Stock Autolite 1100 Jets

[peeeot]

I'm just wondering if anyone knows what the stock jets are for the 1100 carburetor from '66 to '68 on the 200 ci with manual transmission.

If no one knows what they're supposed to be, what are people using?

I'm using a 64 on mine right now. The engine is from '67 and has been bored 40 over but is otherwise bone stock as far as I know.

I also have a 68 around in a spare carb and am curious as to which is the better choice for best efficiency (assuming that neither too lean nor too rich are the best).

 

[fordconvert]

I cant find my manual at the moment but it seems like there were quite a few options. Unless you have a wideband afr meter just read your spark plugs.

 

[peeeot]

I didn't realize this info was in the shop manual. I looked it up and for '66 for the standard 200ci it calls for a 69F. This is surprising to me because I would have guessed based on my plugs that the 64 in there is delivering enough fuel because the plugs are pretty clean-looking.

All the jets the manual listed were labeled ##F. Should I expect a jet of size ## to be the same as a jet of size ##F?

Also, does the number of the jet correspond to the diameter of the hole in thousandths of an inch (ex. 64F = 0.064")?

 

[page62]

Also, does the number of the jet correspond to the diameter of the hole in thousandths of an inch (ex. 64F = 0.064")?

Yes. I can even measure unmarked jets using my vernier calipers.

If your engine is running good and the plugs look clean (and not lean), why mess with success? (And to answer your original question, a 68 jet would reduce your fuel economy due to the richer mixture.)

 

[peeeot]

I pulled all my plugs again and I think I was wrong--they look lean. Each plug has a "shadow" that has some light deposits on it from oil-burning (leaky stem seals) but the side that's in the face of the flame front is bone-white. They're supposed to be sandy-colored, right?

I swapped in the 68F I had and I'm not sure whether the engine felt peppier because I never drive it hard but it did feel like it was easier to execute a smooth shift.

What's bad about running it lean?

 

[woodbutcher]

Oh,just minor little things,like burned valves,holes in pistons from detonation and such.
Leo

 

[deebee53]

Too lean (or too rich for that matter) causes excessively high cylinder temps. These high temps are what kills engine parts.

"Fuel cools!!"

 

[page62]

68 sounds about right. I'm using a 64 jet in my 170, with a 1.1" venturi, and it runs pretty good.

 

[peeeot]

whew! I'm glad I went ahead and made that swap then! I didn't realize how much may have been at risk for the last thousand or so miles.

I haven't pulled my plugs again yet to check how much things have changed but what I have noticed is that it is unquestionably easier to execute a smooth start in 1st gear (3.03 trans) and I can do so at a few hundred rpms less. It's hard to tell but I think it's a little quieter and smoother and might require slightly less throttle than it used to as well. I'm liking it so far I suppose the engine internals are liking it too.

There is a link to an article written by Ak miller somewhere on this site. He recommends a 65 jet for best economy and performance, and it was reading that article that had me thinking my 64 was probably a better choice than the 68. Now I'm wondering why he would say that since it must be too lean for a 200. Hmm, now I can't seem to find that article. It's from a 1968 issue of Hot Rod Magazine.. anyone know what I'm talking about? Maybe I found it somewhere else.