Carb jetting

[Gary Lewis]

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 ....

Yes, Jeff, I'm sure those lines prove it.

And Ralph, you really have to squint to see the differences to the earlier trucks. Yes, there is some sloping, but nothing like what happened in '87. Instead of our recessed grille and headlights everything was moved out flush with the hood and even wrapped around to the fenders.

Oddly enough, that kind of stuff was known about almost 20 years earlier. Remembering the 1969 Dodge Charger 500, Road & Track says:

Many people are aware of the "Aero Wars" of 1969 and 1970 in NASCAR, when Chrysler and Ford reshaped their cars in radical ways to make them go faster. While pushing the bounds of what could plausibly be called "stock" cars, the companies raced—and sold to the public—some of the most outlandish cars ever built in Detroit. And one of the lesser known cars–the Charger 500–is also the rarest of the bunch.

By the mid-1960s, the automakers realized that sheer horsepower was not enough to win on the big tracks of NASCAR. Sure, they could push a car into the 180+ mph range, but at those speeds the cars often became unstable. And there was the problem of diminishing returns. The faster a car is pushed into the air, the more horsepower it needs to get more speed. Chrysler brought in rocket scientists to study the problem and they pointed to the obvious answer: streamlining.

In 1968, Dodge had released a new body style for the Charger. It won awards, sold well, and raced horribly. The car had an indented grille and the rear window was also recessed. In a wind tunnel the car was a catastrophe. Too much air got under the car and the air that went over swirled over the trunk. Someone suggested making the grille flush with the leading edge of the hood and filling in the cavity at the rear. Wind tunnel tests confirmed that this would solve many of the car's problems.

At the time, NASCAR required at least 500 cars to be sold to the public for a car to be considered "stock." When the tests confirmed improvement with the modifications, Dodge gave the go-ahead for the cars to be sold to consumers. Dubbed the "Charger 500," The car was unveiled to the press in June 1968 and then pitched to the NASCAR czar, Bill France. France had no problem with the car being allowed to race except he objected to a spoiler Dodge wanted to place under the car's front bumper.

So why did it take 20 years and lots of money before Ford's truck engineers to catch on?

[81-F150-Explorer]

And Ralph, you really have to squint to see the differences to the earlier trucks. Yes, there is some sloping, but nothing like what happened in '87. Instead of our recessed grille and headlights everything was moved out flush with the hood and even wrapped around to the fenders.

So why did it take 20 years and lots of money before Ford's truck engineers to catch on?

I asked that question to I think Bill, "Numberdummy", once and I think he said it was because the Dealers thought the designs would be too radical for the public to accept.

I remember when the 1997-2003/4 F-150 came out in 1996 that my father hated it, because it looked like a spaceship to him.

 

Funny thing is he owns a 1997.5 F-150 now and he likes it.

So the too radical design might be it. Don't know, but a really good question.

 

[Gary Lewis]

And Ralph, you really have to squint to see the differences to the earlier trucks. Yes, there is some sloping, but nothing like what happened in '87. Instead of our recessed grille and headlights everything was moved out flush with the hood and even wrapped around to the fenders.

So why did it take 20 years and lots of money before Ford's truck engineers to catch on?

I asked that question to I think Bill, "Numberdummy", once and I think he said it was because the Dealers thought the designs would be too radical for the public to accept.

I remember when the 1997-2003/4 F-150 came out in 1996 that my father hated it, because it looked like a spaceship to him.

 

Funny thing is he owns a 1997.5 F-150 now and he likes it.

So the too radical design might be it. Don't know, but a really good question.

When I compare the Bullnose design to that of the Bricks I understand the "too radical" answer. Here we are 36 years on and I still don't like it.

[BigBrother-84]

When I compare the Bullnose design to that of the Bricks I understand the "too radical" answer. Here we are 36 years on and I still don't like it.

I agree on that one.

Give us time... we never know.

[LARIAT 85]

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.

The 4180 was a MOTORCRAFT carburetor. (But it was designed by both Ford and Holley.) Unlike the Edelbrock (and Holley), the Motorcraft carburetor has annular boosters in the primary circuit, which atomizes fuel almost as well as fuel injection. And the Motorcraft has a much better choke system. So I don't think an Edelbrock would get you better fuel mileage.

The Edelbrock is easier to tune than a Holley for sure, but not as easy as the stock Motorcraft 4180 your truck came with. If you were to get an actual stock replacement, the engineering is already done for you by Ford. If you have a relatively stock engine with the smog controls still in place, the Motorcraft 4180 would be the most precise carburetor you could run on your truck. And that should yield you better fuel mileage than any other.

https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/3-years-5-0l-high-output-fitted-holley-4180c-carburetor/