Carb?

[rockin86ranger]

I am nearly done with the rebuild of the motor for my truck (Of course now that i am finishing it a deal came up on a 2.3t with computer and wiring harness ) I have figured out it is a pre 86 2.3l out of a ranger (thinking about 84) It has been bored .40 over everything else is stock, i am trying to figure out what is the minimum CFM i need for this motor. I am looking for a carb to replace the one i know nothing about and appears to be missing pieces and am looking into some "different" carbs and just need to know what size i truely need.

I think I might add a cam later on down the road but it doesn't matter right now, hopefully i can find a header for it cheap (anyone know what years the header style manifolds came in and what year they made each style)?

 

[gungfudan]

I know LMC had a Weber Carb for sale, for the 2.3. www.lmctruck.com

 

[gungfudan]

and if you you know the total CID for your engine, after the rebuild, than you can search for a CFM calculator.

 

[rockin86ranger]

i know it is 2.3l bored .40 over but don't know what that equates to CI wise.

 

[gungfudan]

You are looking at around 171.59 CID roughly. That is if you mean that the individual cylinder bore is .40 over. I did the math and you are looking around 177.25 for your CFM.

 

[Insanejughead]

gungfudan, how did you get that calculation?

 

[gungfudan]

I would go with a Weber U can go to www.carburetion.com or www.redlineweber.com

 

[gungfudan]

I would look at the post I posted and the one Flaminranger posted about his 88' weber mod for some ideas. don't think that you can't use this carb just because we put it on our 2.0L it is not limited to the 2.0L.

 

[gungfudan]

you said the over bore was .40 right? well go to the TECH LIBRARY and click on 4-Cylinders. Then look at the 2.3L specs. the original bore was 3.780 x 3.126 inches the first # is your Bore and the second # is the stroke. The stroke did not change I assume? so I added to the .40 over the the bore and kept the stroke the same. here is the equation for the CFM go to http://www.ehow.com/how_6393767_calculate-engine-cfm-intake.html
Now the only thing i guessed on was the MAX RPMS because we don't know we onle have a reference from the old bore so I went a little higher to figure it out this should be close but not 100%. I hope this helps

 

[gungfudan]

http://www.piercemanifolds.com/category_s/97.htm Here is another site for the Weber carb. let me know if this helps man

 

[gungfudan]

Insanejughead i thought you were the one that posted this that is why i thought rockin86ranger had a 2.3 turbo my bad.
I believe this is close on the CFM

 

[rockin86ranger]

Well i was going to try to make a holley 94 7rt work on it, i think it came off of a 48 ford f3. It looks like it is just slightly underated so i might see if i can make it flow enough to work, since i already have the carb. Just curious if anyone can verify the 177 cfm estimate just so i can be double sure.

 

[Insanejughead]

you said the over bore was .40 right? well go to the TECH LIBRARY and click on 4-Cylinders. Then look at the 2.3L specs. the original bore was 3.780 x 3.126 inches the first # is your Bore and the second # is the stroke. The stroke did not change I assume? so I added to the .40 over the the bore and kept the stroke the same. here is the equation for the CFM go to http://www.ehow.com/how_6393767_calculate-engine-cfm-intake.html
Now the only thing i guessed on was the MAX RPMS because we don't know we onle have a reference from the old bore so I went a little higher to figure it out this should be close but not 100%. I hope this helps

I agree with how you got the answers, but there is still something that irks me about what we're dealing with in his engine.

I doubt that the cylinders were bored four tenths of an inch over size. Forty-thousandths sound more accurate, and that is .040, not .40.


So, I see that you got the equation right, but with the wrong number plugged into it.

A 2.3 (140cid) engine bored .040" over comes out to a cid of 143.3. If I suppose the MAX RPM would be 6,000 and plug it into the CFM equation, I come up with 211.4 cfm.


So, Rockin86Ranger, did you mean .040 or .4 (forty thousandths, or four tenths?)

 

[rockin86ranger]

.040 sorry, kept forgetting that extra 0, i knew .40 didn't look right

 

[gungfudan]

Yeah i was wondering too. I will change the numbers up in a while