Switch to 2bbl - Page 3

Billy Nees · 12-17-2017, 05:07 PM

I think that you would probably slow down more than .5. You can't use the big 2V on your combo and the L index is tough.

rick winchester · 12-17-2017, 07:02 PM

At 3418lbs your car would be n/sa with a 13 flat index. 3418 -170 for driver devided by 224 hp =14.5 n/sa Rick

rboyle · 12-18-2017, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rick winchester

At 3418lbs your car would be n/sa with a 13 flat index. 3418 -170 for driver devided by 224 hp =14.5 n/sa Rick

Sorry, my mistake on the classification. Yes 3418 is 52 lbs less than my current minimum and .85 less than my current index so about a .90 difference, right?

Mike Jones · 12-18-2017, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rboyle

Sorry, my mistake on the classification. Yes 3418 is 52 lbs less than my current minimum and .85 less than my current index so about a .90 difference, right?

I would expect more than a .5 drop off, if you can`t use the big (1.375) 2GC.
Only 1 L car (-.617) at 1-7 LODRS @ E-town. A few N`s, and at least one of them used to be in L.
See Billy`s post above.
Mike A114

Coleydog · 12-19-2017, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rick winchester

At 3418lbs your car would be n/sa with a 13 flat index. 3418 -170 for driver devided by 224 hp =14.5 n/sa Rick

I'm totally confused now, I thought the drivers weight was added to the shipping weight? The shipping weight was divided by the HP

Mark Yacavone · 12-19-2017, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coleydog

I'm totally confused now, I thought the drivers weight was added to the shipping weight? The shipping weight was divided by the HP

Rich said his car weighed 3418. One would assume that's with the driver weight added. So, the 170 needs to be removed to find the natural factor for the car. Then you would adjust to the lightest possible weight for that class. Then add the the driver weight for the total weight with the 2 bbl .combo.

goinbroke2 · 12-29-2017, 01:27 AM

I’m still wrapping my head around the 350cfm for the 305 2bbl and 500cfm for the 350 2bbl.

302 is 287cfm and 351 is 356cfm. Only wish Ford had 350cfm on the 302.

Billy Nees · 12-29-2017, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goinbroke2

I’m still wrapping my head around the 350cfm for the 305 2bbl and 500cfm for the 350 2bbl.

302 is 287cfm and 351 is 356cfm. Only wish Ford had 350cfm on the 302.

305 uses "medium sized" 2bbl, about 325 CFM.
69-70 350s use "really big" 2bbl, about 400 CFM.
All other 350s use "big" 2bbl at about 350 CFM.

FFFFord put 350 CFM carb on 82 manual trans Mustang GTs only.

12-17-2017, 05:07 PM	#21
Billy Nees VIP Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: On a hilltop in Pa. Posts: 4,280 Likes: 3,200 Liked 6,978 Times in 1,572 Posts	Re: Switch to 2bbl I think that you would probably slow down more than .5. You can't use the big 2V on your combo and the L index is tough. __________________ Billy Nees 1188 STK, SS What is "NORMAL"???

12-17-2017, 07:02 PM	#22
rick winchester Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: cincinnati ohio Posts: 206 Likes: 196 Liked 190 Times in 31 Posts	Re: Switch to 2bbl At 3418lbs your car would be n/sa with a 13 flat index. 3418 -170 for driver devided by 224 hp =14.5 n/sa Rick __________________ Rick Winchester Stk 3277

12-29-2017, 01:27 AM	#27
goinbroke2 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: NS CANADA Posts: 742 Likes: 700 Liked 195 Times in 72 Posts	Re: Switch to 2bbl I’m still wrapping my head around the 350cfm for the 305 2bbl and 500cfm for the 350 2bbl. 302 is 287cfm and 351 is 356cfm. Only wish Ford had 350cfm on the 302.