Go Back   The Ford Barn > General Discussion > Early V8 (1932-53)

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-23-2015, 09:31 PM   #1
Pete
Senior Member
 
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Wa.
Posts: 5,374
Default 97/48

Here is a pic I forgot I had. It is of the 777 at Bonneville in 1957.
While not the last word, it does substantiate my test findings of many moons ago in that chokes in 97's or 48's do NOT enhance air flow in racing applications.
I talked to Bill Kenz, Roy Leslie and Vic Edelbrock first hand about this.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 777 in 1957.jpg (28.2 KB, 357 views)
Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2015, 10:45 PM   #2
Ralph Moore
Senior Member
 
Ralph Moore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Pole, Alaska
Posts: 1,470
Default Re: 97/48

Wow! Three flatheads, I'll bet that was something to see it run.
Ralph Moore is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)
Old 10-23-2015, 10:57 PM   #3
Pete
Senior Member
 
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Wa.
Posts: 5,374
Default Re: 97/48

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Moore View Post
Wow! Three flatheads, I'll bet that was something to see it run.
It was just about the most fun you could have with your clothes on.
Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2015, 07:34 AM   #4
JWL
Member Emeritus
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Fitzgerald, Georgia
Posts: 2,204
Default Re: 97/48

If you read my book the actual testing results can be seen of "with" and "without" choke plates.
JWL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2015, 08:14 AM   #5
PeterC
Senior Member
 
PeterC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 855
Default Re: 97/48

Pete - curious as to cfm flow rate differential between stock 97 vs 48 - I understand the 48 flows more?
PeterC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2015, 08:38 AM   #6
JM 35 Sedan
Senior Member
 
JM 35 Sedan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Near Rising Sun, Maryland
Posts: 10,856
Default Re: 97/48

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterC View Post
Pete - curious as to cfm flow rate differential between stock 97 vs 48 - I understand the 48 flows more?
JWL probably has test results on the 97 vs. 48 in his book as well. As you know, the stock 48 does have larger base venturi than 97, plus larger jets. I run a 97 on my '35 fordor thinking it may give better gas mileage than the 48, but no facts to back that up.
Now if you are running three engines and nine carburators, who even cares about gas mileage?
__________________
John

"Never give up on what you really want to do. The person with big dreams is more powerful than one with all the facts". Albert Einstein

Last edited by JM 35 Sedan; 10-24-2015 at 04:16 PM.
JM 35 Sedan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2015, 08:51 AM   #7
PeterC
Senior Member
 
PeterC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 855
Default Re: 97/48

Thanks John - re "Now if you are running three engines and eighteen carburetors, who even cares about gas mileage" ...



I'm running only one flathead albeit 284 cid Supercharged with twin 48's and as for gas mileage ... well I do not worry about that - still very interested to understand the flow rate as I do not have the JWL book.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg PB010301.jpg (80.4 KB, 65 views)
PeterC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2015, 10:42 AM   #8
Bored&Stroked
Senior Member
 
Bored&Stroked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 5,012
Default Re: 97/48

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete View Post
It was just about the most fun you could have with your clothes on.
Pete . . . you keep your damn clothes on now will yah!

One too many 'martooonies' and Pete can get wild!

Thanks for sharing - any more great photos from back in the day? We should get high resolution scans done of all of those. Even better - if you had the negatives. (I'll ping yah).
Bored&Stroked is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2015, 10:48 AM   #9
Bored&Stroked
Senior Member
 
Bored&Stroked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 5,012
Default Re: 97/48

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterC View Post
Thanks John - re "Now if you are running three engines and eighteen carburetors, who even cares about gas mileage" ...



I'm running only one flathead albeit 284 cid Supercharged with twin 48's and as for gas mileage ... well I do not worry about that - still very interested to understand the flow rate as I do not have the JWL book.
That is a very tastefully done and beautiful engine - very nice!

On a side note, an option for more CFM is to run Holley 2110's (mid 50's carb). They will bolt right on and I believe they flow about 210 CFM or so. They do have bigger throttle plates - so the stock SCoT case has to be enlarged to match. I did this on my drag motor in the 70's.

They made this carb up into the 70's (though with a 4-hole base) - used it on VWs . . . named it the "Bug Spray" at the time.

But now Clive is making his new 'Big 97' carb - same outward appearance at a stock 97, but with 1.175 throttle plates and 250 CFM. This is what I'd LOVE to try on a motor like yours!
Bored&Stroked is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2015, 11:41 AM   #10
Rowdy
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Gothenburg Nebraska Just off I-80
Posts: 4,893
Default Re: 97/48

Pete, if you want to drink moonshine naked on your own porch have at it. Just don't post pic's. Rod
__________________
Do the RIGHT thing - Support the H.A.M.B. Alliance!!!!
Rowdy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2015, 02:18 PM   #11
Pete
Senior Member
 
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Wa.
Posts: 5,374
Default Re: 97/48

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterC View Post
Pete - curious as to cfm flow rate differential between stock 97 vs 48 - I understand the 48 flows more?
97's flow about 160.
48's flow about 175.
These numbers are not exact but are generally close.
The flow of either a 97 or a 48 can be increased about
10 cfm by internal machining.

Almost ALL race carb rebuilders will agree that these carbs flow more at wide open throttle WITHOUT the choke plates. I build race engines and am interested primarily in wide open throttle operation since that is where they make the most horsepower.

I am well aware that for street use you should leave the choke plates in because the flow signal has better stability for that application.
Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2015, 05:53 PM   #12
Terry,OH
Senior Member
 
Terry,OH's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,725
Default Re: 97/48

Two of the engines have 4 Carbs. each and the third only 3. ??
Terry,OH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2015, 06:17 PM   #13
Bored&Stroked
Senior Member
 
Bored&Stroked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 5,012
Default Re: 97/48

Old Family Story: I have a 59L block that supposedly came out of that car at some point. My Uncle grew up in Denver and lived there in the 50's/60's - managed to get his hands on it somewhere in the early 70's or so.

It had extensive port/relief work and a 3 5/16 bore. At least the "K&L being the source" is the story - so I'm sticking to it!

It really doesn't matter a damn bit - but was cool when it showed up under the XMas tree for a 15 year old newbie HotRodder. My Uncle was not the type of guy to exaggerate - and I knew he took the trip to Denver to pick it up and some other parts at the time -> Set of Zoomie headers, Harman & Collins dual-coil and a set of 49-53 Navarro heads . . .

D
Bored&Stroked is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2015, 06:18 PM   #14
scooder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: 97/48

Pete,
As far as I've been able to find out, the flow figures you posted are measured at a 1.5" depression, the depression used for flow testing 4 bbl carbs. Now then it's only the 97 family of carbs and the 94 family, are the only 2bbl carbs to have this 1.5" test. All the other 2bbl flow results are a 3" depression. This includes the 2GC Rochester carb.
I'd love for someone to flow test "our" carbs, I'd like to see this done so we can compare apple's with apple's. Obviously the 3" depression on the Rochester helps the cfm numbers greatly.
Whenever I pick up a 2GC off the shelf and look down through the air horn, it looks so much more messy than the 97/94 family. Yet the published cfm figures would have you believe the 2 GC flows a good chunk more, due to the test vacuum. The real late Ford/Holley carb of the Y block stuff has throttle butterfly size almost identical to the Rochester, and a much much cleaner air horn. This is what those bug spray carbs came from. I've seen cfm ratings for them around 300.
Do you know of any 3" test numbers for these 94/97 families?
Thanks
Martin.
scooder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2015, 06:31 PM   #15
Pete
Senior Member
 
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Wa.
Posts: 5,374
Default Re: 97/48

"Do you know of any 3" test numbers for these 94/97 families?
Thanks
Martin."

Nope.

As for the 3 carbs, the 4th may be out of sight under the cowl.
All engines had 4 when I saw it run.

Dale: I talked to Ron Leslie about a year ago about the cams and he said the engines were all 296 ci. They all had 404A cams.
Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2015, 04:05 AM   #16
tubman
Senior Member
 
tubman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Minnesota, Florida Keys
Posts: 10,260
Default Re: 97/48

The front engine in the picture posted obviously has only three carbs; look at the fuel lines. Probably through the years, this car went through many iterations of power plants.
tubman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2015, 08:17 AM   #17
Bored&Stroked
Senior Member
 
Bored&Stroked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 5,012
Default Re: 97/48

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete View Post
Dale: I talked to Ron Leslie about a year ago about the cams and he said the engines were all 296 ci. They all had 404A cams.
That 100% rules out my block . . . as the bore sure didn't decide to get smaller over the years! Maybe it came out of one of their pull cars or farm implements???

Take care Pete . . . hope to see you soon!

D
Bored&Stroked is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2015, 10:44 AM   #18
V8COOPMAN
Senior Member
 
V8COOPMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: East Shore of LAKE HOUSTON
Posts: 11,106
Default Re: 97/48

Quote:
Originally Posted by tubman View Post
The front engine in the picture posted obviously has only three carbs; look at the fuel lines. Probably through the years, this car went through many iterations of power plants.
Most-definitely only three carbs on the closest engine. Note only three fuel lines, as compared with four lines and carbs on the other two. Obviously, fuel is fed from the opposite side as well. Even the water plumbing is different on this rear engine for some reason. DD

__________________
Click Links Below __


'35-'36 W/8BA & MECHANICAL FAN


T5 W/TORQUE TUBE
V8COOPMAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2015, 12:42 PM   #19
Ronnieroadster
Senior Member
 
Ronnieroadster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: East Coast in CT
Posts: 1,509
Default Re: 97/48

This is a bit off subject but the following details are what Holley did to the Y block 2110 The upgraded version of the Holley 2110 was produced for multi carb applications during the late sixties and early seventy's thy have a three bolt base the venturie diameter was increased to 1- 5/32 and the throttle plate diameter was increased to 1.425 the choke was eliminated and they came with extended throttle shafts. This version of the 2110 is rated at 365 CFM. On the street I ran three of these on my ARDUN for many years set up progressive once all three hit that engien would pull hard. Now I run two of them on a Scot blower gas milelage averages about 15 if I dont get to wild with the gas pedal!
Holley as Dale mentioned made them for the Jokeswagon tubular intakes this version had a four bolt base the veturie and throttle plate diameters are the same. This version included an electric coil on the choke assembly but they eliminated the extended throttle shaft.
Ronnieroadster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2015, 01:36 PM   #20
V8COOPMAN
Senior Member
 
V8COOPMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: East Shore of LAKE HOUSTON
Posts: 11,106
Default Re: 97/48

This little tid-bit of additional info (below) may at least partially explain why the rear engine install had some differences. The rear engine, according to this info, was eventually added in the space previously occupied by the cockpit during it's twin-engine rendition. DD

"With Willie Young at the wheel, the ice blue 777 streamliner became the first hot rod to break the 200 mph barrier at Bonneville in 1950. A 255 mph run in 1952 made Young the first American to exceed 250 mph on land. With sponsorship from the Rocky Mountain Ford Dealers Association, Floyd Clymer, Wynn’s Friction Proofing and Bob Jones Skyland Ford, 777 ran well into the fifties, eventually with a third V8 where the cockpit had been, hanging the driver off the back, slingshot dragster style. The machine was finally retired in 1957 after posting a trap speed of over 270 mph."
__________________
Click Links Below __


'35-'36 W/8BA & MECHANICAL FAN


T5 W/TORQUE TUBE
V8COOPMAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2015, 02:29 PM   #21
29AVEE8
Senior Member
 
29AVEE8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Redlands, CA
Posts: 148
Default Re: 97/48

The third engine replaced the driver compartment in the center of the car and the driver was moved aft.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 20-21-KenzLeslie777Streamliner.jpg (76.5 KB, 24 views)
__________________
Ignorance of the laws of physics does not mean they do not apply to you.
29AVEE8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2015, 03:49 PM   #22
scicala
Senior Member
 
scicala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Detroit suburb, MI
Posts: 3,697
Default Re: 97/48

"Do you know of any 3" test numbers for these 94/97 families?
Thanks
Martin."



Martin, I'm afraid we just have to assume carbs that are flowed at 3" hg will be higher flow. Would be nice to know how much, but would need to have access to a flow bench, or someone who has done it. Maybe somebody with more brains than me could come up with a formula that could calculate it.

Sal
scicala is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)
Old 10-25-2015, 04:21 PM   #23
scooder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: 97/48

Sal my friend,
There are formulae for doing the conversion from 3"-1.5" and 1.5"-3". My problem with this is that's it becomes a theoretical figure. This is fine for some. To me, I want facts, cold hard facts. I get that what ever The factual number comes out at, doesn't prove that this carb is better than that carb, I do fully understand that, but like I said, I want facts. I don't have a flow bench, probably never will, if I do get one I'm sure you can guess what's gonna be shoved on the sucker before its even out of the box!
My problem with theoretical numbers is that they can "proved" wrong with another theory.
Martin.
scooder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2015, 06:33 PM   #24
V8 Bob
Senior Member
 
V8 Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Granger (Northern) Indiana
Posts: 1,517
Default Re: 97/48

Quote:
Originally Posted by V8COOPMAN View Post
Most-definitely only three carbs on the closest engine. Note only three fuel lines, as compared with four lines and carbs on the other two. Obviously, fuel is fed from the opposite side as well. Even the water plumbing is different on this rear engine for some reason. DD..
The 3 engine car was rebuilt with 4 wheel drive. The 3 carb engine drives the rear axle, and the coupled front engines are reversed 180 and drive the front axle, if I remember the build article correctly. I think the single engine brought the car up to some speed, and the dual engines ran the high end. All three were built by Edelbrock, were 296" and ran an alky/nitro mix for around 250 hp each.

Correction-the car was converted to 4-wheel drive in '54 while still running two engines.

Last edited by V8 Bob; 10-26-2015 at 08:32 AM.
V8 Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2015, 08:54 PM   #25
Ralph Moore
Senior Member
 
Ralph Moore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Pole, Alaska
Posts: 1,470
Default Re: 97/48

Did some research on this car and it topped 250 mph in 1952( with only two flatheads), and was retired in 1957 when it reached a top speed of 270 mph.
Ralph Moore is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:16 PM.