Category Archives: Carbs

Gorgeous ˜Wood Vehicles 1948 – Part III

By | | , , , , , , ,
Leave a comment

Continuing with this series we’ll look at what Pontiac offered up in 1948 as a woody.

In a previous blog entry (Project Pontiac 1949 Silver Streak Delivery Van http://wp.me/pKHNM-Bx) I gave you a look at a Silver Streak owned by a co-worker.

1949 Silver Streak

Well one year earlier Pontiac offered the Silver Streak as a woody.

Side view...love the big fenders.

That is a lot of wood on that woody.

These were low production cars with most being build on the 6 cylinder chassis.

1948 Pontiac 6 cylinder power plant

 

These were the most commonly used power plants mated with an Automatic Hydra-Matic transmission.  It spec’d out as follows:

Cubic Inch         Horse power                   1bbl carb

239.2 93 (68.45) @ 3400 Carter WA-1 (1)

A very limited  were built with 8 cylinders engines.  Interesting enough these 8 cylinders were called “Silver Steak”.  It boosted the specs:

Cubic Inch                             Horse power                         2 bbl carb

248.9 cu in (4,079 cc) 108.00 (79.5) @ 3700 Carter WCD 630 (2)

Total Pontiac production for that year was only  333,957 cars.

 

Thanks for reading.

Tim

 

Corvette Mouse Pad Give Away – Corvette Engine Contest Final Winner

By | | , , , , , , , , , , , ,
2 Comments

Here you have the final winner:

Roy Obert (you’ve seen his work here – Quickiefilms) from  Mi., with his C3 – with a tiny but functional engine.

The specs? Oh...he just says..."Bad Ass".

What a profile!!!!!!!!

Thanks for the fun.  More contests coming up.

Thanks for reading.

Tim

Performance Parts Pout

By | | , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
3 Comments

Well, I’m officially depressed. No it’s not because of the holidays, or the rapidly approaching  June when I’ll move too  far into the 50’s  to be able to fool myself that I’m just barely 50, nope none of those things.

I’m looking at GM’s (bastards!!) Performance Catalog and all the shiny things in it.  Like the ported LS3 heads, and the LS376 – 525…yes  525 hp in a crate engine, drop in and drive.  I realize two things, I need an older Chevy to play with (or upgrade the C6 Vette) and that I’ll need a second job if I even want to touch any of this stuff and where will I live when the better half finds this stuff laying around the garage? (Tell me you aren’t depressed now?!?!!…It’s ok…admin it!!!)

Note:  It’s gonna get worse… I have the Ford performance parts catalog as well…all I can say is thank GOD!!!  I don’t have a Morpar to drive around….oh….the therapy…bills….!!!  Why, OH Why didn’t I drink the family KoolAide when I was a kid..I would have been able to shun the Fords and Mopars and just be a normal one brand car guy??

There is some awesome stuff the Chevrolet Performance Team is put out, everything from small block crates to LSX monsters, to circle track crate engines.

Over the next few post I’m going to cover a few highlights and a couple unexpected – like engines for the Chevy Cobalt and some V6 engines.  (Have just read some specs for the upcoming 2013 Mustang V6 – I want to see what Chevy’s got.)

In fact let’s start with something off the wall.  Like the 900  V6 Intake for a 4 barrel carb!! What???!!!!  It’s an aluminum high-performance for the 3.8 or 4.3 liter V6.  So go ahead bolt on that 390 cfm carb..oh heck….grab that 600 cfm 4150 and drop it on top.

Chevy's V6 - 4 BBL Intake Manifold - about $265.00 (Part 10134390).

That is not a bad price.  Of course it’s not for all heads, like it  won’t fit the 3800 V6 or the 18 degree heads and you might have add a bump to your hood for clearance!!!

Thanks for reading.

Tim

Engine Line Up – 1973 Ford – Mustangs

By | | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
2 Comments

The engines for the 1973 Mustangs pretty well with the rest of the matched up the other models engines, but with some minor “tweaks”.

You couldn’t get a Mustang with a 4 cylinder (yet) but you could get with the standard 6.  This was the 250 version, (250 cubic inches of displacement) the bore and stroke was 3.68 x 3.91 also used in the Torino.  Topping it with a single barrel Motocraft carb and coupled with a compression ratio of 8.0:1 gave it a ground pounding horse power rating of 88 (Oh don’t worry, it gets worse in 1974).

302 remained the same for the Mustang and was the standard for the Mach 1.  The 351’s (Cleveland and Windsor were available and they really remained the same as those for the other models.

Now you might be saying, ‘Well Tim, seems like you typed yourself in to a corner here.  Those engines are the same.”  But here is what made the differences  – options!!!

With special intakes, valve springs, dampers, large 4300 D carbs, 2.5 inch diameter dual exhaust outlets and modified cam, you now talking increased breathing and exhaling capacity. Which we all know means…say it with me…..”MORE HORSE POWER!!!!!”   But how much? I’m glad you asked.

The 351 with these types of option produced between 246 and 266 horse power.  The 302 doesn’t show being configured with anything other than the stock options.

1973 351 Cleveland 2 barrel Intake

'73 351 Windsor 4 barrel intake.

Why didn’t they put the 400’s in the Mustang????

Thanks for reading.

Tim

Engine Line Up: 1973 Ford – The 400s Part III

By | | , , , , , , , , ,
Leave a comment

Next up are the Ford 400’s that were available for 1973.

There were 3 options when it can to Ford’s biggest power plants in 1973, the 400 Cleveland the Thunderbird 429 and the Thunderbird 460. If you are thinking…YES!!! More Horse Power!!!! …you are going to be a bit disappointed, compared to today’s standard and the 1960’s standards.

The Cleveland had a cast iron block, over head valves and displaced 400 cubic inches. Its bore and stroke (4.00 x 4.00) and compression ratio (8.0: 1) were choked to death by the two barrel Motocraft carb. It produced only 163 hps

Wimpy - 400 2 barrel intake...needs a 4 barrel intake

Ford ' 73 400 in a wagon

 

 

The two Thunderbird engines (both cast iron with overhead valve) got the privilege of being topped with 4 barrel Motocraft carbs. The 429 displaced 429 cubic inches and the 460 knocked out..yup you guessed it 460 cubic inches.

They had a bore and store of 4.36 x 3.59 and 4.36 x 3.85 respectively and both had the same compression ratio of 8.0:1. The top hp for the 429 was just barely over 200 at 201 and the 460 out did that by 18 giving it a 219 hp.

Fords 460

 

429

 

Here is the twist with these and the rest of the Ford engines.  The horse power stated was changed depending what model the engine was used in.  Most of those in this series were the lowest stated.  For example the 302 was rated at 135 hp in the Maverick, but 138 in the Torino. (Yes, a whopping 3 more hp!!!)

The average difference was between 1 and 5 hps, so we aren’t talking about a bunch of hidden power as they were configured.  But we all know that you pop off  the that 2 barrel carb off any of these engines and plop on wide mouth Holley, and you were going to get much better numbers!!

Thanks for reading.  ’73 Mustang engines coming up.

Tim

Engine Line Up: 1973 Fords Part II – 351s

By | | , , , , , , , , , , ,
2 Comments

Here is the second part of this ’73 line up for the V8.

There were 7 V8 in 1973 (not including the Mustang engines) and the ranged in numbers from 302 to 460 (big number to be sure). Just reading those you think..OH…THE …POWER…NOTHING BUT 100’s RUBBER BURNING, FISH-TAILING HPs!!!…right….uh…NO….these ain’t 60’s engine and they aren’t 2010 engines..nope..they the 70’s engines.  Here’s how they ponied up.

The 302 – Overhead valves, cast iron block with a bore and stroke of 4.00 x 3.00.  Compression ratio of 8.0:1 with 302 cubic inches displaced.  Top that with an awesome 2 barrel Motorcraft carb and you are knocking out 135 hp’s!!!!  Those are number only a grandma could love.  Compare that with the 302 sold under the hoods of Fords in 1970 which yielded 220 hp with a two barrel carb. (Take that 302 bore it .030, toss on a typhoon intake and a 4 barrel Holly you’ll have exactly what currently have in my ’70 Stang.)

My Mustang's Enhanced 302

 

Next up is the family of 351s, the Windsor, the Cleveland and the CJ Windsor.

All three had overhead valves, cast iron blocks and all displaced 351 cubic inches.  They shared the same bore and stroke which was 4.00 x 3.5 and the compression ratios ranged from 8.0:1 to 8.6:1 and the horse power varied by rpm 3800 to 4000 between 156 up to 177, the Cleveland and baby Windsor were choked with a 2 barrel carb while the CJ managed to steal a 4 barrel of the assembly line shelf and had a compression ratio of 9.0:1.   The 351 CJ was able to come in a little more respectable with 266 hp at 5400 rpm.

I will tell you this there were very few 351 CJ Windsor made in 1973 and 1974.  I owned a 1974 351 CJ  and my researched showed that less than 100 of these engined were produced that year.

All of these were used in the Torino, Montego, Mustang, Cougar and other Ford and Mercury models.  The 351 CJ was used in the Mustang and Cougar.

1973 Cleveland 351 2 barrel under the hood of a Mustang.

 

Up next the 400’s for 1973.

Thanks for reading.

Tim

Engine Line-UP: Lincoln 1953

By | | , , , , ,
Leave a comment

As you may know Lincoln was its own brand at one time, then picked up by Ford.

 

The 1953 Lincoln came with only one engine.

The V-8 Overhead value was a cast iron block.  It was able to displace 317.5 cid and had a bore and store of 3.8″x3.5″.  The compression ratio was: 8.0:1 and bushed out only 205 hps and that was breathing through a Holley 2140 4 barrel carb.

This a pic of a 1954 317 engine which is exactly the same as the '53

1953 Lincoln

 

Thanks for reading.

Tim

The Marauder

By | | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Leave a comment

I like off –beat cars. By that I mean, the ones nobody thinks about immediately.  Some of those are cars like, Studebakers, Edsels, and Mercurys.

A few years ago, actually shortly after we moved to Tucson, AZ., I was at the local Safeway and I saw this black car moving through the
parking lot.  I was on foot and I hurried to the end of the parking row to see if I could catch the manufacturer and
model.   To my surprise that sports-roof-like, long black car was a Mercury Marauder!!  It was beautiful.  I’m still not sure what
year it was but I believe it was a 1969 and possibly an X-100, but I can’t be sure.

'69 Marauder

I’m not totally unfamiliar with Mercury’s, having lived with grandparents who  for years would only buy
that Ford brand – mainly the Marques and other 4 door models. Frankly back then I wasn’t all that impressed.
But the Marauder, like the Cougar, wasn’t your grandparent’s car!

So coming up is my write-up on the Mercury Marauder.

Thanks for reading

Tim

What’s coming up? Take a look!

By | | , , , , , , ,
2 Comments

I have a couple of interesting pieces coming up.

1.  Mercury Marauder name plate

2.  Closure on the upholstery for my ’70 Mustang.

3.  Reader choice – you choose the next engine to highlight

I have a couple commercial ventures on the near horizon:

1.  Certified Auto Appraiser – I’m about to finish my certification and will be specializing in Classic, Muscle, Antique and speciality cars.

2.  Auto restoration project management.  Focus is on those individuals that love their cars, but don’t have the time nor the experience to know what needs to be done.  I’m actually waiting for my first car.  It is a 1975 VW Bug coming all the way from Iowa City, Iowa, should be here this will for inspection and the beginning of its restoration.

So what engine would you want to see highlighted?  Drop me a note here or on Facebook.

Thanks for reading

 

Wrenchin’ Tip – Got 6 Volts?

By | | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
4 Comments

I was recently talking to a coworker of mine who own a 1949 Pontiac Silver Streak Delivery Van (link –     http://wp.me/pKHNM-Bx ) and we were discussing his 6 volt system and the troubles with low amperage.

Well I just ran across a couple of interesting articles dealing with that subject.  Now I will tell you I am not “the guy” for electrical work – nope not me (I had a bad experience – ok – a couple of bad ones).  But even this one I can understand.

Increasing the power supply often means that you need to convert to 12 volt and maybe 15 years ago yes, but now 6 volts are readily available.  So here is what you do (sorry no pics)

Take two 6 volt batters and link them in parallel by connecting the two negative terminals to each other and the two positive to each other. The main positive cable goes from the positive terminal of the first battery to ground and the main negative cable is connected to the negative terminal of the second battery.  Of course in some case you may have to modify the batter shelf, but it will sure help kick up the cold cranking amps.

Thanks for reading

Tim