I've totally been thinking about grabbing an intake, like 6 side drafts. Just not sure what carb would be appropriate. I know how to figure the needed cfm per cam choices etc... The hard part seems to be finding the right carb. Looked into Harley carbs but seems like even the smallest one would still be too much.
If you are serious about running a half-dozen carbs look at the round slide mikunis. They are available in dozens of different sizes, and are easy to dial in with gasoline or alcohol. The 38mm is one of the more popular versions. I run a single 40mm VM40 on a 0.65 liter senior ridden dirt tracker. @THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER Do I see heat shrink tubing on the #2 and #3 fuel lines? Enlighten me please.
Kind of an apples and orange comparison between carbs mounted to a plenum type intake, such as a single four or two barrel, or even a couple of deuces, and individual runner type intakes with either six single barrels, or three side draft two barrel Webers or DelLortos would be, mounted on an IR intake manifold. So with IR type intakes, the CFM per barrel requirements are much higher. For example, and even speaking of this is almost verboten, so please forgive. It is for example only. my drag race air cooled VW, in normally aspirated form, used 1100 cfm combined on an IR type intake. One throat for each cylinder on 142cubic inches. So thats 275cfm x 4. These had 52mm throttle bores. Way bigger than a Mikuni CV40 such as a HD would have. Even your typical HD shares that 40 between two cylinders. Pretty much why that carb has an accelerator pump, and Mikuni's designed for IR applications do not, and have nearly the same size venturi for a much smaller engine, such as 36s or 38s on a 1000cc bike. There just isn't the volume reserve to pull from like there is in a plenum style. Advantage is you can tune each carb individually. Disadvantage is you can tune (Or Mis-Tune) each carb individually. There is also considerable "fuel stand-off" at each barrel as the intake pulse is more pronounced. Also, the idle jets are so tiny, they get easily clogged, and that cylinder will drop at idle. Of course, the visual appeal would be very high!
True story about that car: The owner asked me to drive it at its very first race. We took it to Detroit Dragway. As luck - and a little bit of good driving - had it we made it to the Super Pro finals that day. Nobody racing there knew us or the car from Adam. I remember racing a big blue Mopar - maybe a Roadrunner or Charger, dunno - a local heavy with a 440 under the hood. And I had to give him the spot! (It was running mid elevens.) I ran him down and caught him in the lights. I remember Pete hugging me as we both laughed our asses off at our good fortune. Post script: When he sold the car the new owner put a 351W V8 in the car. Ran the same as with the 300 six. Good times, good memories. @THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER Do I see heat shrink tubing on the #2 and #3 fuel lines? Enlighten me please. View attachment 5245376 [/QUOTE] Ebbsspeed, That was used to temporarily establish the spacing for the fuel lines. Fuel line tubing was used for the final connections. That setup is going in my new '49 Anglia. Kiddies, Do not use shrink wrap for fuel lines.
I think you will be happier with one or two carbs on a common plenum. Some guys, like my buddy Pete who built the Pinto, use the lower half of an EFI intake, '87 up and fab a plenum box for carbs. Here is a shot of one he did for his street T-bucket. It will take two Holley or two Autolite 2100 or 2150 series 2Vs (my favorite). I think two - or three - Rochester 2Gs or 2GCs would also work great.
Oh, oh, I'm interested in this topic too! Looking at non-conventional, non-V8 engines for a car I'm building in my head... straight 6, straight 8, V12s, etc... keep the info coming!
There was a guy in Alabama back in the 70's that ran H/MP with a Maverick and a 300. It had one of those vertical triple Weber intakes on it.
Preparation H also used three 48 IDH Webers on it on a fabbed tubular intake (which I once owned). It also had a later common plenum with three Holley 500 cfm 2Vs.
What's the advantage/disadvantage to the common plenum vs none? I am assuming tuning ie synchronization? Am I wrong in thinking a straight shot through a side draft then a straight shot into the head would be more efficient or at least maintaining better atomization, vs air/fuel mix making several multiple angled turns?
I was considering 3 Dcoes with individual runners, maybe incorporate a balance tube, or maybe 3 mini plenums? Kind of like 3 separate tunnel rams and still maintain the straight shot at the head ports.
I have seen one spin 8K. The crank and rods were the only thing stock-ish in that motor. It did not have a radiator and ran on alcohol. Not likely anyone is going to build a street 300 to run like that. They are good truck motors. I like them real well for a light duty truck.
I agree, maybe not 8 grand...most cams that will turn that have a pretty narrow powerband for street use. I was thinking maybe something in the 2500-6500 range.
The mill I was thinking about used to run in econ-rail at Springfield. We actually used to leave our pit to watch it run. It was like a swarm of bees. LOL I had a buddy in Calif that had one in an econoline a single 4 motor that would probably spin to the upper 5s. It was a good runnin motor and excellent for the van. The guy drove it every day. It ran a Sig Erson cam but I don;'t remember the numbers on it. I just recall the cam because i helped my buddy change it.
I had a 300 in a late 70’s Ford pick up with a 4sp between me , my brother and father we beat on that thing like a government mule !!! Loads of torque and completely indestructible!!! Trust me. We tried
I appreciate your attention to detail, FTF, but this project is decidedly *not* the Orange Crate! I'm looking for (very) old school low-end torque, topping out around 5k rpm, in something that looks like it might have raced at Brooklands or similar.... We'll see what I can cobble together over the next few years. I don't have a chassis or body yet, and obviously no running gear either, so it's all just plans and dreams right now. If I can pull it off there'll be a thread here... stay tuned for more!
Oh yes, it was a great read! I'm thinking more gentleman racer, with a strong 1930s British influence. So a two-seat roadster, Brooklands-type folding windscreens, right-hand driving position, with the shifter and hand brake on the right exterior of the body. A Model-T type speedster would be too small, in my mind's eye... The above is a 1937 Lagonda Rapide - definitely not in my budget, but it has most of the lines I'm looking for. Possibly still too small, however. At the glacial rate I'm collecting parts, I might end up going with diesel or electric by the time I actually get to building it though... I've got a few odds and ends, but nothing where you can reasonably step back and say, "Yeah, there's a car there... just needs a little tinkering." I'll start a thread on this idea of mine one of these days, but I feel like I need more physical pieces and parts first.
Never said first. Again thanks for the website. After a weeks worth of reading I'm gonna go sbc or ls. Dollar per horsepower it just makes more sense.
I do not know how much heavier it is from the small sixes. I do know from official FoMoCo documents that a dry 302 SBF weighs 520 lbs and a dry 300 six weighs 490 lbs, so even if it weighs more than its little stepbrother it weighs less than the V8 that occupies similar engine compartments.
If you are basing this decision solely on $/hp, you would build a 460 based Ford. Giving up and going the LS / SBC route, while easy, isn't nearly as much fun or as rewarding as making an odd engine (300 Ford) work well. Everyone walks by all the LS swaps at shows and meets, the odd balls get the attention and praise.
I remember an article in Hot Rod where Ak Miller put 4 Honda 450 carbs on a Mustang 6. He said it responded like it was fuel injected.
The Jalopy Journal
