I know this is been covered here before but I just wanted a little more feedback? 239 60 over winfeild cam 2x2 or 3x2?? 27
I have always had better luck with 2x2's vs 3x2's. I currently have 1 of each in similar vehicles and the 2x2 seems to be a more steady runner, and as strong as the other. 1 is a 239 .040 and is pretty much stock internally, with2x2's the other is a 239 .030 with cam heads etc with 3 carbs, and it runs good, but the other is in a dead heat with it. Just my opinion.
Which Winfield grind? How about heads, valve size, other working such as porting, what type of trans. What kind of carbs do you plan on using. Narrow it down a bit and we may be able to steer you straight.
2x2 will perform best on a basically stocker, but 3x2 has the killer look. Back in the 60s, a guy I knew had a 296 with full race cam and all the goodies in a race car. He experimented with 2x2, 3x2 and 4x2 combinations (all 97s) and came to the conclusion that 2x2 worked best. His single seater was the New Zealand beach racing champion a couple of years running, so I guess he knew what he was talking about.
Funny, about 10 years ago I was walking around with a recent purchase. It was an old Edelbrock Super w/ 48's still on it. A guy stopped me and asked to look at it. He said that was best manifold for a flathead he'd ever run. I exchanged a few words and off we went. Turns out later it was the same guy who wrote the book "Cool Cars & Square Rolls Bars". Judging by his reaction, he'd agree with you.
Myself i always thought 3 of a kind beat 2 pairs, ya i know nobody likes a smartass. I run 3 pots only because it looks ole school. i only use the center carb anyway, the other 2 94s are just along for the ride. i put the tri-power on my 35pu about 5 years ago and havent touched them sence. And i like that. 8-Ball
I'm going to be running 2 97's on my flathead simply because there were two of the new ones from across the pond on the '38 I got from fuelpump. If I ever hit the lottery I might get a third and try a 3x2 setup. Frank
I have always heard three is too many and four is just right ? I`m running two of the later model 94`s and man it runs good !
At WOT, the 3x2 will typically outperform a 2x2, but most of us don't live at WOT... 3x2 on progressive works pretty well, has a great look, but a 2x2 is hard to beat from a simplicity standpoing & is plenty for most engines. 4x2 is just right, Casey!! You're missing 2!
Most 2x2 intake designs you have to run both the 97s or 94s at same time, no progressive linkage. So thats 300+ CFMs. 3x2 progressive you run the center as primary and thats 150+CFMs, and progress the other two at 1/3 throttle to WOT..No problem. Take you time and they can be tuned to run great.. Duane
You aint gotta run all 3. You can always block the center one off on the 3x2, did this on my 35' pickup works fine and got the look.
Looks: Someone once said "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder"; so 3x2 or 2x2 - your call Performance: The 2x2 WILL perform better on a V-8 than a 3x2 (physics, not opinion). Just be sure to size the carburetors to the displacement and performance of the engine. The purchase of someone else's toy and trying to adapt it to a different engine is often an exercise in futility. Jon.
I'm running an Edelbrock Super with a pair of 94's. Hands down the best multi-carb setup I've ever had. Easy to setup with a SynchMeter, stays in tune, and has good idle and smooth acceleration. The only downside was having to rig up an idler because the manifold didn't have a generator mount up front. I think Speedway and Tardel still carry the Weiand bracket, but I made my own from some channel and an old 3-brush generator.
That is good to hear. The one I have does have the gen. mount cast into it. I was going to do the same thing with an idler pulley. There is the machinist named John Larson (goes by JWL) on the Fordbarn and other forums. He wrote a book and tested a series of manifolds. By his flow bench work, he also rated this intake very high. He said placing ported risers on this intake improves the low end power of it. I'm not sure, I'll let you know in a few months.
It'll be alot less hassle to make up the idler with a generator mount on the intake. I thought about getting a couple of those risers. Tardel has them for around $50 for the pair including the long studs. Are you going to run the engine with and without them? I'd be curious to see what kind of difference they make.
PM me your address and I'll make you a copy of that passage in the book. The one thing he advises against is running the open type of riser like Tardell sells (sorry). What I meant with ported risers is one that has the individual runners still in them. I'll take a picture of the ones I mean.
Yup, it's still here. When fuelpump had it it died in my driveway and we traded for the '32 5w that he is currently building. I haven't had time to sort out the problem with it not running but hope to get it on the road for the summer. Eventually I'd like to put my NASCAR 9:1 350 in it and try on Ryan's Rehr Morrison small block just for grins. I don't expect to beat him but if I can still read his license plate in second gear I figure that will be good enough. Frank
Open vs. "ported" risers...with ported, each carb barrel is still feeding just one of the two plenums (Plena?) in the manifold, so each intake valve is exposed to 2 barrels of carb (one in each carb) for breathing purposes. With an open area (effectively a 360 degree mini plenum) in the system, both barrels of both carbs are available to each cylinder, as with a 360 degree open manifold. Therefore the available CFM is effectivel bigger, as in probably too big. Such a manifold requires smaller carburetion than a 180... The common 4 carb manifolds are very close to an individual runner type design, 0ne barrel to one cylinder. Think about the implications of that...
I was looking into this a few years back, and both old tuners I talked to said a 2x2 setup always outperformed 3x2 on flatheads tested on their dynos; and were more "street friendly". Robb
with 2x2 your running pretty much a 4 barrel all the time,3x2 you can run the middle one,the other 2 on progressive linkage,besides the 3 twos look better,just my 2 cents....richie.................
John Lawson. Joe Abbin also flowed several intakes. Then he ran them on the dyno. The 3x2 made more power than every single 2x2 he tried in back-to-back testing on the same engine. Not a great deal more, but more - will probably be in his new book (due out next month I'm told). Agreed. Works the same with modern 4-bbl. Use 4-hole spacer with dual plane and open spacers with open plane...ported spacers keep the signal to the venturi better isolated.
FE: Man, thank you for correcting John's last name. He is a great guy and has done some work for me. I should have know better. I'm very interested in this topic for I'm trying to decide this very question currently. I'm working with Matt @ Fox Valley. I'm trying to decide if I should go with 3X2 or 2X2 on my 276. I doubt doubt the more power of a 3X2, but I do have a question. Does more power on a dyno directly correlate to more usable power on the street? Here is an example that comes to mind. '69 Chevy Z-28. On a dyno the 302 had way more power than the 327. But if you ever driven the car, you quickly realized that the DZ 302's power was so far up the RPM range, you'd almost wished who had a 350hp-327 instead. I know this example is apples to oranges, but I would like to know about overall, around town, don't have to spend hours dialing it in type of power. If the 3X2 still ranks above (and I don't doubt it when using physical principals) then I may go that route.
The key to getting maximum power and driveability from either system is the selection of carburetors. If carburetors are properly sized to the engine; the 2x2 wins on a V-8, every time. If one uses 2 undersized carburetors on a 2x2 and 3 of the same size carburetors on a 3x2, it should be quite obvious that 3 is greater than 2; and it might be possible for the 3 to overcome the flow deficiencies of the 3x2 intake and produce slightly more power. Again, size the carbs properly. One of the major manufactures tested manifold flow with carburetors mounted and a fuel substitute (less dangerous in testing) going through the system. These tests clearly showed that uel to the cylinders supplied by the "join" (a cylinder supplied from 2 different carburetors) to be less than the fuel supplied by only one carburetor as the RPM's increased. Interference where the air/fuel stream met or joined from the two sources was the culprit. After reading these tests, I have often wondered how the tests might have been effected if the center carb were sized exactly twice the size of the end carbs; but have never seen any tests using this configuration. Jon.
Don't get stuck in the rut of highest power as the only consideration in making a speed parts decision. Ease of tuning, how well the setup stays in tune, throttle response, idle, low speed torque are all important. Engine operation in peak power band is probably a very small percentage of how you will use actually use it.
The Jalopy Journal
