what carb do i have on my 2.0?

[flaminranger]

also why does ford use a phenolic spacer under the carb if this is true?

 

[Kenneth S]

With a phenolic spacer between the intake, and head on a carburated engine it could see a very minute increase in power, but more than likely it will reduce power (if it would work every carburated race engine would have them between the intake, and head). The reason why a phenolic spacer is so popular between the carb, and intake is that it keeps heat out of the carburetor, since a carburetor has fuel contained in a float bowl(s) and if enough heat gets to the carburetor it will literally perculate the fuel out of the float bowl(s) just like the way a coffee maker works (which can be very bad).

 

[flaminranger]

got it thanks kenneth

 

[Psychopete]

FWIW I got a Holley 1920 for $20 to fit onto this engine by building an adapter plate, but the accelerator pump ended up not working on the carb. I took the carb apart and the metering block was dissolving in the gasoline. But I did get it to fit and seem to run well when the accelerator pump wasn't needed. It's too bad that metering block was junk, I couldn't find a new metering block and I didn't want to spend hundreds on a new carb. So I fixed the major problem that I found when I took it apart, and put it back together. Just an experiment I guess. My 1987 has a vacuum advance dist, but not sure about the '88 2.0L.

 

[19bonestock88]

that's an interesting thought... so the phenolic spacer doesn't stop heat transfer? there still should be a gain due to just the slightly longer intake runners(which would increase intake velocity somewhat)... might have to have him make me one for the carb as well... he has measured modest increases in the 1.8T VW crowd with a spacer... i know, different engines, but similar principles, right?

 

[19bonestock88]

and the 88 2.0 also has a vac advance dizzy...

 

[Kenneth S]

that's an interesting thought... so the phenolic spacer doesn't stop heat transfer? there still should be a gain due to just the slightly longer intake runners(which would increase intake velocity somewhat)... might have to have him make me one for the carb as well... he has measured modest increases in the 1.8T VW crowd with a spacer... i know, different engines, but similar principles, right?

The phenolic spacer does a good job of stopping heat transfer, but it is the second best thing to keep heat out of a carburator so it doesn't perculate the fuel in the float bowl. Believe it or not the best insulator is wood, and most of the pro stock racers use wooden spacers to stop the heat transfer to the carburator. The obvious problem is that wood spacers don't last like the phenolic ones do, but as much as they mess with carburators they don't mind having to toss the wood spacers away after a few uses. But I'm still intrested in seeing if there's any improvement using a spacer between the head, and intake on these engines.

 

[19bonestock88]

stay tuned here and i'll post videos of before and after the spacer... i'll warn you now; there will be some speeding content in the videos... can't really test the power gains without doing so... just know that i will make every reasonable effort to be safe and not get caught doing so...

 

[Mark_88]

Well, this I gotta see...lol

When I was commuting with my 2.0 I was driving mostly hwy and found, quite to my amazement, that winding out the gears to get up to speed and cruising at 65 to 70 mph used much more fuel than if I shifted a bit earlier with less pedal pressure initially (as opposed to flooring it) and kept the speed at or just below 60 mph...

I went from something like 250 kilometers per tank (62 litres) to closer to 400 per tank...a significant improvement just by minding the shifts and taking a bit longer to get to where I was going...

Once I got over 500 km from a tank but it may have been a miscalculation...because I couldn't repeat it...but, then again, I was doing a bit of board shifting when late or just messing around...

 

[19bonestock88]

i've experienced the mileage improvements from going 60 on the interstate, but it feels as if i'm going to get run over merging if i don't do it quickly... especially in traffic here... so i don't drive that slow... oddly enough, the truck got 23 ish mpg driving faster than i do now, when i first got it, and now if i ever exceed 2000 RPM on a shift(except interstate merging), or have to overtake, i don't quite achieve 20 mpg... i drive slower (but average higher speeds... think about it for a min) than i did and get worse gas mileage... and i keep up on maintenance and have tuned the engine up, as far as plugs, wires, dizzy cap, rotor button, ignition coil, ignition module... i occasionally run fuel system cleaner in a tank of fuel... is the leaky intake manifold gasket really costing me that much?

 

[John Smith]

I may embarrass my self but...

i've experienced the mileage improvements from going 60 on the interstate, but it feels as if i'm going to get run over merging if i don't do it quickly... especially in traffic here... so i don't drive that slow... oddly enough, the truck got 23 ish mpg driving faster than i do now, when i first got it, and now if i ever exceed 2000 RPM on a shift(except interstate merging), or have to overtake, i don't quite achieve 20 mpg... i drive slower (but average higher speeds... think about it for a min) than i did and get worse gas mileage... and i keep up on maintenance and have tuned the engine up, as far as plugs, wires, dizzy cap, rotor button, ignition coil, ignition module... i occasionally run fuel system cleaner in a tank of fuel... is the leaky intake manifold gasket really costing me that much?

but all those tune-up improvements you've done are really meant to benefit an engine that has a solid intake system with no vacuum leaks so it can actually draw fuel thru the venturi's rather than some crack somewhere...so, it runs worse, so you put your foot deeper ...the plot worsens...

Can we make the assumption that your intake manifold has no leaks?...then you can look at improvements for performance..untill then..it kinda like spittin' in the wind ....so to speak...again, IMHO

 

[19bonestock88]

i agree, and i know that the leaky intake is causing most of my troubles... put my foot deeper? no, i've actually slowed down as my fuel mileage decreased (i used to drive like a teenager and about 85-90 on interstate, now i drive (pretty much) like an adult and go about 75 on interstate, any slower and it feels as if i'm gonna get run over by a prius with all the aggressive traffic in my area)

 

[Mark_88]

Yeah, traffic can be a major problem...especially if you travel in rush hour...I ended up taking an afternoon shift for eight years because I hated traffic so much...and it was bumper to bumper when I had to go in early for training or a shift change...but after 10 am it was smooth sailing all the time...and coming home at 9 pm was almost deserted highways...

So...if you can...leave earlier or later might help if you can...I'm sure you considered this but just thought I'd belabor the point...

 

[19bonestock88]

a good idea... leaving college friday evening is stressful b/c of traffic, but the drive back(sunday night) is pretty smooth because it often happens after midnight... i still go 75 because i don't want to take the extra 20 minutes on the interstate leg of the trip... i just wanna get back and go to sleep...

 

[19bonestock88]

i has a pic of the carb now...

not sure if this helps, but i figured i'd post it...