Intake design- looks nostalgic?

[pikesan99]

I have a 27 ford modified with a 2.3l "pinto" (I'm coming to terms with that word..) motor in it. I'm keeping this motor. There, I said it.

I want to make a trick intake to run 2 Weber 44 down-draft carbs. At the same time, I want to try and make a modern engine look semi-nostalgic. Does this intake and carb combo make things worse or better?
Thanks for your input! http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

(don't worry about the colors, just wanted to make things stand out)

[Brootal]

Isn't there a factory RS2000 intake that accepts twin downdrafts? Not sure what type exactly, but some of the Poms (English persons) might be able to help out.

You could machine off any casting or whatever, although it doesn't have that long runner design. Is that part of the plan for performance or just so the carbs stick out the hood (not that there's anything wrong with that!) http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[zonkola]

That's cool. Personally, I think the modified would look better with a side-draft weber arrangement, kind like an old Offy...

http://www.morrismanor.com/images/GMP/offy%20engine.jpg

(By the way, trying saying, "Ford 2.3 OHC four. You know, the same engine they put in the Thunderbird Supercoupe." Sounds better than "Pinto", don't it?)

[pikesan99]

I'm happy that it looks like a production part, I think. I'm actually planning to build this intake from 1 5/8" tube aluminum and home-made flanges. The goal is the "tune" the length of the runners to the resonance frequency. This would give additional boost (volumetric efficiency) at the rpm I'm designing for. In theory... Since its a street car, I want the ideal rpm to be somewhat lower in the torque range.

I also want it to look mean, fast and fit a rat rod, not a high tech hauler. If I made the runners longer, would it look nastier? I'm designing it in Pro/E, so changes are easy. Here's a 2 inch longer runner.

Thanks again for the input!

[pikesan99]

Zonkola,
The side drafts do look sweet. No doubt about that. The trouble with running side drafts on this motor is that I'd have to go distributer-less cause its RIGHT in the way! Distributer-less set ups are readily avialable for $700 or more! Not going to happen.

Thanks for the support on the 2.3 OHC thing. I've been saying that since I bought the car, but my friends keep asking me, "Why do you say that, its a PINTO motor!" I think it is best know for that although it was in Turbocoupes as you said, Mustangs, and Rangers too. Oh well, its going to haul ass anyway!

[CURIOUS RASH]

<font color="green">My brother had a Mustang II that I always called the "Pinto Sport"

DUDE would get so pissed!!

He actually threw a wrench at me once!


ONCE!! </font>

[zonkola]

pikesan - I feel your pain. The 2.3 is far too good a motor to stuck with the "Pinto" tag for eternity...

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I am not even joking, I have always thought pinto motors looked cool. They are dirt cheap and when dressed they look like Offys. I like the settup. Linkage may be a bitch but the 48s I have run in the past on a 351 were dead on reliable and super fast. Doesnt someone make all that speed shit for them? I thought so.
Paul

[Tman]

Yeah but a PINTO motor beat all the flattys at MOKAN. Right Tom? http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Phil1934]

Here's your dual downdraft Weber manifold
http://www.esslingerracing.com/catalog/Page_15.jpg
But with round ports you might as well use it for a pattern and make your own. It's the HAMB way.

[CTFuzz]

If I may, take a look at early Harley side draft carbs....made out of brass, clean up real nice and are VERY adjustable.....if ya lucky, you might find an Indian brass float bowl! I had two on a banger, ran great.......
by the way,the look you are going for is good too. just trying an other option


CT.

[Unkl Ian]

Everything else being equal,I prefer the ooks of side drafts.The late model 2.5 motor(Ranger etc.)uses a distributorless ignition.Maybe you could adapt that,probably have to make a special crank trigger to work with the stock pick up.The one thing I don't like about those motors is they are so recognizeable.
If you ran a small hood to just cover the top of the motor,it removes that "PINTO" stigma.Add big double wall headers out one side and carbs sticking through the top,or out the other side,it would be cool in a light weight car.I think any gains from the "correct" tuned length would be small,packaging and appearance may require compromises.

[Unkl Ian]

I think you would have to mock up a full size manifold to see how it looks on the car.You could use header bends or conduit just tacked together.Some things can't be done completely on a computer.

[CURIOUS RASH]

<font color="green"> As for the valve cover...

Maybe you could find one of those fake dual OHC Ardun replicas for a SBC and adapt it? http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

There is a race supply company out there called Bat something or something BAT taht I believe has some pretty cool aftermarket covers available. </font>

[cornfieldrodder]

If ya want to something that looks like an Offy, use a quad 4. That's what my mods getting, for that reason. The 2.3 Ford (note how the term Pinto was avoided, and I love early ones, wish I had one now) has a crappy cyindwer head. The Ford race part flows like hell and is fairly cheap, used. It will give you a better port shape and the all enter perpendicular to the mounting flange, unlike the stocker.
A pair of carbs for a big twin Harley would be about the right size and look cool and maybe even clear that dizzy.

[C9]

I like the shorter stacks best and here's why.

The long ones are going to look like you made them just so they would stick through the hood.
Kinda faky looking ya know?
Fake stuff being one of my pet peeves and I ain't alone there.

If you need a little additional height, make the spun intake bells a little taller, but again, be careful or you'll end up with the faky look.

Form follows function and once you get the right length you'll have both HP and the look you want.

You may want to take a look at some books about resonant tuning so you could calculate the runner length vs. the expected rpm levels the engine will see.

I think the Sir Harry Ricardo book has such formulas, but am not sure.
Might want to check and see if Sir Harry Ricardo is the correct name as well.
I'm fairly sure about it, but make sure anyway.

[Bigcheese327]

Is Ricardo the guy who did all the exhaust experiments for Bently or Supermarine or whoever it was back in the thirties on the motorcycles?

[pikesan99]

Thanks for all the comments and sympathy regarding the PINTO moniker. I also appreciate the alternative approachs suggested. At this point, I'm focusing on what I have and sticking to it as plan A. The Esslinger dual downdraft in the catalog is for the OVAL port head. I have the better flowing D port that's been modified. It should flow well. I have an Esslinger intake to use with a 2 barrel as a back-up, but I've got to try this custom one first to make the car feel MINE.

I'm pretty sure I'll go with the shorter tube length. The long does look a little "put on" for no reason. Plus the U-bends I'm buying already have the right length. According to the resonance calculations, I need REALLY long tubes at a smaller diameter. Those tubes looked whimpy, so I'm just gonna build what looks right.

Here's what the new motor will be going in. I've posted this before, but I've heard the "put it in a light car" and it will run well.. that's what I'm doing. This will also show why I'm not going with a V8.
Thanks again!

[jerry]

is it going to be ready for gg scottsdale?????????

looks like a nice style of manifold to dress up that motor. it'll fit the style of the car.


jerry

[AHotRod]

1. Call it a Ford 140 CID (sounds better than litre)
2. Go with the shorter tube design
3. Years ago a buddy of mine put a 153 CID ChevyII engine and 4 speed, with a single Holley 390 4 barrel and homemade headers into a T-bucket...4.56 gears and slicks,...it was assume, would spank muscle cars and street/strip cars with ease.......

[pikesan99]

Hey Jerry,

I just had my second son Aug. 29th, so I'm a definite maybe on GG's in Nov. (it is Nov. right?).

There are so many things I want to do, but mostly, I want to drive it with a motor that smokes enough to kill small children on the street!

If I make it, you had better have that 396 in your truck!

[modernbeat]

Pike, I'd keep the intake track as short as possible. That is, I'd put the butterflies as close to the head as possible and still keep the intake as straight as you can. Then, tune the length for torque, throttle response and HP by lengthing the velocity stack.

I'm a fan of the side draft carbs instead of the double bend that the downdrafts will require. But if the ignition is in the way.....

If you are gonna make an intake with a loooong intake track, you will need to put a vibration removal section in it. You've seen where stacks are attached with a length of rubber hose? That's to remove vibration at the mouth of the stack. I ran triple Webers on a Datsun 240Z and I had to make a rubber sandwich bushing between the carb and the intake manifold.

About motorcycle carbs on a car....for the most part, MC carbs don't have an accellerator pump. In a flyweight MC engine with little or no flywheel effect powering an equally lightweight bike, you may not need it. On a road car, I'd stick with a carb with an accelerator pump. I don't know how Harley carbs work, but they might be strong enough to pull a heavier engine like the Ford.

[Missouri_Mike]

It's interesting that this topic comes up...I've got a spare 1.6L Ford four banger out of a '78 Fiesta sitting under my carport right now, and I've been kicking around the idea of using it in a T roadster. Basically the same motor that was used in Formula Ford road racers for years, so there are LOTS of hop up parts available for it. Wouldn't be much in a car that weighed anything, but in a T it should work well.

Here's the address for British American Transfer (BAT): http://www.batinc.com...they carry stock and performance parts for all types of European-built Ford products. Been in business for a long time, handling just that market.

Maybe I better go take another look at that banger, now that I got some roadster pieces to play with...

[pikesan99]

Missouri-Mike,
Thanks for the info. http://www.batinc.net (its .net, not .com) is the web site in case there are other closet 2.3 fans out there.

[pikesan99]

Modernbeat,
I had someone else tell me I'd need an isolator for these carbs, but then I clarified that they are DOWN draft carbs, and they said that I wouldn't need them in that case??

[Missouri_Mike]

[ QUOTE ]
Missouri-Mike,
Thanks for the info. http://www.batinc.net (its .net, not .com) is the web site in case there are other closet 2.3 fans out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn, I knew that...sorry. I usually double-check my links before I post them, too. Oh well, glad ya found it anyways!

[metalshapes]

Pikesan, I have a dual point ign. new in the box for a Pinto ( or so I was told ). It might be smaller than the factory setup, so you could run sidedrafts. ( and keep the intake runners straight )If you are interested I'll go trough my stuff and look for it, If it does not fit the 1.6 Kent Formula Ford type engine I have in my Race car, I do not need to keep it.
Down draft Webers ( and Dellorto's, etc. ) do not need to be insulated for vibration , side drafts do. If you make your own intake, make the mounting flange different so you can use Alfa Romeo intake rubbers. They are MUCH better than an O Ring Kit .

[wes]

anyone in socal have one of these for sale??
wes

[AHotRod]

Did you ever finish this intake idea ?

[panic]

Re: H-D brass carbs.
You mean this?