|
|
Post by danbell on Apr 4, 2011 17:57:39 GMT -5
We run the Ford airbox,with the pickup tubes thru the inside lights like Ford did on their 63/64 Fords,and 64 T-bolt,with the tear drop hood..We do see a drop off of both ET,and MPH without the tubes hooked up.
On the CJ Mustangs,and Torinos with a functional hood scoop the the air cleaner acted as a pan,or air box,and was sealed to the hood with a thick rubber ring that sealed when the hood was closed.
The later hoods on 64 A/FX Comets,and 65 A/FX,and B/FX Comets used an air pan/box molded into the hood,which were sealed with a short volocity stack with a rubber ring.
|
|
|
|
Post by texoutsider on Apr 4, 2011 17:59:22 GMT -5
You are worring too much........getchermotorunnin.............
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by torquer on Apr 4, 2011 21:22:25 GMT -5
Interesting posts here. First thing, I can tell you for sure the NASCAR boys know how to manage intake air and make it work. I have been down the scoop and air pan road with a couple of my cars but they were not Fords or Mopars so what I say won't mean much to anyone.
First in 2000 I was running a car with a flat hood, a friend brought me a Stage 2 scoop and said install it and seal it to the carburetor. I was not too interested but he had just given me a $7,000. engine and I wanted to please. I put it on and sealed it and the car picked up a SOLID .18 over it's best time ever. and after removing the pan and taping the scoop shut, it slowed down. As a matter of fact I went to a local 1/8 mile track this past Sat. and forgot the air pan to my current car. It was .05 slower in the exact same weather after checking my records for that track. After I got my carburetors adjusted with rods and jets for the best ets. I have not touched them in years.
Jim N.
|
|
fugly
Full Member
Posts: 103
|
Post by fugly on Apr 4, 2011 23:05:01 GMT -5
Fugly: I am sure Bob is very knowledgable and his car is top notch. I always listen to good advice, that is why I ask. So I re read his post just to make sure I was reading it correctly. Everytime I read it I never seen in there one time that he was giving advice as much as he was saying I wasn't following the rules. So I am going to take it he is calling me a cheater. That is one thing I am not. Everything I have done to my car I have gone out of my way to make sure that I am following the NSS/NHRA rules. IF he would have wrote and told me that the use of an air pan is not allowed per NSS rules then I would have taken that as advice. I would have said thanks a lot for the heads up. This happens all the time: I stick up for myself when someone makes some back handed comment and I become the bad guy. No problem here- just didn't want to see this turn into something it ain't... |
|
|
|
Post by texoutsider on Apr 5, 2011 0:09:18 GMT -5
Hey Jim, has yer friend got another free engine...............?
Good advise about the air pans..........some apps work, some don't...in most cases I would think that some type of air management would prevail. Like Dan said, we run the air tubes from the headlites..........they work on our car..........can't tell much in the 1/8 mile, but in the quarter it definately helps the mph and a bit on the et.
M.
|
|
fugly
Full Member
Posts: 103
|
Post by fugly on Apr 5, 2011 6:48:12 GMT -5
Here's some math for anyone so inclined- this formula is for ram tubes like Mark and I run on our cars, but a proper scoop (sealed to pan) is about 75% as efficient assuming proper clearance for the carb to scoop area . You should have at least the diameter of the venturies between the top of the carbs and the scoop (otherwise the turbulence is a detriment).
((((.076 X (Mph X Mph) X "A" )/4311 + 14.7)/14.7)-1 For "A" ,Use .13 for stock top carbs and .72 for radiused top such as our Eddy carbs or Holley Hp's. Multiply this answer by what you figure you original hp is to get new hp ( formula gives you a percent increase in power) If you look at the formula, it becomes obvious has everything to do with it so you will get a different figure for each mph- if you use your time slip and all the mph figures, it is relatively accurate.......I go back to my corner now....
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Schultz on Apr 5, 2011 7:14:25 GMT -5
Here's some math for anyone so inclined- this formula is for ram tubes like Mark and I run on our cars, but a proper scoop (sealed to pan) is about 75% as efficient assuming proper clearance for the carb to scoop area . You should have at least the diameter of the venturies between the top of the carbs and the scoop (otherwise the turbulence is a detriment). ((((.076 X (Mph X Mph) X "A" )/4311 + 14.7)/14.7)-1 For "A" ,Use .13 for stock top carbs and .72 for radiused top such as our Eddy carbs or Holley Hp's. Multiply this answer by what you figure you original hp is to get new hp ( formula gives you a percent increase in power) If you look at the formula, it becomes obvious has everything to do with it so you will get a different figure for each mph- if you use your time slip and all the mph figures, it is relatively accurate.......I go back to my corner now.... Owwww -- my head hurts |
|
|
|
Post by poppaj on Apr 5, 2011 17:11:23 GMT -5
Hey Jim, has yer friend got another free engine...............? Good advise about the air pans..........some apps work, some don't...in most cases I would think that some type of air management would prevail. Like Dan said, we run the air tubes from the headlites..........they work on our car..........can't tell much in the 1/8 mile, but in the quarter it definately helps the mph and a bit on the et. M. Hi Mark, A question since you are running a Ford. I have seen the air tube/air cleaner setup on many 63' Super stock Fords as well as other various years. I know the Thunder bolts came that way from the factory but did the 63's? Looks like a geat way to get forced air instead of hanging a scoop out there. Thanks poppaj |
|
|
|
Post by texoutsider on Apr 5, 2011 17:56:02 GMT -5
no., only retro after the 64s came out ...then most 60s Fords started running them...Up until we got the "shakers".........by then most of the early 60s Fords had converted to Mustangs in NHRA.............
M.
|
|
|
|
Post by torquer on Apr 5, 2011 21:36:04 GMT -5
Mark, as a matter of fact he does have another "free for me" engine setting in his garage that just likes a couple of hours and then the dyno to be finished. Thing is he has been so busy working on Fords that he has not had time to get back to it. I got the rockers off it this winter and put on my engine as I had ran out of spares for the ones I was running. Only problem for you, it has the wrong name on the valve covers. Maybe we could make some and have them milled with the Ford name on them.
JIm
|
|
|
|
Post by poppaj on Apr 5, 2011 22:23:08 GMT -5
no., only retro after the 64s came out ...then most 60s Fords started running them...Up until we got the "shakers".........by then most of the early 60s Fords had converted to Mustangs in NHRA............. M. Thanks Mark |
|
|
|
Post by texoutsider on Apr 6, 2011 8:49:22 GMT -5
Sorry Jim, but I don't want any of that ole Mopar stuff on my engine.........lol
Still running that Mopar intake on the Buick?........
Rocker arms?...........what is the problem with them?..........what are you using? Are they still shaft style?
Mark
Hey PoppaJ............We tried once to use the W-30 style air intakes under the bumper on a couple of cars...it just did not work out too well...had to run heavy screens on them and with the cars so low in the front it was difficult to get good air flow. It seems that the higher up you can go, the better. Some of the Mopars back around 65/66 tried the headlite deal...they seemed to work better with a scoop on top. Many were using some type of air pan or at least a heat isolator. I think maybe that a combination of the two...air pan to direct the air and having it also as an isolator to keep the ambient engine bay heat out of the air stream helps..........at least it is somewhat cooler air and of course more dense.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by torquer on Apr 6, 2011 20:48:19 GMT -5
Mark:
I was running the Kenne-Bell rockers that are shaft mounted and roller aluminum, but they had a bronze bushing in them and that made them thin by the valve spring retainer and I broker about 6 over the years. One costing me a block when a lifter got broke in the deal and broke out a lifter bore. K-B is no longer in the Buick business. He sold all his stuff to TA. I bought all TA had but they had been milled on the side a little and I didn't feel good about them. At ST, Louis this year I broke 2 and had to put on my last 2 spares and didn't want to start another year like that.
I now have Harlan Sharp that I hope will be better. I ran it 4 passes Sat. night and all seemed well. Will pull the covers and rerun the valves and look for problems Friday night and try to run again Sat.
No Mark I'm not running the Mopar intake now but have tried one. But I do have a 440 Mopar piston blank in it. I'm running an old Offy intake that was made in 1969 for the 400-430. All the experts say they are junk, but I get by with a few Popsicle sticks and some epoxy.
Jim N.
|
|
|
|
Post by poppaj on Apr 6, 2011 21:10:15 GMT -5
Hey Mark,
Thanks for the information. Been thinking of trying that system on the 65. I know Damon runs that setup and your 63' has that as well as a teardrop scoop, correct???
poppaj
|
|
|
|
Post by danbell on Apr 6, 2011 23:13:12 GMT -5
The 63 has the tear drop hood,wouldn't look right without it.
|
|
