(2) 2bbl to 1bbl adapters

A

Anonymous

Guest
I'm bored at the office so I started to day dream a bit....... ;)


How difficult would it be to mount two 2v to 1v adapters to the log?

I thought about plugging the main port and creating two new intake ports on the log. I would then tap a new port for the PCV into the log between the new carbs. where the older 1BBL sat. But the only question I have is how should I plumb the vacuum?

Again....just thinking....I don't want to rebuild my 1BBL just to make the car run smoother. I don't plan on running it this winter until I at least completely restore the interior.
 
Like this?
dual_log.jpg

A while back when discussing using the stovebolt adapter with Ducktang he sent me this pic. He said that Peugot Bill is running this setup on a 200 that he races.

ron
 
I would assume that a good place could be directly into the log itself, drill and tap, stick in a large bung for the hose and let 'er fly. Maybe even put one into/onto the plate that plugs the original 1V hole..

ron
 
I have a spare 200 head I think needs a little tinkering with this weekend :D

My only concern is fuel delivary problems but I guess if the float is adjusted right than it will eliminate slosh problems. This way the jets stay submersed at all times.

Cool!

(But is this over kill? Hmmmmm)
 
Very interesting idea. So as to prevent over carburation, particularly at low RPM, I would consider progressive units. I would also consider lower flow units, i.e., we talking about 1650cc per side. 32/36 Weber is probably to big (320 cfm). 26/27 Holley 5200 with factory 2000cc Pinto might be a good place to start (270 cfm). There is a smaller 5200, 240 cfm as I recall. Need to think through the placement of the primary venturis. There is a reversed weber, i.e., with the promary left vs. the right side. Maybe one of each. This is very interesting !!
 
(But is this over kill? Hmmmmm)
Click to expand...
How would that ever happen??

Maybe with some smaller 32/36's with progressive linkage you could drive it successfully on the road. Ducktang said Peugot Bill runs this on a race only car with a pair of 38/38 (non progressive carbs).

But with smaller progressive carbs. It might be more doable.

ron
 
I had been thinking about that for along time. My thought is to use 2 of the smaller 240 cfm progressive holley/webers.
 
Yes, I think everyone agrees in a daily driver condition progressive carbs. would be the most feasible way to go. Any non progressive can be done BUT I would think idle would have to be set so high it would not be worth all the trouble (MPG?). Besides how wants to idle at 1200 + rpms. I say 1200 + because as you all know anything less would probably be too low when you shift into drive.

Mmmmmm....I think if we continue with this string we might be moved to the Experimental Forum.
:oops:


Okay, how about a 4V adaptation? Anyone.....




intake01.bmp
 
It's easy enough to shave the top of the log smooth and mount either one long adapter plate or 2 seperate short ones.

78 and later heads would probably be the best ones to experiemenitnterentent on being the top of the log is fairly flat and they have the biggest valves, etc...

A machine or welding shop can handle it and the aluminumnium is cheap enough to buy. 1/2 inch thick stock makes a good adapter plate. Counter sink the screws and it's done.

The only problem that I see with progressive carbs is that with a mechanical linkage they are still going to open to full throttle unless you can keep your foot out of it until you build up some RPM's....Not consistant at all for racing.

Someone oughta try removing the vacuum secondary actuater off a couple of old Holley 4 Bbls and make the secondaries on the webers vacuum operated.

Then they would'nt open up until they are actually needed.

Later,

Doug
 
Ron, do you still have the picture you posted during the time of the original inquiry?
 
I think that if this is done to the log head, that the block off plate for the orig. carb location should also have a divider under it to "split the intake" into a twin plenum intake. I belive it will help low end and mid range torque.
 
I dont know about completely blocking it off, because then you need a balance tube, perhaps a plate with a hole in it? Maybe a short stretch of pipe to somewhat restrict the flow?

-ron
 
Did Stang200 or Peugot Bill ever have their 2x2 setups running? Sounds interesting to me.

I'd like to do the 2x2 setup and put a partition beneath the stock opening to split the intake manifold in two. 2 Weber 38/38's or 2 Weber 32/36's?

ski
 
I did but for a very short period of time.

I'm currently in the process of prepping the car to sell. I decided it would be easier just to go back to the single Weber than two, especially when trying to sell the car. Don't want anything funny happening when I start showing it to potential buyers.

http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=179504#179504
 
Did you sort out the throttle cable/linkage problem? How did it run? Or did you not have time to "tinker" with the tuning aspect?

ski
 
I was able to sort out the linkage (thanks to 66 Fastback 200) and it did run but like I said, for not long. And yes, it was definitly noticeable over a single carburetor. ;)

If other things weren't more of a priority then I would probably have kept it with the dual setup and reworked the exhaust system with a set of headers and dual outs. But...I can't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top