Removing vac and emissions on 83 ranger?

[kimcrwbr1]

From the grey 8 wire connector to the computer just strip the sheathing off and the only wires you need are the sending units and alternator wires the rest can go away you can clean up the passenger side apron. Just cut the computer cable where it goes through the firewall and fill the hole with silicone. You only need to cut one or two wires at the grey connector, just cut the wires long for possible future use.

 

[kimcrwbr1]

Sorry I was thinking you had the EEC computer it looks like the MCU is in the box on the passenger side that box can go away I believe.

 

[RayInStl]

Yep it's gone. I'm holding on to it. Who knows, maybe someday I'll decide to put it all back. I'm not opposed to all of the emissions and computer controls as long as they're working. In my case, they were definitely NOT working. Some day I might track it all down. Assuming you can still get all of these antiquated emissions equipment.

It does clean up the engine bay quite a bit. I have a 2 bbl intake on the way and will probably be putting a Motorcraft 2100 carb on it.

 

[Mark_88]

That looks cleaner for sure...

The intake you are getting for the 2 bbl...does it have a hole in the back end for the coolant to flow from the heater box hoses through the intake? Not sure when they started doing that, but it actually helps cool things down and apparently the carbs work better with this feature.

There are enough heads out there that do not have this feature but most of the 2.3 heads I found had it and I used a splitter on one of the heater hoses (The cooler one, I think) to route part of the flow through the head.

My intake was from a 78 Mustang II 2.3 so they used them from then up to at least 91 (Mustang head) as that was the last head I had on my carbed engine.

Just curious...I think you could bypass that whole thing if you wanted to...

 

[RayInStl]

Got it on FleaBay

This is the one I got: http://www.ebay.com/itm/272038345216

I don't think it has the passages you speak of. I know what you're talking about though. My brother's 4.2L Jeep has that system and it really does help keep things a reliable temperature.

I'm a little concerned that the back of the intake is open like that. I assume it's so that EGR can be hooked up? I'll have to make a plate to go across it. I might try to fabricate something for the EGR system. I know it reduces combustion temps and reduces NOX. So I'd like to keep it functional if I can.

 

[Mark_88]

The area where it is square and open (I assumed the front end because I stand on that side usually) is where the adapter/sensor and inlet for the coolant to enter the intake. There is a part that goes over that and seal it...the EGR actually goes into the base of the carb on an adapter...

I know this because that picture is the Offenhauser intake and the one off my 78 is sort of a knockoff of that design. I call mine an "Offy type" intake...not sure though as mine is stock Ford...and the adapter is as well...I didn't realize it was an adapter until I took it all apart and found the part number on it.

I have pics of my intake...I hope I got both ends so you can see what you need for that front part...

http://i1179.photobucket.com/albums/x399/akwarian8/Kijiji Ad 2015/Intake-topview_zpszke39gc6.jpg

The CarbAdapt2 shows the side inlet on the adapter...that is for the PCV hose connector from the lower end (block) canister...and you can just see the base of that inlet part that goes on the end of the intake in the photobucket image...hopefully that helps...

 

[RayInStl]

So I might gave effed up.

The intake finally came. I bought it Sunday, he didn't ship until Friday! It was just thrown in a flat rate box with no padding.

I didn't notice in the ad, but the intake is a "dual port" intake. After some Google searches, I'm not sure I want this thing on my truck. I hear they were a gimmick and actually lost power over stock intakes. Is this true? Would it still be better than my stock 1 bbl intake?

 

[Mark_88]

I noticed that too but wasn't sure what it would do for the intake. Mine doesn't actually have that feature...I would do a search on it to see if it ever flew...don't think it did because it would have been more common...

Can't tell if it does work...

EDIT: Had to cut this answer short because I was on my Macbook and it doesn't like me typing more than three words or so...but...I searched on this just because I was curious and found this discussion...

http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/offenhauser-dual-port-intake-54881.html

It appears that the design was intended to help reduce fuel consumption...which it did...but there was some issues with higher rpm performance...I didn't read too much since I was just curious...

If it was me...I'd try it and if I wasn't happy...look for a way to cut out that port divider...I also noticed the ports were part round and part D port...or oval...maybe it was just my morning eyes are not working yet...

 

[tomw]

To my ignorant mind, it looks like a setup to use the Holley/Weber two barrel that was more common in the mid-70's. I had one, and it was ok, but the float they used was plastic coated foam(I think) that had a tendency to sink a bit over time, leading to more fuel use. If you can get one with a brass(metal...) float, I'd want that personally.
The two barrel offered better control of fuel - air at lower speeds using one of the barrels, and then when you needed full throttle, the second barrel would open up. The better control allowed for more proper mix over a range of rpms that is not available using a one-barrel design which is a compromise for low and high speed operation. It is always just a bit 'off' from what you'd want to do for best as it has to cover the full rpm range.
I think the dual level passages allowed for higher velocity charge flow as the 'minimal' charge at lower rpms was being channeled through a smaller passage, so it has to go faster to transfer the cylinder volume. Better mix, less 'dropout' of the fuel, and 17 other marketing gimmicks I don't remember.. heh.

tom