QUOTE=pruyter;163115].
The reason for blocking off the PCV valve when a Webcon conversion is installed is the following: at the standard inlet manifold the PCV valve is situated in a kind of gallery that services alle the 4 cylinders while at the Webcon manifold this valve is situated right in front of the 4th cylinder. The conseqence is that the mixture becomes that weak that the engine stalls.[/QUOTE]
Well that's a very poor design outcome, we all know it should come from a common point so as not go drag heavily on 1 cylinder. I wonder why they didn't locate it better?
.
To answer the remark from Alpine_64: I agree that the venting of the engine prolongs the life of the engine significantly, but when Rootes deleted with the start from the Hunter range the venting from the tappet cover and relied only on the venting from the rocker cover I assume that Rootes knew what they were doing.
They did... Cutting costs... Basically any new car from 60's has a pcv and its proven to increase engine life.
As for the webcon thread on the saoc, I had read it during the testing and promotion... And I mean promotion of the webcon setup. While its great that a company decided to build and develop new parts for our cars and i applaud the effort, many of the comments as to why people wanted to make the switch were dubious. Lots of people complaining about the twin 150CD setup saying they were to hard to keep in tune, hard to get running right or suffering flat spots etc. Most of the complaints were classic signs of worn out carbs, or people who thought fitting a gasket kit was a "rebuild" they would have got the reliability and drivability they wanted from a proper rebuild of the carbs.. And indeed in many cases the linkage as people complained about slop in the original... They are 50 year old rotating parts with bushes... They need to be rebuilt/replaced over time.
I empathise with people running the twin downdraft zenith carbs, rebuilding them correctly is difficult due to parts availability and the fact you often need to rebore throttle bodies and shafts and make new ones. Then they will still weap as they did new and still wear quicker than other setups ( though most peoples usage would allow them a long life)
The biggest issue I had with the whole saoc thread was the heavily biased nature of the promotion ( it was not discussed really just aggressively defended)
As for the setup, I think it looks horrible... The performance gain while apparently decent according to their reported results will not make the alpine a much faster car. As for economy, well setup stock options are not thirsty so fuel consumption given most driving millage is not really a primary concern.
The line for me though (and I'll admit it concerns the factory single setup as well) is that it's such an ugly installation. The manifold is heavy looking and ugly... But that's driven by its design for flow.. So fair enough, but the filter setup is offensively ugly... It looks like a cheap rice cooker stuck under the bonnet and has no aesthetic appeal or period relevance. Why not make the filter housing at least somewhat period?
Rootes did a nice looking motor, particularly the early separate header tank setup and then put this on there and make it look like someone kitchen utensils.... If be embarrassed to open the bonnet at a show ....
Im bias, I run twin dcoe Weber's.. I do it for the performance... But just as much for the look and sound.. They do give good performance, they are reliable and yes they use a lot more fuel than any stock setup... But I love them for all the aforementioned reasons... I didnt buy a sunbeam because I wanted an efficient modern car... I bought it for looks sound and fun.... And I did drive it as a daily drive for 4 years with the dcoes in a major city.. So I can vouch for reliability and drivability... But the best part was the smile on my face when I touched the throttle pedal or opened the bonnet...