| Author |
 Topic  |
|
triple john
Member
541 Posts |
 Posted - 11/19/2011 : 11:06:28 PM
|
| Finally going to start modifying the old 2.8. I have the headers, Offy intake, and the double hump crossmember. Now I need the 4BBL Carb...Which model holley will work? |
 |
|
|
347cobra
Advanced Member
USA
4831 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2011 : 03:30:59 AM
|
| 390 CFM carb |
 |
|
|
Blue coyote
Advanced Member
Canada
2354 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2011 : 12:05:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by 347cobra
390 CFM carb
If you can, and if you can afford a bit more fuel, go a bit bigger.
Trust me, the 2.8 responds rather well to a bit of over-carbing  |
Blue coyote
II-less :| |
|
|
|
triple john
Member
541 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2011 : 1:31:07 PM
|
390=Holley 8007 carb correct? Also I read somewhere that to add the Offy intake I have to modify the ignition and swap out the distributor?
|
|
|
|
|
Blue coyote
Advanced Member
Canada
2354 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2011 : 3:12:55 PM
|
| That info on the ignition and distributor applies to doing the Offy swap onto a Ranger/Bronco II. They run the EFI-style EEC-IV ignition, TFI distributor, and an electronic feedback carb that won't fit the Offy 4-bbl upper section. The Offy and 4-bbl will work with both points (74) and Duraspark (75-78) ignitions. |
Blue coyote
II-less :| |
|
|
|
iifun77
Senior Member
1985 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2011 : 3:28:03 PM
|
I've got a 390cfm carb that's only a year old and has less than 500 miles on it. If you're interested in it email me through the site.
 |
Butch
Rust in peace...
|
|
|
|
347cobra
Advanced Member
USA
4831 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2011 : 4:03:43 PM
|
| Bigger isn't always better when it comes to carbs. Sure it may give you better top end but how many time are you there. For street car better off with slightly smaller carb gives you better fuel mileage better thottle response |
|
|
|
Blue coyote
Advanced Member
Canada
2354 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2011 : 4:14:29 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by 347cobra
Bigger isn't always better when it comes to carbs. Sure it may give you better top end but how many time are you there. For street car better off with slightly smaller carb gives you better fuel mileage better thottle response
Thus my proviso that it WILL consume more fuel. My assertion is that the 2.8 (especially one being upgraded to a 4 bbl) will respond favourably to more carb than "the book" says is optimal.
A clear example: I often tell people running 2.8's to ditch the stock 2150 and drop on one from a 289 or 302 stock application. I have YET to hear (in over 20 years) a single person say it wasn't worth it to do so. Once you start factoring in that a 4-bbl swap is not usually done in pursuit of better mileage, its certainly a valid consideration...
Edit: Also, don't forget that even a stock 2.8 is completely wasted at anything under about 3k RPM anyway. If it never sees 5k then you might as well be running a 4-banger for all the torque you're making.  |
Blue coyote
II-less :| |
Edited by - Blue coyote on 11/20/2011 4:19:16 PM |
|
|
|
triple john
Member
541 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2011 : 5:46:08 PM
|
| Thanks Guys! I am really glad to hear I can use my existing ignition. I have have been running that POS VV carb for four yeasr and the car has been a slug. I can't wait see how it will run in the spring! |
|
|
|
|
347cobra
Advanced Member
USA
4831 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2011 : 7:19:18 PM
|
| I'm looking at driveabilty |
|
|
|
triple john
Member
541 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2011 : 7:46:22 PM
|
| With a VV carb there is no such thing as driveability.................... |
|
|
|
|
Blue coyote
Advanced Member
Canada
2354 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2011 : 10:19:50 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by 347cobra
I'm looking at driveabilty
Then you'd best demand that any automatic transmission behind a 2.8 get removed while you're at it. Even at WOT, the C3 and C4 upshift before the STOCK engine reaches its peak torque, much less one with the mods to take the torque peak up from 4600 to 5500 or more.
As I said earlier, in over twenty years of advising that owners of completely STOCK 2.8's over-carb them a bit (with the V8-spec 2150), I have never had a single person say it was not a worthwhile upgrade. It does not sacrifice driveability. It does not hinder mid-RPM throttle response (and you'd be hard-pressed to note any hesitation at anything above 1000 RPM, at all) It does slightly increase fuel consumption. It also lets the 2.8 perform considerably better, and makes the car a LOT more fun to drive. |
Blue coyote
II-less :| |
|
|
|
triple john
Member
541 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2011 : 11:07:30 PM
|
| I would love to swap the C3 trans...It's almost impossible to get it to drop into passing gear at any speed! But right now I'm just trying to get some drivability and extra power. |
|
|
|
|
prostang
Member
Canada
600 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2011 : 12:39:27 AM
|
A good tranny man can give your c-3 a compleat new out look! The gouverner can be set to have more line pressuer and the Modulator controles the shift point.
If your going to hop up the engine the tranny should be up graded to make sure it will live. A mushy tranny will cook the clutches! |
Edited by - prostang on 11/21/2011 12:42:20 AM |
|
|
|
51degII
Advanced Member
Canada
3910 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2011 : 04:29:41 AM
|
| go t5 swap with your 2.8. |
|
|
|
347cobra
Advanced Member
USA
4831 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2011 : 02:39:05 AM
|
| I do remember some of the 2 barrel carbs were 400 cfm if you find the right one |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Holley Carb question for 2.8
