Vintage Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
188 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
HI
Situation : 66 HT 289 2100v stock. I have a 68 302 4BBL intake and newer 600 cfm Holley carb. Do I purchase an aluminum intake or use the old one? If I replace the intake which do you recommend.

O
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,077 Posts
Nothing wrong with the factory, iron intake. But and Edelbrock Performer RPM will work a little better and save weight as well. Lots of people like the Weiand Stealth. It's a good intake, but a recent episode of "Engine Masters" showed the Weiand didn't perform quite as well as the Edelbrock at lower RPMs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,938 Posts
i used a 68 302 four barrel intake many years ago because at the time i couldnt afford the edelbrock intake. it works just fine on a stock or mildly built engine. i do agree that the performer rpm is the better intake though, but if money is tight, run the stock one until you can afford the other.

remember that stock parts do just fine regardless of what the hot rodders claim.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,180 Posts
If he wants "just fine" then its not worth to effort to change.
Actually, I wouldn't go through the effort with the best intake if that is all that will be changed either
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,558 Posts
Personal preference.

On my 65 I put a black powercoat Summit intake and a 500 cfm Summit carb. Under the stock aircleaner with the stock valve covers you cant tell its not oem unless you look close. I have stock exhaust manifolds and a GT valance with trumpets. Performs well, sounds great for a 289 with stock internals. Im sure it made a significant hp increase over my wore out 2100. One pump on the gas and it fires right up vs having to baby it to get it to start with the wore out 2100.

On my 67 Im keeping the iron 4V and 4100. Its a cruiser not a performance car and I dont see a benefit of swapping the manifold and carb out.

Im also always looking to move weight off the front end for ease of steering and weight distribution. One of the reasons I tend to go with skinnier tires than most on here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,938 Posts
If he wants "just fine" then its not worth to effort to change.
Actually, I wouldn't go through the effort with the best intake if that is all that will be changed either
why buy a new intake, for what sounds like a stock engine? that is a waste of money since he already has the four barrel intake. if his future plans are to build the engine, then when the time comes he can buy the new intake that works with the engine build. in the mean time he gets to learn to work with a four barrel carb, IE tuning etc. andhe gets a small gain in power and throttle response, and that means more driving fun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,717 Posts
I'd use the stock intake myself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,035 Posts
Oscar, what kind of boosters does the Holley have ? The 600 Holley that Ford actually intends is a different one than most, it has annular discharge boosters. How about keep the iron intake and get a Summit 600 or a Holley 4010 ? LSG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,180 Posts
why buy a new intake, for what sounds like a stock engine? that is a waste of money since he already has the four barrel intake. if his future plans are to build the engine, then when the time comes he can buy the new intake that works with the engine build. in the mean time he gets to learn to work with a four barrel carb, IE tuning etc. andhe gets a small gain in power and throttle response, and that means more driving fun.
...or he could just turn the timing up to 11.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
188 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Thanks for the info, I will mostly like use the old intake now. LSG; the 600 Holley is not one intend for Ford use only. However, I am a little at loss with 1ofAMillion+ "just turn the timing up to 11" this is just about doubling the timing. Wouldn't this stress things causing damage to something?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,077 Posts
Personally, I think the weight savings alone is worth using an aluminum intake. Installing an aluminum intake, aluminum water pump and and headers shaves a LOT of weight off the front end. I think it makes the car drive better. But hey, nothing wrong with the factory iron stuff either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,558 Posts
On my 65 I went with the Summit black powdercoat manifold and 500 cfm carb, since I was changing from 2v to 4V I needed the manifold. I wasnt worried about peak performance, I wanted the engine to look good and the Summit was the lowest cost black powdercoat. My 2100 was running so bad, the 4V swap was a huge improvement. Im very happy with the swap. I kept an iron WP, saw a few threads about the aluminum pumps snout breaking off. Since I have and ALT, PS and AC I thought that was a lot of tension on the WP pulley.

On my 67 with a D-code 289 and cast 4V intake I am keeping my eyes open for a used aluminum 4V intake, if one pops up at the right price I will snag it for the weight savings. My WP is aluminum but I am only running the alternator off the WP pulley, AC later but that doesnt run off the WP pulley. I have an Opentracker roller idler for the 67 and EPAS to install. Im trying to keep the weight off the front end on the 67.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,493 Posts
Thanks for the info, I will mostly like use the old intake now. LSG; the 600 Holley is not one intend for Ford use only. However, I am a little at loss with 1ofAMillion+ "just turn the timing up to 11" this is just about doubling the timing. Wouldn't this stress things causing damage to something?
The best way to set timing is first, have the distributor advance curves reset professionally. I guarantee they are wrong now, harming your performance.

Once that is done, put it back in the engine, set to 6°BTDC, and test drive the car. On a manual trans, you will need to "lug" the engine, that is, accelerate in a gear too high. You can probably achieve the same effect on an auto trans by disconnecting (and plugging) the modulator line.

Continue test-driving, advancing an additional 2° on each drive, until the engine pings under load. Then back off 2°. You will then have set the ideal power and mileage timing.

Even identical engines can vary slightly in timing. The 289HP calls for 12°BTDC initial timing. Mine likes 14°. Running a standard 289 2V or 289 4V at 10° is not at all unusual.

If you are running the standard C3AZ-V camshaft, the 600 is too big. You'll get all-around better performance with a 500.

The intake is also not a problem. Your iron intake is the same on used on the 289 High Performance. Upgrading the intake manifold is pointless unless you also upgrade the cam.

To sum up- Leave the iron intake on it, carefully set the timing using a well-adjusted distributor, and swap out the 600 carb for a 500. Use an Autolite 4100 or Summit.

Or:

Leave the 600 on, upgrade to a C9OZ-C or equivalent cam, and install a Performer RPM or Cobra intake.

Compatibility of the parts is the name of the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Caper50

·
Registered
Joined
·
281 Posts
This article is pretty old but might be a good one to review. It has a stock Ford cast iron manifold vs other aftermarket aluminum manifolds.

Thanks,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
The best way to set timing is first, have the distributor advance curves reset professionally. I guarantee they are wrong now, harming your performance.
I took mine to a local speed shop, they said the weights in my NAPA rebuilt 289 distributor were backwards and it had very stiff springs. They swapped the weights, put in lighter springs and told me to set the timing to 16° and not run the vacuum advance. I cannot remember the RPM, but I recall it having 20° in the distributor for a total of 36°. The car felt like it gained 50 HP... so I concurr, you need to set the distributor correctly!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,493 Posts
This article is pretty old but might be a good one to review. It has a stock Ford cast iron manifold vs other aftermarket aluminum manifolds.

Thanks,
I've had the chart from that article in my files for years. Amusing to think the stock Ford iron manifold is superior to the Edelbrock Performer. Do not confuse this with the Edelbrock Performer RPM, which is comparable to (and perhaps a few points better than) the Cobra.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,493 Posts
I took mine to a local speed shop, they said the weights in my NAPA rebuilt 289 distributor were backwards and it had very stiff springs. They swapped the weights, put in lighter springs and told me to set the timing to 16° and not run the vacuum advance. I cannot remember the RPM, but I recall it having 20° in the distributor for a total of 36°. The car felt like it gained 50 HP... so I concur, you need to set the distributor correctly!!!!
There are a lot of details involved in these. The advance limit post on the centrifugal plate is intended to have a rubber sleeve as a bumper, and it's usually missing. This gives greater than specified total advance. The rate at which the advance occurs is also critical. Your experience with overly-stiff springs is a good example. I once did the C5OF-E in a 67 GT350. The springs were too weak. Total advance was achieved at about 900 rpm. Needless to say, correct springs added a lot of power. But fine-tuning these requires much more than just the correct springs. The attaching posts for the springs must be bent slightly to increase or decrease the spring setting on both primary and secondary advance weights, to achieve the correct advance curve. Similarly, distributors with vacuum advance must be adjusted to provide the correct curve at various vacuum levels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
826 Posts
I've had the chart from that article in my files for years. Amusing to think the stock Ford iron manifold is superior to the Edelbrock Performer.
??? the chart show a 20hp gain with the Performer over stock manifold.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
This article is pretty old but might be a good one to review. It has a stock Ford cast iron manifold vs other aftermarket aluminum manifolds.

Thanks,
If you look closer at the "stock" intake in this article, it is the EGR aluminum intake that was put on 83 to 85 5.0 Mustangs, not the earlier cast iron 4V version. I recall at Joe Modello posting that the Ford 4V dyoned a few HP different than a Performer when he worked at Edelbrock during its development.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top