You're off to a nice start. Good luck with it. Not to hijack your post either, but here's the one I sold five years ago; was my daily driver for 13 years. Still miss it.
i got it from pomona swap meet with the straight axle.. the guy said it was a custom made and he had it porcelainized
First, I agree the '63 Falcon hardtop is a classic design. I'd rather have one of those than any two Mustangs. The agreement stops there. You are throwing away your time and money with the 260" engine. I wasted some of the best years of my life trying to make those buzzing little anvils run fast. The 2x4 tunnel ram will drown it like a sewer rat. If someone tried to give me a 260", it would be for sale on the Sunbeam Tiger website five minutes later to someone into restorations. Find a late 302"/5.0 roller cam forged piston short block and put the aluminum heads and the ported intake on it. Better yet, save your money for a 347" stroker and really have some fun. jack vines
but mechanically cant the engine only suck in so many cubic feet of air per minute? so it wouldnt even be taking in all 900 cfm from the carbs and the manifold will flow 300-350cfm (still need to flow test) and the heads flow 240cfm so wouldnt it fall off? so the engine isnt wouldnt actually be getting 900cfm(sorry just trying to learn here)
Carburetors require air flow through the venturis to function. With 900 CFM on an engine which can't even suck enough to use one 450, the result will be a stone bog. Once the RPMs are up, if the carbs have vacuum secondaries, a 260" can't generate enough vacuum to fully open both secondaries. If using mechanical secondaries, there won't be enough air flow to accurately meter the fuel. Bottom line - that much carbs on a 260" will bog on the low end and burn way more fuel than it needs on the top end. I've built a bunch of these little devils and they run best with no more than one 390 CFM 4bbl. Your car, your carbs, your decision. jack vines
Not to mention that carb spacer on the rear is gonna screw up a whole lot of stuff as well. Take the spacer off the carb and make the velocity stack taller if your after that look. The back 4 cylinders will be a lot happier.
Hey Cole dont forget who helped sandblast the seats! By the way when are ya gonna paint it so I can 'stripe it?
ok well here is the skinny on my motor, all things calculated into pipemax , can rev to 8200 rpm will make 408hp and will require a minimum of 700 cfm of air through the carbs and to all you nay sayers when i get the motor running here in a few weeks u can check it out and see whats up, all thats left is it mill my heads and have the combustion chamber welded up then i can slap it together, aswell as finish notching the block....(also i would like to thank the local dinosaurs for plugging everything into pipemax)
All things said and done. Formula this and formula that. Ford offered a tri power set up for the 260/289 that is 735 CFM. I have this on my 1963 1/2 Falcon Ranchero, Orignal factory V8 4 speed car. They also offered a 2x4 set up for the 289 with 1200 CFM. This is on my Roadster, 306 CI Aluminum heads. Ford did a shit load of research into performance during these years and if they thought it would work I think I would go with what they thought.
finished porting the new aluminum heads today flow 260 cfm but they have a bigger combustion chamber than the old iron ones (47cc) so we are at 8:1 comp and hp will be down a bit but it will sound beefy with the big cam and low compression... the engine should be finished soon. Ordering axles and bearings, the car is to be mini tubbed in about 2 weeks, getting caltracs bars (gunna get powder coated white) and springs. Well there is a bit of an update for u guys making progress
i think the mill would do nice with a single 650 and be so much more responsive with that 4.1 gear... if you can turn the revs, and have the rear gear to let you, it could possibly do well with lots of carb, but anything less than full steam is going to have metering troubles due to low velocity through the boosters. You'll need to jet rich just to let the fuel fall out with such a week signal around town. Your build just doesn't sound hairy enough to spin mean rpms and you'd want at least a 4.56-4.88 gear for starters. Probably more in the 5.38 range would be nice if you have some tire in it. REALLY not feelin' the 8:1 compression- slap a turbo on it and turn up the wick.... big cams dont like low compression. granted a cam will seem much bigger in a 260 than a 350 but still... you plan on 8,000 rpm? how are you going to handle valve float and other issues (rod/crank longevity, clutch can and a trans shield?) Full solid/solid roller cam at that rpm, at least the small intake valves may shed weight-titanium retainers, maybe? it would be a bitchin wee beastie if you go full bore with it.... this is a 276inch chevy turning 12grand...
Cant wait to see more pics of the finished project. I need to post some pics of a local falcon back here in Fair Grove, MO. It was a friend of mines dad and he drag raced it back in the 60's and 70's and held some records with it for a while in the 6 banger class. It was called the BFD, for BIG FALCON DEAL!!! I think Glenn still has it.
Pair of Holley 390's would be much better for your application. I have 390's on my 289 and they work great. I tried the 450's..blah.....and I had a old pro tuner of tunnel rams set them up for me-who set many of these up for the street back in the 70's and 80's. . He told me to go with the 390's to begin with. Vacuum secondaries are much better for the street along with one of those vacuum kits that join both together so they open at the same time. I have an NOS deep sump 8 qt Moroso pan circa 1972 that is much more vintage accurate in appearance than that new fangled hi-tek pan you have if you are interested..
---------------------- Exactly. The carbs *don't flow* 900 cfm - the numbers only mean that the carbs are *capable* of flowing 900 cfm at a 1.5 inch vacuum drop at WOT, assuming the engine underneath the carbs is also capable of drawing that air much in. The problem is when you put that much carb on an engine that is realistically maybe capable of drawing half that much air in at WOT, thevelocity of the air flowing through the carb venturis becaomes extremely low - and in the case of a little 260 Ford with 2-450's on a tunnel ram, the velocity will probably be aproaching nil. You need to understand how a carb works. Air flowing through a venturi causes a pressure drop - ie - a vacuum. The greater the amount of air being drawn down the carb throat, the greater the velocity of the air flowing through the venturi and the greater the pressure drop there is. It is this pressure drop in the venturi that causes fuel to be drawn from the float bowl, through the jet and into the airstream. The greater the velocity in the venturi, the more fuel that will be drawn in through a given jet size. Additionally, the air has to be flowing fast enough to atomize the liquid gasoline into vapour-like microscopic droplets that the engine can burn and then be travelling fast enough to carry the atomized fuel-air mix through the manifold into the combustion chamber. Without enough velocity, the fuel tends to fall back out of the air-stream and recombine as as a liquid. Your engine can't burn liquid gasoline - it needs to be mixed with air and atmosized into tiny particles for combustion . Besides not being able to burn the raw liquid gasoline, droplets, the raw gas will accumulate in the cylinders and wash the oil of the cylinder walls, killing the piston rings in short order. Plus the raw gas sseps past the rings and accumulates in the crankcase, diluting the lube oil.going to the bearings and valve gear. If you're hugely over carbuarated, there won't be enough pressure drop to properly draw the fuel from the float bowl and through the jets, or to atmosize it properly one it does finally arrive. The only way to compensate for the lack of velocity and draw enough fuel in, is to increase the jet size. The problem with that ism that then engine then becomes soggy rich at all other speeds other than at high rpm and wide open throtle - and the richer jets cause even more unatomoised liquid fuel to the end up in the cylinders. Basically, you end with a generally misesable running engine that makes far less power, guzzles gas like there's no tomorrow and ends up washing the oil off the cylinders with raw liquid gasoline. I don't think those were your actual goals when you started. You need to figure out what you're trying accomplish with your combination and then plan a realistic way to get there. The set-up you're building may look and sound impressive to all the kids and mechanical-no-minds out there, but if you actally want the car to go, either go with a way bigger engine that can use the airflow capacity you've got, or if you're really hung up on using a 260 for some unfathomable to me reason, figure out a more realistic and properly sized carb and intake set-up for it. Mart3406 ===========================
regardless of what everyone says i am going to trust the local dinosaurs and run the 450s and tunnel ram, here is an up date my valves are here the anti reversion valve job is cut and here is my friend delivering my torque converter 2800-3200 stall.
Not sure who is telling you that 900 cfm is good for that small, but that is just too big. the most common mistake that a builder makes is too much cam and too much carb. You can also re-jet those carbs to adjust the fuel output. Most small blocks don't need more than 650 cfm. Buicks are one of the exceptions, but that's not a Buick. I went with a 347 stroker in my '62 Comet wagon. It has more cam, bigger cylinder heads and more displacement than that 260 and I went with a dual-quad performer RPM intake with a couple of 450s, and that may be too much for my motor. Just think about it.
Dr.J's performance engine masters this month has about 9 pages of them in it... i trust their judgement
The Jalopy Journal
