Author Topic: JayB and HemiJoel question about 6X2 carb intakes  (Read 775 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

FERoadster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
JayB and HemiJoel question about 6X2 carb intakes
« on: November 08, 2022, 09:16:59 PM »
I've got Jay's book and watched Joel's comments about 6X2 and 8X2 intake Mine is a Edel F68 with 6 Stromberg WW carbs.
Mine flow about 20% more than those in Jay's test, Quite sure that those were positive linkage.
Wondering about positive vs progressive linkage. Getting ready to spend some money for linkage.
My 2 options are Ford 3X2 progressive and straight positive. I've got one of each and can duplicate another if I need. 
Balancing carbs can be an issue with 6 to do.
The fellow I'm sending my Grant Spaulding to (Advanceddistributors in Minn) said he'd advise positive since looking at the runners he would be worried about A/F mix in the outer cylinders in street driving.
Your thoughts:  positive or progressive linkage?
2800# car 4.11 wide ratio 4 spd 427 with a 428 crank Edel. heads flowing 300+ on the intake. Street driven only.
Richard >>> FERoadster

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7406
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: JayB and HemiJoel question about 6X2 carb intakes
« Reply #1 on: November 09, 2022, 11:31:33 AM »
I agree that with that intake, getting good distribution with a progressive linkage setup is probably not possible.  I think positive linkage is the way to go with that one - Jay
Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

StarlinerRon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: JayB and HemiJoel question about 6X2 carb intakes
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2022, 12:08:45 AM »
Six  WW's will be a bear to tune. You might try making the center two dummies at least to get it in the ballpark.

Ron.

Hemi Joel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
    • View Profile
Re: JayB and HemiJoel question about 6X2 carb intakes
« Reply #3 on: November 13, 2022, 11:21:18 PM »
I use s progressive linkage with my 8 carbsetup. The 4 center carbs are primary and have idle mixture screws. In not worried about fuel distribution when running on the primarys.  Vacuum is high, the cylinder fill is thin.
Synchronization is a peice of cake. Just hold it wide open and look down the carbs at the throttle blades. Adjust the linkage so they are all straight up and down.  The use a synchronizer on the carb air horns, one at a time to find find the linkage so the primarys are all pretty close and the secondaries are shut.  Then double check wot. Tune the idle mixture screws 1 at a  time for the highest idle. Since the carbs are all linked,  you only need to use 1 idle speed screw, just back off the rest.

No need to run inoperable dummy carbs. That's like stuffing a rolled up pair of socks down your pants to impress the ladies!
« Last Edit: November 13, 2022, 11:24:42 PM by Hemi Joel »

Hemi Joel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
    • View Profile
Re: JayB and HemiJoel question about 6X2 carb intakes
« Reply #4 on: November 13, 2022, 11:27:37 PM »
If you don't have one,  I have an extra synchronizer I'll send you if you pm me your address

pbf777

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 490
    • View Profile
Re: JayB and HemiJoel question about 6X2 carb intakes
« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2022, 12:43:12 PM »
     I would think that the progressive linkage system with the two center carbs as primaries would function reasonably well; as stated previously, with lower throttle angles and hence lower manifold pressures, and it seems that the Edelbrock F68 does seem to exhibit adequate area under the carburetors for communication so there should be adequate air motion and not be a problem.  :)

     As far synchronizing the carburetors, each has his own preferred procedure, mine begins with the initial set-up for start-up. Start by dropping all of the linkage from the carbs, then close down the throttle blades until each seats in the bore, now raise each throttle an equal sum with each throttle stop screw. One can choose to utilize feeler gauge stock or better is rod wire to establish the butterfly blade to bore or perhaps just utilize the screw pitch on the throttle stop screw, to present 'some' by-pass value. Remember that this sum that your adjusting for is idle control, which the correct some will be established after start-up, but also by realizing that idle and the low-speed tip-in of the multiple barrels is the most critical transition area for the atmosphere of fuel & air this for smooth transition of engine response and acceleration at low speed.

      Then reattach the linkage starting at the primaries or the carburetor(s) closest to wherever the throttle pull emanates and attach each linkage section so as it does not affect the at rest carb throttle positions; and if one-to-one, or for those units being of secondary intention, each time adjusting to remove any freedom on travel in the pull direction of each instance; slack in the throttle closed position won't matter as in each instance the throttles will set on the stops, but with it tight in the pull direction the intent is to have all throttles opening together (synchronized).

      Now your ready to start the engine, beware of excessive idle speed as there are multiple throttle bores in play perhaps presenting excessive open area, so begin dropping the throttles by the use of the throttle stop screws equally (if progressive that of the secondary units first) until a reasonable idle speed is had (yes, you'll have to revisit the primary carbs also). Double check that the linkage is not influencing one or more carb butterflies to be positioned other than your intent; this is often established by just dropping the linkage again and rechecking the previous effort of its' fitment.

      And now, pull-out your sync. tool and test for how you did for this initial start-up setting-up!

      There will be variations on the endeavor as for example: if progressive linkage is utilized you might want to drop the linkage again or just establish that it doesn't act upon the secondary units, in order to adjust and synchronize the two primary units together.  You'll want to have the secondary units shall we say 'on-line' some as one wants fuel to be in motion in the carburetors at all times as this reduces the tendency for delay of function particularly at tip-in, and this participation will effect particularly idle control so the trick, and particularly as the number of carbs increase, is to establish the throttles' most closed position against their individual throttle stops where it's is still at work, but minimally, this giving the greatest responsiblity to the primary units as intended.

       As far as establishing that the carbs are all 'exactly' at W.O.T. when such is demanded though appreciated is actually less of a concern; this is simply because the effect on the engines' function at high speed of a few degrees of throttle angle is significantly less than the headaches one will experience with such at low speed and low or closed throttle angles. But do establish that this value is reasonable, particularly as if not it would seem one might have throttle linkage issues which may also be presenting other problems.

       And now pull-out your sync. tool again and begin the fine settings for synchronization; if one to one linkage then all should be equal; if delayed linkage then the two primaries should match and be of a greater flow sum than the otherwise matching secondary units. 

       And..........at rest, all carburetor throttles should be setting firmly on each of their own throttle stops.   8) 

     Scott.                 
« Last Edit: November 15, 2022, 12:51:39 PM by pbf777 »

FERoadster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
Re: JayB and HemiJoel question about 6X2 carb intakes
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2022, 11:38:31 PM »
Scott: Thanks for the detailed explanation and procedure. I'll print that out and use it.
Joel: PM sent with my address and yes, I'm 1565 Straight line on Google maps from Rogers Minn. (LOL)
This will really be a oneoff build for the FE community.
Richard >>> FERoadster

Edit: I'll post a detailed picture of a Stromberg WW tomorrow. Everything is almost backward from a Holley and then I'm mounting 3 of them backward to get  the linkage all in the center for a cleaner (but more complicated) appearance. Not an issue to make the linkage though.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2022, 11:46:11 PM by FERoadster »

pbf777

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 490
    • View Profile
Re: JayB and HemiJoel question about 6X2 carb intakes
« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2022, 11:19:13 AM »
     Note that my statements create only a short synopsis of that with may be required, and is really only intended as perhaps simple guidance of general intention as each set-up suffers from it's own quirks which need to be identified with hands-on interaction and processes adjusted accordingly.   :)

     With ones' effort in the linkage construction give generous consideration to the requirements of rigidity and durability, as linkage that flexes with movements of unintended direction when being leveraged upon or that which changes positions of relationships due to particularly use and wear, will not provide the desired motion of the throttles.  And of course don't forget geometry which would include thoughts for movement/tipping ratios and angularities, particularly those which may induce pushing forces in unappreciated directions.   :-\

     In other words if your designing/creating your own linkage (which generally is best!  ;)) be prepared, as in a successful endeavor it generally will encompass significantly greater time in the effort, and of course as always, cost significantly more than one may have at first anticipated!  :o

     But yes, I have witnessed amazing contraptions executed, on-the-fly, and with the use of coat-hangar wire and duck-tape, but this just isn't going to be one of them!  ::)

     Scott.