Trying to decide on triple carbs or turbo

I should be getting a rebuildable 200 block and head within the next week or two, and I have to figure out if I'm going to go triple carb or turbo before I take it to the machine shop. Let me describe what I want the end result to be. The car is a 1965 Mustang.

Let me first explain that I'm not a "Mustang guy" in the traditional sense. It's the first one I've had and I got it because I made a trade I believe was favorable to me. To me, the the first-gen Mustang was the original sport compact, not a muscle car. I'm kind of picturing a domestic version of a modified MKI or MK2 VW GTI in my mind. Low, light, and lean, with a nice stance and good handling. I want it to be a reliable daily driver that will be a blast to drive on back roads, as well as manageable at freeway speeds. I have absolutely no interest at all in ever taking it to a drag strip. No interest whatsoever in drag racing, though I wouldn't mind trying autocross. I would, however, like to be able to shut the mouths of people who scoff at my six, so it should be reasonably fast. I used to have a 2000 VW GTI VR6 and it should have at least that much kick, preferably a little more. It should also not break the bank, as I'm currently in graduate school for a career that will leave me chronically underpaid. I'm not totally broke, though.

Other mods I know I want are a T5 (currently have a green dot C4), lowered suspension, and discs in the front. I'd also like to go 5-lug with an 8-inch rear and nice wheels. More or less in that order. But the engine has to come first, because right now i have a sickly 144 out of a 1960 Falcon in it, and I do not want to spend any money on that engine, so I'm building a 200.

Sooooo . . . I'm stuck as to whether to go triple carb or turbo. From what I've read, tri-carb is awesome (or at least awesome looking), but it's a pain to keep tuned and expensive to get set up. The turbo should be cheaper, but more work to get installed. It seems to me that the turbo also has more power potential. With a tri-carb, it's pretty much the carbs, an upgraded distributor, high compression, a cam, and headers, and you're at your power max, right? With a turbo, it seems like there's a lot more room to build serious power. And it seems like there's more room to build things incrementally. As in, I could start with just an Autolite 2100 and a DSII, and the car would run great. Then I could add a turbo and intercooler and all that later. And then I could upgrade my exhaust manifold later, and so on . . .

I already have an Offenhauser tri-carb intake. Jegs said it was no longer in production and they didn't have any, so I grabbed one from Summit just in case they really did stop making it. So that expense is out of the way. I already have one single barrel carb on the car, and I can get more for $75 each, plus $30 each for rebuild kits. And then air cleaners. That's it, right? Doesn't seem too bad. Is there something I'm missing? Then there's the tuning part. Is it really that much of a pain to keep them tuned once set up? My work will likely take me overseas for extended periods, and I'd like to be able to leave the car with my non-mechanically-inclined father while gone.

For the turbo, again, it seems like I could get away with just building a tough bottom end and then putting a 2-barrel and DSII on the car to start, and then going turbo as money comes along. I realize it will be a lot of work getting all the piping in order and getting things tuned up, but does a turbo setup stay pretty well in tune once you've got it dialed in? I do have access to a welder, by the way, though I'm still learning how to use it, and it's only flux-core at the moment. Oh well, ugly welds are ok as long as they work, and I'm willing to take the time to practice and learn.

So there it is. Half the reason I'm posted this is to organize my own thoughts on the matter. The other half is because I want to hear you guys' opinions on it. Am I missing anything? Are there any factors I'm not considering? I appreciate any feedback. Thanks.

Since you've already got the tri-carb intake and low on cash it seems a bit of a no-brainer to me.
Turbo set-ups require some significant fabbing talents and technical expertise in the area.
I wouldn't be worried about tuning a tri-carb. Get it running well with just the center carb first.
Get friendly with a vacuum guage.

Don't do one or either, do both. It's cheaper if you don't change your mind.


Do like Lincs 200 or hasa68mustang, and use a primary carb like JackFish says.

When you do a great hopped up six, you eliminate changing to other systems mid span, so decide, and don't change. The tripower requires an old style carb linkage, and on sixes, simple changes like the low mount blocks and later carbs changes the way you array and arrange parts. Everything is very inter-related. So you have to copy Kevinl058's normally aspirated set up, and turbo it hasa68mustang style.

If you do your homework, it will work brilliantly.

... original sport compact, not a muscle car., . should have at least that much kick, preferably a little more. It should also not break the bank, as I'm currently... , :


... nice thing about the small block six cars is that a little money and careful work can achieve major upgrades to performance. Modern street/interstate driving car is a simple goal but whether NA or Turbo, upgrades to Tires, Brakes Lighting, etc. , then engine performance upgrades can complete a daily-drivable car with sport feel simply being the result.

... Tri-Power 'Offy is best appeal-wise and will provide complete learning education experience about carburetion and many hours of fun. Turbo needs whole other education and experience set ... Offy tri-port intake or similar offers much different induction options whether NA or Turbo to the 'log' intake. ...

... The T5 (V8 gear) with typical six-car 3.50:1 rear is a good combination until suitable geared 8" is affordable...

... Light early Mustang with optimized suspension, brakes, '200 and T5/OD with right rear gears can drive confidently on enjoyable back roads or Interstate's 80MPH/bumpertobumper challenge.

have fun

'61 project: . .

Jackfish, yes it certainly would be a shame to get an offy manifold and then not use it, especially since i already opened the package. Machinist wanted to read the instructions. Anyway, I'm also worried the tri carb won't be powerful enough. Also, is it true that it makes the gas pedal hard on your leg?

Xtasy, yeah I'm trying to decide lol! Kevin's name didnt show up on a member lost. Did you spell it right?

Powerband, i thought im supposed to use a four banger t5?

I think tje solution os to have a tri carb mistang and a turbo mkii vw hajaja.

Ok, screw typing on this phone.

No, I made a mistake. That was my first Tablet post, and it sux..

kevinl1058 is the man

memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=11005

Agree w whats posted, that is, try the "trips" since you already have em, turbo is a whole new ballgame.
But you need to answer, for yourself, how fast is "reasonably fast"?
This is why most road tests report at least 0-60mph or 1/4 mile, etc.
Not really for drag racing, but for what the car will do.
My own scale is kind of, for 1/4 mile et
21s and slower - Breadbox territory.
20s - really slow, dangerous in traffic.
19s- driveable but always to the floor.
18s- slow
17s- tolerable, peppy if its a small car
16s- ok, not slow or fast
15s- has power but wish it had more
14s- fast, this is muscle car territory.
13s- about as fast as is usable on the street.
12s- Too fast. All you do is worry about the next guy's rear bumper.
11s- a toy.
Some other parameters
23.79 at 58mph: Slowest Falcon Six on record (144 Falcon slushbox)
19.33 at 69mph: Fastest Falcon 144 Six "Trips", 60 Falcon mar 60 Hot Rod tests, et/mph calc'd from 0-60 and 50-70
17.40 at 77mph: 66 Triumph TR4A, a real sports car. More class than anything new regardless of speed.
16.73 at 79mph: Fastest Falcon 200 Six "Trips", Gene 64 Falcon
14.39 at 92mph: Fastest Falcon 250 Six "Trips", 65 Mustang FSD EDIT forgot about this one!!! Maybe more in it.
14.10 at 95mph: Fastest normal (no spray or squeeze) 200 Six (Doug's 65 Mustang). Maybe 13s now? EDIT YES
13.67 at 98mph: Fastest normal (no spray or squeeze) 200 Six (Doug's 65 Mustang). Maybe 13s now? EDIT YES
10.95 at 124mph: Fastest Falcon Six (Kelly in Does10s)
OF course, speed required cubic inches or cubic dollars, so you need to decide how fast you want to go.
As you can see, 14s is about the limit for a 200 Six without turbo. If you follow Doug's car and Gene's car you can see how much work it is to get to this point without a turbo.
Still since you have the intake I'd start with that. You can always get another head or block off the holes if you go turbo later.

For all, comments welcome of course on the "Fastest" those are what I have catalogued, always looking for more.

Thanks xtasy as always for the commentary now I have more to look for!

It sounds like your goals would be best met by a well built tripower gig. It will cost you less to get sweet up, and paired with a decent transmission/gearing combo, will give you that quickness you are looking for. And they really aren't that finicky to get and keep tuned.

The added benefit will be that you can put more into your car elsewhere (suspension, tires, drive train) which is what it sounds like you really need to be where you're looking togo with your ride.

And I really do like the sound of your goals, I'm definitely more of a curve carver myself. Looking forward to hearing the build and the end results!

Your old GTI VR6 would beat the pants off my tri power 200. In my opinion, if you are looking for that snap then turbo hands down. Keep in mind that the small sixes (170-200 CID) were rated in the 100ish HP range. From what I've read, most guys that dyno tri powers are maybe 150ish HP. Turbo puts it over 200 or more. Tri power sure looks nice though and is good enough for me currently.

my wagon ran 12.54 over the eighth mile, i am hoping to go much faster, this is a full sized Falcon wagon with a 46 year old bottom end, all numbers matching 46 year old drivetrain. I have been ripped off twice now on buying some go fast bits, i am giving it one more try at buying a 2V head and triple dellorto carbs, if this works out then good, i will bolt the lot to my 46 year old bottom end and HANG ON!!! The main reason i want a 2V head is because a Australian company have blower manifolds and kits to buy to suit the head. Blown six woohoo

what times do you reckon i could run with these bolt on’s?

vssman":1p5sjxzz said:

Your old GTI VR6 would beat the pants off my tri power 200. In my opinion, if you are looking for that snap then turbo hands down. Keep in mind that the small sixes (170-200 CID) were rated in the 100ish HP range. From what I've read, most guys that dyno tri powers are maybe 150ish HP. Turbo puts it over 200 or more. Tri power sure looks nice though and is good enough for me currently.

Click to expand...

DW
Near as I can look up, that GTI VR6 made about 174 torq 181 power NET, or say about 200 torq 200 HP GROSS (the way our old stuff is rated). Web shows about 0-60 in the hi 6's, qtr in low 15s.

Like most new cars the GTI seems FAT (not PHAT, but FAT ie heavy). So your Mustang would have maybe a 300 lb weight edge.
Still, if you do everything right on a 200 six with trips you might just about equal that with a 5spd that hooks good, but it will be tough.

vssman,
Can you share any info about your build, timeslips etc, curious what your car is as I cant find it in my Gonkulator database. The cool factor of an old tripower is hard to beat, whether its a six or big v8. I think the Olds J-2 pioneered this, it wasnt really all THAT fast but seemed so cuz of the cool factor.

I'm running 9.3:1, decked block, 78 head,webers, about 11.5 AFR @WOT, DUI, don't recall timing but it's advanced quite a bit, cam was a custom ground unit the engine builder spec'd as he used to build these 200 for dirt racers, headers. If I recall correctly it was 204 @ .050 but I could be wrong. I've never dyno'd nor ran at the track. It feels very slow when compared to wifey's Subaru Forester XT turbo. Heck, my former built Cummins would run circles around my Falcon. Maybe I need more tuning, but I was expecting a bit more snap than what I currently have. Don't get me wrong, it's better than a stock 200 but it's not a fast car by any means. Cool factor: Tri power all day long. But I still think if you want the raw get up and go then turbo would give more of that. Of course, if I had built a turbo motor that ran poorly I'd be posting to run a tri-carb... :roll:

its not to far over stock thats probably why, but need to look at your goals, my 200 build will centre around head, carb and ignition, just a rebuilt and bored 20 thou bottom end thats been balanced and has some decent rod bolts, the secret is in the top half. I want low 15’s high 14’s qtr’s out of my wagon, so it will need to be right.

man, my minivan is right in the "not too fast, not too slow" range @ 16.4 for the 1/4 mile. 0-60 in 8.1.

it's unthinkable to me that anyone working a 200 six would even start a triple carb or turbo engine unless there is a 200 hp naturally aspirated engine under it. Adding just 9 pounds of boost on a cammed and worked 200 would then make a 200 hp engine give 320 hp with the right bits attached. A 274 cam, and either a good Toploader, T5, or a high stall converter C4, C5 or AOD would set you up for victory in any situation.

With respect to all Americans here, the problem is that the original tripower set up wasn't ever able to make any more than 220 hp with a 250 engine, as it's total port area is severely restricted, and its a "fail" in terms of performance per dollar. Crosely proves that about 1 K or parts can make an old 200 make 205 hp, more than one hp per cube.

The two best tripowers are kevinl1058 and FalconSedanDelivery's 181 and 220 flywheel hp cars.

The best thing about the tripower is fuel distribution, and how it can fix the problems with detonation that Lincs 200 had on his engine.


Now, we have to do some basic historical normally aspirated Aussie I-6 "edgamucation"

The Aussies from 1963 to about 1973 were way ahead of us Ford I6 guys...they used nasty siamese 9 port heads which wouldn't flow more than about 120 cfm at 400 thou lift, and they had the smallest valve sizes, yet made 216 hp to 240 hp with there little 186 and 202 factory race triple carb engines just by giving them
1. great carburetor square inch venturi area for every cubic inch of engine, and
2. by making low load stress cams with large duration but not much lift,and
3. High rpm pistons in high silicon content cast alloy, and
4. forged rods and
5. sometimes, forged cranks or at least fully counterweighted nodular iron cranks.

In 1973, a good factory Torana 202 made 235 hp with triple DCOE 45 carbs missing every second barrel, but with just three 40 mm chokes and 45 mm or carb, it could rev to 6500 rpm with a 312 degree HX cam, 1.675" intake valves and forged con rods and a steel crank. It was 19 hp up on the 1972 race Torana XU1, which ran triple1.75" throttle bore CD175S Zenith Stromberg carbs which flowed about 245 cfm each. 216 hp from three 1.75" carbs.

We have TOTALLY missed the lesson of those engines. 1.75" holes fed each group of two cylinders, yet our, WITH RESPECT, stupid Offy and Edelbrock tripowers try to get away with 1.09" or 1.4375" on the outers, with 1.3, 1.65, or 1.75" on the centers. It was expedient as a solution, but dumb in 1960, and 1975, and is dumb now, yet we are still getting 181 hp from a 200 and 220 hp from a 250. And that shows how smart the US cam and exhast tuners are.

The next step back in the day, was to follow good old 1967 179 cubic inch L6 GM Holden logic, and that was slapping three Jag XKE or Aston Martin DB series 2" SU HD8's on, and you got 240 hp at 6500 with the right Wade 391 or 104 cam.

Nothing we've done has smartened up the square inches or venturi to cubic inches of engine formula for our 200 and 250 engines, so our log head engines with a direct mount 500 cfm 2-bbl 4412 Holley with two 1.6875" throttles and 1.375" venturis can eclipse a set of Weber 34 ICT or ICH's with 29 mm chokes, as the Webers have less carb area than the 500 2-bbl. The smartest cucumber on this message board is FordSedanDelivery, who IIRC, used a set of Holley 1908 big bore outer carbs with 1.4375" throttles and 1.1875" venturis, and an Autolite 1101 with the same throttles and venturis. Despite a huge loss in port area, he made what I know to be 220 flywheel hp based on his slip times over the standing 1320 dash.

My suggestion is to up the port area with three good 1.65 inch throttle 42 mm carbs, the Asian AL1 Variable Venturi carb found on 3A engined 1978- 1985 Toyota Tercel or Carib , and make sure the dash pot surfaces are not worn through the teflon coating, and you can make 190 hp with three before a turbo is even added.




From http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread. ... ine/page13

I tried three Aisan VV carbs on a prototype log, which fits the Classic Inlines head, the log head, and allows full emission control EGR and air conditioning to fit, it fits the tall 250 engine under the Fox body hood. Its found on lots of cars, here is 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

As a single, they make 63 hp stock, individually, but are totally progressive in the venturi size from zero to about the equivalent of a 1.45" venturi, enough for about 240 hp if its jetted to suit . The stock jets can be reprofiled to suit the needs of a turbo engine by thining the needle. A competent jewler can do the best work, but so can a bench drill with some emery paper, and a set of plastic calipers and a straight edge. There are 14 factory listings for this carb, from Suzuki, Proton, Toyota (overseas Corollas, Starlets, Caribs) , Mitsubishi/(Colt Galants, Mirage) and Toyota engined forklifts with these engines. Because of the in service problems with the surface lining, they are easy to get, and if the lining is okay, you are good to go.

See
Mitsubishi http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/CARBURETTOR- ... 0696253128
Proton http://www.zerotohundred.com/newforums/ ... n-275.html
Suzuki & Toyota http://igunosmech.blogspot.co.nz/2011/1 ... retor.html


Then turbo and boost the living daylights out of it. With proper fuel delivery, and proper carb area, a turbo can work, and the carbs sit flat, low and they are the ultimate in easy.

Before you fit them, bore the stock Offy out to 1.65 on the outer holes, and go back to the machine shop, and mig weld the out side of the the iron to ensure enough wall thickness, then make an alloy cover to ensure there are no leaks if the weld cracks. The inner, just has to be taken out to the same 1.65 inches, but there is ample port area there without having to protect the casting, or welding it. MustangGeezer and Peugoet Bills old versions of their log head engines had very good stainless steel exhast heat soak eliminators, basically a flat or curved plate over the exhast system, and there are pictures of their set-ups if you look through the posts they made, and I have mentioned them often.

Then go build your bad ass engine. Build it the way Lincs200 and hasa68mustang did there's, but with the extra carb area a great tri power will fuel up brilliantly, and can behave they way the very best carb turbos did, the British MG Metro Turbo 1.3 and MG Maestro Turbo. These were tuned by Lotus with the Garret T3 60 Turbo from the 230 hp Lotus Esprit Turbo, and were boost modulated with the SU carb providing the boost modulation.


The pistons have to be better quality than stock, forged pistons run 100 degrees F cooler in a turbo engine than cast iron, but you can get away with German Mahale high silicon pistons with a small 8.5 cc dish. Repco and ACL used the German suppliers pistons in the 1973 race car Torana XU1 GTR 3300's, and its modern Ford variants are okay to 7500 rpm and cope with turbo installations to 360 hp. 13 to 16 pounds or boost should give you close to that with the right piston. I'd personally use a Lincs200, Does10s or hasa68mustang style intercooler (an aftercoler is what it is actually, and suppliers for Isuzu 210 and 260 hp fiver cylinder trucks and Subaru's are good at giving cheap units with a huge amount of surface area)

The the exhast valves have to have a better material a good stellite insert, I'd personally look at iconel from the Ferra cataloge. Go up in valve guide size on the exhast to Australian 250 size.

Lastly, look at how the Aussies do turbo set ups on MCM. Forget the profanity and non related banter, and go through all three vidoes, 31, 17.5 and 26.5 minutes all told, but it gives an overview of what modern tuners do. Running carbs and no ECU means the huge potential for technician over run is eliminated. You will need a dyno tune, but as long as the ignition, fuel pressure, carb operation is set, you can do the wide open throttle work right away. You eliminate the need for intermediate boost tuning, as the carbs take care of boost and part throttle fuel delivery by using three variable venturi carbs
See http://www.mashpedia.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUKgKtMX ... r_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt0M-Bs3 ... r_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8ZDL5eO ... r_embedded

MG Metro Turbo
http://www.mgownersclub.co.uk/mg-metro-turbo.html

MG Montego Turbo
http://www.mgownersclub.co.uk/mg-montego-turbo.html

Just do your research and come up with the best motor for your use. I really like tinkering so tri-power does that because those carbs have so much attitude depending on the weather. Right now the motor absolutely love the cold air. I swear that it feels like it has picked up HP/Trq. Tempted to run it back on the dyno. In my area just the cool factor of the tri-power 6 and not going with a V8 is a plus. Good luck with your build. Hit me up if you decide to go tri-power and I can give you my build/tuning specs.
Happy New Year
Kevin

Yep, happy new year to you all. kevinl1058, your rolling road hp figures prove that even three comparatively undersized carbs make exceptional power with his cam and jetting. They are an inspiration, because they are period, cooler than ice cool, and so right on your round body that it overshaddows any fat bored V8 anytime you show it. It just messes up peoples ordered little lives, and they aren't the same again.

The set up works very well, and it ticks all the right boxes. Those FalconSedanDelivery numbers show how much extra hp there is on the table when the compression, cam, gearing venturi and main throttle sizes are optimized.


WerbyFord, you can certainly get your teeth stuck into this thread, and you'll see from my work with bill in indy's work with the desktop dyno that a Ford I6 responds to larger throttles, venturis and independent runner conversions.viewtopic.php?t=42347. There are six pages of info to show us what works and what doesn't in engine specs for I6's

The optimization of tri power set ups is the hidden elixir for ills that Carrol Shelby talked about with the Total Performance Tri power V8's in seven strengths to 348 hp for the 260 and 289, but our sixes are missing port area and a little bit of collective knowledge that other six cylinder builders have known about for years.

Anyway, I don't mean to rabbit on, as a Kevin style tripower is a very good start for any turbo, and people go ga-ga when they see the tri-power set up under the hood. When a turbo or intercooler is spied, they will freak...

Thanks for all the replies, guys. Sorry it took me so long to respond, as I've been without internet except my phone lately. xctasy, you, sir, are way over my head. I will have to return to this thread and study all the information you have provided after I get some more experience. I'm pretty sure I'm going to stick with the tri-carb setup. I didn't know you could turbo a tri-carb before. Unfortunately, the project is on hold at the moment, as I just purchased a motorhome cash, and that cash was my savings for the Mustang project. And then my wife just got laid off! Same day she gets laid off, they sent her a "happy birthday" card in the mail. Isn't Wal-Mart nice? Anyway, that about kills any chance of getting much done over the next two or three months. But no worries! We've been financially conservative enough (no credit cards!) that I'm in no danger of having to sell my Mustang to pay the bills, and the motorhome will pay for itself after two months of not paying rent on that house we're living in now. For now, I guess I'm stuck trying to get the old 144 to run as smoothly as possible.

Don't have ANY experience with a tri-power setup but I do enjoy a good turbo or 2

The closest I can relate to the tri-power would be my 2 barrel direct mounted to the head with a mild cam and headers. I ran a 17.8 if I remember correctly.
The exact same motor but unbolting the headers and making the super inexpensive j-pipe and no lag turbo off a ford probe and no intercooler ran 15.7 again if I remember correctly. I did that when I was 17 years old and I am 25 now.... where has the time gone?! That was the exact time my automatic 95 mustang gt ran stock (which is also turbo powered now) The 15.7 was on 7 pounds of boost and I later went to a too large turbo on 10 lbs but wiped out the transmission in the process. Still have the 68 but its turbo big block powered.

I can't believe 8 years later I see my screen name being dropped!