gerg

I think the hump and the guide would benefit greatly from not being there, the rear of the port I don't think is too bad. Cant be any worse than a Windsor Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

Early Windsor firing order Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

Yeah looks like cold gal Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

I would spray it in oil or something for now. Cooking spray works good Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

Weird, looks like they criss-cross down to the lifter oil galleries. Never see that before. Maybe that's how they get oil from one side to the other? Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

Best to blast them first, then get them ground. No good messing your nicely ground journals up with a blasted finish Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

Yeah I dunno, if you grind that hump out, it actually looks decent. The inlets might look big, but the shape doesn't look great (that's what she said). I reckon the inlets are the restriction here. It looks typically Ford of that era, with a ramp up on the floor and a sharp turn before the throat. Pretty much just 2V Clevos but slightly scaled up. Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

It could just be a standard worn bore with the ridges shaved to get the pistons out. I hope she cleans up nice, that's a lot of rust in there Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

The top crank does look like it has a shorter stroke than the bottom one Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

I have heard that wherever a Windsor or Clevo will go, a 429/460 will slot in, mounts and all. Whether or not the actual mounts are the same, I dunno, but from XA onwards, big blocks are a bolt-in job (again from what I remember someone saying years ago) Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

Here's a weight chart showing 351C, 427 FE and 429 "Lima", in all iron (first column) and ally head and intake (second column). I initially thought the 429 was heavier than that, by 80kg over the Clevo, but it's only 50, so there you go. Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

I'd class them not necessarily as Clevo family, but as cousins. Developed at the same time, has the same canted valve setup, same 1.73 rockers, dizzy, engine mounts, and very similar overall look. I think there's 50kg difference in assembled weight, but you can get that down drastically with ally heads and intake. Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

They are torque monsters, not huge on the horsepower though. The heads aren't much bigger than a 2V Clevo. Very frickin heavy too. Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

I would still buy their gear over the "Aussie" (cast in China) Arrow blocks. I do have to wonder though, why anyone would go to the trouble of making a new Clevo block when there are established Dart and World Products (the latter also cast in China) Windsor blocks that have years of proven service, are available in 8.2, 9.2 and 9.5 decks and can go out to 4.155". All you need to do is bolt on a set of Clevo heads and you have the same horsepower potential. Then there's the factory 351M/400 block, which is finally getting the recognition it always deserved and can still be found in junkyards in the US. Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

Dunno about Barras, but you could have a Bullshark in those backwaters now... It's happened in Brissy before Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

The offset on the early girls can vary depending on if they're alloy, steel, rim width, anything from +0 like you said to +15 on the really old steelies and +6 for snowies. So much for a standard track width [emoji849] Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

The old wheels will physically bolt on, they will just stick out a bit. AU-onwards wheels are a more positive offset (tyre sits in further). Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

Funny, I was just going to update on the carby and suddenly there's a new post! Thanks for that mate, that's not far off what I have, looks like you went a bit richer in the primaries and much leaner in the secondaries, I went 63/89 but I did open the primary main bleeds a tad (one drill size over stock, probably 37 up from 35), which has the effect of lowering the effective jet number but altering the fuel curve too. Your squirters are likely right for a bigger motor (351 vs 302), I have 25/37 in mine and it feels spot on. The biggest gain on this carby, economy-wise, has been idle circuit tuning. I have opened up the idle air bleeds a ton (it's at about 70 now) and it has made a massive difference to cruise economy. I haven't touched the IFRs as I prefer to play with the bleeds before drilling the metering blocks, and if it comes to the worst, (ie going too big) I can just drill and tap them for replaceable bleeds. So... This is the 4th carby I've had, and in the past, the absolute best that any of the others could do was 420 to a 65 litre tank, with the average sitting around 380-400. This last tank, albeit with lots of motorway cruising, just got 460 and only used 60L. So sitting around the 13L/100km mark. I'm pretty stoked, and I'm sure that on a long trip with pure highway running and a careful right foot, I could crack 500 k's. That's 6-cylinder territory! Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

I know this is jumping the gun a little but I will start a thread on this carby I just bought from a bloke in Tassie. My mum (who lives close) picked it up for me and will bring it up next visit. So I don't have it yet. I have (of course) already researched this model ad nauseum and have concluded that folks who have gotten them to work love them to bits, and those who could never get their heads around them want to hurl them into the abyss. They were a slight departure from the traditional 4150 (square bore) in that the main body is a completely different casting. The differences include: * Splayed boosters to suit the wider bore pattern * For some reason, the primary squirters are mounted inboard, squirting outwards. * Altered plumbing for the accelerator pump circuit, using a transfer tube and not a simple drilling in the metering block... Possibly so that only emissions type meeting blocks can be fitted. * Metering blocks with altered drillings for specific bowls that take different locating dowels and acc pump circuit routes (for reasons above), also dedicated gaskets for blocks and bowls. * Fixed float adjustments * Single fuel feed in a similar location on the front bowl to where the one on a Rochester would be, with a dedicated transfer tube to the rear bowl. This is unusual for a double pumper... Normally they're dual feed. * Rear accelerator pump is the big 50cc type (coupled with a suitable pump cam) to feed the huge rear barrels when they open * I'm not 100% on this, but going by the type of idle screw used, it appears that the idle mixture is reversed type (screwing in equals richer) These carbys were intended to be an emissions-compliant replacement for a Rochester Quadrajet back in the day, hence the lack of float adjustment, etc. This is a bit of a drawback, but not a deal-breaker. The ad was taken down ages ago, but here are pics of an identical carby: So as you can see, the primaries are very small compared to the secondaries, like on a Rochester or Thermoquad, which gives good low-end torque and economy. I went a step further and got a very rare 2-stage power valve for the primary side, had to order it from a place in the US. The reason why I went that way is so I can jet down even more for a good cruise AFR but have a slight enrichment at part-throttle somewhere between where the normal power valves are either open or closed. I believe the one I got is 1st stage 10.5, 2nd stage 5.5. These were OEM on the 1980s 5.0 Mustangs that had 1480 Holleys (an emissions square bore). They are not recommended in a performance engine as they can't flow like a traditional power valve. Anyway, I digress, it's all nice in theory but I will only know what it's like once it gets here and I strip it down. I might do an annular booster conversion, see what fuel bowls I can swap (probably none), play around with squirters and pump cams, jetting, all that lovely carby stuff. I was happy with the Street Demon up until recently, when it really started drinking the juice. I'm talking 300 to a tank when it was getting 400 before, and doing identical driving. I can't work out why and I can't tune it much now that my tuneup kit has gone missing (I suspect when the car went to the smash repairer). The cost of another tuneup kit landed from the US (whenever that would happen) would be close to what I paid for this Holley. Sent from my CPH1920 using Tapatalk

Shows how much a stock Ford pump will pump, no need for high volume. Also, better to find the leaks now than once in the car Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

Well at least you know it's flushed now Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

Oh no... Gallery plug? Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

Cheap Aussie power... Now to get the shit back in the horse... Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

My XE wags does this occasionally (and freaks me out when it does). I jiggle the key up and down/in and out while trying to turn it gently, it eventually comes good but I do spray some silicone spray in there from time to time to try and help it stay working reasonably. I think one or two plungers get a bit lazy and stay pushed out instead of springing back when they need to. If you look up how a lock and key work, you'll understand what I mean. I'm not a locksmith so I don't know the correct lingo but a key has high and low bumps on it that match the height of the plungers in the barrel, which if they're too high or too low, will stop the barrel from turning. If one was to be pushed out but not spring back, it would become stuck. You can also get stuck with a worn key being able to turn the barrel, but with a plunger still half-engaged, which may have you stuck in limbo like you are now. A worn key or barrel might also allow you to turn it before it's fully engaged, again leaving you in a pickle. If you can get the key out where it is, and maybe get another one cut or if you have a less-worn spare, you might get it back to "off" again. These locks were notorious for doing what you described though. Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

I think the old Castrol or Nulon inhibitor is pretty close, it's not an anti-freeze/boil as such but does the trick for corrosion protection. If running an 82 or 87 thermostat with a decently high pressure radiator cap, I think that's enough headroom to not worry about boiling it in a hurry. Running 30% glycol only increases the boiling point by 5 degrees or so, not really much to worry about on a grand scale. Biggest issue in modern times is electrolysis with alloy radiators, especially the eBay ones with questionable metallurgy in them. It's a must to earth them off to the chassis to avoid stray currents, etc. Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk