1 2
Trans_Maro
Trans_Maro PowerDork
9/23/15 6:37 p.m.
TeamEvil wrote: not really interested in an on-line calculator,

You know that calculator uses the same formula that has been used since forever, right?

I can provide a paper copy if you trust that more.

I only do this stuff for a living. If that's not "real world" enough for you, I'm sorry.

FWIW, we sent a 340 Dodge Duster out of the shop last year with a stock engine and a 500 CFM vac secondary carb. It pulls hard and doesn't stumble or bog.

I've used the Edelbrock performer carbs on everything from 256 to 400 CI engines with no trouble because they're so tuneable.

tedium850
tedium850 New Reader
9/23/15 6:37 p.m.

I've never tried one, but heard a lot of good things about a quick fuel slayer series for a budget carb. Looks like a 450 or 600 would be in the ballpark for that motor. It is holley style and vacuum secondary but has some nice features that the lower line Holley's don't have.

Another option that I might get laughed...or cussed... Out of here is a....quadrajet...with the stipulation that you buy it from someone that knows how to set them up and have it set up for your motor. PS I am/have been a ford guy for years. My old mustang ran the best when I had either a wood quadrajet or the autolite 4350 ( but it was cantankerous and liked to developed mysterious vacuum leaks). The spreadbore design of these, when set up right, really made driveability great and gas mileage good too.

TeamEvil
TeamEvil Dork
9/23/15 7:24 p.m.

Oh, I know that that calculator is an accurate way of choosing the correct CFM based on an engine's characteristics and specs, but it isn't going to tell me how the primary-to-secondary transition is or if there is going to be that pain-in-the-ass bog off-idle, or even if the carb is going to stumble on tight right hand turns when the floats starve the jet just a bit.

What I REALLY want is to hear from a real person who has a real stock 5.0 and T-5 installed in their car and is completely satisfied with their choice of carb which is presently on the engine and in a car which is driven regularly.

Not too much to ask really. I can speculate all on my own and read as many reviews as I can find, but I REALLY need some empirical info from someone who's done it themselves and can comment on the performance/pitfalls.

dropstep
dropstep HalfDork
9/23/15 8:53 p.m.

Check out foureyedpride.com if your looking for a community with a large amount of stock 302 info. Ive never personally ran an edelbrock since taking the one off my first foxbody and throwing it in the trash. No stumble issues off idle or once rolling from a 600 holley on a performer rpm on a stock 302 with shorty headers. Used the same carb on 2 stick cars and on one automatic car. Averaged 14mpg with leadfoot driving. Depending on planned usage of the car you may want an opinion from someone who autocrossed or ran roadcourses. Some carbs arr very unhappy at certain g forces and angles.

snailmont5oh
snailmont5oh Reader
9/23/15 9:43 p.m.

When I had a stock 302, I had three different carburetors. The first was a List 1850 Holley, vacuum secondaries, electric choke. I got it for $25, and I bought a Holley Trick Kit to rebuild it. It came with bowl vent whistles and all the secondary springs. It ran well, and gave me 24 MPG.

I tried an Edelbrock 600. It was plenty smooth, but it didn't have the power or the mileage.

I bought a brand-new 575 CFM Speed Demon. It was a good at performance, not so much at mileage. It came with everything that you'd want to put on an old Holley (that the new Holleys come with now), and a quick-chance secondary spring housing.

If you go with Holley or Demon, make sure you at least get the secondary spring kit, because you will probably find a lot of performance by installing a lighter spring. Just keep going lighter until you feel a bog when the secondaries open, then go one heavier.

Streetwiseguy
Streetwiseguy PowerDork
9/23/15 11:19 p.m.
TeamEvil wrote: What I REALLY want is to hear from a real person who has a real stock 5.0 and T-5 installed in their car and is completely satisfied with their choice of carb which is presently on the engine and in a car which is driven regularly.

Those satisfied people likely have injection. Every carb built has issues, and as the fuel formulations change, its getting worse all the time.

novaderrik
novaderrik UltimaDork
9/24/15 1:59 a.m.

a 600 Holley with properly dialed in vacuum secondaries and the proper accelrator pump cam works awesome on stockish 302" and 351" Ford Windsor motors.. the right secondary spring will give the engine the amount of air that it needs to just flat out run right.. and it also leaves a little headroom for performance upgrades that you add down the road... it was good enough for Ford to use in the 5.0 Mustangs with a few modifications for emissions, which has to mean something..

i guess i could be the goofball that tells you to run a quadrajet on it because they are the best carb ever, but Ford guys tend to yell at me and throw stuff at me when i suggest it, so i won't...

Jamey_from_Legal
Jamey_from_Legal Reader
9/24/15 8:13 a.m.
Streetwiseguy wrote:
TeamEvil wrote: What I REALLY want is to hear from a real person who has a real stock 5.0 and T-5 installed in their car and is completely satisfied with their choice of carb which is presently on the engine and in a car which is driven regularly.
Those satisfied people likely have injection. Every carb built has issues, and as the fuel formulations change, its getting worse all the time.

Then they probably got their motors WITH EFI already in place, because getting it together for a swap car is an expensive PITA. If I had it to do over again, I would be with my man TeamEvil.

hobiercr
hobiercr GRM+ Memberand Dork
9/24/15 8:41 a.m.

I have a 302 with edelbrock intake and edelbrock 1406 (650) carb in my '77 bronco. It is an auto not a manual but I like the way it runs. Stock the 1406 is set pretty rich so I ended up buying a kit and changing the metering rods and jets which is dead nuts easy to do. The manual is online and shows how to do it and what steps to take for desired performance.

MattGent
MattGent Reader
9/24/15 10:08 a.m.

I had an internally stock 5.0/T5 Mustang years ago. The EFI on it was kluged from the previous owner, so I converted to carb. I used a Holley 650DP. I am far from a carb expert, but it ran fairly well right out of the box. Performer RPM intake, long tubes and an exhaust. I'm not certain but it may have had a camshaft installed by PO.

I can't speak to the other options but I know this worked, was fine on the street, and I autocrossed it a few times too. FL, so no cold start issues. Tip-in was a little rough until warmed up. No intake breathing issues up top with that setup, it was head-limited.

Ran way better than the speed-density EFI that was on it before.

curtis73
curtis73 GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
9/24/15 11:47 a.m.
TeamEvil wrote: Conflicting info seems to abound. The reason for the mechanical secondary statement is due to the second hand experiences that I've had with my friend's TR8. He always went with a mechanical secondary when he could, usually the chromed Holley carb. I've heard it elsewhere that mechanical secondaries were more sensitive to the carb needs and offered a better transition because of the precise linkage. Still open to any and all suggestions, but starting to get confused by opinions, you know? I guess that the 600 is the over-all choice, just have to narrow down the make and model. The Carter AFB is almost the same as the Weber/Edelbrock offering I think. They look very much the same anyway, not at all sure of how they perform or is they're still available or even if they'll work with a drop base air filter.

Here is my input based on a lot of experience, but it is still just someone's opinion on the internet.

I hate carbs that are too big. The difference between a 390 cfm 2-barrel and a 750 cfm 4-barrel will be about 5 hp on that stock engine. Going too big will mean losing throttle response and part-throttle torque. 600 cfm is more than enough. That engine is totally done by 5000 rpm anyway, so unless you're racing and spending all your time at WOT, size it right for the street. 500-600 will be a nice sweet spot for you. Going too small means losing 5 hp between 5000-5500 rpm, but going too small could actually make it quicker on the street by improving torque in the 1500-5000 range.

Back in the 80s and 90s, Edelbrock made a few intakes for short windsors. Is yours a squarebore or spreadbore? If its a spreadbore, hands down get a Qjet. Period. If its a squarebore, don't try to adapt a spreadbore carb to it. The transitions in the adapter are terrible and will ruin airflow quality. Qjets are the most accurately metering carb available. They are a bit complex, but they have a hundred ways of fine tuning for different loads and throttle positions you see on the street. They are also truly flow-sensing. You can't oversize a Qjet. If you could graph the fuel delivery of a Qjet you would see it is a nice sloping curve. Other carbs kinda stab at mixtures offering one bulk delivery for each of the circuits; idle, primary, secondary. That graph would look like tilted steps. It doesn't usually show up as an issue on the butt-dyno but they really do miss the mark in a lot of situations.

If you want a squarebore that is super simple, Edelbrock 1406 is the way to go. They advertise "out of the box" but you'll have to get a jet/rod kit. I put one on a 389 Pontiac and had to go two steps bigger on the primaries and 5 steps bigger on the secondaries. It almost wouldn't run at anything but idle. Holleys are also a very good carb.

On the topic of vac or mech secondaries, it depends on the application. Racers tend to lean toward the mechanical because they want it open. They want to control the throttle and not a vacuum pot. Mechanicals are also often preferred in manual transmissions while vacuum secondaries tend to be preferred with automatics. In an automatic, the shifts occur without your input which means that load and demand change on their own without your foot doing anything. In a manual, you are more in control of RPM and load, so the mechanical secondaries reflect your input. (that is a very simplified way of saying it).

But to say that mechanicals are "better because my friend had one" is not really valid. If you are looking for easier to tune, street manners, and less headache, a vacuum secondary might be better. If its a street vehicle, err on the side of the less-racy version; smaller cfm, vacuum secondaries.

I always go Qjet when I can. I have spent many moons getting acquainted with them and when tuned right, they are an amazing carb. They were accurate enough that GM used them as late as 1989 and was able to get them to pass EPA regs while everyone else had to go EFI. Even after trucks went TBI, many guys swapped back to Qjets and picked up power and MPG. Really awesome carbs.

TeamEvil
TeamEvil Dork
9/24/15 12:01 p.m.

Whew ! THANK YOU ! ! ! ! !

Finally some terrific "I did this . . . " info to go on.

Thank you again—

TC

foxtrapper
foxtrapper UltimaDork
9/24/15 12:32 p.m.
ross2004 wrote: This is well worth the time to read http://www.bob2000.com/carb.htm

Wow, you aren't kidding! That was a great read.

TeamEvil
TeamEvil Dork
9/24/15 1:07 p.m.

I emailed him regarding my carb choices and got this return right away:

"A 650 vacuum secondary carb would be about right for general usage...are you going to race it?

Gerard"

Counter to what everyone here has posted for the optimum cfm rating, but he must know better !

ross2004
ross2004 Reader
9/24/15 1:13 p.m.

I've said all along a 600-650 would work great. I've used it (600 cfm)- stock-enough 302, T5, E30 chassis. If I was driving it on the street, that's what I would use. I ran both a vacuum secondary and a mechanical 600, with the mechanical really being the better choice given the manual trans and car weight. Running it on the track, however, a 750 worked better in the upper RPMs.

tr8todd
tr8todd Dork
9/24/15 2:51 p.m.

The best one is the free one in my garage. Come get it. There are at least 2 of the 600 Holleys with mechanical secondaries out there. You won't be driving this thing in the winter so just remove the choke. Last thing you need on a british car is another item that requires electricity.

curtis73
curtis73 GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
9/24/15 5:45 p.m.

Just some quick math... 302 cubes at 5500 rpm and 85% VE works out to consuming 408 cfm. Even at a crazy 110% VE, its still only consuming 529 cfm.

So 600 isn't too big, but 400 wouldn't really cost you anything either. If it were mine, I would put a 600 on it, unless it has a spreadbore intake and then I would put a Qjet on it.

There are thousands of examples out there, but one example from THIS DYNO TEST on a really hot 383 showed that going from a 600 cfm Holley to a 750 cfm Holley got them 7 hp, but the torque peak was up 300 rpms and it lost 9 lb-ft. So going bigger on even a 500-hp 383 didn't really make a bit of difference that you could feel. And that difference all came at 5000 rpm or above.

I can imagine going larger than 600 on your 302 would be a net loss in drivability and streetability, and possibly a loss in the butt dyno.

TeamEvil
TeamEvil Dork
9/24/15 6:48 p.m.

That's what I figured, but the Pro says 650 ? ! ? ! ?

I HATE to do it, bit I guess that I'm going to have to pick up both an Edelbrock and a Holley and figure this one out on my own. FAR to many conflicting ideas and suggestions here.

I'll begin with the 600 and go up or down from there. I have a pretty good idea of what secondary spring is needed but I think that I prefer mechanical secondaries. The Holley 4150 doesn't look to bad and I'm very familiar with the 4010, not as well versed in the Edelbrock though.

I'll post when I have some info to share.

TC—

oldopelguy
oldopelguy SuperDork
9/24/15 8:46 p.m.

If you have the spreadbore manifold another option would be the 450 cfm Holley economaster carb. While I have never used one on a Ford, I've had great luck with them on stock 318s and 305s.

1 2

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
PDcMVUIvk2nRnpayV7VjERLhSr0bR02UidifJtq6tbMKJM9iMwRF9AyUmyDi6do3