Has anyone tried the four barrel intake for the 3.0

[8thTon]

I think before i tried to put a 4bbl on a 3.0L... I would put 3 2bbl 40mm down draft Webers on it. I think someone actually posted an intake manifold for doing it that someone makes...

Make an adapter and stick a big side draft Weber on the EFI manifold!

 

[Uncle Gump]

That might work too...

However in my VW experience... 1 barrel per cylinder with a straight shot to the intake valve works really really good. I'm thinking way to many twists and turns with a single side draft.

Years ago at my shop I got a chance to dial in four 2bbl 45 Delortos on a small block Chevy... pretty cool stuff.

 

[Dirtman]

I think before i tried to put a 4bbl on a 3.0L... I would put 3 2bbl 40mm down draft Webers on it. I think someone actually posted an intake manifold for doing it that someone makes...

At least that would be interesting!

 

[Dirtman]

My issue is scan tools dont tell the whole story always. Could be (and often is) wireing.

A proper scanner (not an autozone one) will access all the PID's in the system which will show voltages across each sensor. So you can see where a wiring issue is. Computer says it should have X voltage but the PID says it has Y voltage, theres your issue. Or you can use bi-directional control to manually activate suspected bad systems and see what isn't following commands giving you precise locations of the problem. All while drinking a beer in the drivers seat. It would be very rare to have a wiring issue on an efi system in an obd2 vehicle that cant be traced by a mid level scan tool. I just picked up a launch x431 which isn't even close to a professional/dealer tool but ive found nothing i can't acess, test, and diagnose with it yet as far as efi and sensor issues. Better scanners have wiring diagrams and data built in giving you pinpoint test availability. Add a DMM and a low current amp meter and you can find, and fix pretty much anything on an efi truck... Again, proper tools.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Have a look at the old Ford Capri's. Those had the 3.0, and those were carb engines. Research the intake manifolds, and carbs for that. There should not be any issues with putting that on a early 3.0 Ranger.

Rusty here is how to solve your problem with Rusty the yard art....can you put a intake, carb from a 2.8 and put it on a 2.9? Are they different?

The capris ran a 2.8L.


.....and unfourtantly yes...2.8L intake goodies wont fit on a 2.9.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I

Capri's also had a 3.0. Many youtube video with them.

Its not a vulcan then.

Cause the 3.0 as we know it wasnt born till 86.

 

[RonD]

A properly designed intake creates a pressure wave that acts like a mini-turbo at a specific RPM, similar to a header creating lower pressure at the exhaust ports at a specific RPM, so both are Scavenged power, free power using the physics of air flow.

Ford(and a few others) tried variable intake runner lengths in the first 2.3l Duratec, IMRC(intake manifold runner control) changed intake lengths to get the "mini-boost" at different RPMs, it does work, just not reliable in real world use, lol, which alot of "on paper" ideas have a problem with

Tri-power(3 carbs) could get better air flow but intakes could also benefit from shorter runner lengths for the cylinders at the 4 corners of the V6 or V8 engine.
Easier to create the reflected higher pressure at the intake port at similar RPM as headers low pressure

Remember, engine power has nothing to do with gasoline flow, 0, nada, with more gas you just get a flooded engine
Air flow is the key, make air flow better and you get more power
Applies to carb or EFI equally

EFI intake design was a little easier because you don't need runners to reach a center hole for carburetor.

There is an upper limit to air flow
When you lose intake vacuum in a running engine then no new air/fuel mix can be pulled in to the cylinders, this can happen at WOT(wide open throttle) if throttle opening is too big for the engine size
If you take vehicle out to deserted road, hook up vacuum gauge so you can see it, then take vehicle up to top speed and WOT, you should still have 1"-1.5" of vacuum, until valves "float"(max RPM for engine/valve springs)
If vacuum drops to 0" before valves "float" then throttle opening is to big

This is the reason too large an intake opening makes engines hard to start, you need minimum of 2" of vacuum in the intake when cranking an engine, to pull in a good air/fuel mix
Applies to carb or EFI

So "slapping on" a bigger carb or throttle body doesn't mean more power, you could lose power

 

[rusty ol ranger]

More air=more fuel.

You cant have power without air, yes, but without fuel you have nothing at all.

But yes to much fuel for the air coming in is counter productive. Like guys putting a 700 double pumper on a stock 302.

 

[8thTon]

Ford(and a few others) tried variable intake runner lengths in the first 2.3l Duratec, IMRC(intake manifold runner control) changed intake lengths to get the "mini-boost" at different RPMs, it does work, just not reliable in real world use, lol, which alot of "on paper" ideas have a problem with

The 2.5 Duratec V6 in my Cougar has this system, and it works very well. There is a throttle plate in one of the intake valves in each cylinder, and the cam lobe for that valve has a more aggressive profile. At lower rpms it uses only one intake valve and at higher it uses both. The intake runners for the low rpm port are longer and tuned for lower rpm. It is essentially variable valve timing, lift and duration, along with the runner tuning, without all the mechanical nonsense of moving the cam timing around. It's quite effective and quite reliable - I changed a transistor and broke a cable after 19 years bolted to the engine.

They used this system on many engines, including the last version of the SOHC CVH 4cyl, which was a 2 valve head. They had a smaller intake port off to the side of the valve that made lots of swirl, but could open a larger more direct port at higher rpm - even though it was the same valve/cam profile.

 

[8thTon]

Like guys putting a 700 double pumper on a stock 302.

Too large of a carb does not have anything to do with the mixture being too rich or too lean - mixture is based on the fuel and air jets used. Rather the engine can't make use of it, the carb doesn't meter or vaporize well because the air velocity is too low for the venturi size, throttle response sucks and it can't be properly tuned. It's more likely to lean out as the air velocity isn't high enough to activate the venturis.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Too large of a carb does not have anything to do with the mixture being too rich or too lean - mixture is based on the fuel and air jets used. Rather the engine can't make use of it, the carb doesn't meter or vaporize well because the air velocity is too low for the venturi size, throttle response sucks and it can't be properly tuned. It's more likely to lean out as the air velocity isn't high enough to activate the venturis.

Larger carbs flow more air.

More air means more fuel.

More fuel means larger jets.

 

[adsm08]

Capri's also had a 3.0. Many youtube video with them.

I

Its not a vulcan then.

Cause the 3.0 as we know it wasnt born till 86.

Wikipedia (I know, I know) says they didn't get the 3.0. I also can't find a listing for a 3.0 Capri in Rockauto, or any other parts house catalog.

However, ebay motors has a listing for "Ancilliary hoses" (They look like heater and coolant by-pass hoses) for a Capri 3.0 Essex of unspecified model year. The Wikipedia page for the 3.0 Essex does say they were used in Capris, but also does not list years.

They appear to have been custom installed in the Broadspeed and Comanche packages, and the Capri RS3100 had a 3.1L which was just a 3.0 bored 60 over.

But a 3.0L Essex would have more in common with the 3.8 or 4.2L engines.