Ford X/flow 40's V 45's
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 січ 2023
- In this video we show you a comparison between a pair of 40 and 45 DCOE Weber's fitted to our 1900 x/flow engine fitted with a modified head 11;1 compression, 4,2,1 exhaust and a 244 cam
- Авто та транспорт
Great to see low end grunt being explored rather than all out screaming rev crazy power.
Perfect rally motor for the forest, loads of torque, better than a pinto, lower centre of gravity and lighter too, nice one Graham.
The x flow is a great little engine, mine made 153hp, in 1990, that was a fast mk2 Escort 😎
i had a 1965 GT Cortina 1500 then a RS1600 escort 1970-1 model + now a turbo subaru , got it cheap , then fixed it up all worn bits with top shelf aftermarket parts - now 280 hp 6500 - and 250 kph = so versatile my 2001 forester ej207 swapped .
😁 , on the occasions that I watch Your channel, I like the no nonsense, matter a fact way You present and show the world the various engine's being dyno tested. With enough info for your average or above average punter to take it to the bank as it were 👍 .
And as David Vizard sez , " I don't have an opinion. . .I have a dyno ". So that's where the bs stop's.
Some of the engines you test have been around for a long time e.g Buick/Rover V8, Ford 1900 X -Flow etc . And I'm sure everything that can be done to them performance wise has been done over the years . But the popularity of these "Old Bangers" still requires people like Yourself
Who are passionate and enthusiastic to share the hands on mechanical/technical knowledge 👍
You certainly get my
Vote👌
I'm in Tasmania, Down under. Judging by Ya clothes, I reckon it's a bit warmer here than there 🥶 . . 😂 Thanks Mate 👍
Another eye opening video, they keep getting better, thank you.
Glad you like them!
very interesting at the bottom end, most surprising gain [for me]
I agree on the 4-2-1 size. Larger will only kill some lower rpm torque/driveability, - and probably make the jetting more difficult at the benefit of a few ponies up top which isnt really usable for other than bragging at the end of the day.
On nippy 1460/1472 cc Coventry engines we use 1 3/8" primaries and 1½" secondaries and still pull a solid 140 hp @ 7000. One of the keys are to get the pulsing right in relation to the rpms.
Same basic header on a 1,7 Kent completely kills upper end power (The header was originally for a 1500 cc stocker in a Westfield. A new 1½/1 3/4" header was (hand)built in order to clear steering etc. and all the upper end came in plus some more midrange. It went from 128 to just over 140 hp. and was easy to jet.
Keepém coming. different set ups with different parts are always interesting.
Greetings from Denmark
Hi Graham!!!, great vídeo!!!.
What a surprise with the 45's👏👏👏 great power numbers there!
Greetings!!
The difference is similar to what you would see on a pinto with a similar cam
Informative, thanks Graham.
Manifold size is good but I remember the Xflow was very picky on the collectors on the primaries. That “box” style collector lost around 5-8bhp compared to the trye Y collector manifold, would be interesting to see one of the old Y collector Janspeeds tested on same setup.
I've seen exactly that testing on other types of engine...5hp gain going from 4-1 box type collector to a merge collector...same overall primary lengths and diameters. A 4-2-1 long primary merge style manifold is likely to make more everywhere than either manifold but at a cost.
Great result though Graham, strong hot road spec engine that...mapped ignition maybe next?
That would give a lot a drivers a good result in the 1600 class, back in the day😂😂
Crazy thing, now a MK4 TD Golf with a LSD and ×18 Dunlops is a match for all but the best driven mk1-2's at 1/4 the price but 1/10 the fun
Wow, big difference...I'm impressed and greatly mistaken also, I've always thought that the 40 side draughts were the better match for the Pinto crossflow, as the 45s would be too much fuel, but now I realize that the larger chokes, with the correct jetting is the ticket, more air flow and proper air/fuel ratio is the way to go...
I've often wondered how much more I could have gotten from my 2.0L Pinto, if I had actually tuned it on a dyno, back in the early 90s... I had a pair of Jaguar SU carbs, mounted on a homemade, angled, side flow intake manifold, with a 325 piper camshaft, vernier gear and 4 into 2 into 1 equal length extractors. It was very difficult tuning it back then, but I got it close enough, for my mk1 ford escort, to beat the Mazda RX7(12A) , and the Datsun 280ZX sports cars of the day. Best quarter mile time, I ever achieved was 14.2, which was still faster than a 5.0l mustang motor in my friend's Ford Capri... but barely😳
Why would you see big carbs as to much fuel, that whats jetting is for. isn't it matter to see a big carbs as slow air speed.?
so basically you could say, its just like on a fast road pinto... 40s are good for around 145hp and swapping to 45s will give 160hp.
Graham can you do this vs 48 carbs
Another interesting comparison, I got the impression that the 45s had less stand-off than the 40s, no idea if that is really the case but it looked like it, no idea how that might affect the fuel consumption though of course that is not the goal of the experiment.
choke size, inlet trumpet length and diameter all effect stand off, there is always standoff just some combinations it stays in the inlet tract so you dont see it. fuel consumption can be effected, that depends on whether it all gets sucked back in the engine or not
@@PenguinMotors thank you for the reply, that sounds logical and similar to my thinking.
I have to say I'm surprised in the amount of torque and power gain from 40s to 45s but I guess it is a 1900 cc engine, so obviously needs to flow a bit more air,, never the less,, great video 👌 keep um coming Graham 👍
Do you think the gains would be similar on a 1600 cc engine?
I don’t think the gains would be as big on a 1600 but they are similar to what you would see on a healthy 2.0 pinto
Are you going to do a kent with 254 and 264 cams in it
id like to but its such a pain in the butt st swap cams.....................
wonder what 48s would do or 40mm throttle bodies 👍
I highly doubt 48’s would be of any benefit. 40mm throttle bodies would probably give a slightly better torque curve as you can control the fueling better but your not going to gain a chuck of power with them
Did you ever do a 1200cc pre-crossflow at your dyno and what is possible with that engine? If you would use steel cranck, rods and forged pistons, 9000 rpm?
not done one yet, but the ultimate pre x/flow were probably 1000cc MAE, 10,000 rpm and about 130bhp
have you done a single 45 DCOE on a crossflow? perhaps on a lynx inlet manifold?
Not yet
Do you have any experience with the ford 1.6 cvh?
All these pinto motors had me wondering
Fixed a fair few but never modified any
So my 260 duration for my cvh might be ok?
260 is quite mild so will suit most induction systems but won’t give a big top end
Any updates on the 2002 or the E30?
not yet, lack of space means i cant even get to the 2002, its stuck on a lift with another car under it, but i should have some more space soon, so might make some progress. i will race the E30 again this year but it wont be getting any updates unless i break it.
Am i missing something here? dont we now need to see if 36 venturis in the 40s can match the 45 numbers? arrt we comparing 40/33 to 45/36?
yes and no, once you get to 32/33mm venturi in a 40mm carb, going bigger still give no further increase in air flow through the carb so power will not increase any further, but the signal to the main jet massively decreases, so you then need a large increase in main jet size, in all probability if you did actually compare 40/36 to 45/36 the bigger combo would make more power right through the rev range AND give better drivability