265 Carburetor CFM Needs?

[oldasdirt]

On ‎09‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 2:00 PM, Matt Wilson said:

I'm building a 265 engine, and I plan to install a dual-carb setup, but I am wondering what CFM carbs I should be looking to install to get the most out of this engine that I can.

After doing a pretty extensive search on this site, I see that a number of people are using the Carter-Webers that Langdon offers, but many of those folks are driving 201's, 218's or 230's.  I wonder if two of those carbs would be enough for this engine?  I don't plan to race it, but just cruise between 1200 - 3000 rpm.  I want to have good low-end torque as well.  Langdon's Carter-Webers are for a 1.6L Ford Escort engine, which is just under 100 cubic inches, so even two of them seem to be short of what my engine might want.

Any comments and guidance would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Matt

You say you want to get the most out of your 265 engine, but your missing way too much information to make an intelligent comment.   Is this a stock 265 or is it bored out ?

Is it a stock cam or is in a mild or wild grind cam ?

As someone pointed out, Chrysler put dual carbs on their heavy Dodge trucks in the 50s.  If all your doing is running if from 1200-3000 rpm and its relatively stock, then put 2 carter ball and ball carbs on it and your covered.  A progressive 2 barrel carb was never designed for an engine like a flathead with Siamese intake ports and even running dual carbs you are not equally splitting the fuel distribution.  In order to do that you would need 3 carbs. Clearly by one of your notes you have Tim Kingsburys carb information so I can assume you have also looked at that triple carb setup. If your truly looking to "get the most out of this engine" that is your answer.  In terms of what size of carbs you need, I would suggest Tim Kingsbury or George Asche would be the people to talk to.

 

 

[Matt Wilson]

z

2 hours ago, oldasdirt said:

You say you want to get the most out of your 265 engine, but your missing way too much information to make an intelligent comment.   Is this a stock 265 or is it bored out ?

Is it a stock cam or is in a mild or wild grind cam ?

As someone pointed out, Chrysler put dual carbs on their heavy Dodge trucks in the 50s.  If all your doing is running if from 1200-3000 rpm and its relatively stock, then put 2 carter ball and ball carbs on it and your covered.  A progressive 2 barrel carb was never designed for an engine like a flathead with Siamese intake ports and even running dual carbs you are not equally splitting the fuel distribution.  In order to do that you would need 3 carbs. Clearly by one of your notes you have Tim Kingsburys carb information so I can assume you have also looked at that triple carb setup. If your truly looking to "get the most out of this engine" that is your answer.  In terms of what size of carbs you need, I would suggest Tim Kingsbury or George Asche would be the people to talk to.

 

The engine will be bored out 0.020 or 0.30" (machinist will let me know).  The cam will be mild, with the purpose of broadening the torque curve in the rpm range mentioned - nothing radical.  I will install split exhaust or headers.  Compression will be close to stock.  Otherwise, the engine will be fairly stock.  If I can get two B & B carbs of the right size, or reasonably close, then that would be great.  With Tim's cheat sheet, I know what carb part numbers were originally used and what size they are (in terms of throttle bore and venturi size), but I'm not confident that I can find those exact carbs, and assuming I can't, then I'm not sure what other B & B carbs would make suitable substitutes, much less where to find them.  Meanwhile, I figured it wouldn't hurt to see what other options exist, including asking for people's experiences with Langdon's carbs.

I have indeed looked at the triple carb manifolds, but Tim and George are sold out of them and are unlikely to make any more, at least any time soon.  I had the opportunity to get one a few months ago, but I didn't take that opportunity, which was probably a mistake.  Nonetheless, I think a dual-carb setup will work pretty well - certainly better than a single carb in the center of the manifold, like most smaller Mopar flatheads had from the factory.  George has run duals for many years with great success.  In fact, I looked into getting a dual-carb setup built by George (carbs rebuilt by him, and linkage set up by him), but none of that stuff is likely to be gotten from George at this point, unless you are already in line for an order.  Based on a recent post by Tim in another thread, it seems that George is doing the best he can to get through his current backlog of orders, and is not taking any more orders, at least not for the foreseeable future.  He's up in age and had some health issues lately, so I certainly can't blame him.  He's done way more than his fair share for the flathead community.  Besides, a few months ago, he and Tim weren't too keen on the prospect that I could not find ethanol-free gas in my area, and would most likely be running E10 gas in their carbs.  And I think George is practically out of carbs, so it's not like I can purchase some from him and rebuild them myself.  So...bottom line is that I'm trying to do the research myself.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Matt Wilson

[nonstop]

2 hours ago, oldasdirt said:

Can you tell me where you got the CFM  rating of 300-380 cfm ?    When they were released for the 225 ci slant six the carter webers were listed as 185 cfm and that is what I was told by Tom Langdon that they were equivalent to,

Sure thing! I just googled CFM ratings for them. Everything I found indicated they were 300-385 CFM. I could be wrong on it (I would trust Langdon's numbers, as he's the pro at it) but the internet never lies.....right?

 

And Matt, my apologies. It was two Carter/Weber 32's. My buddy ordered them from Langdon, and we put them on and tuned them (it was his truck after all).  They run awesome and didn't take much tuning.

[Matt Wilson]

6 minutes ago, nonstop said:

Sure thing! I just googled CFM ratings for them. Everything I found indicated they were 300-385 CFM. I could be wrong on it (I would trust Langdon's numbers, as he's the pro at it) but the internet never lies.....right?

 

And Matt, my apologies. It was two Carter/Weber 32's. My buddy ordered them from Langdon, and we put them on and tuned them (it was his truck after all).  They run awesome and didn't take much tuning.

No worries, thanks for the clearing that up.  Ok, so 32/36 carbs are 300 - 385 cfm, but your buddy is actually running the Carter-Weber 32's.  Good to know.  Maybe the 185 cfm that oldasdirt mentioned is for the Carter-Weber 32, not for the 32/36?  I may just need to call Langdon back to find out for sure.  Also, it's good to hear that they didn't require much tuning.  That's what Langdon said as well, which is good in my book.  I don't want to have to mess around with them.

Thanks.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Matt Wilson

[Matt Wilson]

Hey Nonstop, how much difficulty was there in getting ypur buddy's two carbs synchronized with each other and running well together?  Did you buy one of those synchronizers that are made specifically for this?  And was the linkage from Langdon's?  How much fussing around was there in getting the linkage going properly?  Let me know if there was any part of it to pay extra-special attention to, or any other special tools or procedures required.

Thanks.

[greg g]

 300 x 2???

[MackTheFinger]

There's a dual carb intake and exhaust setup on that big auction site listed for Dodge and Chrysler flatheads. It's not mine and I don't know what it might fit but may be worth looking at for someone who does.

[Matt Wilson]

Yep, I saw that, and it did pique my interest, but it appears to be well-used and has an intake runner that looks like it broke, or at least cracked, and has been welded.  It's probably fine, but just didn't give me the comfort level I was looking for. 

Instead, I opted for a Nicson Dodge 25" engine manifold (2-carb) that was on ebay and just last night, I ordered two of Langdon's Carter-Weber 32 carbs and accessories to go along with those.  I may end up getting his cast iron (malleable iron) headers, too.

[oldasdirt]

On ‎11‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 1:02 AM, Matt Wilson said:

z

 

The engine will be bored out 0.020 or 0.30" (machinist will let me know).  The cam will be mild, with the purpose of broadening the torque curve in the rpm range mentioned - nothing radical.  I will install split exhaust or headers.  Compression will be close to stock.  Otherwise, the engine will be fairly stock.  If I can get two B & B carbs of the right size, or reasonably close, then that would be great.  With Tim's cheat sheet, I know what carb part numbers were originally used and what size they are (in terms of throttle bore and venturi size), but I'm not confident that I can find those exact carbs, and assuming I can't, then I'm not sure what other B & B carbs would make suitable substitutes, much less where to find them.  Meanwhile, I figured it wouldn't hurt to see what other options exist, including asking for people's experiences with Langdon's carbs.

I have indeed looked at the triple carb manifolds, but Tim and George are sold out of them and are unlikely to make any more, at least any time soon.  I had the opportunity to get one a few months ago, but I didn't take that opportunity, which was probably a mistake.  Nonetheless, I think a dual-carb setup will work pretty well - certainly better than a single carb in the center of the manifold, like most smaller Mopar flatheads had from the factory.  George has run duals for many years with great success.  In fact, I looked into getting a dual-carb setup built by George (carbs rebuilt by him, and linkage set up by him), but none of that stuff is likely to be gotten from George at this point, unless you are already in line for an order.  Based on a recent post by Tim in another thread, it seems that George is doing the best he can to get through his current backlog of orders, and is not taking any more orders, at least not for the foreseeable future.  He's up in age and had some health issues lately, so I certainly can't blame him.  He's done way more than his fair share for the flathead community.  Besides, a few months ago, he and Tim weren't too keen on the prospect that I could not find ethanol-free gas in my area, and would most likely be running E10 gas in their carbs.  And I think George is practically out of carbs, so it's not like I can purchase some from him and rebuild them myself.  So...bottom line is that I'm trying to do the research myself.

Well as soon as I read Ethanol, you can forget getting all you can out of your engine, That stuff tears through normal carb kits.   For 2 vs 3 carbs it all about balancing fuel to  each cylinder.   You will be just fine with 2 carbs from  a CFM stand point, but I would be joining Tim and George on ethanol. That is just not great stuff at all.   On the Carter Webbers, the ones he did have were designed for slant 6 engines which have 6 intake ports, less cubic inches, were valve in head, had equalize intake runners and were just not comparable to the L-head or flathead engines. I bought a pair but found just above idle I was into the secondary's, which really defeated the purpose of the 2 barrel configuration. At the time, I looked up the carter webbers I bought from him and they were 185 cfm.   That doesn't mean he is selling something different now. For me, I wasn't impressed and was a lot happier when I went back to a pair of carter ball and ball carbs from Dodge trucks.

[oldasdirt]

On ‎11‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 1:16 AM, nonstop said:

Sure thing! I just googled CFM ratings for them. Everything I found indicated they were 300-385 CFM. I could be wrong on it (I would trust Langdon's numbers, as he's the pro at it) but the internet never lies.....right?

 

And Matt, my apologies. It was two Carter/Weber 32's. My buddy ordered them from Langdon, and we put them on and tuned them (it was his truck after all).  They run awesome and didn't take much tuning.

Well Tom Langdon does not list the CFM rating and to my knowledge never did. I bought a pair several years ago and I can tell you the pair didn't equal 385 cfm. They were 185 cfm each. That's not speculation,  or internet chatter, that is a fact.    I too had read several comments,  all seemingly coming from 1 source and when I asked that person where they got their information  its was based on some Wikipedia article which he failed to find, but interestingly was topical when he had several for sale on ebay.

Now Tom maybe selling different ones now, I have no idea. That is why I asked the source of the CFM rating. The ones he were selling did indeed take almost no tuning, but immediately were on the secondary's not much above idle and I felt were a little light in terms of total CFM.   When I switched to a pair for carter ball and ball truck carbs, it was like night and day. Better throttle response, better fuel mileage at comparable speeds and more power when you got into the throttle.

[Matt Wilson]

2 hours ago, oldasdirt said:

 

Now Tom maybe selling different ones now, I have no idea. That is why I asked the source of the CFM rating. The ones he were selling did indeed take almost no tuning, but immediately were on the secondary's not much above idle and I felt were a little light in terms of total CFM.   When I switched to a pair for carter ball and ball truck carbs, it was like night and day. Better throttle response, better fuel mileage at comparable speeds and more power when you got into the throttle.

Well, too late now.  I asked Tom of he had the cfm ratings for the Carter-Weber 32's and he said he did not, but he estimated they were in the 350 cfm range, and said they would be plenty for my 265, and it seems like they should be, but if not, then oh well...I'll keep looking for B & B carbs.  Some folks seem to love Tom's setup, so I guess we'll see. 

Thanks for the feedback.  At least now I know that if I end up not being satisfied with these, then it might be worth pursuing other options.

 

[oldasdirt]

On ‎14‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 6:31 PM, Matt Wilson said:

Well, too late now.  I asked Tom of he had the cfm ratings for the Carter-Weber 32's and he said he did not, but he estimated they were in the 350 cfm range, and said they would be plenty for my 265, and it seems like they should be, but if not, then oh well...I'll keep looking for B & B carbs.  Some folks seem to love Tom's setup, so I guess we'll see. 

Thanks for the feedback.  At least now I know that if I end up not being satisfied with these, then it might be worth pursuing other options.

 

350 cfm for the pair would be a fair and conservative number which for what is pretty much a slightly over stock motor with what you described as being used as fine. I think Ethanol is your bigger challenge and issue, that two barrel carbs which will be on the secondary's all the time.

[knuckleharley]

Guys,why is it I never see the Ford 1904 single barrel carbs mentioned? GREAT carbs of a semi-modern design that Ford used on all the 6's for maybe 10 years starting in 52 or 53. Granted,they seem to be selling for big bucks in some areas of the country now based on what I see on ebay,but I have several that people just gave to me to get rid of them.

For some reason I have never understood,it seems like a lot of people back in the 60's and earlier used to like to take carbs off cars they were junking,and keep them for some reason. It was almost impossible to go to a junk yard at one time to buy a used carb because every time you would raise the hood the carb would be missing.

Anyhow,the 1904 was used on the 215 and 223 6's,so they are in the right size range.

They may have even been used on the 300 cubic inch 6's,but that seems doubtful.

[Matt Wilson]

5 hours ago, oldasdirt said:

350 cfm for the pair would be a fair and conservative number which for what is pretty much a slightly over stock motor with what you described as being used as fine. I think Ethanol is your bigger challenge and issue, that two barrel carbs which will be on the secondary's all the time.

I think Tom meant 350 cfm for each carb, but I'm not sure.  I've recently spoken to, or other corresponded with, a few other guys who have duals of these carbs on engines of similar size to mine, and they seem to be really happy with them, so I'm looking forward to trying them.  That includes some folks who have nothing but E10 gas available to them, so that's what they run all the time.

Edit:  Actually, I think it is 350 for the pair, not each.  I was having a brain #$@! when I first wrote my response....

Edited May 22, 2017 by Matt Wilson

[55 Fargo]

You have been at this for a good while now Matt, what did you ever do with the hopped up 230?

[Matt Wilson]

On ‎5‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 4:40 PM, 55 Fargo Spitfire said:

You have been at this for a good while now Matt, what did you ever do with the hopped up 230?

Ah, that was a long time ago.  I rebuilt that engine, installing the Vintage Power Wagons camshaft, and milling the head as mentioned.  I intended to install a dual carb intake manifold, and I even purchased an Offy intake and a couple of B & B carbs, although the two carbs didn't match each other.  I installed one of those carbs on the stock intake, but never got around to installing a dual carb setup or split exhaust or the Pertronix ignition setup.  That engine had some problems, mostly due to the poor work by the first machinist I used.  He came highly recommended by a co-worker of mine, but I can't imagine why, as I later found out that he had done poor work for other people, too.  I corrected most of the problems I found, by taking some parts to another machine shop, but some things I didn't realize till after assembly and it almost destroyed the engine.  Other stuff I didn't realize till years later, but that's a long story. The engine ran fine, but I could see signs that it would not last too terribly long in some areas, so I decided to take it out of the truck and fix the problems I had found, but after I took it out, I let it sit for five years on the engine stand and I never got around to fixing those problems.  Once I got the time, money and interest to get it going again, I decided to opt for a 265 flathead.  I figured I would get the most I could, while keeping a flathead in the truck.  So that's what I'm working on building currently..

I will say that the 230 was ok on power, for its size, even on the highway.  I guess the VPW camshaft may have done what was advertised.  I could cruise along at close to 60mph on flat ground, and even on very slight inclines.  With the dual carb setup, and better exhaust, I suppose it would have even a little better.

[55 Fargo]

 A 230 with the right gearing should be 70+mph all day long.

What on earth did your engine builder do wrong?

I would think a well rebuilt engine should have been good for a 100k.

Mismatched Carter B&Bs would not be a good thing, a matched set in good shape, are a great mix especially the large truck types I have with about 400 CFM combined.

I also have a 265 waiting for the ultimate build.

Even with my tired 228 engine I now have, it launchs and cruises quite well with the AoK racing intake, exhaust and Carter B&B carbs..

[knuckleharley]

9 hours ago, 55 Fargo Spitfire said:

 A 230 with the right gearing should be 70+mph all day long.

What on earth did your engine builder do wrong?

I would think a well rebuilt engine should have been good for a 100k.

Mismatched Carter B&Bs would not be a good thing, a matched set in good shape, are a great mix especially the large truck types I have with about 400 CFM combined.

I also have a 265 waiting for the ultimate build.

Even with my tired 228 engine I now have, it launchs and cruises quite well with the AoK racing intake, exhaust and Carter B&B carbs..

I agree. Back when these cars were new or sitting on used car lots,they were driving 55-60 MPH on a daily basis,and nobody thought anything about it because they were BUILT to run at 50's highway speeds.

And these were dead stock 218's and 230 with the one original single barrel carb on them,not hotted up ones.

Edited May 27, 2017 by knuckleharley

[Matt Wilson]

Well, when we're talking about Power Wagons, it's a different story.  The stock axle gearing (5.83:1) and tires (9.00 x 16.00) won't let you get more than about 55 - 58 mph, and that's only if you're comfortable pegging the engine against its governor at 3200 rpm.  Most guys aren't comfortable doing that, so they cruise along at about 45 mph.  The Power Wagons could be ordered with 4.89 axle gearing, and this gearing has been reproduced periodically over the years and is a popular upgrade for these trucks.  This won't allow as much of an increase as the ratio change would indicate - maybe 60 or a little above on flat roads - because the stock 230 doesn't have the torque to overcome the drag/resistance/weight of the truck especially on an incline, but it allows the engine to rev quite a bit lower at any speed.  The Power Wagon has a lot of aerodynamic drag, and rolling resistance with those large tires, and it is a heavy vehicle, weighing in at about 5300 - 5500 lbs empty weight.  My Power Wagon has tires that are a couple of inches larger than stock, and I have the 4.89 gears, so even with a slightly modified 230, it didn't have excess power.  I didn't mind it too much, but it could have used more.  Relatively small hills were enough to slow it down.  If I had gone through with the dual carb and headers, maybe it would have had a little more umph for the road.  It's getting late here, so I'll try to remember to get back on in the next day or two and talk about the machine shop experience I had.