Project Ferdinand

[ArdWrknTrk]

Good progress! And, as Jim says, progress is good.

Speaking of Jim, I agree on the carb. I'd go with a 2150 if you aren't changing anything else, like cam, intake, etc. But Holley made a carb specifically to replace the VV since so many people wanted them gone.

We have the factory shop manual section as well as info on the Holley carb on the page at Documentation/Fuel Systems/Carburetors, Chokes, & EFI/Motorcraft 7200 VV.

I believe the VV is a good carb, but is not well understood. However, I've never run one nor tuned one, so what do I know? Bill Vose/85lebaront2 is the one to ask about that.

255 is a smaller engine than I'm used to.

But 1.06" 2150's are easy to find.

As always, I defer to Bill for any tune-up or carburetion questions.

[85lebaront2]

Question for the experts...

what to do with that MOTORCRAFT Variable Venturi Carburetor.....Information seems all over the board on what to do with these....everything from junk them with no real solid advice on to what to replace it with all the way to rebuild with mixed results....one thing for sure is the carb needs to be addressed.....

as always thanks

On the VV carb, if it is the feedback version and you are scrapping the rest of the feedback (probably either and MCU or EEC-III) system, then yes a small 2150 Motorcraft or a Holley 2300 is a good choice. The 255 V8 was also installed in 80s T-Birds, my neighbor had one and when it wore out he rebuilt a 302 for it. I had it's ancestor, a 260 in a 1964 Falcon. One of the issues with the 255 (shame it isn't a 1954 Mercury 255) from what I remember, the ports are extremely small to help with emissions and allegedly fuel economy. In a car it wasn't too bad, in a truck, I think I would rather have a 240 6 cyl.

If you do not have a feedback system, the VV, properly adjusted runs well and I stuck one on a 1957 312 with a Borg-Warner T85 w/OD in a 1958 F100, damn thing would get over 20 mpg.

[nlongo33]

On the VV carb, if it is the feedback version and you are scrapping the rest of the feedback (probably either and MCU or EEC-III) system, then yes a small 2150 Motorcraft or a Holley 2300 is a good choice. The 255 V8 was also installed in 80s T-Birds, my neighbor had one and when it wore out he rebuilt a 302 for it. I had it's ancestor, a 260 in a 1964 Falcon. One of the issues with the 255 (shame it isn't a 1954 Mercury 255) from what I remember, the ports are extremely small to help with emissions and allegedly fuel economy. In a car it wasn't too bad, in a truck, I think I would rather have a 240 6 cyl.

If you do not have a feedback system, the VV, properly adjusted runs well and I stuck one on a 1957 312 with a Borg-Warner T85 w/OD in a 1958 F100, damn thing would get over 20 mpg.

Thanks for information, i will dig into that more today....

My ford buddy guru suggested these? Any opinions?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/New-Two-2-Barrel-Carburetor-Carb-2100-For-Ford-400-302-351-Cu-Jeep-Engine-2150/284114386860?hash=item4226897fac:g:NikAAOSwyJlf1wnh

or

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077HQP51S/ref=au_as_r?_encoding=UTF8&Make=Ford%7C54&Model=F-100%7C665&Year=1981%7C1981&ie=UTF8&newVehicle=1&vehicleId=1&vehicleType=automotive

 

[ArdWrknTrk]

Thanks for information, i will dig into that more today....

My ford buddy guru suggested these? Any opinions?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/New-Two-2-Barrel-Carburetor-Carb-2100-For-Ford-400-302-351-Cu-Jeep-Engine-2150/284114386860?hash=item4226897fac:g:NikAAOSwyJlf1wnh

or

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077HQP51S/ref=au_as_r?_encoding=UTF8&Make=Ford%7C54&Model=F-100%7C665&Year=1981%7C1981&ie=UTF8&newVehicle=1&vehicleId=1&vehicleType=automotive

2150 has some key features the 2100 doesn't, and by the recommended engine sizes you show it is not going to get good vacuum signal on top of a much smaller displacement engine.

Not that I discount your friends advice.

Ask him why he prefers that over the 2150.

[Gary Lewis]

2150 has some key features the 2100 doesn't, and by the recommended engine sizes you show it is not going to get good vacuum signal on top of a much smaller displacement engine.

Not that I discount your friends advice.

Ask him why he prefers that over the 2150.

Right.

Those adverts are very misleading. While those carbs may bolt onto all of those engines, they aren't right for all of those engines. Ford used different venturi sizes for different engines as well as different jetting in the carb.

As Jim said, your small engine needs a small carb to get a good vacuum signal and give decent part-throttle response and fuel economy. The 2100's and 2150's came in several sizes. According to Wikipedia "The 2150 improved on the 2100s design through the introduction of a variable air bleed system, which keeps the air to fuel mixture better balanced throughout the carburetor's full range of operation." And, it came in two sizes:

• 1.08 venturi, 287 CFM for engines up to and including the 302

• 1.21 venturi, 351 CFM for engines from 351 CI up to and including the 400

The 2100 came in several sizes, but they were also used on different engine sizes to give adequate vacuum at low RPM.

So while the advertised carbs will bolt on and let all of those engine sizes run, they won't run correctly. And the adverts don't say what size those carbs are.

[nlongo33]

Right.

Those adverts are very misleading. While those carbs may bolt onto all of those engines, they aren't right for all of those engines. Ford used different venturi sizes for different engines as well as different jetting in the carb.

As Jim said, your small engine needs a small carb to get a good vacuum signal and give decent part-throttle response and fuel economy. The 2100's and 2150's came in several sizes. According to Wikipedia "The 2150 improved on the 2100s design through the introduction of a variable air bleed system, which keeps the air to fuel mixture better balanced throughout the carburetor's full range of operation." And, it came in two sizes:

• 1.08 venturi, 287 CFM for engines up to and including the 302

• 1.21 venturi, 351 CFM for engines from 351 CI up to and including the 400

The 2100 came in several sizes, but they were also used on different engine sizes to give adequate vacuum at low RPM.

So while the advertised carbs will bolt on and let all of those engine sizes run, they won't run correctly. And the adverts don't say what size those carbs are.

Thanks for all the suggestions...more research to be done...just a Christmas tease of of a banner i am working on....shhhhh its not done yet

I have a wide format printer among other toys

[nlongo33]

Thanks for all the suggestions...more research to be done...just a Christmas tease of of a banner i am working on....shhhhh its not done yet

I have a wide format printer among other toys

[Gary Lewis]

That's cool!!!! What are your plans for it?

[FuzzFace2]

That's cool!!!! What are your plans for it?

I like the Holley 2300 in a 350 CFM size the only thing is does the truck have an auto trans and if so a kick down rod? If so I hear that setting up the rod to work on a Holley carb can be a bear to get working right.

I have used the Holley 2300 350 CFM on a 304 AMC motor and with a little tuning works great.

I could not get the MC carb to run right that was on it.

I cant see why the 2300 would not work on the smaller 255? motor with a little tuning.

I don't think I would go for a v4 intake & carb, 390 CFM is the smallest Holley vacuum carb I know of, but does the intake that fits your motor fit the larger 302? If so then maybe as it could be swapped over at a later date if you wanted.

Dave ----

ps, It sounded like you tried everything to get that cross member out.

Some times you just have to walk away

[nlongo33]

That's cool!!!! What are your plans for it?

Gary, plans are to print it out and send it to you as a thank you for the cool site and all of the work...and if members show an interest maybe we can get them a few too..

302 stuff will not interchange with the 255....trying to keep a budget and spending 250+ on a carb for a motor that we will replace down the line just isn't in cards, i am trying to low budget engine stuff knowing that the 255 will be getting removed, but i need to address drivability....hope that makes sense?