Mike Armstrong
Bronze Level Sponsor
Looks great Paul.
-
Welcome to the new SAOCA website. Already a member? Simply click Log In/Sign Up up and to the right and use your same username and password from the old site. If you've forgotten your password, please send an email to membership@sunbeamalpine.org for assistance.
If you're new here, click Log In/Sign Up and enter your information. We'll approve your account as quickly as possible, typically in about 24 hours. If it takes longer, you were probably caught in our spam/scam filter.
Enjoy.
carburetor switch
- Thread starter wile coyote
- Start date
-
- Tags
- carburetor egr ranger weber
Charles Johns
Donation Time
For those who don't know the 2100/2150 history...Ford spent a couple of million $$ in 1957 to design the best carb available. That would be many millions today, and they came up with "annular atomization". That is the two round things in the middle of the bores. It does a much better job of atomizing fuel into a mist rather than droplets, making more HP, Torque and better MPG. Sort of a Win, Win, Win situation. The fuel is more completely burned so the engine runs cleaner also. With Ford's 50 year patent, that means it was 2007 before it ran out, and cars were running fuel-injection by then. Holley uses it and I think they worked with Ford on the original project. Anyway, old-timers like me think very highly of the 2100 series Autolite/Motorcraft carbs. I am installing a 2150 on my Ford 2.3 in my Sunbeam and have used them for decades. Twenty-five years ago an automotive engineer writing for a car magazine, said the 2100 is as close to fuel-injection as one can get if running a carburetor. I like them because they use a low pressure fuel pump, can be serviced in any shop or home garage, and do not need a computer. Fewer do-dads and sensors means a much cleaner installation that does not need a computer to read the computer on the engine to keep it in-tune. With a tach, timing-light, vacuum gauge, dwell meter, and feeler gauge, I can tune to the max in my garage. No need to hunt "codes" with a code-reader...just good-old seat-of-the-pants adjusting that can be done with basic tools. My wife's Escape 96 ci 4-cylinder makes more HP and runs cleaner than a V8 Mustang from the 1960's, due to FI, a Turbo and computers. But our Sunbeam is over 50 years old and I intend to drive the wheels off my Beam all over the U.S.A.! Computer cars are great, but can NOT be fixed beside the highway with hand tools, and a problem in No Place Montana miles from a shop is scary. Extra points/Pertronix, coil, cond., cap/rotor, spark plug and hand-tools, and I am back in business. Not as good as the new stuff...but not bad either!
Thanks, guys. I go for a stock performance look.
I have several 2100's to go on the modified stock 83 2.8 truck intake manifold. Venturi sizes range from .98" to 1.08". I'm leaning toward the 1.01" carb for the 2.8L engine. I do have the Offy intake, but to get the project running, I'll start with the stock bits.
My concern is intake air handling; running a duct from a cooler and less turbulent pocket of air to a closed air cleaner. Under-hood buffeting of air will throw a carburetor's calibration off. Also, I have a fuel pressure regulator that I'll use to ensure stable fuel pressure for the carb. I've got the DuraSpark ignition parts. I'll have to double-check the advance on the distributor for a non-EGR tune. The cast aluminum valve covers have mount points for spark plug wire holders, so I'll see what the original parts are for the wire looms. Fun!
I have several 2100's to go on the modified stock 83 2.8 truck intake manifold. Venturi sizes range from .98" to 1.08". I'm leaning toward the 1.01" carb for the 2.8L engine. I do have the Offy intake, but to get the project running, I'll start with the stock bits.
My concern is intake air handling; running a duct from a cooler and less turbulent pocket of air to a closed air cleaner. Under-hood buffeting of air will throw a carburetor's calibration off. Also, I have a fuel pressure regulator that I'll use to ensure stable fuel pressure for the carb. I've got the DuraSpark ignition parts. I'll have to double-check the advance on the distributor for a non-EGR tune. The cast aluminum valve covers have mount points for spark plug wire holders, so I'll see what the original parts are for the wire looms. Fun!
Charles Johns
Donation Time
Anyone cut the front coils to lower their Beam? My 2.3 Ford 4-cylinder is not a light-weight and I am a little leery of cutting too much. You V6 guys are probably in the same ballpark weight wise, so if any have done this...how much do I cut to drop it 2"? Lowering blocks for the rear are not a problem but I am also wondering about my 14" x 6" wide wheels/tires hitting. They are P195 x 75R-14 (25.5" tall) radial Hankook street tires on aftermarket rims. I am opting for the "body TILT wooden rotisserie" to work on the underside. Actually, it is not a rotisserie, but you get the idea. Any mods necessary on the underside for running the exhaust? Suspension ideas, rearend mods for the rebuilt OEM 3.89 gears unit, and suggestions for brake/fuel lines are appreciated. I always keep those above the frame rails for safety and well anchored with ADEL clips to keep them from moving. I have a poly 16 gallon fuel cell sunk 3" into the trunk and will run 3/8" aluminum fuel line due to ethanol. An electric fuel pump will mount in an easy-to-access place as a "pusher" to supply the carb. ALL ideas appreciated as I have built many Rods frame-up, but this is my first sportscar.
Something like this?
These two threads might help:
http://forum.sunbeamalpine.org/index.php?threads/lower-front-ride-height.26880/#post-185048
http://forum.sunbeamalpine.org/index.php?threads/coil-springs-for-an-alpine.26789/
DanR
Diamond Level Sponsor
Attachments
Mike Armstrong
Bronze Level Sponsor
Speaking of fuel lines, Charles mentioned aluminum fuel line because of ethanol and that reminded me. My engine compartment 3/8” rubber fuel line extending from a filter to the carb is a bit concerning. It looks legit, ie, it’s marked for fuel injector use, so, I assume it’s certified to carry gasoline safely, leaves a black residue on my fingers when gas gets on it, that doesn’t seem right. Is ‘injector’ fuel line different from ‘normal’ rubber fuel line?
Barry
Diamond Level Sponsor
Mike,
"Fuel Injection" hose is what I would use for E10 / E15 / E85, but to be legit it has to be marked SAE J30R9.
Note that SAE J30R7 ("carburetor hose") is not required to be suitable for use with any level of ethanol.
The inside of fuel hose is rated for contact with fuel, but the outside is usually a different rubber compound that is NOT rated for contact with fuel. The black residue coming off the outside is not unusual.
Mike Armstrong
Bronze Level Sponsor
Thank you Barry.
I used the 2150 carb that was on the donor 1977 Mustang II with the 2.8. It is the 1.08 bore and as far as I can tell, it came from the factory with that carb. My car runs very good with that set up and was easy to rebuild and adjust.
Charles Johns
Donation Time
The 2150 carb # 108 is 287 cfm which should work fine on a 2.8. That is what I will be using on my 2.3. Using an enclosed air cleaner with a cool-air source is a good idea. The cooler the air the more dense and therefore it makes a bigger bang. Hood scoops feeding cooler air to a carb helps, but inside a closed filter housing the air-flow is more evenly controlled and should make things even better. Just an old Hot Rodders opinion.
Charles Johns
Donation Time
Many of the dirt track guys run alcohol, so I ordered my rubber fuel line from Summit or Speedway online.
Charles Johns
Donation Time
I have done many stupid things in life, but never that dumb!Something like this?
These two threads might help:
http://forum.sunbeamalpine.org/index.php?threads/lower-front-ride-height.26880/#post-185048
http://forum.sunbeamalpine.org/index.php?threads/coil-springs-for-an-alpine.26789/
Missed the welder and spark completely. Definitely a candidate for a Darwin Award!
