Carb jetting

[Eriksf250]

I'm just trying to get this truck right now that it's now my daily driver and I want to squeeze as much mpg's out of it as I can. I currently think I'm around 5, 10-12 would be better and I wouldn't expect more than that with 4.10s.

I am curious as to why you chose to get an Edelbrock over a stock replacement carburetor?

The Motorcraft 4180 carburetor your truck came with is the most precise carburetor Ford ever built, and is the same carburetor the mighty Mustang GT used from 1983 - 1985.

The 4180 was a Holley carburetor. I chose the Edelbrock because it's a little better on fuel mileage, no power valves to deal with, you can tune them pretty easy from what I've seen, and for a man who lives paycheck to paycheck taking care of his family, it cost less than the 4180 and 4160. Currently it has some cobbled together 670 truck avenger that a guy from work gave me. It's missing the fast idle setup for the choke so I can't use the choke. I have the mixture set rich enough to hold a cold idle. It stumbles and hesitates until it warms up and then it won't do it as bad. But this thing drinks worse than a 460 and is gutless for what it should be. I'm hoping when I get this edelbrock on and dialed in it should be a lot better. Right now, i think a 240 straight six would run circles around it.

[Gary Lewis]

The 4180 was a Holley carburetor. I chose the Edelbrock because it's a little better on fuel mileage, no power valves to deal with, you can tune them pretty easy from what I've seen, and for a man who lives paycheck to paycheck taking care of his family, it cost less than the 4180 and 4160. Currently it has some cobbled together 670 truck avenger that a guy from work gave me. It's missing the fast idle setup for the choke so I can't use the choke. I have the mixture set rich enough to hold a cold idle. It stumbles and hesitates until it warms up and then it won't do it as bad. But this thing drinks worse than a 460 and is gutless for what it should be. I'm hoping when I get this edelbrock on and dialed in it should be a lot better. Right now, i think a 240 straight six would run circles around it.

You can get the 4106 dialed in. In fact, it may be so out of the box.

I won't get into the Holley vs Carterbrock wars since most people on here know my predilection. But I will say that I've seen the 1406 work well out of the box for 351's and 460's. And if adjustments need to be made they are pretty simple.

Having said that, I'd pull the top and invert it to check the float levels before I installed the carb. And I'd check the bowl to make sure there's no debris in it. So easy to do on the bench.

.

[Eriksf250]

You can get the 4106 dialed in. In fact, it may be so out of the box.

I won't get into the Holley vs Carterbrock wars since most people on here know my predilection. But I will say that I've seen the 1406 work well out of the box for 351's and 460's. And if adjustments need to be made they are pretty simple.

Having said that, I'd pull the top and invert it to check the float levels before I installed the carb. And I'd check the bowl to make sure there's no debris in it. So easy to do on the bench.

.

Update: Good afternoon everyone, so I just installed a fuel pressure gauge to check my fuel pressure and I'm getting about 4.5 psi. Does that seem ok and would it be ok for the edelbrock when I get ready to put that on?

[Gsmblue]

Update: Good afternoon everyone, so I just installed a fuel pressure gauge to check my fuel pressure and I'm getting about 4.5 psi. Does that seem ok and would it be ok for the edelbrock when I get ready to put that on?

Yep. 3=6psi is the range I have read. 4.5 should be right in the sweet spot.

[81-F150-Explorer]

These trucks are not aerodynamic in any way, so anything about 65 MPH is causing serious drag.

What is ironic is Ford was very proud of their new aerodynamic design for the 80's.

Look at page 12 of the 1980 Brochure

1980 Brochure

and look at page 02 of the 1981 Brochure

1981 Brochure

And to paraphrase author, Douglas Adams:

"It glides through the air, in the same way that bricks Don't" - Douglas Adams

-----------------------------------------------

 

[351FUN]

Update: Good afternoon everyone, so I just installed a fuel pressure gauge to check my fuel pressure and I'm getting about 4.5 psi. Does that seem ok and would it be ok for the edelbrock when I get ready to put that on?

Yeah it'll like 4.5# it will not like 8, that I can tell you lol.

[Eriksf250]

Yeah it'll like 4.5# it will not like 8, that I can tell you lol.

I'm glad it should like 4.5 psi. I'm guessing the 3 port mechanical pumps on the over 8,500 gvw 351s have a high volume low pressure setup. I can't wait to see how it works tomorrow.

[Gary Lewis]

These trucks are not aerodynamic in any way, so anything about 65 MPH is causing serious drag.

What is ironic is Ford was very proud of their new aerodynamic design for the 80's.

Look at page 12 of the 1980 Brochure

1980 Brochure

and look at page 02 of the 1981 Brochure

1981 Brochure

And to paraphrase author, Douglas Adams:

"It glides through the air, in the same way that bricks Don't" - Douglas Adams

-----------------------------------------------

Yes, Ford seems to think they made big changes in drag coefficient over the previous years. But the big change came in '87 when they rounded the headlights and brought them out flush with the grille. Prior to that they were worse than the proverbial barn door as barn doors don't have recesses with which to hold onto the wind like our trucks do.

[BigBrother-84]

Prior to that they were worse than the proverbial barn door as barn doors don't have recesses with which to hold onto the wind like our trucks do.

Not sure the recesses have a noticeable impact on the general drag of our Barn Design Bullnoses.

But it didn't cost a lot for Ford to make this statement: Two nice colored lines above the truck gave the proof of its aerodynamical performances.

Isn't this an indisputable scientific evidence?

[81-F150-Explorer]

Prior to that they were worse than the proverbial barn door as barn doors don't have recesses with which to hold onto the wind like our trucks do.

Not sure the recesses have a noticeable impact on the general drag of our Barn Design Bullnoses.

But it didn't cost a lot for Ford to make this statement: Two nice colored lines above the truck gave the proof of its aerodynamical performances.

Isn't this an indisputable scientific evidence?

I know our trucks were the first to be designed with aerodynamics in mind. And I do think they really tried.

You can see their attempt with the sloping fenders being taller at the windshield than at the front grille. (why I don't understand leveling kits to "correct" this. It's supposed to be lower in the front for aerodynamics than in the back. )

The shape of the hood, grille and front bumper "\______/" being sloped to the sides.

And from the previous generation, 1973-1979 F-series, (which is also designed like a brick), I could see a 13% aerodynamic improvement over them. *

But with the newer generations of F-series, even the 1987-1991 / 1992-1996 and beyond, it makes our trucks look about as aerodynamic as a flat screen tv.

* 13% over the previous model isn't much is it.

I wonder what percentage the 1987-1991 got over ours? 50%?

Anyway ....