Anyone out there ever try a real Weber 32/36 inplace of the stock Holley/Weber on a Pinto or (?) IT-B racer? How much did it, if any, help your car? I have a box full of Holley/Webers. Is the change worth it?
Printable View
Anyone out there ever try a real Weber 32/36 inplace of the stock Holley/Weber on a Pinto or (?) IT-B racer? How much did it, if any, help your car? I have a box full of Holley/Webers. Is the change worth it?
Dick, The 32/36 DGV Webber made a ton of diffrence like 3 second a lap at Willow Springs. We had to add a fuel pressure regulator and play with it a bit. Which I thought was odd but it works well. Had to customize the linkage. There sure is not much to them and we still have the 1st on we bought. Later glenn
I have a 32/36 DGV on my 2.3. The only thing I don't like is that cylinders 2 and 3 load up at lower RPM due to the primary and secondary being reversed compared to a DFV or the stock Holley 5200. One good lap at 6000 rpm usually will cure it.
Glenn!
I've been useing a regulator from a co named Cagle or Cage or ? that works off of vaccum. 1 psi when your off of it and 4 psi when your on it. Works great. Have you or anyone else tryed drilling out the jet holes so you can use Holley jets from a full size Holley? One thing I learned was the carbs ar too close to the under side of the hood and need an air cleaner that flows verticaly, not from the sides. Worth 500 useable rpm. DICK
Quote:
Originally posted by lobster:
Dick, The 32/36 DGV Webber made a ton of diffrence like 3 second a lap at Willow Springs. We had to add a fuel pressure regulator and play with it a bit. Which I thought was odd but it works well. Had to customize the linkage. There sure is not much to them and we still have the 1st on we bought. Later glenn
Dick, thats right u said to use the tri-angle air filter. We have a 12 or 14" Moroso with a K&N and it does hit the hood!! No I have not drilled out the jet holes. i wonder if the DFV works better? Later Lobster
Here is some information for you. I have used both, and awhile ago did some flow bench testing of both.
First, the throttle bores are mirror image of each other, and linkage needs to be modified. Then, the bores are spaced wider apart in the Weber. This could be a difficult point if the part under the carb is sized to the respective throttle bores. Actually both carbs are internally dimensionally identical in throttle plate sizes, venturi sizes, and the jets/emulsion tubes/correctors are interchangeable.
Now, the primary reason for using the Weber is that it flows about 25% more than the 5200 (Holley)! How can that be, you say? Read on!
The Weber has an air horn (leading into the venturi) that is, coincidentally, 25% larger! It apparently provides a more controlled entrance to the venturi with less turbulance, which is visible with a probe on the Flow Bench.
Incidentally, there were actually "two" variations of the 5200, and they didn't have the same dimensions. The most recent iteration ,recognized by its asymetrical cover (emissions), has about a two millimeter smaller venturi on the primary side. It therefore does not flow as well as the earlier version of the same carb. Early venturi of the 5200 were 26/26, and the emissions type of 5200 were 24/27, and DGV's are 26/27. Incidentally, all Weber Carbs are cataloged by throttle bore sizes (34/36, 40DCOE, etc).
Both Weber and Holley carbs are VERY sensitive to proximity of the air cleaner cover. It must be place AS FAR AWAY AS POSSIBLE. The cover will cause turbulance at the entrance (square edges of the horn) that diminishes the flow at speed. No cover is better than a close cover, filtration aside.
Holley produced the 5200 under license by Weber in this country. It (the 5200) was originally an exact copy of an existing Weber carb used in Europe. When used in this country, built by Holley, it was referred to by the manufacturer it was made for, ie. Autolite/Holley, Rochester/Holley, and Carter/Holley. Inside the bowl is reference to the license and the name of Weber. After a couple of years, Holley made, and Weber OK'd changes to the body and accelerator-pump-discharge valve. The early 5200 had a Weber design of a plastic valve "inside" the retention screw (straight slot with lead plug that loosened up), and the later one, typical of Holley, used two steel balls in the body with a solid retention screw (Phillips socket)...these screws hold down the accelerator discharge nozzle. The bodies are different to accomodate the designs.
The choice is yours.
Hope this helps you. Good racing.
Bill
Bill, Wow!!! Does the air horn size make any diffrence. What air filter is the best to use? thanks Glenn
Keep in mind that the two carbs are dimensionally identical (in terms of air path way) except for the choke horn size, which is about 25% larger in area.
The size made the difference I noted, but as to filter, material is as important here as any other application. I was only highlighting the fact that proximity was critical.
At one time, I used a home made filter that had foam sides with wire reinforcement, that actually used the hood as the cover in an attempt to keep the cover as far away as possible from the choke horn.
I didn't mention that the testing was done with 2.3 heads and manifolds on an Air Flow Bench. Three or four carbs were tested agains't each other.
Good racing.
Bill
Bill!
I talked to several people at Ford and Roush a couple years back that told me the intake on a 2.3L was of such a poor design that a 500cfm Holley and the stock Holley/Weber made the same HP on the dyno. Did you see any of this with your flow bench? I tryed every known way to improve the stock intake for a GT-P motor I worked on. Only made it loose HP. Does any of the Pinto intakes work better? Thanks, DICK
I remember reading in various car magazines back in the 70s that the 2.0 manifold made 6 more HP than the 2.3 manifold, but an adapter plate had to be made that bolted to the 2.3 head, and then the 2.0 manifold bolted to that. Six ponies just from the 2.0 manifold on the 2.3 head! Of course this would be illegal in IT! The 2.3 manifold was made in the shape it has so it could be made using a permanent mold, and the ports were curved to accomodate it. Exactly the reverse of what is proper for power,and because of this, the intake ports have four different shapes, and they ALL suck! But Ford saved a lot of money on the manifolds.
By the way, Dick, did you get the documentation I sent you?
would any of you folks know anything about a Weber DATR? I can't seem to find any information or parts for it.
THanks
DATR is a transverse automatic choke weber.
Same as a DMTR, but with an electric or water driven choke.
More for FWD Escorts, VW Rabbits, Foerd Fiestas or carbed civics.
I had one on my Escort Pro Rally car; I have DMTR9s) on the race cars.
Easy to work with; good carb.
Mark!
Got the document you sent. Thank you very much. I feel a lot safer now. My computers in sick bay right now, so I'm answering you on this thread. Thanks again. DICK
Quote:
Originally posted by MarkL:
I remember reading in various car magazines back in the 70s that the 2.0 manifold made 6 more HP than the 2.3 manifold, but an adapter plate had to be made that bolted to the 2.3 head, and then the 2.0 manifold bolted to that. Six ponies just from the 2.0 manifold on the 2.3 head! Of course this would be illegal in IT! The 2.3 manifold was made in the shape it has so it could be made using a permanent mold, and the ports were curved to accomodate it. Exactly the reverse of what is proper for power,and because of this, the intake ports have four different shapes, and they ALL suck! But Ford saved a lot of money on the manifolds.
By the way, Dick, did you get the documentation I sent you?
Dick,
We didn't do any comparison studies of manifolds between different engine designs. Only the various combinations for the 2.3, which we were running at the time.
Actually, on the 2.3, the ports are very similar, except for length, if you view them in their individual plane. As in, looking from the plenum to the intake valve. The odd appearance is when you look at the point of head/manifold interface, which is at an angle to the port on numbers 1 and 4.
Bill
Hi Joe,
Thanks for the info - do you have a source for parts? the idle adjust screw at the base of the carb is missing and is plugged with some goop (RTV?).
Almost done with motor build and tranny re-build. I found a crack in the head and had to send another one out for a valve job.
Thanks again,
Drew
Drew--All you need is an idle screw? For which carb?
(somebody probably thought you did not need the idle circuit!)
Joe,
The idle screw for a DATR. Is this screw a "universal" WEBER part, like a DGV?
I've inquired at a couple WEBER part dealers and they don't even acknowledge the model numbers of the carb.
Are you racing in my area this year? LRP,WGI,NHIS,???
Thanks, Drew
Drew--I'm in Buffalo. Let me see if I have a spare needle screw for a DMTR. (Not likely because I just trashed a junk carb a month ago--but you never know).
A stock old Escort carb is a Weber, but it may have a sealed idle mixture screw because of emissions.
I'll let you know tomorrow.
Drew--I do not have a spare, but that idle screw is not universal.
For the DMTR, it looks like a miniature "stubby" hypodermic needle rather than a sharpened pencil (no taper).
Hi Joe,
Thank You for checking and the info. I'll keep looking.
Drew
Drew--the screw is .909" long; .230 wide at the screw driver slot end (with an o-ring--a wide one--directly in front of the screw slot). The thread is .425" in length; .100" in width. The needle stub is about .110" in length and maybe .040" in diameter.
It screws into the base of the carb on the rear SIDE (same side as the choke and throttle linkage.
It does not use a spring to hold it in. It is recessed into the carb base.
Good luck.