to start.

The thing to remember about carb jetting is that it changes the fuel flow, not the airflow.... "jetting down" for a smaller engine is a great way to melt pistons, because you're cutting fuel, when, in fact, the smaller engine is pulling on the carb in a similar way, just not as quickly, if that makes sense.

With all of that said, the only real control you have over airflow is the vac secondary spring, and you could put a stiffer spring in, but there's no real reason to, as the 300 will have a tough time even getting the secondaries fully open on a 600 with a yellow spring. For tuning the sec. spring, I just start with the lightest and work my way up until there's no bog... if mileage is a very important concern, use one spring stiffer still... but that should never be an issue, unless you regularly cruise at WOT above 3000 rpm.

edit: ps, I'm drunk. Even so, the point I was getting at is that carbs need to be set up to run with cams, not engine size... they need to be CHOSEN based on engine size and rpm range (aka total airflow requirement), but the point I'll reiterate again is that regardless of whether a carb is too big or small for a given engine, the optimal setup will be VERY similar on a similarly built engine, but of a different size. Remember that, and you'll be fine.
 
The 200 does not pull as much air as a 300. To keep the air to fuel ratio correct the Main jet size has to be smaller.
 
Oscar,
I believe that is a misconception. Read ben's reply carefully. Pulling less airflow on the carb airflow curve does not necessarily mean the A/F will be leaner. In fact on the idle circuit less airflow usually gets you a richer mixture.
 
Thanks for clarifying FTF. I believe I can state it even more succintly. The carb jets meter fuel relative to airflow. Less airflow = less fuel.

Any size carb will be jetted fairly close on any size engine that has a similar camshaft profile. The carb may physically be too large or small and that in itself is detrimental to performance, but that's a whole different problem.
 
Seriously BW, won't the squareness play on it? I mean, the changing piston speeds despite identical cam profiles will determine how the flow volume changes/develops over the induction period.
 
Yeah, but I think the effect is minimal, and if it were my money, my engine, or any of my friends, that carb would go on there box stock first, and if it were running rich, we'd jet it down.... just a little bit.... better than burning something up from leanness.

The thing is, it's not even the vacuum developed by the engine that lets the fuel flow into the airstream, it's the pressure drop from air flowing through the venturis. This is going to be fairly consistently proportional no matter what is under the carb.

Think about it this way, you've got a carb for your 300, and it's perfect. You stomp on it at 2000 rpm with a heavy load behind. The accel pump shot burns up, and you're not accelerating, because you're pulling a heavy load uphill at 2000 rpm at WOT. Your a/f ratio is perfect.

Now, your buddy has a truck with a 200 in it (don't ask me how that happens). He also has the Honda philosophy: I can do the same work, I just have to spin faster to do it. But his carb died. So, you let him borrow yours. He bolts it down, then goes and gets the same load in the back of his truck. At the base of the hill, his 200 is humming along at 3000 rpm. He stomps it, and just like you, maintained speed. WOT at 3000 rpm.

Now, both of those engines were pumping approximately the same amount of air and making approx the same amount of power. Why should the carb need to be any different between them? The only disadvantage is the guy with the 200 won't have as crisp of a bottom end response.
 
This is an interesting thread. I have always thought of it as the carb seeing individual vacuum pulses from the engine. Granted, they do tend to average out at higher speeds but I do believe that the pulses are still distinct enough at normal engine speeds to be significant. The theory postulated by Benwantland seems to support this, as do the actual results (leaning out the jets is usually bad unless a significant cam change has been made). An extreme example would be my John Deere Model A tractor with its two cylinder, 331 ci engine running at a rated 975 rpm. It has a fairly large carburetor to feed those enormous gulps of air, but the camshaft has ZERO overlap. Yup, the exhaust valve is completly closed before the intake starts opening. I adjust the main jet until it pulls best under load (WOT). I don't remember the venturi size on this carb but it is at least as big as a Carter YF. I suspect that it would be jetted too lean for a Ford 300 unless you used a cam with zero overlap (that would sure be a dumb thing to do! ) Or maybe I'm all wet :?
Joe
 
Strobing down the venturi would be really interesting. Seriously.

Beyond that, the calcs would be a real pain! I started thinking it through - rates of change in volume, factor in valve lift superimposed over theoretical bench flow rates, assumptions about manifold flow characteristics. No wonder I like carpentry. :lol:

You'd end up reinventing the wheel, or at least Desktop Dyno!
 
I hate to be a poop; but, if pepsi bolts at 2100 from a 302 on his 200 - it will run rich and he will, sooner or later, have to jet it down some.
 
If you want an interesting read about different carbs on the same size engine (which is not the same thing we're discussing here, but the ideas are the same), check this out:

http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/techa ... index.html

They ran everything from a 390 to a 1000 cfm carb on a 440 hp small chevy, and pretty much all of them ran perfectly (in terms of A/F ratio) right out of the box... well, as perfect as they could, given that the 390 was way too small, and the 950 and 1000 were way too large.

Nonetheless, in the 390 - #65 jets all around. Perfect air/fuel ratio.
1000 - #84's. Again, perfect A/F

Fuel flows from a carb in relation to the amount of air that's flowing through it.
 
Oscar Meier":3gl2tlym said:
The 200 does not pull as much air as a 300. To keep the air to fuel ratio correct the Main jet size has to be smaller.

Ben and FTF are correct, Oscar. The smaller engine does pull in less air as you said. But a carb is a dumb fuel mixer that responds to airflow that causes a pressure drop across the venturi. Pull less air, get less fuel. It is already jetted to deliver a certain proportion of fuel for every volume of air that passes thru according to a calculated pressure drop. It doesn't know what size engine itZ-½- on.
 
Back
Top