Search



Go Back   MustangForums.com > Ford Mustang Tech > Classic Mustangs (Tech)
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?
Search

Classic Mustangs (Tech) Technical discussions about the Mustangs of yester-year.

Welcome to Mustang Forums!
Welcome to Mustang Forums.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!


Reply
 
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-30-2008, 11:45 AM   #21
67mustang302
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Vehicle: 67 Mustang Coupe
Location: California
Posts: 10,343
Default

The advantage of dual quads is only seen in all out racing. In maximum effort you want the cylinders tuned evenly, jetted for the same AFR all the way around so there's even fuel delivery to all the cylinders. That's why tunnel rams and dual quads are prefered for maximum effort FULL RACE drag engines. 1 barrel for each cylinder, it lets you tune each cylinder individually by changing the tuning on each individual barrel. That being said, they're primarily used on Pro Stock engines that are 500cid and around 130%+ volumetric efficiency and operating between 10,200 and 11,000rpm. The pinnacle of naturally aspirated powerplant design, putting out over 1,300hp all engine on gasoline.

They have no place whatsoever on any street car and about 90% of race cars, other than for looks. You can get them to work, and they're a pain to tune, but they'll always make worse mileage and worse power. That's more a factor of carb size. If someone made 250-300cfm carbs with a modern 2x4 then it could be a sweet setup. You could use a set of 390's from Holley, but no one makes a modern 2x4 intake with good flow balance. The modern single 4bbl dual planes have better flow balance characteristics, and a tunnel ram is basically useless under 7,000rpm.

If you want to go that route, you could go to a Webber setup using something like DC0E's in a 4x2 configuration. 4 2bbl Webbers in a downdraught setup, but it's easily as expensive as a badass EFI setup would cost and you have to know how to really tune carbs, and how to really tune Webbers in particular. And there's just not much support for Webbers here in the US.

If you're intent on going with a 2x4 setup, then stick with a set of 390's from Holley. No one will really know the difference on the outside, and it'll run really well.

And I take it back, Edelbrock apparently now makes an RPM Air Gap dual quad. You could try that with 2 390's.
This ad is not displayed to registered or logged-in members.
Register your free account today and become a member on Mustang Forums!
__________________
Who cares how much horsepower it has, all that matters is how fast it goes!

Untested 331, lots of suspension, chewing up corners.

Last edited by 67mustang302; 08-30-2008 at 11:53 AM.
67mustang302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2008, 05:49 PM   #22
htwheelz67
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location:
Posts: 572
Default

I'm almost thinking a std dual quad intake with 2 350 cfm or autolite 2bbls adapted to it may run better than 2 4bbls.
__________________
67 vert, 408 stroker 205cc TW heads, CI cust hyd roller,Dougs 1 3/4 try y's, global west neg roll,lentech aod...etc etc etc
htwheelz67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2008, 07:54 PM   #23
67mustang302
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Vehicle: 67 Mustang Coupe
Location: California
Posts: 10,343
Default

Or a good 4bbl with a nice dual plane intake.
__________________
Who cares how much horsepower it has, all that matters is how fast it goes!

Untested 331, lots of suspension, chewing up corners.
67mustang302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2008, 08:10 PM   #24
85lebaront2
1st Gear Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Newport News, Virginia, USA
Posts: 143
Send a message via AIM to 85lebaront2 Send a message via Yahoo to 85lebaront2
Default

I tried to post a reply to urban cowboy the other day, but I got kicked out while typing it. I ran 2 465cfm Holley model 4160s on a Ford individual runner manifold originally designed for the 66 Trans-Am Mustangs. I don't remember the PN on that. I had the carbs mounted backwards like the 427 and used the 427 style secondary diaphram setup with the synchronising hose. The carbs were progressive, front primaries opening first, followed by rear primaries. Only the front carb had a choke. Both secondaries would open together giving a total of 930cfm. Yes, according to all the formulas it was too much. Tell that to the Corvettes, Trans-Ams, Challengers, GT500s etc. that I outran with the car. It was a 1966 GT350, 3.89 Detroit locker, F70-14 tires and a wide ratio T10. Oh, it got 18-20mpg at the then 55mph speed limit, 22 if I ran 75-80 with it. This before Duraspark ignition, just plain old Ford Hi-Po 289 dual point. As for 3 2bbls, I had Ford kit C4OZ-6BO68-B I think it was on a 1964 Falcon with a midly modified 260. It did vey well even with a C4 once I figured out the tuning on them.
__________________
Old School Hot Rodder
85lebaront2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2014, 04:28 PM   #25
HVAC111
 
HVAC111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Vehicle: 1965 MUSTANG GT
Location: NE.
Posts: 2
Default DUAL QUADS

My 1965 289cid has two 390 cfm holleys.
Originally it had one 480 cfm holley.
Cam is Comp cam, FS Nostalgia 271S+
Solid lifters.
Runs very well.
No flooding or hesitation.
HVAC111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2014, 08:52 AM   #26
2+2GT
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Vehicle: 66 Mustang 2+2GT
Location: PA
Posts: 5,221
Default

Many cars, in the 50's and early 60's had them. The Plymouth Fury, for example, depicted in Christine did, and that was a family car. Thousands of 56-61 Corvettes had dual-quads, and of course the 67 GT500 had them. A dual-quad intake was planned for the 67 GT350, but it was cancelled. You could buy it over the counter, of course, it was already available as an add-on.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg C6ZZ6B068.jpg (52.0 KB, 1 views)
File Type: jpg 1958_plymouth_fury-pic-9333.jpg (53.0 KB, 1 views)
__________________
Amateur restorer. (Well, once in a while I have been paid for it)
2+2GT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2014, 12:33 AM   #27
barnett468
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Vehicle: 1965 shelby
Location: arizona
Posts: 622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mlager8 View Post
Thanks for the input, is there really no gain from running dual quads? The reason I want to run a setup like this is really because I'm doing a Shelby clone, GT350's came with a hipo 289 and dual quads and I want everything to at least appear close to stock. I'd love a GT500 but a 428cj and police interceptor t6 is just way out of realm in terms of budget.
HELLO;

A GT350 never came with dual quads, it had an aluminum high rise with a 715 cfm "lemans" style holley carb with mechanical choke and vacuum secondaries.

Click the image to open in full size.
.

Last edited by barnett468; 08-15-2014 at 01:33 AM.
barnett468 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2014, 12:38 AM   #28
barnett468
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Vehicle: 1965 shelby
Location: arizona
Posts: 622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mlager8 View Post
...the whole point of the dual carb setup was to appear close to a stock GT350 289. Like you said, an oval air cleaner would hide it well but I guess it's just not worth the power loss to go dual quad. too bad it would look damn sweet
No prob, just limit the secondaries so the only open around 1/4" of the way and use progressive linkage between the two carbs so just 2 barrels on one carb open first as one suggested.

an oval air cleaner will not hide dual quads one iota.

.

Last edited by barnett468; 08-15-2014 at 01:30 AM.
barnett468 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2014, 12:41 AM   #29
barnett468
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Vehicle: 1965 shelby
Location: arizona
Posts: 622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mlager8 View Post
Thanks to everyone who replied, still love the look of the dual quads. Gunna ask around at the carshow this weekend, if the power loss is negligible I'll probably do the dual quads as originally intended. I guess ur right quesey, I'm not doing insane runs at the strip every weekend so the difference in hp is probably not even noticeable on street.
the loss comes from opening 8 barrels on 2 4 barrel carbs too soon.
barnett468 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2014, 12:44 AM   #30
barnett468
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Vehicle: 1965 shelby
Location: arizona
Posts: 622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by htwheelz67 View Post
I'm almost thinking a std dual quad intake with 2 350 cfm or autolite 2bbls adapted to it may run better than 2 4bbls.
yes it would and it would still have the wow factor as in "wow...why the heck did you do that, it looks silly?"

Last edited by barnett468; 08-15-2014 at 01:19 AM.
barnett468 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2014, 12:44 AM
MustangForums
Ford Mustang




Paid Advertisement

 
 
 
Reply

Tags
1964, 390, 4bbl, advantages, aim, autolite, carbs, carburation, dual, ford, mlager8, quad, quads, set, setup

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Quad Exhaust? Jocce 2005 - 2014 Mustangs 9 06-15-2006 10:32 PM
i hate the direction mustang owners are going Gregs68 Classic Mustangs (Tech) 31 12-02-2005 10:18 PM

Advertising

Featured Sponsors
Vendor Directory
New Sponsors
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:25 PM.

© Internet Brands, Inc.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company
Emails Backup