Nice tuning work! The customer should have sold the engine as is and commissioned a proper design for the purpose. Thanks for doing these videos, it is appreciated.
I did do a bike carb v Weber video, bike carbs used were not ideal In all honesty, but if bike carbs are big enough and on a straight manifold, (most bike carb manifolds being badly shaped) but if both are set up correctly and you have decent manifolds there will be minimal difference between them
Another good video Graham, cheers. I bought a Westfield with an all singing all dancing rover v8 in it. It was fast if you kept it on the boil but it was a turd low down which wasted the v8 torque appeal to me. I recon ed a standard engine and got the low down smoothness for the road that I wanted. Although it didn’t have the outright power as before the car was faster to drive. Horses for courses. All the best mate.
Hey Graham, great video again as axpected!! Tuning a big cam/carbs for low revs is a big science, that's why many ppl ends up in custom ECU's. I'd like to see some vid testing slotted in Weber usual ram pipes vs bolted ones (Jenvey type or similar). Last ones have the particularity of freeing up space inside the carb barrels and being more open, maybe it will cause some benefit (or not). Cheers!!
Very interesting Graham, I have a choice of cams for my new 2.1 Pinto engine a Burton BF63 or the Kent GTS1 and as the man at Kent cams says the Pinto likes lot's of lift so I think that I will use the GTS1, great video by the way, keep up the good work. Regards Dave.
I haven’t back to back tested GTS1 against a BF63, but I would expect 63 to be a bit stronger midrange, but im pretty certain GTS1 will be more user friendly and need less compression to work well
Graham talking of fords, Cast your mind back to ccc magazine days and i remember they did a ford tuning guide one month stating amongst other things a crossflow bored out to ( i think) 1780cc could be tuned up to a reliable 175bhp. Think thats achievable? Always happy when a new video is released on your channel, great work and full of information Thank you
Really enjoy & appreciate your Pinto engine videos. I am in the States and currently building the very similar 2.3 Lima Ford engine. Has big valve power head, 12-1 compression & .560" lift cam with 252 degree duration at .050". Using side draft ITB electronic fuel injection which duplicates a twin Webber 45mm DCOE set up, as well as a programmable coil pack ignition, set at 8000 RPM limit. Header is 4-1 with 1.75" primaries. There are no dyno operators in my area and hoping you could get me in the ball park with a good total timing figure and A/F ratio for max safe power with this combination. Ironically this is actually for a Ford Pinto that's now a dedicated autocrosser.
for WOT (wide open throttle) almost all engines wil give best power around 12.5-12.8 afr, most of the time you can go leaner say 13-13.5 and not hurt power too much if any, but a bit richer is safer. Going the other way it will make same power at 11.8 afr or even a bit richer, but no point in running that rich unless you have to do it to correct a lean spot somewhere else in the rev range. Ignition timing, assuming you have something like 93/94 US octane ( european octane ratings are different) it is likely to want about 30 degrees max advance, maybe 32. thats quite retarded compaired to what a lot of tuners your side of the Atlantic use, but compared to most V8's a pinto combustion chamber is tiny
Respect . Graham knows his job. More dont mean better. I wonder still about that dip at 3200 rpm. then picking up quickly. Might have to do with intake as well? Running without vacume on distributor? Would like to see test with twin choke 45 mm carbs on 36 mm chokes with GTS 1 and 3 comparison. But ok, it is a customer engine, not to fool around to much with it
a big part of the dip is the AFR goes rich at that point. a smaller bore exhaust would of probably helped a fair bit as the greater scavenge from, it would give would allow smaller main jets, thus better control over the fuel curve. vac advance will have zero effect as manifold vacuum wil be zero as soon as you actually open the throttles
possibly, but i think we would have to go a lot thicker, im my experience, really thick gaskets are not reliable, i would prefer to try and open out combustion chambe/machine piston crowns
I was always told not to rev pintos above 6500 as it sucks the oil from the sump, happened twice on my Escort knocked the bottom end out going to 7000 rpm, how do you get over this please
You have been told wrong, I Rev bog standard pintos to 6800 all day long, I don’t do anything special to them unless we’re going 7500 or more. It might slightly odd but for really high rpm you want bigger bearing clearances to increase oil flow through the bearings and keep things cool
Yes and no, I should have said no mechanical distributor will. A 123 distributor is mapped , but unless they have changed them I don’t think just 7 ignition points would be enough to cover the entire Rev range
Can you help me? Why the split carb executed on this way? It seems that one twin DCOE would do the same job. (fuel, air, sinchro etc) Obviously the distance between the chokes are different. A longer manifold would help though...
single dcoe manifold have there own problems and dont work well, the split set up is considerably better at the top end of the rev range. you dont have room in a Ford Escort to run a longer manifold
You got a great power band out of that considering the class limitations. My lima engine is even worse than that one down low, but it probably isn't legal in the class that engine is set up for either.. I normally run 275/285 @ 50 with 640 lift on a 108 separation with a "non ported" heavily machined factory head. (Long valve solid roller conversion and pocket plunge and blend is allowable, casting rust out is questionable 😁). Changing to bigger or smaller cams has little affect on power on most lima engine classes. I think it is a curse of the induction to head port and chamber design ratio that causes this by rules in the class rules, intentionally.. In classes I can run 4 throttle plates with little induction rules, it is considerably quicker in lap times with only an intake and carb change, than it is limited to two 48's... We have classes that require the factory intake as well, which further kills power and makes the Lima dip in torque even worse.... All of the classes I ran in required a mechanical distributor, and no ecm's allowed, even if factory equipped....
Hi Graham, not related to this engine but I was wondering how much benefit the air horns you can now buy for the Weber dgv carbs are. I have one on my mildly tuned flow with 32/36 carb and know of the theoretical advantages but in real world how much difference would there be. Just wondered if you had any testing of these
Though I realise that the compression test is influenced by cam timing it does look crazy high, surely compression ratio is over 14:1 to get that result?
Static CR is probably around or a little over 12:1, by way of reference a healthy but completely standard 10.5cr V8 Rover will show 175-185 on the same tester
i think you were thinking along the right lines, but just over estimated cr, 14.1 would be practically impossible to get on a pinto, esepcially one thats got standard pistons in it
Does the balance pipe on the manifold offer any benefit? You don't see them on an A-series Dcoe manifold and they also feed paired cylinders like on a set of splits
I had that thought myself, it probably has biggest effect at part throttle. Twin su manifolds all have balance pipes but that’s most likely to damp the carb piston movement
9.10 (stopped watching at this point) 123ignition can supply a distributor that will provide whatever ignition curve you create for it. So I'm sorry you are wrong. That engine will always have a "fuel" problem because it has been designed in via the inlet runner. Fuel only burns in suspension. Hitting walls tends to knock it out of suspension. That hideous dip in the curve is caused by reversion and no amount ignition timing will fix the problem. Ever. What's the problem? Pipes are too big = velocity to slow. Pipe length not suitable = return pulse timing fighting fresh charge, aka, reversion. Inlet manifold and fuel system are not fit any purpose under any circumstances and a complete waste of Weber carburetors.
ok i should of said mechanical advance curve, i have used 123 distributors. however unless they have changed them i dont think we have enough ignition points to properly map the ignition curve. i agree more timing cannot cure the dip, however it would of helped. it it not fair to say those carbs and manifold are not fit for any purpose, the real issue here is, they are not being used as intended, at high rpm. When road rally reglations prohibit twin DCOE carbs the split set up will give more power than a single down draft or a single on a lynx manifold, they are just not great where we are trying to make them work.
Split 48's and that manifold pairing 1+2 and 3+4 makes no sense at all, why bother ? Years back in bike racing days a guy did similar to a GS1000 and it ran like a dog as well. Cost would be the same or less to use twin 45's with much better results. And the cost of your time messing about with it must have gone some way towards a pair of 45's too ?
@@PenguinMotors Bloody regulations spoil everything. Good point on the SU manifolding though. However your test results still begs the question "Why", the motor doesn't sound happy at all under 5000. There must be a better way ?
@@funkiwikid6106 under 5000 rpm it sounds rather like an MGB B series engine, which isnt suprising as its only breathing through 2 inlakes. sometimes Noise upsets the microphone
@@PenguinMotors I think the last thing a race Pinto owner would want to hear is a bystander asking "Is that a B series you got under there"? Hahaha. What would you do for an intake to meet the rules given free reign ? It's an intriguing puzzle with lots of learning to be had.
That rather depends on the owners requirements, this owner wanted it to work at unusually low rpm so single 45 on a lynx would of been good, just dont go past about 6,000 rpm! if you take cost into account, a modified 32/36 on a ported standard intake with a spacer under the carb and another one between the head and intake would give good bang for buck, that would be worth about 10bhp over the stock intake system and cost very little. For high rpm use splits every time,
Nice tuning work!
The customer should have sold the engine as is and commissioned a proper design for the purpose.
Thanks for doing these videos, it is appreciated.
Thanks for watching!
Great results in the end, I'm sure the customer will be very happy with that.
Love the vids. Id love to see you back to back a set of 40mm R1 Bike carbs vs 45 dcoe's
I did do a bike carb v Weber video, bike carbs used were not ideal In all honesty, but if bike carbs are big enough and on a straight manifold, (most bike carb manifolds being badly shaped) but if both are set up correctly and you have decent manifolds there will be minimal difference between them
Knowledge and experience win the day!
thanks again for a top video graham,
Another good video Graham, cheers. I bought a Westfield with an all singing all dancing rover v8 in it. It was fast if you kept it on the boil but it was a turd low down which wasted the v8 torque appeal to me. I recon ed a standard engine and got the low down smoothness for the road that I wanted. Although it didn’t have the outright power as before the car was faster to drive. Horses for courses. All the best mate.
Love watching yer videos, everyday is a schoolday.
Enjoyed this series of videos, very insightful
Hey Graham, great video again as axpected!! Tuning a big cam/carbs for low revs is a big science, that's why many ppl ends up in custom ECU's. I'd like to see some vid testing slotted in Weber usual ram pipes vs bolted ones (Jenvey type or similar). Last ones have the particularity of freeing up space inside the carb barrels and being more open, maybe it will cause some benefit (or not). Cheers!!
Curiously I’ve done it the other way and used 45 ram pipes on 48 throttle bodies and gained power everywhere!
@@PenguinMotorswhich means those 48's maybe were too big for the engine
Thanks for the split comparison add on! 👍👍
Very interesting Graham, I have a choice of cams for my new 2.1 Pinto engine a Burton BF63 or the Kent GTS1 and as the man at Kent cams says the Pinto likes lot's of lift so I think that I will use the GTS1, great video by the way, keep up the good work.
Regards Dave.
I haven’t back to back tested GTS1 against a BF63, but I would expect 63 to be a bit stronger midrange, but im pretty certain GTS1 will be more user friendly and need less compression to work well
@@PenguinMotors Thank you Graham for that.
Graham talking of fords,
Cast your mind back to ccc magazine days and i remember they did a ford tuning guide one month stating amongst other things a crossflow bored out to ( i think) 1780cc could be tuned up to a reliable 175bhp. Think thats achievable?
Always happy when a new video is released on your channel, great work and full of information
Thank you
175 bhp from an 1800 x/flow is certainly achieveable, but thats full race spec and needs something like a 264 cam
Really enjoy & appreciate your Pinto engine videos. I am in the States and currently building the very similar 2.3 Lima Ford engine. Has big valve power head, 12-1 compression & .560" lift cam with 252 degree duration at .050". Using side draft ITB electronic fuel injection which duplicates a twin Webber 45mm DCOE set up, as well as a programmable coil pack ignition, set at 8000 RPM limit. Header is 4-1 with 1.75" primaries. There are no dyno operators in my area and hoping you could get me in the ball park with a good total timing figure and A/F ratio for max safe power with this combination. Ironically this is actually for a Ford Pinto that's now a dedicated autocrosser.
for WOT (wide open throttle) almost all engines wil give best power around 12.5-12.8 afr, most of the time you can go leaner say 13-13.5 and not hurt power too much if any, but a bit richer is safer. Going the other way it will make same power at 11.8 afr or even a bit richer, but no point in running that rich unless you have to do it to correct a lean spot somewhere else in the rev range. Ignition timing, assuming you have something like 93/94 US octane ( european octane ratings are different) it is likely to want about 30 degrees max advance, maybe 32. thats quite retarded compaired to what a lot of tuners your side of the Atlantic use, but compared to most V8's a pinto combustion chamber is tiny
Thanks for info! I will be using an octane booster to supposedly increase our 93 pump premium to 100, just to play it safe.
Respect . Graham knows his job. More dont mean better. I wonder still about that dip at 3200 rpm. then picking up quickly. Might have to do with intake as well?
Running without vacume on distributor?
Would like to see test with twin choke 45 mm carbs on 36 mm chokes with GTS 1 and 3 comparison. But ok, it is a customer engine, not to fool around to much with it
a big part of the dip is the AFR goes rich at that point. a smaller bore exhaust would of probably helped a fair bit as the greater scavenge from, it would give would allow smaller main jets, thus better control over the fuel curve. vac advance will have zero effect as manifold vacuum wil be zero as soon as you actually open the throttles
pigs ear to silk purse, almost, that customer wants to be VERY grateful for all your hard work...
thicker head gasket perhaps ?
possibly, but i think we would have to go a lot thicker, im my experience, really thick gaskets are not reliable, i would prefer to try and open out combustion chambe/machine piston crowns
Would have been good to see what the trusty 32/36 could have done to smooth things out!
It might of done but it would of lost quite a bit of power
I was always told not to rev pintos above 6500 as it sucks the oil from the sump, happened twice on my Escort knocked the bottom end out going to 7000 rpm, how do you get over this please
You have been told wrong, I Rev bog standard pintos to 6800 all day long, I don’t do anything special to them unless we’re going 7500 or more. It might slightly odd but for really high rpm you want bigger bearing clearances to increase oil flow through the bearings and keep things cool
Graham, 123Distributor will do just what you want
Yes and no, I should have said no mechanical distributor will. A 123 distributor is mapped , but unless they have changed them I don’t think just 7 ignition points would be enough to cover the entire Rev range
Cheers
Can you help me? Why the split carb executed on this way? It seems that one twin DCOE would do the same job. (fuel, air, sinchro etc) Obviously the distance between the chokes are different. A longer manifold would help though...
single dcoe manifold have there own problems and dont work well, the split set up is considerably better at the top end of the rev range. you dont have room in a Ford Escort to run a longer manifold
@@PenguinMotors Thanks
You got a great power band out of that considering the class limitations. My lima engine is even worse than that one down low, but it probably isn't legal in the class that engine is set up for either.. I normally run 275/285 @ 50 with 640 lift on a 108 separation with a "non ported" heavily machined factory head. (Long valve solid roller conversion and pocket plunge and blend is allowable, casting rust out is questionable 😁). Changing to bigger or smaller cams has little affect on power on most lima engine classes. I think it is a curse of the induction to head port and chamber design ratio that causes this by rules in the class rules, intentionally.. In classes I can run 4 throttle plates with little induction rules, it is considerably quicker in lap times with only an intake and carb change, than it is limited to two 48's... We have classes that require the factory intake as well, which further kills power and makes the Lima dip in torque even worse.... All of the classes I ran in required a mechanical distributor, and no ecm's allowed, even if factory equipped....
What’s the go with these splits is it because the class rules dictate that the original number of chokes must be used
Correct
Hi Graham, not related to this engine but I was wondering how much benefit the air horns you can now buy for the Weber dgv carbs are. I have one on my mildly tuned flow with 32/36 carb and know of the theoretical advantages but in real world how much difference would there be. Just wondered if you had any testing of these
i have tried them they made practically no difference on engines around 145bhp, and even less on lower spec engines
@@PenguinMotors interesting, thanks for taking the time time to reply, thanks for your videos too👍
👍👍👍👍👍
Like always, brilliant video! Do you have any experience with sierra/granada 8v twin cam engines?
done a few timing chains and head gaskets back in the day but thats about it, never been asked to try and tune one
Hello if a 2l pinto head has been skimmed 1.5mm and use a standard victor reinz head gasket what would be the compression ratio roughly?
If the bottom end is standard deck height and you haven’t opened out the chambers somewhere around 10.25
@@PenguinMotors thank you for your assistance 🙏🙏
Shouldn't the manifold have a balance pipe for tracktability? because the 3 and 4 then 2 and 1 creates uneven draw on the carbs.
If you’re referring to intake manifolds they both do, the Brooks one has it cast into the top and the Ike one has it on the underside
That ok then, I was worried haha
Здравствуйте.
Какой угол опережения зажигания вы устанавливаете на мотоле 2.0 OHC карбюратор.? Сколько градусов?
Engine specification makes a big difference, but if you set it 30 degrees @. 3500 you won’t be far wrong
@@PenguinMotors Благодарю.
Кстати у меня Ford Granada 2.0 ohc NEK, Weber 32/36DGAV
Why not just run 2 twin choke 45s like a normal race tuned engine?
Road rally regulations dont allow it
Though I realise that the compression test is influenced by cam timing it does look crazy high, surely compression ratio is over 14:1 to get that result?
Static CR is probably around or a little over 12:1, by way of reference a healthy but completely standard 10.5cr V8 Rover will show 175-185 on the same tester
@@PenguinMotors thanks for the reply, I am probably missing something..
i think you were thinking along the right lines, but just over estimated cr, 14.1 would be practically impossible to get on a pinto, esepcially one thats got standard pistons in it
Does the balance pipe on the manifold offer any benefit? You don't see them on an A-series Dcoe manifold and they also feed paired cylinders like on a set of splits
I had that thought myself, it probably has biggest effect at part throttle. Twin su manifolds all have balance pipes but that’s most likely to damp the carb piston movement
9.10 (stopped watching at this point) 123ignition can supply a distributor that will provide whatever ignition curve you create for it. So I'm sorry you are wrong.
That engine will always have a "fuel" problem because it has been designed in via the inlet runner. Fuel only burns in suspension. Hitting walls tends to knock it out of suspension.
That hideous dip in the curve is caused by reversion and no amount ignition timing will fix the problem. Ever.
What's the problem?
Pipes are too big = velocity to slow.
Pipe length not suitable = return pulse timing fighting fresh charge, aka, reversion.
Inlet manifold and fuel system are not fit any purpose under any circumstances and a complete waste of Weber carburetors.
ok i should of said mechanical advance curve, i have used 123 distributors. however unless they have changed them i dont think we have enough ignition points to properly map the ignition curve. i agree more timing cannot cure the dip, however it would of helped. it
it not fair to say those carbs and manifold are not fit for any purpose, the real issue here is, they are not being used as intended, at high rpm. When road rally reglations prohibit twin DCOE carbs the split set up will give more power than a single down draft or a single on a lynx manifold, they are just not great where we are trying to make them work.
Split 48's and that manifold pairing 1+2 and 3+4 makes no sense at all, why bother ? Years back in bike racing days a guy did similar to a GS1000 and it ran like a dog as well. Cost would be the same or less to use twin 45's with much better results. And the cost of your time messing about with it must have gone some way towards a pair of 45's too ?
Road rally regulations do not allow use of twin 45’s. So that are not an option. Almost every car built with twin SU carbs pairs cylinders 1+2 and 3+4
@@PenguinMotors Bloody regulations spoil everything. Good point on the SU manifolding though. However your test results still begs the question "Why", the motor doesn't sound happy at all under 5000. There must be a better way ?
@@funkiwikid6106 under 5000 rpm it sounds rather like an MGB B series engine, which isnt suprising as its only breathing through 2 inlakes. sometimes Noise upsets the microphone
@@PenguinMotors I think the last thing a race Pinto owner would want to hear is a bystander asking "Is that a B series you got under there"? Hahaha. What would you do for an intake to meet the rules given free reign ? It's an intriguing puzzle with lots of learning to be had.
That rather depends on the owners requirements, this owner wanted it to work at unusually low rpm so single 45 on a lynx would of been good, just dont go past about 6,000 rpm! if you take cost into account, a modified 32/36 on a ported standard intake with a spacer under the carb and another one between the head and intake would give good bang for buck, that would be worth about 10bhp over the stock intake system and cost very little. For high rpm use splits every time,