Gary Lewis Posted December 12, 2018 Author Share Posted December 12, 2018 Since you guys are discussing the 300/6 here, have any of you seen this video recently? https://www.facebook.com/157130251058147/videos/556472388114263/ Pretty interesting stuff as far as modifications go. Yes, Jonathan shared a link to that with David and I recently. But, it is cool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpin Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 Since you guys are discussing the 300/6 here, have any of you seen this video recently? https://www.facebook.com/157130251058147/videos/556472388114263/ Pretty interesting stuff as far as modifications go. Wow! that is impressive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpin Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 But, that's just my guess with no empirical data. Perhaps the Frenchtown Flyer knows? I hope I am not misquoting him, but a number of years ago, he attributed the broad [desirable] torque curve to the poor intake and exhaust manifolds! I believe what he meant was that at any given RPM range [probably ~1200-2000 RPMs], a couple of the cylinders were at their peak, so as some "came on" and others "dropped off" in efficiency, the torque band was widened. It's amazing how an engine will be built for a purpose, i.e. a truck engine. Without high performance design, even "poorly" designed, but suits the build. And it will become an absolute workhorse with torque, longevity and reliability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
85lebaront2 Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 Gary, do you have any thoughts on the compression? I hate to be skeptical of the literature, but I do question what the difference was between the half ton truck engines and the 1 ton & 3/4HD engines... how was the .9 difference in compression achieved? Why then all the fuss about tracking down a 240 cylinder head to bump up the compression? Bill, just so I understand you correctly, SEFI for the 4.9L was 1996 only, but the system will work without a crank position sensor? And do you need to find the transmission-specific computer or can it be programmed for the transmission you have? No, 1995 could also have SEFI. I sent Gary an updated EFI pinout spreadsheet with the EEC-V information added for the 1996 models. Any engine carried over in the F250HD and F350 in 1997 should be the same. To clarify a bit, automatic transmission 5.0L received MAF/SEFI in 1994, 4.9L and 5.8L automatic transmission models in 1995, even in 1996, there were still EEC-IV models as only the under 8500 GVW trucks were required to be OBD-II compliant meaning EEC-V and most of the manual transmission models still received OBD-I systems. The strangest being some of the California spec HD models as CA set the break at 14000 lbs so there were bank fired EEC-V systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
85lebaront2 Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 Since you guys are discussing the 300/6 here, have any of you seen this video recently? https://www.facebook.com/157130251058147/videos/556472388114263/ Pretty interesting stuff as far as modifications go. Wow! that is impressive! Yes, I have seen that, damned interesting too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whisler Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 Yes, I have seen that, damned interesting too. You guys are way over my head with all this, but wanted to add a thought I had years ago. The vehicle was a 2 door Mercury Monarch (Granada clone) with 4.2 L six and 4 speed trans (3 + OD). I always wanted to built a 3 carb side draft manifold and use 3 Harley carbs.The Harleys of that era were ~ 1300 cc, IIRC, and 3 Harleys would be about 3.9L. It seemed to be a perfect fit to my feeble brain. Of course the build was way beyond my skill level and so was just a dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
85lebaront2 Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 You guys are way over my head with all this, but wanted to add a thought I had years ago. The vehicle was a 2 door Mercury Monarch (Granada clone) with 4.2 L six and 4 speed trans (3 + OD). I always wanted to built a 3 carb side draft manifold and use 3 Harley carbs.The Harleys of that era were ~ 1300 cc, IIRC, and 3 Harleys would be about 3.9L. It seemed to be a perfect fit to my feeble brain. Of course the build was way beyond my skill level and so was just a dream. The Jaguar E-type was a 3.8L or 4.2L (231 ci or 258 ci) and used 3 HD8 SU carbs these are 2" bore carbs and like many motorcycle carbs are "constant velocity", meaning they have a sliding venturii design that opens depending on air flow. Real simple carbs, float bowl, throttle plate and piston for the venturii. The main jet is raised or lowered to set the mixture and the piston has a needle that moves up with it to change the fuel quantity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Lewis Posted December 12, 2018 Author Share Posted December 12, 2018 The Jaguar E-type was a 3.8L or 4.2L (231 ci or 258 ci) and used 3 HD8 SU carbs these are 2" bore carbs and like many motorcycle carbs are "constant velocity", meaning they have a sliding venturii design that opens depending on air flow. Real simple carbs, float bowl, throttle plate and piston for the venturii. The main jet is raised or lowered to set the mixture and the piston has a needle that moves up with it to change the fuel quantity. I loved the simplicity of the constant-velocity carbs on motorcycles, so can imagine how well they did on the E-Type. Anyway, from what I found today the 1980 - 82 300's had 8.9:1 compression and should be the best for MPG. That's of course if they aren't already worn out, and if rebuilt that the replacement pistons give the same CR. Slip an EFI intake and exhaust on, add EEC-V wiring and computer, maybe replace the cam, and you'd have the best of all worlds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Lewis Posted December 12, 2018 Author Share Posted December 12, 2018 I sent Gary an updated EFI pinout spreadsheet with the EEC-V information added for the 1996 models. And Gary has added it here: Fuel Systems/Carburetors, Chokes, & EFI/EFI and then the Pinout tab. Let me know how it works for y'all as I have things I can fine tune on it if need be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford F834 Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 I loved the simplicity of the constant-velocity carbs on motorcycles, so can imagine how well they did on the E-Type. Anyway, from what I found today the 1980 - 82 300's had 8.9:1 compression and should be the best for MPG. That's of course if they aren't already worn out, and if rebuilt that the replacement pistons give the same CR. Slip an EFI intake and exhaust on, add EEC-V wiring and computer, maybe replace the cam, and you'd have the best of all worlds. Gary, maybe I am just catching up to your thinking... but having looked at the master parts catalogue I find it lacking data. First of all, if you ignore all the oversize pistons there seems to be only ONE part number for all HD and Canadian models from ‘80-‘86 although they appear in two places in the catalogue. (Yellow) The light duty ‘80 pistons were replaced by the light duty ‘81-‘82 part so I think it’s safe to assume all three years’ pistons were comparable. (Green) The ‘83-‘84 light duty pistons (Blue) show as being replaced by the 1987 EFI piston type... but there is no mention of light duty ‘85-‘86 pistons anywhere. I also looked through the parts list and I can’t find any compression related component that says it is specifically for the 1983 fuel saver model to explain the 8.7 CR. Since ‘85-‘86 has new heads, one for LD and one for HD it is at least possible that any compression ratio differences could be there rather than the pistons... What still does not add up is how ‘83-‘84 HD’s had a CR of 8.4 with the same head and pistons as the ‘80-‘82 HD’s that yielded 8.0 and how did they raise the compression to 8.7 on the ‘83 fuel saver? I did notice that starting in 1984 the facts book added the word “nominal” after compression ratio to 1. I don’t know what that means, if anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts