Need advice on what to do

[FuzzFace2]

Yeah, I think you’re right - The only thing that was making me think serp was the set up for the Saginaw PS and that the V belts can keep up with the 130 amp alternator (But I assume that as long as I’m not pulling a ton voltage, it won’t be an issue).

I suppose if I can find a saginaw for v belt and just switch the pulley on the alternator, it’ll be fine.

Now that I get thinking about it the PS pump you are after that I have might only be on the vans because I think the PUs only use the wrong pump LOL

I also don't know if the vans that used the serp belt had the PS pump you are after or the wrong one?

I was told my brackets & pump was from a van think 83 or 85 and if you have AC see if you can get the AC brackets that work with the pump. The pump & brackets came on my truck and I am thinking the motor was from a van but not sure?

I just wanted to let you know if looking for the PS pump and can only find a full serp setup then go that way but did not want you to be limited to just the serp setup as I am not using one on my truck.

Maybe I am just thinking out loud?

Dave ----

[Gary Lewis]

Now that I get thinking about it the PS pump you are after that I have might only be on the vans because I think the PUs only use the wrong pump LOL

I also don't know if the vans that used the serp belt had the PS pump you are after or the wrong one?

I was told my brackets & pump was from a van think 83 or 85 and if you have AC see if you can get the AC brackets that work with the pump. The pump & brackets came on my truck and I am thinking the motor was from a van but not sure?

I just wanted to let you know if looking for the PS pump and can only find a full serp setup then go that way but did not want you to be limited to just the serp setup as I am not using one on my truck.

Maybe I am just thinking out loud?

Dave ----

Only the vans had the Saginaw, and if I understand correctly they didn't get the C-II. The pickups were exactly the opposite. So if you are wanting to go with a Saginaw you'll have to have the van brackets as Sag's don't bolt to C-II brackets nor vice versa.

As for the belts on a 3G, I think the only time you'd see/hear slippage is if you were to kill the battery and somehow get the truck started - like jumpering or bump-starting it. With a dead battery there would be a lot of current and a single v-belt might slip.

[LARIAT 85]

With a sniper youll see easily out of the box a 3 to 5 mpg increase in economy over a carb. If you take and have it tuned professionally Ive seen people get as much as 8 to 10 mpg increase in economy over a carb.

But that all depends on how you set it up as well as how you drive it.

Of course it does.

Which is why I think you can reverse that statement and make the same case in favor of a carbureted setup.

 

[Rusty_S85]

With a sniper youll see easily out of the box a 3 to 5 mpg increase in economy over a carb. If you take and have it tuned professionally Ive seen people get as much as 8 to 10 mpg increase in economy over a carb.

But that all depends on how you set it up as well as how you drive it.

Of course it does.

Which is why I think you can reverse that statement and make the same case in favor of a carbureted setup.

You could reverse it but even the best setup carb would never gain you the economy of a properly tuned fuel injection.

We are talking about a controlled dumping of fuel based off air velocity compared to a precision spraying of fuel to maintain proper A/F ratio based off reading the exhaust.

I will say a properly setup carb will be more responsive and make more power but when it comes to efficency a carb could never reach the levels of a fuel injection setup.

[LARIAT 85]

You could reverse it but even the best setup carb would never gain you the economy of a properly tuned fuel injection.

We are talking about a controlled dumping of fuel based off air velocity compared to a precision spraying of fuel to maintain proper A/F ratio based off reading the exhaust.

I will say a properly setup carb will be more responsive and make more power but when it comes to efficency a carb could never reach the levels of a fuel injection setup.

But it actually did for a few years.

1986 was last year for [Feedback] Carburetors, and 1987 was first year of Electronic Fuel Injection for the 4.9L/300-6 engine. Not only did the Feedback Carburetor system get better fuel economy, but the EFI system was also dirtier with 1.7 more Co2 output than the Feedback Carburetor just a year earlier:

1986 F-150, 2wd, 4.9L, 4 speed manual:OD, Feedback Carburetor

23 mpg highway, 20 mpg combined

Co2: 9.3

1987 F-150, 2wd, 4.9L, 4 speed manual:OD, EFI

20 mpg highway, 17 mpg combined

Co2: 11.0

1988 is even worse:

1988 F-150, 2wd, 4.9L, 5 speed manual (the four speed OD was dropped), EFI

18 mpg highway, 16 mpg combined

Co2: 11.6

(Source: fueleconomy.gov)

 

[Rusty_S85]

You could reverse it but even the best setup carb would never gain you the economy of a properly tuned fuel injection.

We are talking about a controlled dumping of fuel based off air velocity compared to a precision spraying of fuel to maintain proper A/F ratio based off reading the exhaust.

I will say a properly setup carb will be more responsive and make more power but when it comes to efficency a carb could never reach the levels of a fuel injection setup.

But it actually did for a few years.

1986 was last year for [Feedback] Carburetors, and 1987 was first year of Electronic Fuel Injection for the 4.9L/300-6 engine. Not only did the Feedback Carburetor system get better fuel economy, but the EFI system was also dirtier with 1.7 more Co2 output than the Feedback Carburetor just a year earlier:

1986 F-150, 2wd, 4.9L, 4 speed manual:OD, Feedback Carburetor

23 mpg highway, 20 mpg combined

Co2: 9.3

1987 F-150, 2wd, 4.9L, 4 speed manual:OD, EFI

20 mpg highway, 17 mpg combined

Co2: 11.0

1988 is even worse:

1988 F-150, 2wd, 4.9L, 5 speed manual (the four speed OD was dropped), EFI

18 mpg highway, 16 mpg combined

Co2: 11.6

(Source: fueleconomy.gov)

But you are comparing early EFI though, modern EFI is nothing like EFI at the time. The TBI that holley uses in their Sniper line up is still more advanced than the early EFI ford and others were using in the 1980's.

If we are comparing like you are then yes. But comparing technology some 40 years apart its not the same.

Like my 2150 that is properly setup on my truck, used to get 14/15 mpg city then the switch to ethanol blended fuels and my economy dropped to 11/12 mpg city with 15/16 mpg highway. With fuel injection like I am going with I am hopeful to have my economy back where it was if not better. I see people all day long on the sniper owners group talking about getting 14/16 mpg city all day long out of the box. The guy I am going to have tuning mine that is local, majority of his tunes people are amazed at how they are getting 16/18 mpg city with his tune. There is one I cant find the guy was extremely happy with how his vehicle was now getting 19 mpg city where as before he was only getting 16 mpg city out of the box.

[1986F150Six]

But it actually did for a few years.

1986 was last year for [Feedback] Carburetors, and 1987 was first year of Electronic Fuel Injection for the 4.9L/300-6 engine. Not only did the Feedback Carburetor system get better fuel economy, but the EFI system was also dirtier with 1.7 more Co2 output than the Feedback Carburetor just a year earlier:

1986 F-150, 2wd, 4.9L, 4 speed manual:OD, Feedback Carburetor

23 mpg highway, 20 mpg combined

Co2: 9.3

(Source: fueleconomy.gov)

It has been explained to me that the reason for the better than EFI gas mileage of the Feedback carburetion system is that the feedback system was capable of running leaner mixtures when cruising [>14.7:1].

 

[Rembrant]

With a sniper youll see easily out of the box a 3 to 5 mpg increase in economy over a carb. If you take and have it tuned professionally Ive seen people get as much as 8 to 10 mpg increase in economy over a carb.

I would say that getting an 8-10 MPG increase over a carb means that the carbed system was working very poorly in the first place. I'll drive to Texas tomorrow if somebody guarantees that I'll see an 8-10 MPG increase in swapping my 600CFM Holley for a Sniper EFI.

I'm not saying that EFI isn't superior...clearly it is, but lets not get carried away with the claims here. You're talking 30% to 50+% improvements in efficiency in switching to a throttle body EFI system.

 

[LARIAT 85]

It has been explained to me that the reason for the better than EFI gas mileage of the Feedback carburetion system is that the feedback system was capable of running leaner mixtures when cruising [>14.7:1].

The feedback carburetor systems are very unique. It's a shame that the technology on these systems completely stopped when EFI was introduced. It is interesting to think what might have happened if these systems continued to evolve and been refined over the past 40 years.

I would say that getting an 8-10 MPG increase over a carb means that the carbed system was working very poorly in the first place. I'll drive to Texas tomorrow if somebody guarantees that I'll see an 8-10 MPG increase in swapping my 600CFM Holley for a Sniper EFI.

I'm not saying that EFI isn't superior...clearly it is, but lets not get carried away with the claims here. You're talking 30% to 50+% improvements in efficiency in switching to a throttle body EFI system.

I would have to say the same thing.

[LARIAT 85]

But you are comparing early EFI though, modern EFI is nothing like EFI at the time. The TBI that holley uses in their Sniper line up is still more advanced than the early EFI ford and others were using in the 1980's.

If we are comparing like you are then yes. But comparing technology some 40 years apart its not the same.

Like my 2150 that is properly setup on my truck, used to get 14/15 mpg city then the switch to ethanol blended fuels and my economy dropped to 11/12 mpg city with 15/16 mpg highway. With fuel injection like I am going with I am hopeful to have my economy back where it was if not better. I see people all day long on the sniper owners group talking about getting 14/16 mpg city all day long out of the box. The guy I am going to have tuning mine that is local, majority of his tunes people are amazed at how they are getting 16/18 mpg city with his tune. There is one I cant find the guy was extremely happy with how his vehicle was now getting 19 mpg city where as before he was only getting 16 mpg city out of the box.

Is the Holley Sniper with throttle-body fuel injection really that much better? I would have thought the multi-port fuel injection Ford was using on their F-Series trucks even at that time would still be better than any throttle-body fuel injection system.

When your fuel economy dropped on your Motorcraft 2150 because of the change to ethanol fuels, did you try to re-tune the carburetor to compensate? Some of the "four-eyed" Mustang guys who run the stock Motorcraft 4180 have had the same complaints as you, and they have regained their lost power and economy by increasing the jet size and squirters by two.

I am running an Autolite 4100 on Lucille, and I can get about 18 mpg on the highway if I drive it right. When I tuned it, I got better power and economy by going from the stock size 49 jets to 50 on the primaries and from the stock size 58 to 60 on the secondaries.