Click Here -> Please Consider Making a PayPal Contribution to the FordSix Forum!
2019 Contributors:
NJwpod, 1strodeo, mightynorseman, maxtrux, 6d7coupe, broncr, Phase3, 68Flareside240, bmbm40,
mustang6, WorldChampGramp, justintendo, BigBlue94, ags290, motorsickle1130, Rooster, ousooner919, ethanperry
rzcrisis, DoctorC, jamyers, Motorboy, fastpat, Silverback280, chad


<<< New Site Update >>>

32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Moderator: Mod Squad

FALCONAROUND
Registered User
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:22 pm
Location: Gorst-Orchard 39 miles from Lord Murff
Contact:

32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #1 by FALCONAROUND » Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:10 am

Anyone else have issues with their Weber 2V not having enough ass to it to drive in the city without having to go to the secondaries to get a few more rpm's before shifting?

I think I'm going to get a 38 DGV and modify it to be a progressive linkage instead of sequential and see if I keep my fuel mileage up all the while having extra power when needed.

Your thoughts fella's and fellettes?

User avatar
JackFish
VIP Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 7:31 pm
Location: Winnipeg Manitoba Canada

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #2 by JackFish » Fri Oct 21, 2011 10:34 am

Your mileage should be OK though.... :lol:
1978 Ford Fairmont station wagon
1978 Ford Fairmont station wagon
Yup, I bought another one.
1996 Chevy Caprice 9C1 (3)
1999 Dodge Ram 2500

FALCONAROUND
Registered User
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:22 pm
Location: Gorst-Orchard 39 miles from Lord Murff
Contact:

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #3 by FALCONAROUND » Fri Oct 21, 2011 11:44 am

Well I don't know how much better over the Carter YF I had in there but I'd REALLY like enough ass in the primary barrel to shift through the gears and take over 3500 rpms.

Maybe a 38/38 will work.

User avatar
JackFish
VIP Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 7:31 pm
Location: Winnipeg Manitoba Canada

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #4 by JackFish » Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:23 pm

I've been sitting on the fence a long time about which carb to go with, a progressive or a Holley/Autolite 2bbl. Your post has definitely swayed me to the latter. I've wondered whether the primary on the progressive has enough flow to make it a sensible choice.

Perhaps the accelerator pump shot could be increased?
1978 Ford Fairmont station wagon
1978 Ford Fairmont station wagon
Yup, I bought another one.
1996 Chevy Caprice 9C1 (3)
1999 Dodge Ram 2500

FALCONAROUND
Registered User
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:22 pm
Location: Gorst-Orchard 39 miles from Lord Murff
Contact:

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #5 by FALCONAROUND » Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:56 pm

The acc pump is not the issue, it simply runs out of air for smooth acceleration at about 2900 rpms.

I was wanting progressive because of fuel economy. The Autolite 1100 is about 170-190 CFM I think, and the Carter YF is much better flow wise but still only about 215 max.

The 32/36 DGV flows a decent 255 CFM with BOTH venturi's open but it starves my 200 cubes out in city driving well before normal shift range and I need the increased volume of the 2nd barrel to make up for that.

The Weber 38 DGAS is 380 CFM I think, and which is what my entire engine needs to run max power, but I would like to keep the driving mileage of a singel primary and the secondary for full power. Maybe I can convert the 38 to a progressive secondaries carb...

Still looking for a cheap one, I have 10 days until I leave in my Falconaround for a 2,500 mile trip to Vegas then Sacramento then home again over a 15 day period.

User avatar
JackFish
VIP Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 7:31 pm
Location: Winnipeg Manitoba Canada

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #6 by JackFish » Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:32 pm

Have you thought about a tri-power set-up?
1978 Ford Fairmont station wagon
1978 Ford Fairmont station wagon
Yup, I bought another one.
1996 Chevy Caprice 9C1 (3)
1999 Dodge Ram 2500

CZLN6
VIP Member
Posts: 3325
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 11:07 am
Location: Idaho Falls, Id
Contact:

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #7 by CZLN6 » Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:03 pm

Howdy:

FYI- on a Ford 200 the autolite 1100 is rated at 185 cfm. The Carter YF is rated at 187 cfm.

It is not unusual to get into the secondary barrel on acceleration and higher speeds. Where the economy comes in is on steady speed driving where only the primary barrel is utilized.

Adios, David
co-author of the Falcon Performance Handbook
http://www.falcon6handbook.com/

FALCONAROUND
Registered User
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:22 pm
Location: Gorst-Orchard 39 miles from Lord Murff
Contact:

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #8 by FALCONAROUND » Fri Oct 21, 2011 6:07 pm

About time somebody tells me the correct CFM numbers, Where did you get them and how can the 1.5" venturi of the 1100 compete with the 1.75 " YF by less than 3 CFM? That's preposterous to think of and partially offensive :)

Is there a Calculator that allows an average Venturi size flow chart? It's killing me not knowing how to calculate the ACTUAL FLOW OF A CARB by the venturi size! :bang: :bang: :bang:

But to address another comment, I'm wanting power and wanting to retain my fuel economy. The tri-power would keep my economy the same running off the center carb... Not make it better by a better carb design...

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6860
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #9 by xctasy » Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:21 pm

The following statements are based on actual use of the Weber 32/36 carb, not just theory.

The 32/36 has been used primarily on small four cylinder cars in the Ford empire, Kent OHV's from 1300 to 1800, Pinto and Lima OHC's from 1300 to 2300. So its Small. Without a rework of the venturi sizes, its a 110 hp carb tops, with140 hp possible at a pinch with a good aircleaner and ideal jetting.

In 1974, it was used on Capri Cologne 2600 V6's, then 2800 V6's for a year or two, Capris, Aerostars, Bronco II's. In Australia, our 200 and 250 sixes used a similar varaint, the ADM 34, which had bigger venturis, and worked better.

The 32/36 is not too small for performance on a 200/3.3 I6, but if you use the stock venturis, it will be at transition at about 2500 onwards wide open throttle.

My suggestion is to go to enlarge the venturis 29 and 31 mm , and rejet. Do a search on my old posts, there's a recent "how to do"
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

FALCONAROUND
Registered User
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:22 pm
Location: Gorst-Orchard 39 miles from Lord Murff
Contact:

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #10 by FALCONAROUND » Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:33 pm

Thanks for that.

O can hog out the ventiri's. Is there some pics of this being done along with the jetting thread?

User avatar
woodbutcher
VIP Member
Posts: 2052
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: LaFollette Tn.

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #11 by woodbutcher » Fri Oct 21, 2011 10:37 pm

:shock: Hi FAR.I don`t thing "hog out"is the term.I would think that using a brake cylinder hone to get close,and then finish with something like emory cloth or VERY fine wet or dry sandpaper to finish to the size that you want,and also polish the finished size.
Xctasy.Am I correct?
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo
"People never lie so much as after a hunt,during a war,or before an election".
Otto von Bismarck

Anlushac11
RC/TS Moderator
Posts: 1675
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 3:10 am
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana, USA

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #12 by Anlushac11 » Fri Oct 21, 2011 11:18 pm

IIRC the 32/36 is rated around 278cfm. That should be enough carb, but yeah you will need to hit the secondaries to get it moving.

IMHO thats half the fun, feeling the secondaries kicking in :D
3.3L n C4 installed, working on wiring for Duraspark II, trans lines, fuel lines, carb linkage.

FALCONAROUND
Registered User
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:22 pm
Location: Gorst-Orchard 39 miles from Lord Murff
Contact:

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #13 by FALCONAROUND » Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:49 am

No need to hit secondaries to get moving only to move past 2900 rpm while in gear.

Hogging out is an endearing term to me :) I think a progressive 38MM would be a SUPERB candidate for both Power AND fuel mileage.

FALCONAROUND
Registered User
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:22 pm
Location: Gorst-Orchard 39 miles from Lord Murff
Contact:

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #14 by FALCONAROUND » Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:25 am

Hey, what's with the little gold falcon guy near my name??

User avatar
chad
Registered User
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:51 am
Location: Lawrence Swamp, S. Amherst, MA

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #15 by chad » Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:59 am

FALCONAROUND wrote:Hey, what's with the little gold falcon guy near my name??


Where, I don't C it from here?
A "smilie"?
"Big thing is only make one change at a time. Change 2 or more things at a time it becomes difficult to figure which change helped or hurt" turbo2256b » 1/16/2017
Chad - '70 LUEB on '77 frame (i.e. PS, D44, trapezoidal BB 9", 4.11), 250, NV 3550 & DSII to B transplanted, "T" D20/PTO, 2" SL, 1" BL, 4 discs, 33"X15", tool boxes, etc. Seeking: Hydraulic gear motor for Koenig pto. chrlsful@aol.com (413) 259-1749

sp_alloy_head
Registered User
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:50 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #16 by sp_alloy_head » Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:25 am

MercuryMarc experimented with enlarging a Holley/Weber here is the thread. viewtopic.php?t=36105

FALCONAROUND
Registered User
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:22 pm
Location: Gorst-Orchard 39 miles from Lord Murff
Contact:

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #17 by FALCONAROUND » Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:45 pm

Sorry Chad, I was drunk... What's with the little Gold penguin looking guy next to my name on the left?

User avatar
chad
Registered User
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:51 am
Location: Lawrence Swamp, S. Amherst, MA

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #18 by chad » Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:53 pm

FALCONAROUND wrote:Sorry Chad, I was drunk... What's with the little Gold penguin looking guy next to my name on the left?


Still don't C it, U must have the hi priced subscription to frd6?
Good luck w/the carb...
"Big thing is only make one change at a time. Change 2 or more things at a time it becomes difficult to figure which change helped or hurt" turbo2256b » 1/16/2017
Chad - '70 LUEB on '77 frame (i.e. PS, D44, trapezoidal BB 9", 4.11), 250, NV 3550 & DSII to B transplanted, "T" D20/PTO, 2" SL, 1" BL, 4 discs, 33"X15", tool boxes, etc. Seeking: Hydraulic gear motor for Koenig pto. chrlsful@aol.com (413) 259-1749

CZLN6
VIP Member
Posts: 3325
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 11:07 am
Location: Idaho Falls, Id
Contact:

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #19 by CZLN6 » Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:49 pm

Howdy Back:

"About time somebody tells me the correct CFM numbers, Where did you get them and how can the 1.5" venturi of the 1100 compete with the 1.75 " YF by less than 3 CFM? That's preposterous to think of and partially offensive"

I got the CFM numbers from several sources; FoMoCo service manuals as well as Pony's Ford Carburetor Guide. I'm guessing the 1.5' and 1.75" measurements you're referring to are throttle bore diameters. The venturi is the narrowest part of the throat of the carb, above the butterflys. THe inner diameter of the venturi on both the 1100 and the YF from 200s measure 1.2". I think the 2 cfm difference between the two carbs comes from a slightly different venturi booster, the donut looking thing located inside the venturi. I assumed you were looking for detailed information. I did not think that I was being offensive. Sorry, If I came across that way. One of the strength of this forum is accurate information. That's what I was attempting to provide for you.

"Is there a Calculator that allows an average Venturi size flow chart? It's killing me not knowing how to calculate the ACTUAL FLOW OF A CARB by the venturi size!"

You might want to check out the calculator on our website. The link is in my signature below. On the left is a button called "Compression Calculator". Included in the calculator is a cfm rating to achieve that rpm, with a specified level of Volumetric Efficiency (VE) along with a specific engines data. It does not give a venturi size flow chart.

Adios, David
co-author of the Falcon Performance Handbook
http://www.falcon6handbook.com/

User avatar
bubba22349
Global Moderator
Posts: 9087
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Flagstaff, Az. 86005 near the old Route 66

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #20 by bubba22349 » Sat Oct 22, 2011 3:00 pm

To know the actual flow of a carb you would need to use a flow bench. Next best you would need to use the manufactures flow rate.
A bad day Drag Racing is still better than a good day at work!

I am still hunting for a project car to build but with my current low budget it's not looking so good. My Ex- Fleet of Sixes these are all long gone! :bang: 1954 Customline 223 3 speed with O/D, 1963 Fairlane project drag car with BB6, 1977 Maverick 250 with C4, 1994 F-150 a 300 with 5 speed.

FALCONAROUND
Registered User
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:22 pm
Location: Gorst-Orchard 39 miles from Lord Murff
Contact:

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #21 by FALCONAROUND » Sat Oct 22, 2011 7:30 pm

CZLN6 wrote: I did not think that I was being offensive. Sorry, If I came across that way.
No no no no, I was joshing, I was simply saying that I thought the YF flowed better because the base is 1.75" inches across, I never looked down the throat...

You might want to check out the calculator on our website. The link is in my signature below. On the left is a button called "Compression Calculator". Included in the calculator is a cfm rating to achieve that rpm, with a specified level of Volumetric Efficiency (VE) along with a specific engines data. It does not give a venturi size flow chart.
well I KNOW how to get those numbers but I have no clue to find out (and I've searched far and wide) how to get Manufacturers flow rate for ANY dang old carb. No book I've ever held had those numbers. What I need is a calculation in simple heathen English, that I can use to estimate flow as per venturi size. I mean it's all well and good to buy a 750 carb cause a calculator said that's what you need, but how the heck does one KNOW when it's NOT written on the damnable carbs and nobody has a chart made up? I have about 20 different carburetors here but have no clue what each one is rated at...
Adios, David


That's what's got me abotu carburetors, now this 32/36 is NOT enough primary to city drive my Falcon, So I'll find a 38 somewhere and post the results.

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6860
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #22 by xctasy » Sun Oct 23, 2011 4:30 am

FALCONAROUND wrote:Thanks for that.

O can hog out the ventiri's. Is there some pics of this being done along with the jetting thread?


Care of the brains addo and the hands of MercuryMarc

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30391&hilit=Holley+Weber+carb

Image

Image

Image


Care of How to Modify Ford S.O.H.C. Engines

Track down a copy
Paperback: 176 pages
Publisher: Newpro U.K Ltd (December 31, 1990)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0863430856
ISBN-13: 978-0863430855
ImageImage,



Take the primary venturi out to 29 mm, and the seconday out to 31 mm. Rejet to suit. Air flow can go from 227 cfm at 25"H20 to 245 cfm with this mod, but to well over 275 cfm if Vizards air horn, throttle thinning or cold choke removal mods are made. The stock 350 cfm Holley #7448 is rated at 275 cfm at 25" H20, so a 21% boost without having to buy a new carb if you do it right

No 38 Weber required, and air flow just a little below. Stock cfm for US 5200 series Holley Weber and Euro 32/36 Weber is 227 to 230 cfm at a 25"H20 pressure drop (1.85"hg). Other Holleys use 1.5"Hg or 3"Hg ratings for the Holley Weber 2-bbl, and there are sixteen other types of staged Weber , Holley Weber and Holley Carter version from GM, Mopar, Fiat or Renault to choose from, so don't too worried about CFM flow rates...those who sell them don't even know.


FALCONAROUND wrote:Is there a calculator that allows an average Venturi size flow chart? It's killing me not knowing how to calculate the ACTUAL FLOW OF A CARB by the venturi size! :bang: :bang: :bang:



You can't calculate flow by venturi size, as its dependent on an airflow at a certain pressure drop from the air horn to the base of the throttle. And the flow rate is defined at a certain standard that could be 1.5, 1.85, 2, or 3"hg


If your bored, see this viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8106&start=0
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

FALCONAROUND
Registered User
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:22 pm
Location: Gorst-Orchard 39 miles from Lord Murff
Contact:

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #23 by FALCONAROUND » Sun Oct 23, 2011 6:03 am

xctasy wrote:
FALCONAROUND wrote:[b]Holley Weber and Euro 32/36 Weber is 227 to 230 cfm at a 25"H20 pressure drop (1.85"hg)[/b]. Other Holleys use 1.5"Hg or 3"Hg ratings for the Holley Weber 2-bbl, and there are sixteen other types of staged Weber , Holley Weber and Holley Carter version from GM, Mopar, Fiat or Renault to choose from, so don't too worried about CFM flow rates...those who sell them don't even know.

You can't calculate flow by venturi size, as its dependent on an airflow at a certain pressure drop from the air horn to the base of the throttle. And the flow rate is defined at a certain standard that could be 1.5, 1.85, 2, or 3"hg


OK, Can't friggin do it I get that, but the 215 CFM of the weber and holley are when both barrels are open is that not the truth?

If I use a 32mm primary that is less than Half of the flow (being smaller than the secondaries) then I'm NOT getting access to the way my thoughts are behaving. the 38/38 will flow far better on the initial venturi due to it being larger and Generally speaking larger flows more, or it wouldn't be rated at a higher cfm, or H2O or what ever the berjezus that greek is... That is why I want the 38, I know for a truth to me that if I progressive and properly jet a 38, I'll only need the secondaries to schitt and Gitt. It's the EXACT same concept as the GM Rochester Quadrajunk, 225 CFM flow in the .89" primaries and 699 CFM in the Pancake size secondaries.

Don't anything I say make sense? LOL I'm not a scholar, but I got a little know whut built into me. I thought...


Gary

User avatar
powerband
FSP Moderator
Posts: 1965
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 6:45 pm
Location: Mid Hudson Valley - \H/

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #24 by powerband » Sun Oct 23, 2011 10:50 am

The populuar alternative Holley/Weber 5200 series 32/36 clone was used in similar wide range of applications including the Capri 2800 (170 cid) V6. On a fairly high CR 170, I used a generic 4cyl 5200 with all ranges of jetting with little improvement from the 1bbl until finding a 2800 V6 application H/W 5200 version. On the 170 six it improved performance and mileage dramatically . I can't account for differences even swapping same jetting between carb bodies 8) ... But as mentioned it is easy and fun to get the secondaries workin'.

Image Image Image Image

Image
"Take time to stop and smell... The roadkill..."

FALCONAROUND
Registered User
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:22 pm
Location: Gorst-Orchard 39 miles from Lord Murff
Contact:

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #25 by FALCONAROUND » Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:34 pm

I'm somewhat familiar with that carb, but havent seen one in a while. I ran one on my 46 Willy's 2.0 liter ford engine :)

ABotu the secondaries... I don't want to use them all the time, that's why I want out of this 32/36 and into a 38 that I can make into a progressive.

Alas I have no time, I leave for Vegas in my Falconaround in less than 2 weeks and haven't the funds nor time to try another carb at the moment...

But I will and I'll elt y'all know how it goes if there's any difference at all even.

User avatar
rocklord
Registered User
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:25 pm
Location: Hurricane, WV

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #26 by rocklord » Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:03 pm

powerband wrote:The populuar alternative Holley/Weber 5200 series 32/36 clone was used in similar wide range of applications including the Capri 2800 (170 cid) V6. On a fairly high CR 170, I used a generic 4cyl 5200 with all ranges of jetting with little improvement from the 1bbl until finding a 2800 V6 application H/W 5200 version. On the 170 six it improved performance and mileage dramatically . I can't account for differences even swapping same jetting between carb bodies 8) ... But as mentioned it is easy and fun to get the secondaries workin'.

Image Image Image Image

Image


Where did you get a 477 jet?
Dan

Currently Own
1965 Mustang, 200CID, 3Spd
1964 Corvair Coupe, 164CID, 140HP, 4Spd
1961 Corvair Lakewood wagon, 145CID, 80HP, 2Spd Powerglide Auto.
2017 BMW X3, 3.0L Dual Turbo, 300HP, 8-Spd Auto

User avatar
powerband
FSP Moderator
Posts: 1965
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 6:45 pm
Location: Mid Hudson Valley - \H/

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #27 by powerband » Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:23 pm

Where did you get a 477 jet?


Green Jets Brass Jets
124-477 22R-103-180

From unverified source:::

Holley 5200 Jets:

Contrary to popular belief standard Holley jets do NOT fit the Holley 5200 because it is based off of the weber 32/36. The first couple of years the Holley 5200 was made jets for these carburetors where made in the U.S. and stamped with a diameter for the size of the jet. These jets where numbered with the 22R-103-xxx numbers shown in the table below where the xxx would be the diameter of the jet opening in millimeters. Only the last 3 numbers are stamped on the jet so a 157 size jet would have a 1.57 mm hole. These older jets are supposidly brass colored and newer jets where suppose to have a green coating.

In 1975 jets started to be labeled according to the flow of the jet. This means that the exact size no longer was of concern. Each jet is individually flowed at a constant vacuum of 50 centimeters (probably using water). This would mean that two jets of the same size are now gauranteed to flow the same where as before one could flow more than the other. These jets are suppose to be colored green an the number dictates its flow so a 423 jet would flow 423 cc of fluid at a constant pressure drop of 50 centimeters.

Carburetor jets should not be drilled or modified in any way as shape affects flow as well as the opening size. Therefor you cannot know how much fuel and how effective a jet delivers fuel after it has been modified unless you test it on a flow stand.

Below is a chart of the new and old Holley 5200 jets according to flow thus a 124-311 green jet would have close to the same flow as a 22R-103-147 jet. Note that not all available jets may be listed as they might not flow an equivlant volume between old and new jets.

Main Jet Conversions
Green Jets Brass Jets Green Jets Brass Jets
124-227 22R-103-130 124-325 22R-103-150
124-239 22R-103-132 124-346 22R-103-155
124-243 22R-103-133 124-357 22R-103-157
124-255 22R-103-135 124-374 22R-103-160
124-263 22R-103-137 124-404 22R-103-165
124-275 22R-103-140 124-423 22R-103-170
124-283 22R-103-142 124-455 22R-103-175
124-299 22R-103-145 124-477 22R-103-180
124-311 22R-103-147 124-524 22R-103-185
"Take time to stop and smell... The roadkill..."

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6860
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #28 by xctasy » Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:44 am

powerband wrote: On a fairly high CR 170, I used a generic 4cyl 5200 with all ranges of jetting with little improvement from the 1bbl until finding a 2800 V6 application H/W 5200 version. On the 170 six it improved performance and mileage dramatically . I can't account for differences even swapping same jetting between carb bodies 8) ... But as mentioned it is easy and fun to get the secondaries workin'.

That's because the emulsion tube is different. Remember, the 32/36 saw duty on 78 to 171 cube Ford engines from the 87 hp 1.6 liter SOHC Pinto engine found in European Cortinas, Carpis and Sierras, to the US 2600 and 2800 Cologne V6's in the Capri, Bronco II, Areostar. I think the ill fated 1978 to 1980 1600 Kent engined Fiesta ran one for the US market. Both the Weber and Holley Webers use F2 to F78 trim emulsion #61440 tubes, the F50 primary, F6 sec for water or electric choke, F50/F50 for earlier manual choke , but some used for the 171 cube/2800 cc Cologne V6 had F2's in the secondary, and there are other differences to air bleeds. Emission gear forced Ford to adopt different jetting depending if it was Austria, Australia, California or Illonis :wink: . The numbers are just list numbers, but generally, the higher the number, the less the emulsification, the smaller the holes. Low numbers suit bigger engines, generally. Here are the F1 to F20's,with an F8 below. The ink pictures are for #61450 series carbs, but you get the general idea.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4101/480 ... c46a_z.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4098/480 ... fa40_z.jpg

From swatson454 on speed talk, there are pictures of the normal #61440 series F50, then an F6, an F7, and then a custom moded F7 item. Lastly, some common 32/36 Emulsion tubes from uptillnow
ImageImageImage

Easy replacements that will fit the 32/36 are F3, 5, 6, 7, 24, 25, 26, 50, 66 and 78. F2's are not commonly available but have been used in 2.8 2-bbl's , while F6's and F66's are other common replacements.

Some Holley Weber 5200 and Weber 32/36 carbs have only a primary idle system, while others have both primary and secondary idle system. These 3 things totally change the make up of any 32/36 or 5200 carb. Every year, there were major changes to carb calibration, and running changes as well. Always without notice...

ImageImage


powerband wrote:Main Jet Conversions
Green Jets Brass Jets Green Jets Brass Jets
124-227 22R-103-130 124-325 22R-103-150
124-239 22R-103-132 124-346 22R-103-155
124-243 22R-103-133 124-357 22R-103-157
124-255 22R-103-135 124-374 22R-103-160
124-263 22R-103-137 124-404 22R-103-165
124-275 22R-103-140 124-423 22R-103-170
124-283 22R-103-142 124-455 22R-103-175
124-299 22R-103-145 124-477 22R-103-180
124-311 22R-103-147 124-524 22R-103-185


The above are close limit jets

Or the chart that shows all them ploted Image

And specifically:The earlier standard jet sizes for Holley Webers are:-

103 cc/min=105 microns, or 41.34 thou
128 cc/min=110 microns, or 43.31 thou
152 cc/min=115 microns, or 45.28 thou
178 cc/min=120 microns, or 47.24 thou
201 cc/min=125 microns, or 49.21 thou
225 cc/min=130 microns, or 51.18 thou
251 cc/min=135 microns, or 53.15 thou
275 cc/min=140 microns, or 55.12 thou
298 cc/min=145 microns, or 57.09 thou
325 cc/min=150 microns, or 59.06 thou
346 cc/min=155 microns, or 61.02 thou
375 cc/min=160 microns, or 62.99 thou
400 cc/min=165 microns, or 64.96 thou
425 cc/min=170 microns, or 66.93 thou
450 cc/min=175 microns, or 68.90 thou
475 cc/min=180 microns, or 70.87 thou
525 cc/min=185 microns, or 72.83 thou
Last edited by xctasy on Tue Nov 06, 2012 6:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

FALCONAROUND
Registered User
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:22 pm
Location: Gorst-Orchard 39 miles from Lord Murff
Contact:

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #29 by FALCONAROUND » Sat Nov 12, 2011 4:17 pm

2755.1 miles later I got 25.5 MPG at 85-102 MPH for the first half of the trip but idling was absolute junk.

So I upped my main jets from 140's to 150's and she ran pig rich for the next 3 tanks of fuel at a miserable 17 mpg to a best of 22 mpg. SO back in went the 140 for the primaries and the 150 remained in the secondary chute, but the secondaries when opened did nothing but make the engine lean out horribly and sputter the shake of death no matter what rpm with one exception of acceleration in 1st gear only. (it used the secondaries in 1st just fine but 2nd went to crap).

So what's the next logical step?

This engine sounds like a HAMMER banging a wooden block when it idles because this log head and small carb and Clifford adapter make the 1st and 6th hole idle like they don't exist at all... (but the plugs remain nicely uniform and clean on the 140 jets) and the AF ration stays a decent 13.7% at idle and at 2500 rpm on my old ass O2 reading machine...


And suggestions other than going dual carbs spaced evenly to properly distribute the AF charge?

anotherhassel
Registered User
Posts: 137
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:11 pm

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #30 by anotherhassel » Sat Nov 12, 2011 8:46 pm

Not sure of my jetting of my weber but my 200 which is punched 30 over has none of the symptoms you are saying you have. That being said I do hit the secondaries quite easily as i dont believe that the single barrel comes close to delievering the needed amount of fuel or air for the engine. I would listen to some of the info you have already gotten as I am no expert,but just wanted to chime in and at least offer that my weber does do ok on my engine.

User avatar
bubba22349
Global Moderator
Posts: 9087
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Flagstaff, Az. 86005 near the old Route 66

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #31 by bubba22349 » Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:58 pm

engine sounds like a HAMMER banging a wooden block when it idles because this log head and small carb and Clifford adapter make the 1st and 6th hole idle like they don't exist at all... (but the plugs remain nicely uniform and clean on the 140 jets) and the AF ration stays a decent 13.7% at idle and at 2500 rpm on my old ass O2 reading machine...


For one thing the "Clifford adapter" is going to be a big choke point in your combo of parts. Direct mount of carb to the log would help than maybe you could work on jetting.
A bad day Drag Racing is still better than a good day at work!

I am still hunting for a project car to build but with my current low budget it's not looking so good. My Ex- Fleet of Sixes these are all long gone! :bang: 1954 Customline 223 3 speed with O/D, 1963 Fairlane project drag car with BB6, 1977 Maverick 250 with C4, 1994 F-150 a 300 with 5 speed.

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6860
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #32 by xctasy » Sat Nov 12, 2011 11:52 pm

A quote from Aussie racer Dick Johnston, why drink champagne through at paper cup? Clifford adaptor is a limit to carb flow. I need to ask some deep invasive questions now. It could be that your first request was the right one, and that with the mods you have, a 32/36 just won't cut it.

In ma Scottish accent, is this nae yer heed, mon?

FALCONAROUND wrote: :arrow: Image



What year? If its a 1.3 liter plenumb late modelhead, Hogged out, 1.75 in intakes, 1.5 exhast, attacked with a grinder within an inch of its life? You didn't have to scap it after you found exhast cracks did you, and you were able to expoxy or braze it back together?

Well, here's the drill. The carb is most likely highly sensitive to huge head flow cfm due to the internal surfaces having been smoothed out, with much larger than normal port areas. Polished internal runners really ruin fuel distribution, but that Clifford adaptor is just a low performance part which dips out at about 130 hp 'cause it so small.

What cam profile you now using?

If you are still using a Clifford adaptor, does that mean you must still be using the earlier head repaired. If so, the standard diameter inlet port is still way to too small for the improved porting you've done, and your better off doing some major grinding work when you don't have to drive it. I know your car is your DD, but you need to consider the pictures below, and if your head is less than 1.75" intake, you need to open it up. Below that, there are some generic jetting precepts from others on the forum.

My 1963 170 heads are 1.33" and
ImageImageImage
1971 250 heads are 1.575" in the inlet port, and just too small for a good 32/36 Weber.
ImageImageImage


See generic jetting at viewtopic.php?t=49901

falcon fanatic wrote:Some tips:
Bog off the line = idle jet too small
Bog on secondary opening = secondary main too small (& maybe primary main too small also?)
Air jets only affect high rpm function = if you get pinging or surging at high revs use smaller air jet.



My existing recommendations remain. If you've done the hard graft like I think you have, you have painted yourself into a corner, and the only way to get out is to take the venturis out to 29 and 31 mm, and then jet up with an F2, F3 or F66 emulsion tube, 185 primary and 195 secondary jets. Rule for Webers is 1/20 the venturi size in mm, gets the jet size in mm. 1/15th max jet size verses venturi, 1/25 th min. Stock venturi sizes were 26 and 27, so you just have to go up on venturi size to upgrade jet sizes.

Long ago you asked how much cfm could a stock 2-bbl non tri power head flow? Well, its about 218 hp, and if you've done those mods you've alluded to, your going to have to moddify your little 32/36 out to eclipse the 350 Holley and 38 Weber
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

FALCONAROUND
Registered User
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:22 pm
Location: Gorst-Orchard 39 miles from Lord Murff
Contact:

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #33 by FALCONAROUND » Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:35 am

I'll finish reading this tomorrow, but that's not the head I went with after finding a crack in it I tossed it out.

More tomorrow.

User avatar
rocklord
Registered User
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:25 pm
Location: Hurricane, WV

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #34 by rocklord » Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:28 pm

What setup on the 32/36 is being used with the Jeep's 258cid inline six?

http://www.webercarbsdirect.com/Weber_C ... p_s/32.htm

This carb is being advertised as a performance upgrade for the Jeep, how's that?
Dan

Currently Own
1965 Mustang, 200CID, 3Spd
1964 Corvair Coupe, 164CID, 140HP, 4Spd
1961 Corvair Lakewood wagon, 145CID, 80HP, 2Spd Powerglide Auto.
2017 BMW X3, 3.0L Dual Turbo, 300HP, 8-Spd Auto

FALCONAROUND
Registered User
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:22 pm
Location: Gorst-Orchard 39 miles from Lord Murff
Contact:

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #35 by FALCONAROUND » Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:10 pm

Piece of $%^&% website went offline when I was replying a couple day's ago~ :evil: :bang:

How it's an upgrade to the jeeps 2V carb is unknown to me.

As for my intake, I got a crack at the end of many many hours work.

As for now, I am going to build another head, and run dual Autolite 2100 1.08 carbs that I will modify to work 3 cylinders each... And the port work will be simply amazing. I will get the head flow tested after the work, then call my cam guy and have a cam built to perform with the head and dual carbs, and go from there with the normal shot peened and balanced bottom end etc...

More news next spring or summer.

Soldmy66
Registered User
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:09 pm

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #36 by Soldmy66 » Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:12 pm

Please post pixs each step of the way.

FALCONAROUND
Registered User
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:22 pm
Location: Gorst-Orchard 39 miles from Lord Murff
Contact:

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #37 by FALCONAROUND » Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:29 pm

Not going to be a problem :) Will cover it all.

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6860
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #38 by xctasy » Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:26 am

:thumbup: Good idea. :thumbup: Four 27.5mm venturis from two 1.08 2100's will be great.

An example of that is forum member Peugeot Bill's Fox Mustang 3.3, a real hit of mine. He used twin Weber 38's. At least he's got the port area equation right. Four 29 mm venturis beats three 29's, always.

Image

My triple carb conversion goes a step further than even that.

Anyway, I've seen your painting, your porting work, and whatever you'll do, it'll be a real mean machine. :thumbup:
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

FALCONAROUND
Registered User
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:22 pm
Location: Gorst-Orchard 39 miles from Lord Murff
Contact:

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #39 by FALCONAROUND » Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:22 am

X, you said your triple carb conversion goes even a bit farther than that, but you put up a pic of a Dual Weber....

Please elaborate on your plans if it's not top secret.

And thanks for the compliment on my paint work :)

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6860
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #40 by xctasy » Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:50 pm

No worries. About the triple intake you will find out later. As to why, well

Most people like the idea of twin carbs verses triples, so who am I to change the will of the people. I guess TransAm Mustangs ran dual carbs...two Dominators on a TransAm Boss 302 is almost NOT enough for a Boss 302:(



Of course, I'm a child of 1970, DBS Aston Martin Vantage, GTR Torana XU1, Jag 420G, Prince Skyline GTR, I love triple carbs, and I'm just nuts about them. ( :wink: I have the self insight to realise I'm nuts about them, so therefore, I'm not mad :duh: )

In my book...

This Image beats thisImage

Sixes are race cars, v8's are tow cars. Seldom do triple carb sixes eclispe a nice V8, but when done right they sound fantastic. When injected, they lost a lot of the shaky low end pick up and lacked the true top end spunk as it performance then felt so progressive. Compare a pre emmission 265 hp gross 4.2 Jag XKE to a 173 hp EFI 4.2. The real delight was that when I was born, all Aussies and Kiwis wanted was a triple carb Chrysler Valiant or Vauxhall Victor, and street cars often doubled as legal super sedans. Old guys I did time keeping for at the International stages of the Rallye of New Zealand from 1996 to 2002 drove six cylinder EFI Commodores and Falcons, but they told me of how they'd pop a set of SU's or Webers on there family sedan and go racing the Heatway Rallye in there wifes car...Most stopped not becasue there cars were uncompetitive, but due to the cost of ball joints, shockies, tie rod ends and stabilizer bar rubbers

Look at this New Zealand triple Weber example of nutcase Kiwi, and the fiendish look on the drivers face as he drove his dual exhast 4-speed with overdrive Viscount around on 14 by 4.5 wheels on 175 sr 14 radials. 3.3 engine, 13 inch thick rimmed racing steering wheel, forged steel crank, and a huge 42 mm intake ports fed normally fed by a Zenith 1-bbl carb. Now of good old DCOE 45's. On gravel

http://www.theroaringseason.com/attachm ... 1314518042

Me, I always had old Six cylinder Vauxhalls and slant Valiants, and while our local pump attendant had a 390FE engined 1966 IRS Zephyr and a 1969 Valiant Hardtop with a Purple cammed 360 with a competiton Carter AFB. Even my neighbours had two 1963 289 Fairlane compacts. All I can remember is they all sucked compared to one beige E37 Valiant Pacer R/T sedan with triple Webers. My grandads 1971 Valiant Ranger 245 Hemi 2-bbl was just two carbs down on perfection. In 1980, my grandad followed it for 2 miles in the Gorge from Queenstown to Cromwell, and I said a Boss 302 Ford Mustang would nock off any Valiant. My grandad said Moffats TransAm Boss 302 couldn't beat a well driven E49 Charger as it was a 2900 pound car with 3.5:1 gears and 306 hp, and that the Pacer we were following was the local bakers triple carb E37, and that wasn't far off 300 hp either. For 10 years, the yearly Benson and Hedges race was dominated by six cylinder Chrysler Valiants, and that the E49 was the quickest six cylinder car in the world for a few months until the Lancia Stratos knocked it off. That was okay...it had a triple carb Ferrari engine. Pretty good information from a stonemason and curler who started off carting bricks in a 1931 Nash Ambasadore. Six cylinder mad.

What put me off the twin carb six was the HD Holden X2.

http://i82.servimg.com/u/f82/13/82/04/21/hdhold11.jpg

It still has the worlds best six cylinder header, and the venerable 179 engine which responded to any hi po part you threw at it. 179 140 hp engine was the start of the all conquering Bathurst winning GTR Torana. 216 hp in race trim with just a set of 1.75 Zenith Stromberg CD175's, a 312 degree cam, a set of 1.625" intakes, 9 port head and just 3.3 liters. Standard they were a hobbled horse, but blueprinted, they were a typical well sorted GM rocketship. Wacking a 202 cid engine into a puny pommy Vauxhall Viva, and adding an aborginal sounding Torana name to it made the likes of six cylinder 4.1 Cortinas, 4.3 Centuras and 2.6 liter Leyland Marinas acceptable. As they used to say in Australia, you can't survive in Oz unless you have a V eight or a blQQdy good six cylinder.

Somwhere, there was a triple DCOE 40 Lynx intake manifold for a 2237 pound Marina....
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

User avatar
chad
Registered User
Posts: 4786
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:51 am
Location: Lawrence Swamp, S. Amherst, MA

Re: 32/36 on my +.040 200 is NOT enough carb :(

Post #41 by chad » Thu Nov 24, 2011 7:37 am

triple carb Chrysler Valiant
and slant Valiants

Doesn't sound like my 170 or 225 mopower (2 wagons, a '64 & '66 - both Darts).
8^0
"Big thing is only make one change at a time. Change 2 or more things at a time it becomes difficult to figure which change helped or hurt" turbo2256b » 1/16/2017
Chad - '70 LUEB on '77 frame (i.e. PS, D44, trapezoidal BB 9", 4.11), 250, NV 3550 & DSII to B transplanted, "T" D20/PTO, 2" SL, 1" BL, 4 discs, 33"X15", tool boxes, etc. Seeking: Hydraulic gear motor for Koenig pto. chrlsful@aol.com (413) 259-1749

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests