MOTOR, Flathead Manifold & Head Reviews

[Psychobilly Boi]

Hi All,

I was wondering if anyone here could offer thier opinions on the various manifolds and heads they have used. I'm looking around at some but I wouldnt know whats good and whats not. If anyone wants to add heads and cams to their review, go for it.

I know that how it performs is related to the whole package, so if you want to give some info on your setup, i would really appreciate it.

Danny

[286merc]

How about at least telling us what you are looking to build.

Also are you loaded with money so you want only the best?

[FLAT6]

IF you get another reply from 286merc with his opinions on choices, I would take it to heart, just like I have. I listened to him and am gonna run stock EAB heads, a merc manifold with an autolite or rochester 2 bbl carb for heads and manifold. I don't want to go into the rest, but definitely listen to everything he says and you will have a NICE flatty.
Mike

[bigdog928]

thats right..listen to the man-he knows his stuff.....

[Psychobilly Boi]

Hi 286,

Sorry I should have been more specific in what I was looking for.

At the moment I have a stock 8ba mated up to a '39 three speed tranny. the motor at the moment seems to run fine, but being young and silly im looking to hop it up.

to answer your question, no i dont have alot of money to spend. but at the same time, i want to do it right hopefully the first time. at some stage the engine will go in for a full rebuild, but right now, im looking for some bolt on parts that i can again use later on.

i dont want a full race mill, as i use this car on the street all the time. full ecconomy isnt super important but if its going to get 6MPG i dont want it. just want some reliable "spice" added to the car hopefull added with some second hand speed goodies i can get at swapmeets etc.

thanks for your reply, its most appreciated.

danny



[ QUOTE ]
How about at least telling us what you are looking to build.

Also are you loaded with money so you want only the best?


[/ QUOTE ]

[delaware george]

i would agree...i've totally learned and went by what 286 has said,except,i went with finned heads for the overall look....mine's not a race car http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[286merc]

Thanks for the nice comments; now you're all gonna make me cry http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif

OK, as Flat 6 said, using 52-4 (in Aussie land) EAB heads and any 49-54 Merc flathead intake with the mentioned carb you will be able to feel a small boost. Give the heads about a .050-.060 cut for a bit more compression. Add duals for the sound. This wont look like a hot rod but is the 1st step while scraping up the money. Dont know your driving style but the mpg should actually be a hair better than what you do now.

Aluminum heads are for looks only at this point. Unless you get into some serious block and cam work they will do very little for the cost involved.

Ignition sucks on a stocker, I prefer the Mopar electronic conversion as per your own Mike Davidson. Simple and bullet proof.

If it was my engine I would do the following:

EAB heads cut .050
Schneider 270F/350 cam, just right for stock displacement.
Adjustable tappets
Valve job
Wide spaced dual intake with matched casting ID 94 carbs
Headers and glasspacks
Mopar ignition
Figure on a 40-50 hp boost. All can be done at home except for the head milling and dizzy machining.

Since the heads are off it is fairly simple and a good time to do the cam and valves. You can clean up the heads, grind off all the markings and paint a contrasting color to the block.
Stock and aftermarket heads often suffer from a wide variation in chamber size. CC and try and match within 1/2 cc or so; simple enough for a home project.

Edelbrock and Offenhauser both make a decent head and are in current production. If swap meet shopping it is a gamble what you are buying as they may have already been cut too many times, warped or corroded water pasages. All the more better if you have someone along who knows his shit.

Pretty hard to mess up a swap meet intake tho, and virtually any brand will do OK. Just look it over carefully for port and bolt hole damage.

With the 286 in my 53 Vicky I get 11-13 mpg but Im not gentle with the pedal, I built it to have fun and it has held together for around 65K miles so far.
OTOH I get 14-15 out of a 375 hp 396 Chebby!

Sounds like a fun project, keep us posted.

Oh, almost forgot. You will now be able to put some serious hurt on that 39 tranny, treat it gentle.

[Psychobilly Boi]

286,

Thanks for the feedback - sounds great.

Currently the 8BA is sitting in my AV8 roadster. Its my first rod and I'm loving every second of it.Please excuse the late model *cough* radials *cough*. Its sacriligious (sp?) on a highboy according to most of the hamb! Performance of the stocker is good and its quick enough to get me into trouble, and the sound of the engine makes up for any ass whiping I get by late model imports.

I was planning on using a adapted chev dizzy with electronic ignition as they are easy to get over here locally but I will look into the Mopar conversion. RatBastard here on the hamb is going to run one. The car is running straight pipes at the moment so saves on headers and glass packs http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Thanks for your tips on everything, you've helped out alot. My initial thoughts were ignition, then dual manifold and 94's, then heads. Sounds like I was on the right track. I wanted something I could spice up now without tearing it apart fully. I'll leave that for my other 8ba which i want to treat to a full rebuild.

As far as new Vs Second hand, I'd go with second hand intake but will stay away from second hand heads. Cory, another hamb guy has been very helpful with knowledge and I will end up getting all of my gear through him. Just didnt want to get a sucky intake, but from the sounds of things, most are a much of a muchness, especialy at this level of output.

On a side note, Corey was wondering about the L100 cams. I know RatBastard inquired about them in a prev post but did you have any more information on them?

I've heard the '39 boxes can be fragile, so I'm treating her very kindly. I dont mind paying for go faster goodies, hate paying for repairs!!!

Danny

ps. just an idea, there was some great posts a while in the techomatic on 305 chevies, SB mopar etc. did you want to do one for late flatheads? Be really cool to have some concrete facts on these engines. Woudl love to have a comparison with HP/Torque output as stock, with ignition then intake, heads, cam etc. Take some of the guess work out of this.

[286merc]

The Litterio L100 has been around since the 50's. Some like it but I think it is a little too much for a 239.

Schnieder OTOH has a wide selection to fit just about anything AND they understand computer designs also.

Im not an Isky fan either primarily since they still think you have to run special springs. That thinking went away 20 years ago.

Nothing wrong with the Chevy HEI, I did a few of those before learning about the Mopar which looks a LOT better!

[Psychobilly Boi]

286,

I think the flattie the L100 might be going into will be stroked and bored. Im not sure of the total displacement though. I'll pass on the info. much appreciated. i've also heard good things about the schneider cams.

Can i convince you to do the technomatic article?

Danny

[ QUOTE ]
The Litterio L100 has been around since the 50's. Some like it but I think it is a little too much for a 239.

Schnieder OTOH has a wide selection to fit just about anything AND they understand computer designs also.

Im not an Isky fan either primarily since they still think you have to run special springs. That thinking went away 20 years ago.

Nothing wrong with the Chevy HEI, I did a few of those before learning about the Mopar which looks a LOT better!



[/ QUOTE ]

[flatoz]

spose I should chime in here as I have put some ideas into Psycho's head.

Hello 286, know you from a few other flathead pages.


Basically I said that the best use of money and time to get value/performance for $$$ would be to use "bolt" on parts that can be swapped over to another engine.

ie manifold, dizzy etc. as once you have paid for these they can be swaped to the new engine with little to no trouble.

Also being what the flattie is like some good spark is required and to up the performance as the floyd clymer book says you get good bang for your buck with a dual intake.

To go much further with a stock engine requires engine out and car off the road, then as per usual it would probably end up being a full rebuild.

I think Psycho was chasing the ins and outs as far as what if any intake is better than another?

As for the dizzy, the conversion he is talking about is a local made up dizzy using local "holden" ( Aussie GM body) and XD Falcon ( yep we still make these things ) cap and rotor.

Hard for you guys to understand , but a Mallory is costly in the first place over here ( conversion rate isnt the best ) and parts availability isnt great as we would have to order and wait for caps rotor buttons etc.

( theres and XD falcon in every wrecking yard from Kaniva to Darwin)

I'm running a similar set up on my engine, have a fenton 2x2 and electronic dizzy, made a big difference to the engines performance and bang for the buck was about the best you can get.

I'm running 94's that I have built ( have paid close attention to your articles over the years on these carbs.)

hope that adds some insight

Flatoz

[Psychobilly Boi]

Hey,

Yes blame FlatOz, its all his fault. if i hadnt come over and seen all his lux speed goodies I wouldnt be trying to chase my tail figuring out what to get.

Keep the info comming please.

Danny

[Psychobilly Boi]

Hey,

Any other seasoned flatmotor guys have anytyhing to add?

Danny

[haring]

I am learning about flatheads as well. I bought these books and highly recommend them. Buy them before you spend a cent on anything else. I have them linked to Amazon, but try locally first or www.thehotrodcompany.com (http://www.thehotrodcompany.com) (a HAMBer's site)

How to Build a Flathead Ford V8, McNicholl (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0760314934/qid=1075441281//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i4_xgl14/102-8069907-8080160?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Complete Flathead Ford V8, Ceridono & Tex Smith (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1878772104/qid=1075441281//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i9_xgl14/102-8069907-8080160?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Flathead Ford V8 Builder's Handbook, Oddo (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1555611192/qid=1075441281//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i12_xgl14/102-8069907-8080160?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

[wideglide74]

What are these mallory ignitions like? Are the TALL manifolds any better or worse than short ones? I really like the looks of the tall ones and think I may buy one and sell this one.. I also have an 11in aluminum clutch is it worth installing? Thank You... Jason...

[Flat Ernie]

Mallory has two distributors - magnetic breakerless & unilite. Some of them (I think Unilite) doesn't like generators according to some people. I've run Unilites in several engines & really like them. They sell a surge protector for about $35 - probably well worth it if it saves your $91 module...

I've heard the tall intkes work reasonably well on the street. I've got a Thickston PM-7 that I'm going to put on my 40 eventually, but right now, I can't tell you http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

As far as an aluminum flywheel (I assume that's what you meant), depending on how heavy your car is, you may not like it on the street. You may be better off shaving a few pounds of a cast-iron stocker...

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[286merc]

Been a bit busy today.

As far as getting anything in the Tech files you have to be one of the annointed, I guess I dont fit that mold.

Sounds like you are on the right track. I figured the Mopar dizzy was popular down there cuz of Mike Davidsons book. Use whatever works. My own experience has shown a factory electronic dizzy is a whole lot less prone to failure than aftermarkets and bolt in stuff.

Im going to have dyno time available in March and there are several flattie intake setups I want to test. That includes various carb spacers up to 4" tall. The one thing I wanted most of all was a 4 carb intake that I could convert to dual quads. Couldnt find one in my price range tho. The high Thickstun is supposed to be one of the best but I haven't seen data across the rpm spectrum. I hope the tall spacers will be a decent alternative.

FlatOz, I remember them Falcons when I spent a bit over 6 months Down Under in 84-85. Hi performance iron was everywhere and I got to every one of your states including Tasmania. Doing a networking project between Telecom Australia and your gov't welfare dept kept me moving around.

One step ahead of jealous husbands and boyfriends also!

[flatoz]

286,

would love to see that dyno stuff. I have been saying to psycho about the fact that from what I can see, most of the info on intakes is hearsay.

I think I offended one guy on another flathead forum your a part of when he suggested that the fenton superduals were crap, that I better change mine back to a single as he was so convincing.

Seems that no one has hard data that proves ( flow bench readings , dyno etc ) if one intake is really better than another.

I do realise that the variables here are enormous, but if you can pull off some dyno tests, well that at least give some basic info on what results can be obtained on an engine built like X.

I dont know why people like to rubish one intake over another without having run one.

Even with the Thickstun, is the moniker of a great street intake proven with hard data?

I know I read somewhere that ( I think it was edelbrock ) put one on one of his race cars early in the peice and won that particular meet, from then on they were seen as the intake to have. Is this what has caused the hype?

Dont get me wrong , I reckon they are about the sweetest looking intake you can get, but it would be nice to have some hard data on what , does what.

them ol' falcons. still make em we do with nice high reving V8s and a real gutys turbo inline 6 which is a 8 eater off the line.

Got a good old falcon ute myself, love the old girl

[modernbeat]

FlatOZ, don't confuse a RACING manifold with a good STREET manifold.

What flow the most at full throttle is rarely the best choice for someone that wants some beans going from light to light with a smattering of highway miles.

[Thirdyfivepickup]

Ernie's comment about the Unilite not liking a generator got me thinking. Any thoughts as is an MSD dizzy might be adversly affected by a generator. I'll call MSD tomorrow on this, but are interested to hear what you guys have to say!

[flatoz]

No confusion Modernbeat, understand the difference, I have looked into quite a few , and have a few intakes too.

Again, as I said, I would like to see some hard data , not just old time wives tales.

I'm not saying anyone is better than the other, just like to be methodical. I'm one of those annoying buggers that if someone tells me this is the best , I want to know why.

If they give me a good plausable explaination, with data, or unrefutable facts then I'm happy.

but alot of the time the answer you get is 'so and so says so'

which doesnt always have alot of credibility. I know you visit some of the flathead forums, and people will regale tales of what experts have told them to do with carbs.

same with intakes, and as your suggesting , some set ups will work better in some situations.

[286merc]

Funny you mention the Fenton Oz, that dual is what Ive had on my 286 for 5 years. Subjectively it pulls fine thru the gears with a pair of ECG Y Block 94's.
Would it be as good as some others? Dunno and I dont care, Im not racing the lead sled.

The engines I build for others have been using the run of the mill Offy and Edelbrocks, all flavors since that is what the buyers want.

I dont have many intakes to experiment with. What I have been doing is making my own flat stock mods to a pair of Offy duals; sort of a buiding block concept so different things can be easily tried.
With the dyno time I want to see what really is the effect of various hi riser styles. Last time I ran a modified Offy Super Dual with a pair of 4 bolt 2300 carbs for 600 cfm on a 276; it was still going up at 5400 rpm. But it wasnt streetable with solid linkage.
What I really hope to get working is a pair of WCFB's. Im fast becoming a believer that the much quoted cfm formulas are pure BS for an extensively reworked flathead.

BTW, the stock 8BA intake is not a bad design, Im going to try cutting up one of those soon also. The main reason I got the 2nd Henrob is to do aluminum and cast iron work.

Anybody want to do direct port with 8 motorcycle carbs?

[flatoz]

hey 286,

seems we might think a little similar ( or off the beatten path)

I have been playing with 4" spacers on mine, I am getting a little bit of bogging down on take off, and its running a little rich, but its very drivable and gives great looks, milage and performance.

This is on a pretty much stock engine. ( which is why I think I am having some bogging down) I havent gone as far as using the vac gauge to do readings while driving, but have read your articles and am planning on doing so soon ( when I get the 50 other jobs done)

I have also made 3" spacers and will be tooling up to cast these in alloy some time soon.

[flatoz]

Oh yer thats the dizzy that I was talking about.

scuze the alternator, need it for good headlights as I dont mind driving distances in the dark

and as for the thermo, well, gotta keep a flathead cool

[haring]

What is the advantage of carb spacers -- increased fuel/air velocity?

What are the disadvantages of carb spacers?

[Flat Ernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Ernie's comment about the Unilite not liking a generator got me thinking. Any thoughts as is an MSD dizzy might be adversly affected by a generator. I'll call MSD tomorrow on this, but are interested to hear what you guys have to say!


[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard they're not nearly as sensitive as the Unilite, but have not run one myself...curious to see what MSD says.

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Kilroy]

I'll chime in with what I've heard about intakes and the MSD dizzys...

I talked to Jerry Jobe about this quite a bit and I think you might want to give him a call FlatOZ. He has tried many intakes on his dyno. I think the critical point with any test would be ensuring the carbs were the same form intake to intake and Jerry has done that I believe. All in all I don't think there is that much of a difference but he did say that you definately need the heat risers to ensure a good active mixture. He has dozens of different intakes all set up and ready to go also so he might have some good input and even if he doesn't have an actual graph or chart for you to look at, you could take his opinion to the bank.

He also has some things to say about distributers. He likes the MSD's a lot. He says no electronic dizzy likes generators but MSD does it's best to compensate for voltage spikes. I had him modify my stock 49-53 dizzy (yes they can work just fine) for a more traditional look. I figured with this setup I can fire the MSD box just fine (Saving points and with an MSD box, dual points aren't necessary) with it or run with just the dizzy in the event of a failier. That way I have a vacuum curved (MSD's wasn't out yet) dizzy that looks the part.

[Psychobilly Boi]

Phil,

Does your setup present any issues with running dual 48's? Maybe I'm confusing myself but isnt there a vaccumm issue with dual 48's that the stock dizzy cant handle?

Danny

[Kilroy]

Yeah, I shoulda said I'm running dual 94's. If 0ne of the 48s has the vacuum port, you should be fine. I'm running a pretty wild cam too and still should be fine. The advance curve can be modified with springs just like more modern dizzys.

[Thirdyfivepickup]

[ QUOTE ]

I've heard they're not nearly as sensitive as the Unilite, but have not run one myself...curious to see what MSD says.

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe it or not... MSD was of no help at all. The guy I talked to had no clue about the flathead dizzy. He asked outloud if anyone could help... and didn't get a response!!He basically said that distributor needs an ignition box to run it, and those work fine with a generator. Nice to know that help is there when you need it... http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

...at least I have you guys!

[thirtytwo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I've heard they're not nearly as sensitive as the Unilite, but have not run one myself...curious to see what MSD says.

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe it or not... MSD was of no help at all. The guy I talked to had no clue about the flathead dizzy. He asked outloud if anyone could help... and didn't get a response!!He basically said that distributor needs an ignition box to run it, and those work fine with a generator. Nice to know that help is there when you need it... http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

...at least I have you guys!

[/ QUOTE ]we had one at the shop my boss got pissed threw it across the shop and put an old point dist in it, i dont think the early ford gen has enough poop to power everything especially idling

[flatoz]

Phil,

A few things preclude me from ringing jere jobe. but I would love to see his info. That is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about.

35 - great to see a company that knows its product http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif

[286merc]

From Fordbarn comments MSD supposedly has fixed the genny problem, in fact they now have a 6V version.

Check out the Jacobs setup, lots of track and off roader racers use them around here and say it is the best.

www.jacobselectronics.com (http://www.jacobselectronics.com)

[Kilroy]

I tried a Jacobs setup on one of my cars and didn't think it was anything special. Also I had a problem with it during the warranty period and their service sucked. I had to pay shipping both ways to send it back, a diagnostic fee and parts and labor to repair it. It was almost as much as the system cost for a failier that was their fault although I was never able to get that through to them. And again this was during the warranty period.

Your results may vary... http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif

By comparison, I had a problem with my MSD box months after the warranty period ended and they still replaced it at no charge to me.

[Psychobilly Boi]

Phil,

In your opinion, do you think its worth sticking with a stock dizzy and using a MSD box or upgrading to an aftermarket HEI dizzy? If your running a stock dizzy and a generator, all the dizzy doesn if act like a trigger, and the HEI component comes from the MSD box, is this correct?

If thats possible, why do people go to the expense and trouble of swapping dizzies, is it just to get the HEI component or is there some other advantage im not quite aware of?

Danny

[Kilroy]

The main reason people switch to electronic I think is that they require less maintenance. But if you fire a MSD box, there is very little required of the points and they last a very long time. Another reason to go with electronic triggering would be for a more precise adjustment of the timing, which on most street cars, isn't that important and if you use a Capacitive Discharge box like the MSD, which either lengthens the spark plug's burn duration or fires it multiple times per trigger, timing precision isn't quite as critical.

I'll give you my reasons for going with a modified stock dizzy.

1. I had one that was in good shape.

2. I liked the look of it better than the HEI or Mopar conversions. (Let’s face it, flatheads are as much about look and feel as the are about performance these days, perhaps more so)

3. I wanted a distributor that controls the spark advance based on the vacuum signal rather than a completely mechanical advance.
I think on a street-car that goes up and down the RPM range frequently; it's inefficient to run a centrifugal advance only distributor. The engine requires different spark advance levels at different times, under different loads and the way to compensate is with vacuum advance. People describe the old ford dizzy as vacuum advance only and say they aren’t tunable. That isn’t exactly true in that you can modify the curve using springs just like the more modern dizzies. It’s always a vacuum signal that sets the advance on the distributor, but you can modify the “curve” for souped motors just like the mechanical dizzies. Granted it’s a little harder to do than on other types.

4. I don’t like relying on electronic distributors. In my experience they fail at the most inopportune times, with no warning. Points are easier to replace in a pinch.

Now given all this, if they had the MSD distributor with the vacuum advance out, and I could have afforded it, I might have run it with my old ford dizzy in the trunk as a back up. I do like the fact that I can do both, triggering the MSD box or running without it if it fails on me out on the road. I’d be curious to see if MSD got the curve right on their dizzy too. The Mallory just used the SBC curve, which sucked for a flatty.

Oh well, I hope this helps!

[Psychobilly Boi]

Dear Phil,

Thanks for the info, its much appreciated.

I was always wondering what the advanctaged/disadvantages were. Would I be correct in saying modern dizzies are both mechanical and vaccumm advanced?

Did you notice any difference in shifting to the MSD box over points alone?

Danny

[Kilroy]

For my flathead, this is all theoretical. I don't have it on the road yet but will let you know how it works if I ever do? http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I have run both points (Single, not dual) and electronic (MSD Billit Mech. adv.), firing an MSD box and without, in my 390 Ford '60 T-Bird.

I found that there was a noticeable improvement in performance when I went from the stock setup, to firing the MSD box off the stock dizzy.

However I didn't notice much of a difference running the MSD box off the stock dizzy versus the electronic MSD dizzy.

In fact it seemed to run a little better with the stock dizzy and vacuum assisted advance. This might be because it was a heavy car with 270 or so gearing. The engine was under a lot of load off the line.

You are correct about modern vacuum dizzy's having "Vacuum Assisted" advance in addition to a mechanical setup.

I think the Mechanical only dizzies work better for race applications where the engine is under a more constant load throughout the RPM range. That's where the greater precision of the mech. adv. shines.

[flatoz]

286,

hve been meaning to ask you for a while, have you cc'd the
EAC heads at all? I was wondering how they compaired to the EAB that you like?

Reason is that in OZ we only got Canadian engines ( unless someone personally imported a US car ) so most of our 49-54 engines are equiped with EAC heads.

Just interested in how the stack up in the pecking order.

Thanks

[286merc]

While Phil made a few good points, actual use has evaded him sofar. Speaking from well used experience I can say that tuning the stock dizzy is an excercise in frustration and a compromise at the very best.
For someone on a budget the Ford dizzy is OK to get you on the road, even with dual 94's, but dont expect real flatty performance. Just by turning the plate eccentric you will improve the curve.
If maintaining looks is that important then just install the Mopar inside the Ford. Not that involved, been discussed here in the past.

Boi, If you want electronic on the cheap check out the CD ignitions of the 60-70's era. Often show on EPay in the $10-20 range. Some even support 6 & 12V along with positive and negative ground. The point life will approach 40K or the rubbing block wearing down first. Ive used them for years in the past and on some vehicles I have now. Never any problems with gennies either. They are simply low voltage/current switches to virtually eliminate point arcing and not multiple discharge as some high end modern units. I'm sure there were many sold in Aussieland also.

OZ, Im thinking you may be confusing Canadian castings with engine applications.
The 52-3 Ford used the EAB, the 52-3 Merc used the EAC. Canadian heads should be C-EAB and C-EAC respectively unless they shipped Fords with lower compression heads.
From info I got from Ron on Fordbarn the EAC is in the 80cc range, just a bit smaller than the 8CM. Abbin lists the EAC along with the 8BA which I believe is incorrect. I havent run across one in several years to test here.

How about some details on that Falcoln conversion? Does it equate to something available over here?

[Homeresque]

286-
I'm getting ready to tear into my first flathead which will eventually replace the 327 currently in my deuce 3W. '78' trans, V8-QC, etc, I like the idea of all ford driveline. The 327 will go into another deuce chassis with all GM driveline. But thats another story...
Anyway, its an unrebuilt, good running '51 merc. Whats the scoop on the 8CM heads? I want to run iron instead of aluminum. Are these good ones? Milled down? Anything else? I havent decided on intake, 3-81s look good but prolly too much(but I have the 81s), 2-97s on an Edmunds(dont have 97s) good but common, Rochester 2GC on stock intake maybe, 4GC on aftermarket. What was your preference? Assuming the block is good, what do you suggest for it and the bottom end?
Homey

[286merc]

The 8CM has the biggest chambers and were used to keep the Mercs cr down to the 6.8 Ford numbers plus run on the regular gas of the era.
If you put EAB heads on a stock 255 the resultant cr would be around 7.7. Give it a .050 cleanup shave and you will be around 8; add a few carbs and you will feel the difference.

If you are going to be adding carbs you will need to do something about the dizzy. Your Strombergs and Rochesters have no provision for venturi vacuum. A 2G on the stock intake for starters, a Offy 4bbl with a WCFB/4G when you can. Dual 94's are nice also; the 4bbl is pretty idiot proof tho if you dont want the tuning hassles.

A Schneider 270F/365 and Johnsons if you have the money, might as well do it while the heads/intake are off. Leave the lower end alone for now.

Sell off the 81's to finance it all.

[Kilroy]

Carl, I stated that it was theoretical. Thanks for clearing that up. http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

However, I forgot to say that when Jerry does carbs or an ignition he tunes them on his flatty and dyno. The distributer works fine. The dyno run indicated the performance difference between the electronic dizzy and mine (firing his MSD box) would be negligable on the street.

I guess I should have said that to begin with.

[Homeresque]

Well I was intending to tear the whole thing down. Clean up the crank, dip the block and hope for no cracks, balance the bottom. You dont think I should replace valves and install new seats? What about block work?
Rats about the heads, I was really digging the Mercury-script on them.
My Rochesters have timing vacuum ports on them, does the flatty dist need a different point of vacuum?

[flatoz]

286,

I will see if I can get hold of a digital camera to take some pics of the dizzy, its a bosch body I guess they make the shaft, you just have to supply the gear.

The internals are I guess standard bosch units, its just the capand rotor are the local XD FALCON units ( fords large family car of 79=80 fame)

Again, for me , I saw this as a better idea, being that the parts were all local and readily available, again, if a cap cracks, etc, can get one. Where when I did have a mallory dual point. Trying to get parts for it here was like looking for chicken teeth. Again as I said, probably not a problem for you lot, but I wanted something that gave me parts availability.

As for the heads, was just wondering as all the 8BA heads I have have EAC on them, as all our engines ( well most anyway) came from Canada ( thanks to the sharing might of the british empire) so Australia never made flathead engines here to speak of. That was the reason for asking.

Thanks

[av8]

Good stuff, guys. There's still so much to learn about Henry's L-heads. I'm about to commence work on a new motor for my F-1 while the original is still running great. I'm beginning with an excellent standard-bore Canadian casting from a '51 F-5 which we'll bore to 3-5/16 inch. Using the Merc crank and rods, with only a bit of carving and polishing on the crank -- it's going to be daily transportation and a Bonneville tug so it won't be spinning very high.

Porting and port match will be done, 1.6 intakes, 1.5 exhaust, Johnsons, and three-angle seat cut, etc, etc . . .

I will probably use a converted GM HEI because I have a pal locally who has been doing them for years, and another pal who has a spare he'll let me road test for as long as it takes to convince me it's what I need. You're right, Carl, they're butt-ugly, but the truck has a hood to cover the ugliness as well as hide the alternator that will replace the generator when I do the six-to-twelve change.

I'm also opting for the easy and economical way out in carburetion, with an Offy 4-bbl manifold and Holley 390-cfm carburetor. I know several people who run this setup, and the one who is most influential is the pal who offered up the HEI loaner. He is running essentially the same motor in his 1950 coupe that I will have in my truck, with a T-5 which is also part of my package, and enjoys strong performance combined with fuel economy in the low and mid 20s. I'm thinking high 'teens-low 20s for me.

Phil -- How did the port work look when you were done? Haven't heard from you for awhile. Hoping you found horsepower and not water. http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[Bruce Lancaster]

av8, Ron Hollerhan (undoubtedly mispelled), author of one of the better flathead books, is making HEI conversions using the early type Chevy distributor. He uses the actual HEI pickup and innards, not an aftermarket conversion kit. Better looking, and the early setup is easier to tune for a flathead because it has a stop mechanism for total advance that is easier to rework.
Phil and the Loadomatic crew--the late flathead distributor is hooked to TWO DIFFERENT sources of pressure drop. One is just ported (that is above the throttle plate) manifold vac, easily replicated on any carb and also likely to behave about the same no matter what your rig. The second source, connected by a passage up into a venturi in the original carb, is the venturi pressure drop, the force that draws the gas through the main fuel system. This has NOTHING in common with any hookup to manifold vac, and indeed runs essentially opposite to manifold vac, increasing at full throttle as the manifold vac goes to nothing--exactly why Ford used it. With any sort of vac hookiup other than one replicating Ford's, you will have close to right advance up to maybe 3/4 throttle, then ZERO advance--you will be running your static advance at full throttle, turning your fuel into a heating system for the water jackets rather than power. The next problem is this: the venturi pressure drop is barely adequate in a stock '49 (many would say inadequate...), and obviously the air flow creating this drop is a lot less when there are two carbs splitting it.
This means fairly major tuning to allow any full throttle advance at all, while attempting to control a spring vs vac system that still has to control the much stronger ported vac a low speeds.
I wouldn't say use of loadomatic is impossible in a rod....286 has described flogging the spring system for two Ford carbs--but it would be real damn challenging, especially starting with carbs lacking a venturi pressure drop tap. Your post suggests that you still don't have a workable full throttle advance, unless I have misunderstood it.

[Psychobilly Boi]

Hi Bruce,

I'm a little confused...are you saying that even after market dizzies still have advance issues with dual 94's... excuse my ignorance on this subject http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif...trying to keep up!

Danny

[ QUOTE ]
av8, Ron Hollerhan (undoubtedly mispelled), author of one of the better flathead books, is making HEI conversions using the early type Chevy distributor. He uses the actual HEI pickup and innards, not an aftermarket conversion kit. Better looking, and the early setup is easier to tune for a flathead because it has a stop mechanism for total advance that is easier to rework.
Phil and the Loadomatic crew--the late flathead distributor is hooked to TWO DIFFERENT sources of pressure drop. One is just ported (that is above the throttle plate) manifold vac, easily replicated on any carb and also likely to behave about the same no matter what your rig. The second source, connected by a passage up into a venturi in the original carb, is the venturi pressure drop, the force that draws the gas through the main fuel system. This has NOTHING in common with any hookup to manifold vac, and indeed runs essentially opposite to manifold vac, increasing at full throttle as the manifold vac goes to nothing--exactly why Ford used it. With any sort of vac hookiup other than one replicating Ford's, you will have close to right advance up to maybe 3/4 throttle, then ZERO advance--you will be running your static advance at full throttle, turning your fuel into a heating system for the water jackets rather than power. The next problem is this: the venturi pressure drop is barely adequate in a stock '49 (many would say inadequate...), and obviously the air flow creating this drop is a lot less when there are two carbs splitting it.
This means fairly major tuning to allow any full throttle advance at all, while attempting to control a spring vs vac system that still has to control the much stronger ported vac a low speeds.
I wouldn't say use of loadomatic is impossible in a rod....286 has described flogging the spring system for two Ford carbs--but it would be real damn challenging, especially starting with carbs lacking a venturi pressure drop tap. Your post suggests that you still don't have a workable full throttle advance, unless I have misunderstood it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Kilroy]

Mike- To answer your question about finding power and not water, the answer is BOTH!

Actually the porting went great. I got kudos from the machinist but then he went and had a leaky roof right over my freshly polished block! A few of the ports have a bit of surface rust on them now but should clean up fine.

I've run into some financial roadblocks right now so the engine is sitting for a while but I'm sure it will haul when I find the right wrapper for it! Thanks again for the step-by-step instructions!

Bruce- Jerry set up the dizzy to be connected just as Ford intended. He first dialed in my carbs and intake on his dyno motor, then installed the rebuilt dizzy and tuned it form there, compensating for the lower vacuum signal. It wasn't an easy process necesarily, and there is some trial and error involved, but it definately worked, looks correct, and it was cheaper than buying an MSD (he says the mallorys are junk, the have the wrong curve and wear out prematurely).

Jerry is in the process of moving to Montana right now so I haven't been able to ask him specifics about what he does to compensate for the lower vacuun (he told me when he set mine up but that was months ago, I need a refresher http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif), or about what he thinks about the various intake manifold designs and if he has a preferance, but I will as soon as he gets back

[286merc]

I guess a comment I made early in this thread went right over many heads.

Why not just put the Mopar guts into the stock Ford dizzy?
Looks original except for the extra wire and doesnt require a lot of work.
Tommy has been running that setup for years and turned me on to it as well as the conversion for the Y Block which was published by Frank Oddo in the 70's.

[Butch11443]

I've got a basically stock 49 8BA in my 31. I'm running an Offy dual intake with 2 94's on it. It is the one w/ the carbs about 6" apart. Using a Mallory dual-point dist firing a stock Model A coil at 6 volt. I have excellent throttle response at any speed, get 16-17 mpg running a 4/11. Am putting on about 1,000 miles a month currently w/ no problems.
Butch http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/smirk.gif

[Bruce Lancaster]

Phil--sounds good if set up to your stuff. I had the idea that it was dynoed with one carb, which would have been a different kettle of worms--


"I'm a little confused...are you saying that even after market dizzies still have advance issues with dual 94's... excuse my ignorance on this subject ...trying to keep up!"

If you can find an aftermarket with vac and centrifugal (early mallory, some oddballs and conversions, don't know about MSD), that's great, vastly superior under most real world circumstances to centrifugal only.
The stocker is both vac and venturi drop, hard to adapt to new circumstances. Referring to it as vac only is technically accurate, but misleads people into focusing on manifold vac.
Current Mallory has issues--many reports of totally inappropriate advance curves. They are, however, adjustable. Almost any conversion of a later distributor will also need to have its advance curve shortened considerably.

[Kilroy]

Carl it didn't go over my head...

Like I said, I don't like electronic dizzies. I hate the way they can leave you stranded without warning. I like the fact that points "go out" rather than "Fail." I like the fact that I can keep an extra set in the trunk without breaking the bank. I guess the same could be done with a Mopar module but why?

The module doesn't effect performance. It's just a triger. It may be more precise and or efficient but I'll take the trade-off for simplicity of design and an unnoticeable (in a street flatty) if at all, reduction in performance.

I guess we could go into the turbulance of a flatty intake charge making it more forgiving to the slight inconsistancy of a point ignition but I think it all comes down to whatever works for you. Electronic ignitions, and I've run just about every brand (MSD, Chevy HEI, Stinger/Mopar, Jacobs) and even sold Mallory, have given me nothing but headaches even when they worked. Whereas points always seem to keep me running.

[Psychobilly Boi]

Hey Butch,

I know without dyno testing its all subjective..but how did you find the improvement going to dual 94's over the stock setup... is the improvment noticable and worth the $?

Danny

[ QUOTE ]
I've got a basically stock 49 8BA in my 31. I'm running an Offy dual intake with 2 94's on it. It is the one w/ the carbs about 6" apart. Using a Mallory dual-point dist firing a stock Model A coil at 6 volt. I have excellent throttle response at any speed, get 16-17 mpg running a 4/11. Am putting on about 1,000 miles a month currently w/ no problems.
Butch http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

[Psychobilly Boi]

Hey Bruce,

Thanks mate, I understand now i think. I was speaking to FlatOz at a local cruise night and his ford conversion is both vac and centrifical advance. Vac comming from manifold not venturi.

Danny

[ QUOTE ]
Phil--sounds good if set up to your stuff. I had the idea that it was dynoed with one carb, which would have been a different kettle of worms--


"I'm a little confused...are you saying that even after market dizzies still have advance issues with dual 94's... excuse my ignorance on this subject ...trying to keep up!"

If you can find an aftermarket with vac and centrifugal (early mallory, some oddballs and conversions, don't know about MSD), that's great, vastly superior under most real world circumstances to centrifugal only.
The stocker is both vac and venturi drop, hard to adapt to new circumstances. Referring to it as vac only is technically accurate, but misleads people into focusing on manifold vac.
Current Mallory has issues--many reports of totally inappropriate advance curves. They are, however, adjustable. Almost any conversion of a later distributor will also need to have its advance curve shortened considerably.


[/ QUOTE ]

[flatoz]

Phil,

you could always just carry a stock set up dizzy in the boot ( sorry trunk) so if the electronic gives up your not stranded http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[skipstitch]

THIS post is why I hang around here!!! I'm just starting an 8ba project...fantastic stuff....

[Kilroy]

That's exactly what I did in my TBird Flat...

Was glad I did too. I had to swap out the MSD on the road to get home.

[flatoz]

Why would anyone want to own a shebby?? after all you've got to love the flathead they always let you down, but provide the BEST for bench racing stories http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Bruce Lancaster]

"I know without dyno testing its all subjective..but how did you find the improvement going to dual 94's over the stock setup... is the improvment noticable and worth the $?"

Here's a summary of a 1954 dyno/drag test of a stock '40 Merc I've posted before, from the 1955 HRM yearbook. Actual nimbers from this period (or any period on flatheads) are scarce, so I love this article. Note the first mod was on dead-stock car with stock cam, single exhaust, etc, HP numbers are rear wheel, not engine:

Here’s a dyno/drag test from about 1954, excerpted from the 1955 HRM annual. Real numbers from these times are scarce, and even E.T.’s were rarely reported. Most drag results were strictly MPH.
Note a few things about these tests: They are modifications on an existing used car, not a full build up. They are entirely bolt-on mods on a stock 239 short block, without even a cam change. The HP numbers are rear-wheel chassis dyno numbers, NOT flywheel HP. Onward:

The car involved was a stock 1940 Merc club coupe, which would have been a typical back-row-of-the-used-car-lot teenager’s car in 1954. The engine was a commercial rebuild, described as “in neither excellent nor in poor shape” with 12,000 miles since rebuild. The pictures show it to have a Stromberg and a dime store chrome aircleaner, probably giving a slight power loss from stock.

Stock with distributor freshly strobed and new plugs (H 10), it pulled 69 HP at 50 MPH on the rollers and turned a blazing 17.23 @65.47 MPH at the Santa Ana dragstrip.

Test 2 added a Sharp super dual with two 97's, stock except for .048 jets (I would think a bit rich?). This produced a 16.56 @ 71.01 MPH, power peak moved to 80 at 55MPH. (Power was tested at speeds from 30 to 60 in high, with practically all mods showing improvement at all tested power levels, by the way).

Test 3 was with the addition of 8.5 to 1 rated finned heads; They carefully avoid stating or showing brands, I would guess because they had so many advertisers to offend. They were R type heads requiring changing out the shorter studs. This produced 84 HP at the wheels at 55, and went16.07 @74.99 at Santa Ana.
Test 4 added dual exhausts and a pair of Hollywood Deeptone mufflers, used with stock manifolds. 86HP, 16 flat @ 75.01.

Test 6 added a Harmon-Collins dual coil, which produced only trivial gains over the fresh stock distributor.

And that was it for that issue–only modifications that an ignorant teenager with $5.00 worth of tools could have performed in dad’s driveway on Saturday. I really wish they had gone on to a cam and headers, but no such luck. Bruce.


The cam is a serious omission here--I think almost any 3/4 cam would have made significant improvements at all speeds here, as the stock Flathead cam is a real cork in the system.

[Kilroy]

I just talked to Jerry Jobe about his dyno experience with different intake manifolds and he confirms that there isn't much of a difference in the major brands.

He did say to stay away from the hi-rise intakes on the street because modern fuels like to deatomize in the long runners.

So if you go with say an Offy super and switch to a Edmons super you won't see much difference.

Hope this helps...

[flatoz]

Thanx Phil,

Just dont quite understand the comment about fuels and deatomisation in the runners??

I would have thought that hi rise intakes would allow longer period of time to deatomise?

maybe I miss read?

[Ryan]

oldie but a goody...