Budget Ford 302 Project (Part 3) 4 Barrel vs 2 Barrel Dyno Test

Рет қаралды 8,806

29 күн бұрын

In this video I unbox a low dollar import four-barrel intake, install it on the engine and do a dyno test on it.
At the end I compare the power with the engine equipped with a 2-barrel carburetor and with the four-barrel carburetor.

Пікірлер: 26

@BrandonLeeBrown 21 күн бұрын

On Ford 302's, I consistently get more power with the Weiand Stealth intake manifold than the Edelbrock RPM, both torque and power. The RPM runs as if it's a bit too large for the 302. That's one of the few engine that the Stealth out performs the RPM. With an aluminum intake manifold, flat washers should be used on the intake bolts and reduce their torque by about 10 ft-lbs.

@engine_therapy 20 күн бұрын

That is interesting information about the Stealth intake. Do you think the Edelbrock would be a better choice on a 331/347 ? 10 ft-lbs less than spec sounds like a good rule.

@PatandDoopypoopy 20 күн бұрын

@@engine_therapy 💯 go RPM Airgap on 331/347. They will want airflow. Also most all aftermarket heads as well will prefer the RPM Airgap. That's what dyno told us over last 30 years. That intake even outperforms the regular performer manifold on low end torque. For us, we use the performer and the stealth intake if hood clearance is a problem.

@engine_therapy 18 күн бұрын

Sounds good. I appreciate the feedback.

@fido139 16 күн бұрын

The 302 has a lot of potential, IDK why more folks have not built those up more. Darn near bullet proof engines too.

@engine_therapy 16 күн бұрын

I agree, they are a great engine.

@user-co8hb9uo8j 15 күн бұрын

I preferred the 289 They are tough little engines I had one I rebuilt in a 67 mustang .30 over, “3/4” race cam, eldebrock intake with a 650 holly double pumper It had plenty of power

@engine_therapy 15 күн бұрын

The 289 is a great engine.

@bigc6310 18 күн бұрын

Curious how much of an impact a spacer and no paper air filter would have made

@engine_therapy 18 күн бұрын

That is something I can try going forward.

@ford-speed 22 күн бұрын

Im not sure what camshaft is in it but an open hole spacer would have helped with the AFR. Good testing though. Shame both tests wern't on the same day.

@engine_therapy 22 күн бұрын

The cam is stock. I am working on a video about that now. Adding an open carb spacer would have been interesting. Maybe I can work it in to a future video. Thanks

@mickangio16 22 күн бұрын

I think if you open the secondaries quicker the fuel ratio will lean out. Too bad you didn't try opening them manually under load while it was on the dyno.

@engine_therapy 22 күн бұрын

I tried using the lightest secondary spring I had. I ended up ordering a rear metering block conversion kit (4160 to 4150) so in the future I can adjust the rear.

@stevegraves2890 22 күн бұрын

The intake looks like a knock off Edelbrock Performer RPM (non air gap). If it has the same dimensions as the Edelbrock, it's technically a "mid rise" unit vs. an Air Gap or Victor (high and higher rise respectfully).

@engine_therapy 22 күн бұрын

Yes, very similar to the Performer RPM. I think mid rise would be an accurate description.

@stevegraves2890 13 күн бұрын

@@engine_therapy Doing a 289 build soon for my 68 Cougar. I'm torn between the Mid rise Edelbrock RPM (or copy) and the Shelby / Cobra reproduction for the 289/302. Thanks for the content!

@engine_therapy 13 күн бұрын

Sounds like a great project.

@brentonk461ismylostaccount 20 күн бұрын

On the primaries You were at least 10 sizes too rich at #66's. I would have went 56-58 jet size on the primary depending on where the 10.5 A/F ratio is causing a rich condition?.. a secondary metering block conversion will allow you too jet the secondaries with normal Holley jets too get it where it makes best power and would personally disregard the A/F ratio too achieve maximum power.

@engine_therapy 20 күн бұрын

Thanks for the feedback. The #64 jet was the smallest in my kit and I have a secondary metering block conversion ordered.

@-werksmith2078 12 күн бұрын

Yes! That is what my experience with a holley 1850. Had to go down to a #58 with a Edelbrock performer. I also had the rear float bowl lower. Adjust the rear float just dribbling out as normal then back it off a 1/4 turn. I think I remember there being different secondary metering plates and I used the smallest one. Also, what power valve are you using? I f you said I missed it. If has the usual #10 try a #8 or #12. Not sure if those are sized in odd numbers.

@brentonk461ismylostaccount 12 күн бұрын

@@-werksmith2078 I'd have make a video but The Holley 600cfm four barrel model, #1850 is an emission carburettor and no good for a performance application. While I could myself could modify it too work on just about anything I wouldn't waste my time with one. It is standard practice too check, adjust the float level as Nessasary before you do any tuning and even after each time the float bowl is removed is advisable. Power valve is chosen too suit application, this will vary depending on manual or automatic, and size of cam, gear ratio, converter stall speed type of driving etc.. I have a collection of Holley 4160 secondary metering plates. My recommendation is the same as previous response, post to the fella who made the video And do yourself a favour and change too the Holley secondary metering block conversion and then jet according too what the Engine wants.