Mroldfart2U

RR if I remember your combo is a standard trans? If so a mechanical secondary is usually preferred over vac.... Just food for thought.....



MRO.....

__________________
Cheap, Fast, Reliable... Pick 2...
'70 Mach1 351C 4v 4sp 4:56's Been abused sense '79, needing tlc
'61 Fairlane 500 292 2v Cruise-o-Matic also needing tlc

turbo2256b

The 680 isnt all that different than a 650 double pumper. Holley recomends using a lower CFM with a double pumper than a Vacuum secondary.
VS the secondars can be taylored to the engines needs. Vacuum secondars sometimes give better top end, mid and low range HP numbers.
Dont remember your biuld or main usage but do yo urealy need 650 ish CFM or would like there 580 be a better choice.

cweisser

when you work with having to warrenty carbs on crate motors you go with the ede 1405 pretty quick... park em and next spring hit the key and away you go.. when racing the holleys much more tuneable and they always make more power on our dyno.. the nice thing also about the ede 600 cfm is that its variable jetted with a metering rod like a q-jet so great milage... there also a spread bore so cruising around on front barrels is only 250 cfm or so... if you can tune and dont mind it theres a reason holley dominates every form of carbureted racing........

RickRacer

Right now I've got a C4 but plan on putting an AOD or 4R7 or whatever it's called in later but I'm looking for another carb.

On my near stock 289 I've got a high rise dual plane, 500 cfm Eddy carb, flowtech headers and pertronix in the stock dizzy which I painted the cap Candy Apple Red. I've got disk brakes up front with drums in the back and a 67-69 valve body with a shift kit all to be installed in the Green Dot tranny later. I'm leaving my 289 internals alone and changing other things to get it faster then do the engine last.....IMO it works better that way. When I do build up another motor I want a better performing carb to go with the worked over early 289 heads that're sitting pretty and wrapped up under the work bench just waiting to be used, so right now I'm looking around for the best carb.

__________________

turbo2256b

Rick whats been done to the heads? Its the most important part of selecting other componets.

RickRacer

Hiya turbo,

Here's the flow specs of the heads. These heads are early 289's that have been ported a lot,7/16 rocker studs, new valve job with stock size valves. I'll keep the stock valves for better bottom end torque. I got these from a guy who was going to use them for SS racing and he put a lot of money into them. They even have the heat passage blocked off. I posted a thread under the Home Porting forum awhile back under 289 Hi-Po heads.

I think I can go with a 650 cfm carb with the right cam and you and I even discussed that under that other post. You said a .480 lift .214 duration cam would be good for what I want.

Flow Specs,

Intake:

Lift Flow
200 127
300 172
400 191
500 208
600 213

Exhaust:

Lift Flow
200 100
300 132
400 160
500 178
600 182

Hope those come across right and help

Here's the link to that post with my heads and your comments.
http://www.fordmuscleforums.com/home...-po-heads.html

__________________

RickRacer

Angus,

Sorry to hijack your thread.....there's plenty to learn here. Hope you don't mind.

__________________

montybrown

I have a 331 stroker with a t-5 5 speed, that's why I went with the double pumper, it has trick flow roller cam and trickflow heads, should work good


Sent from AutoGuide.com App

__________________
"Screw it, it's only money"

turbo2256b

Rick remember a bit now
I would go with a vacuum secondary HR 580 VS or the HR 600. Would lean more towards the 580.

Intake the Performer RPM air flow ends up flowing about 165 CFM average. Which wouldnt take advantage off all your air flow with a .480 lift cam.

Myself would use a Torker II intake with the 580 carb along withthe torker II
The torker II intakes flow maxes out around 180 cfm which would take advantage of your heads flow.
Should put you in the 370 HP range tuned right with good exhaust.
Peak power should be about 6000 RPM.
Should provide a good flat power curve.
AOD with 3.55 min gear, 3.70 ish possibly the best depends on tire dia.

angus67

its cool, RR ive learned alot from this forum.
Like I said, It isnt a racer, just would like a little butt-dyno action every now and then. I dont manually shift the c4, I let it do the work. I just tweak the vaccum under there, and the kickdown cable. Prolly the next step for my engine is to rebiuld/port match these heads. I think I read somewere the 2v's are better to port than the early 302's. I was on the hunt for 302 heads until someone said the 2v's i have were better because the combustion chamber is smaller.
Care to confirm? suggest?

__________________
numbers matching 1967 Fairlane 500 Ht 289/C4

turbo2256b

My OHO Ford book shows the 1968 289 and the 1968 302 have the largest chambers 61.7 to 64.7 in 69 2Vs went up to 56.7 to 59.7. 68 and 69 4V heads went back to 52 to 55 which is what all 260s to 289s had untill 68. 289 hypo all had 52 to 55.

RickRacer

I do have a brand new later Ford Performance aluminum dual plane high rise that might flow better then the 60's version that I've got on her now. If that won't work then I do have a old style Eddy Torker hangin on the wall just beggin to use......would that do?
Remember I only wanted around 300 hp and not much more.....but 370 hp is way higher then I wanted.

Hey Monte, that sure is a sweet looking engine! That would look great in my 66!

__________________

turbo2256b

It would be about 325 at the rear wheels. Would have good drivability and good economy. The Torker original I have never flow tested there not all that might be somewere between a performer and a RPM. Think your newer Ford is realy a Performer RPM.

Attached Thumbnails

 

RickRacer

Nice engine set up Turbo,

I'd like to use the newer Ford intake so maybe the heads have been over done for that intake? I would think the stock size valves would have kept the flow down somewhat for a good dual plane intake.

If I have to go with a single plane then that's what I'll do but isn't the Eddy Airgap suppose to work really well up to 6500 rpm....wouldn't that work? After all the heat passage is blocked off in the heads so an Airgap would work even better. I'd loose some bottom end torque with a single plane so the 3:50-3:70 gearing would get some of it back?

__________________

turbo2256b

The AIR GAP I think is a waist of money. Done a couple setups with them and felt I was ripped off 100.00 they perfore d so identically to an RPM.
RPM needs less of a pump shot. The air gap needs more to cover up the larger ports and plenum needed to compinsate for the worse port entry angle. One test the Gap made 5 more HP but if you added up the hp AT EACH point the RPM made more total power overall.
Ill get into port flow / intake flow and cam. What a cammed engie is intake to head flow fingers are about shot.