WCraigH Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Here's a bit of trivia for us V-8 owners. On the PerformanceYears.com (Pontiac) chat forum there's a thread about a new aluminum aftermarket block coming out for the Pontiac racers. This started an entire discussion about how much CID could one squeeze out of a Pontiac V-8 (which debuted the same year as Packard, i.e., 1955) compared to brand "X". Here's one of the posts listing the bore center-to-center spacing, which determines the maximum possible bore size:Mfr..........Bore SpacingBuick SB..... 4.240Ford SB ..... 4.380Chevy SB .... 4.400Mopar SB .... 4.461Pontiac ..... 4.620Olds ........ 4.625Ford FE ..... 4.630AMC ......... 4.750Buick BB..... 4.750Mopar BB .... 4.800Chevy BB .... 4.840Ford "385" BB 4.900CN Blocks BBC 5.000Cadillac BB . 5.000Packard ..... 5.000 I thought it was interesting that the guy listed Packard! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Now if some enterprising guy would come out with aluminum "twisted wedge" cylinder heads for the Packard V-8, maybe we could kick some brand "X" butt... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
55PackardGuy Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Craig,Awhile back I ran across this on the Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forum, where they were debating "over-engineered" engines:"Midnite Cruiser,thanks for the show of support.The Lincln Y-block is indeed overengineered,and thats what I love about it.<span style="font-weight: bold">The king of overengineered engines has to be the '55-'56 Packard</span> 320-352-374 V8.The Packard V8 has a 5.125 bore spacing - the Caddy 472-500 is 5.00 , the Ford 401-477-534 Super Duty is 5.25.I figure the Packard V8 can take up to a 4.875 bore with a custom cast block,I dont know the max stroke."Notice the bore spacing is given as 5.125 which would put it ahead of the CN and Cadillac blocks listed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCraigH Posted January 21, 2004 Author Share Posted January 21, 2004 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Notice the bore spacing is given as 5.125 which would put it ahead of the CN and Cadillac blocks listed!</div></div>The bore spacing is 5.000". I measured it. But it's "overengineered" any way you cut it. BTW, boring the 352 to 374 (+0.125") is no problem, again because of the "overengineering". What I don't know is how much stroke the block will take before interfering with something interal. The Pontiac V-8 max stroke is 4.210 (455CID) and the Cadillac is 4.304 (500CID). No doubt the Packard V-8 could top Caddy's 500CID. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Juat out of curiosity I wonder if anyone knows how far you can safely bore out a 356 inline engine and what would the maximum displacement be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Randy Berger Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 Craig, C-T automotive in LA stroked a 56 Golden Hawk (352) 3/8 of an inch, but had to do some minor block grinding for crank throw clearance. Thus the stoke on that engine was 3.875. If you had a bore of 4.75 (given a new block casting) and stroke of 3.875 you wind up with <span style="font-weight: bold">549 cubic inches </span> - quite a monster. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> YFAM, Randy Berger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
55PackardGuy Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 The Kime book states that the engine planned for 1957, apparently based on the same block as the 320/352/374, was to be "bored out futher, to 440 cubic inches according to Graves..." (From "Packard, a History of the Motor Car and the Company," Beverly Rae Kimes, Ed., 1978, Automobile Quarterly, Inc.)William H Graves was VP of Engineering, but exactly what they had in mind is not clear. I suspect they would've needed a custom casting and "siamesed" bores to make it that big without stroking it. Randy, would the 4.75" bores have room for water jackets between the cylinders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Randy Berger Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 Guy, it only leaves .25 inches on each cyl. I doubt that is enough for allowing water to completely surround each cylinder. A 4.5 inch bore would give you a 445 cubic inch engine. This would also give plenty of room for a water jacket. This block also has five head bolts surrounding each cylinder which allows the head to be torqued down very snug and evenly. I believe increasing stroke gives you more low-end torque, but I'd defer to Craig's knowledge on that score. I think that's why those old V-12s had so much low-end torque. Nice engine to contemplate!YFAM Randy Berger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCraigH Posted January 24, 2004 Author Share Posted January 24, 2004 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(snip) I believe increasing stroke gives you more low-end torque, but I'd defer to Craig's knowledge on that score. (snip) </div></div>You're exactly right, Randy. Packard 374's 4.125 bore and 3.50 stroke is a B/S of 1.18, which is quite over-square. A Pontiac 455 is 4.15/4.21 = 0.98 and Caddy 500 is 4.300/4.304 =~ 1.00. Both the Pontiac and Caddy are "torque monsters". The Packard at the same displacement could be over-square (B/S > 1), but not near as much as the 374. In other words, the increased displacement would have to come from relatively more stroke increase than bore increase. For example, 4.500 bore and 3.925 stroke (500CID) gives B/S of 1.14 which is less than the 374's 1.18.The longer stroke you quoted from Golden Hawk buildup was no doubt limited by welding on the stock crank rather than some internal clearance limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_PackardV8 Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 i have a 56 352 disected block (coutesy of Dave Knight) and have measured directly the cylinder wall thickness. It is 1/4 inch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCraigH Posted January 25, 2004 Author Share Posted January 25, 2004 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i have a 56 352 disected block (coutesy of Dave Knight) and have measured directly the cylinder wall thickness. It is 1/4 inch. </div></div>So, a 1/8-in (0.125) overbore to reach 374 on a 352 is 0.0625-in per side. Therefore, 0.250 - 0.625 is 0.1875 thickness left, which is sufficient for a normally aspirated engine.The sonic test on my 56 352 showed a thickness of 0.280-0.320-in at the top, 0.183 down in the bore. FYI, 0.150" at the top is the absolute minimum according to Motor Mission Machine.So it seems that +1/8-in bore increase on a 56 352 is about the max that's safe.Thanks for the physical confirmation, PackardV8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_PackardV8 Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 The 1/4 inch measurement i supplied earlier was taken at about 1.5 - 2 inches below the top of the bore. I'll look closer at other pieces i have nearer the bottom. BUT, if i remeber right, several months ago i looked at all of the bores and near the bottoms and it seems like the 1/4 inch (scaled) thickness was fairly consistant. I'll agree that 3/16 (.183) inch is sufficient blore thickness. HOWEVER, one must always be advised that core shifts do occur in the foundry process which could leave marginal thickness or even a fault when extreme oversizes are attempted in such certain castings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_PackardV8 Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 bores and strokes: Increasing the STROKE will increase compression ratio dramatically. Increasing bore will increase compression ratio but by a diminishiong amount relative to stroke increase. Increasing the bore ALSO INCREASES deck clearence capacity there-by increasing the size of the combustion chamber. NOTE: that horse power is a function of 2 things, exactly two things and only two things, they are: pressure on the piston head (compression ratio) and piston speed. The longer the stroke the more CR AND the faster the piston speed. The smaller the piston the less internal resitance. BUT , the bigger and heavier the engine gets.The short stroke big bore rage of the post war era was a manufacturing coup for the sole purpose of lowering hte silouhette of the car and cheaper manufacturing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCraigH Posted January 25, 2004 Author Share Posted January 25, 2004 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Increasing the STROKE will increase compression ratio dramatically. Increasing bore will increase compression ratio but by a diminishiong amount relative to stroke increase</div></div>Compression ratio can be held constant by increasing the combustion chanber volumn to compensate for swept volumn. For instance, Pontiacs went from maybe 50cc to 120cc chamber volume over the years and the CR went from 12:1 to 7.6:1.Or if you've stuck with a specific chamber volume, just dish the piston.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Increasing the bore ALSO INCREASES deck clearence capacity there-by increasing the size of the combustion chamber.</div></div>I don't understand this one.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">NOTE: that horse power is a function of 2 things, exactly two things and only two things, they are: pressure on the piston head (compression ratio) and piston speed. The longer the stroke the more CR AND the faster the piston speed. The smaller the piston the less internal resitance. BUT , the bigger and heavier the engine gets.</div></div>PackardV8: I think there are a few other things involved, like camshaft (given a specific head configuration), intake/exhaust port flow (valve size, port shape, etc), combustion chamber configuration (small quench, big quench, swirl, heart-shape, twisted wedge, hemi-shape, etc, etc), spark plug position, piston top design, etc, etc.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The short stroke big bore rage of the post war era was a manufacturing coup for the sole purpose of lowering hte silouhette of the car and cheaper manufacturing.</div></div>Well, that's probably true for the late 1940s, maybe even the early 1950s. After all a V-8 is much more compact than a straight 8. Hence, a manufacturer could get a shorter (but not a lot lower) hood line with a V-8 instead of a straight 8.But add OHV (instead of flat head), and you have even more efficiency, more power, etc. BTW, someday, I'll reveal my plans for a EFI on a Packard V-8! Yeah, I'm not working on it directly, but I might retrofit a Pontiac V-8 setup to my Panther, $$$ and time willing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
55PackardGuy Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 Craig et. al.,A couple of things I think were left out on the short-stroke/long-stroke scenario.One is piston speed. A longer stroke requires the piston and rod assembly to move faster to get from TDC to BDC at a given RPM. That's why oversquare engines can give such a nice flat torque curve at higher RPMs, and generally out-rev longer stroke designs. The strokers have the advantage in low RPM "grunt" but a well-designed oversquare engine is hard to beat. Look at the 445 ft/lb of torque at 2800 rpm from a Buick 401 "nail-head." This engine was very "oversquare" with a 4.1875 x 3.64 design. The 425 had a 4.3125 bore with the same stroke and pumped out 465 ft/lb of torque at 2800 rpm.Another is that there is a definite difference between compression ratio and combustion chamber PRESSURE based on how efficiently the design "breathes" on intake. You can always raise compression ratio by increasing the swept volume of the cylinder relative to the size of the combustion chamber, but if you can't fill the cylinder you won't increase the pressure. You might even decrease it.Also, a comment/question on the "deck height" engineering aspect. I have heard that the shortened PISTON SKIRTS were a main ingredient to the "engineering coup" of lower deck height. I believe the '49 Cadillac introduced this concept and was able to produce more power from a downsized "small block" design than they could from the big blocks with full-skirt "coffee-can" pistons. The thing is, the shorter "notched" piston skirts fit around the crankshaft counterweights at BDC. Thus, the block could be "shorter" (lower) and still allow sufficient stroke. This also reduced reciprocating weight because all the rods could be shorter.Am I kinda sort of correct here?P.S. Craig, if you put a Pontiac in the Panther I will be sooooo disappointed. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> Not that I dislike Pontiacs on principle, just that the Panther's gotta have a Packard engine. Even if it's a straight eight like the original. I lean toward a Packard aircraft "Merlin" or marine V12. You know where any old P51 Mustangs or PT Boats are? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCraigH Posted January 25, 2004 Author Share Posted January 25, 2004 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Craig et. al.,A couple of things I think were left out on the short-stroke/long-stroke scenario.One is piston speed. (snip)</div></div>Excellent point, Guy!<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Another is that there is a definite difference between compression ratio and combustion chamber PRESSURE based on how efficiently the design "breathes" on intake. You can always raise compression ratio by increasing the swept volume of the cylinder relative to the size of the combustion chamber, but if you can't fill the cylinder you won't increase the pressure. You might even decrease it.</div></div>This is where cylinder head design, port flow & velocity, camshaft, manifolding come into play. Too much to discuss here.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Also, a comment/question on the "deck height" engineering aspect. (snip)Am I kinda sort of correct here? </div></div>Dead bang on!<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> P.S. Craig, if you put a Pontiac in the Panther I will be sooooo disappointed.(snip) </div></div>Don't worry, a Packard 374 is going into the Panther! However, it will be painted 1965-70 Pontiac silver blue metallic, just to screw with the purists! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCraigH Posted January 25, 2004 Author Share Posted January 25, 2004 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WRT this latest reveal on fuel-injection possibilities...I'm thinking (and hoping) that Craig's intent to retrofit is limited to the EFI system from a Pontiac V8 re(snip)</div></div>Correct! Since it's possible to "tune" the computer-controlled fuel curve table, matching it to the Panther V-8 which has a special cam and slightly mod'd cylinder heads, it shouldn't be too hard. The major thing will be grafting a GM HEI to the Packard distributor housing. Modifying the intake manifold for injector bungs is not a problem...lots of vendors can do that, even on cast iron manifolds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
55PackardGuy Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 Craig,That color sounds so cool! Maybe some contrasting valve cover treatment? Or chrome? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> Thanks for verifying some of my technical questions. Sometimes I think I know more than I do, and need to check things out. I still don't "know" anything in a practical sense... just theory.You're FI conversion is actually pretty "purist" as Brian pointed out. Packard's fuel injection plans for the V8 are pictured in the Kimes book. Looks pretty "prototype." Thanks for pointing out that it was actually road-tested, Brian. Any more details on that?You MUST have photo-shopped that picture! But it sure is cool. Yeah, to stuff those huge V12's in a '55 or '56 would take some real engineering. I think about 1/3 of the engine would be under the dash and in the front seat. And the hood line would need to be altered too. (Maybe like the Request.) Not to mention handling the extra weight. That picture would probably be more accurate if the front end squatted down right to the tops of the tires. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Albert Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 I was thinking of going fuel injection as well but using a throttle body type so once the aircleaner is in place it would take a keen eye to notice the extra wires to a few sensors.. but i was thinking of doing it to a straight 8.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCraigH Posted January 26, 2004 Author Share Posted January 26, 2004 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Craig - Aw, c'mon!!! Stop teasin' and give us some more details and pix on this EFI system - even if it's still in the "dreamworks" stage. (snip)</div></div>OK, some Pontiac examples that I know about from mild to wild: CustomEFIs throttle body EFI on 326 Pontiac Home fab'd EFI on Pontiac 455SD in GTO Pontiac 455 Super Duty twin turbo with home grown EFI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCraigH Posted January 26, 2004 Author Share Posted January 26, 2004 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(snip) Anyway, WRT fuel supply and demand, Craig will have to test his implementation carefully and may have to alter the stock fuel tank to incorporate an in-tank pump. (snip) </div></div>According to the Pontiac drag racers with street-strip cars and 500+HP, the only tank mod needed is a 1/2" pickup pointed to the back, with the electric pump mounted nearby the tank at about the same level. Of course, this is drag race application. For road course, a baffle system would be needed. There are many aftermarket FI pusher pumps available. Using one of these with the aforementioned 1/2-in pickup and stock 3/8-in lines forward of the pump will push 95gph. 500HP needs less than 50gph, so that should be no problem. Brian, you're certainly right in pointing out the criticality of fuel delivery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCraigH Posted January 26, 2004 Author Share Posted January 26, 2004 Here's another Pontiac EFI that just got posted on PerformanceYears.com this AM: Paul Spots 455HO EFI Paul Spots is a professional engine builder who specializes in Pontiac V-8s. This is a full tilt, high $$$ setup for drag racing. I think you're looking at over $4,000 just to duplicate the EFI part. It is pretty though isn't it? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCraigH Posted January 27, 2004 Author Share Posted January 27, 2004 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Craig - Unsure exactly where you were coming from (and going to) on this latest twist(snip)</div></div>Brian: Here's the short version.A favorable confluence of events and circumstances has convinced me to resurrect the TurboFORCE package for 1970-81 Firebirds that I had designed and sold during the late 1970s. See for details: Why I'm doing this Pontiac turbo & EFI thing At the time of the original kit, there were no aftermarket EFI kits, well there was no OEM EFI either! So, it was a blow-thru the QJet design which worked surprisingly well (350-400 rear wheel HP).One of the advanced varients of the TurboFORCE package will use EFI since EFI solves a lot of problems that I encountered back then. There are three major types of EFI: throttle body injection (TBI), port injection, batch and port injection, sequential; which were developed by the auto industry in that order.There are lots of TBI setups in wrecking yards around the country and several small shops who can provide custom TBIs using OEM or used parts. The one for the 1968 Pontiac Tempest linked previously was done by:Custom EFIs He sells that setup for about $900. This fellow wants to work with me on my TurboFORCE project. He also sells a port injection, batch version, again based on OEM and used parts.The port injection, batch type doesn't work all that well and was replaced with the sequential type, which is what one finds on all the modern cars. The upscale aftermarket sources (Accel, Holley, Edelbrock, etc), sell this type for $3,500+, which includes an aluminum manifold. Small shops sell the sequential types for somewhat less and will modify your stock manifold even if it's cast iron. Here's another vendor who wants to work with me (he supplies the port injection, sequential type):Rance Baxter's Fuel Injection ServiceMy intent is to put together an inexpensive (OEM & used parts) EFI for the Pontiac V-8 to be used with my TurboFORCE package. Adapting that setup, after all the bugs are worked out, to a Packard will be "cake". So, I could have a TBI on my Panther for cheap or a port injection type for some more $. At that point, I could supply the same thing to any Packard guy who wanted one instead of the original 4GC or WCFB carb, particularly if he was thinking of using a new Carter AFB or Edelbrock Performer (same thing) replacement.One must realize that there is [color:"red"] NO HP gain in using any EFI compared to a well tuned carb because both can be tuned at WOT, so long as the CFM capacities are about the same. The advantages to EFI are (1) good cold start characteristics, (2) better mileage (sequential is the best) and (3) lower emissions (if you care).You wanted a preview of the EFI and that's why I posted the above links. EFI and turbo kits are [color:"red"] HOT in the American V-8 aftermarket right now. Maybe because of the influence of the performance mods/gains of the "ricers" on the industry. So, that's where I'm at. I should have my old TurboFORCE kit on my 1976 Firebird test car in a week or so. All I'm waiting for is a couple of important components (boost retard system and fuel cell) to arrive; I have everything else. This will be the original blow-thru carb arrangement. After that, I'll go thru a series of upgrades on it (free flow exhaust, different design presure bonnet, electronic spark control & fresh 400 engine) before installing an EFI. I'll probably do the TBI type first, then a port, sequential.It's a fun project and I might actually sell a few fo these Pontiac kits. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> The Panther project is on the back burner (again), but never far from my mind.CraigP.S. At present, I don't have any plans to turbo the Panther because it has about 10.0:1 CR which is way too high for a turbo application. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCraigH Posted January 27, 2004 Author Share Posted January 27, 2004 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's another Pontiac EFI that just got posted on PerformanceYears.com this AM: Paul Spotts 455HO EFI Paul Spotts is a professional engine builder who specializes in Pontiac V-8s. This is a full tilt, high $$$ setup for drag racing. I think you're looking at over $4,000 just to duplicate the EFI part. It is pretty though isn't it? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> </div></div>Here's the response from Paul Spotts to my question about price on his setup:[color:"blue"]Hard to ballpark as the I'm doing has all the bells and whistles, polishing, base tune up custom programmed, and tested components close to $7000 for everything fuel and electronic related.The current HPP magazine explains the Accel DFI Gen VII and all the features. I choose Kinsler for several reasons. Cost was not an issue, quality is one of the best, my dragsters constant flow injection was done by them and I wanted it to right.For budget installs, I think a search for a big block factory Chevy 454 FI used system would easily adapt to a Pontiac. My 88 Dually has the throttle body injection with the computer. Most of the parts on the EFI pictured has the same GM parts like the throttle, MAP, oxegen, air etc sensors - just a thought.I already figured that the Chevy SB 350 or 400 or BB 454 truck engines would be a good possibility. I'll be looking into it in more detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernardi Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Craig - When you get it all sorted out, I'd be quite interested in putting EFI on my 55 400. Someone stole the carburetor, so the time is ripe for EFI. In the meantime, I hope to become the proud owner of another 55 400 which is almostin show condition. The negotiations should be complete very soon. I can hardly wait for the salt to get off the roads so my wife and I can enjoy it. Off thread a bit, but how do you intend to get the Ultramatic to handle the extra torque of the Panther? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCraigH Posted January 28, 2004 Author Share Posted January 28, 2004 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Craig - (snip) Off thread a bit, but how do you intend to get the Ultramatic to handle the extra torque of the Panther? </div></div>I don't, or rather I'm not taking any extra precautions. I have two 1956 T-Us which I can use like bullets -- or at least a double-barrel shotgun. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Ultimatically (pun intended), I'd like to put in the case-modified 700R4 from Mike's Transmission in CA. But I need to sell some TurboFORCE & EFI kits first. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_PackardV8 Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 ok for the 4 bbl. But what about fitting the EFi to a 2bbl manifold too??? Air flow is a consideration here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCraigH Posted January 28, 2004 Author Share Posted January 28, 2004 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">ok for the 4 bbl. But what about fitting the EFi to a 2bbl manifold too??? Air flow is a consideration here. </div></div>What 2bbl are you referring to? The only 2bbl V-8s were the Nash & Hudsons, if I remember correctly (may not).Even the 4bbl manifold on the 56 Pat/400 would have to be bored out to AFB size anyway. Then, if you want port injection, you're talking about welding & machining at the head end of the manifold anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_PackardV8 Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 Lower end Clippers used 2 bbl carbs. What kind of welding would be needed???? I was guessing that each vane of the stock manifold could be just drilled and tapped for the injectors without any welding. If the modification could be done with a 2bbl manifold with equivelent results then i'd rather modify a 2bbl manifold than a 4 bbl manifold since the 2bbl manifolds can be had at a cheaper price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now