Technical MOTOR, Flathead Manifold & Head Reviews

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I've heard they're not nearly as sensitive as the Unilite, but have not run one myself...curious to see what MSD says.



[/ QUOTE ]

Believe it or not... MSD was of no help at all. The guy I talked to had no clue about the flathead dizzy. He asked outloud if anyone could help... and didn't get a response!!He basically said that distributor needs an ignition box to run it, and those work fine with a generator. Nice to know that help is there when you need it...

...at least I have you guys!

[/ QUOTE ]we had one at the shop my boss got pissed threw it across the shop and put an old point dist in it, i dont think the early ford gen has enough poop to power everything especially idling

 

Phil,

A few things preclude me from ringing jere jobe. but I would love to see his info. That is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about.

35 - great to see a company that knows its product

 

From Fordbarn comments MSD supposedly has fixed the genny problem, in fact they now have a 6V version.

Check out the Jacobs setup, lots of track and off roader racers use them around here and say it is the best.

www.jacobselectronics.com

 

I tried a Jacobs setup on one of my cars and didn't think it was anything special. Also I had a problem with it during the warranty period and their service ****ed. I had to pay shipping both ways to send it back, a diagnostic fee and parts and labor to repair it. It was almost as much as the system cost for a failier that was their fault although I was never able to get that through to them. And again this was during the warranty period.

Your results may vary...

By comparison, I had a problem with my MSD box months after the warranty period ended and they still replaced it at no charge to me.

 

Phil,

In your opinion, do you think its worth sticking with a stock dizzy and using a MSD box or upgrading to an aftermarket HEI dizzy? If your running a stock dizzy and a generator, all the dizzy doesn if act like a trigger, and the HEI component comes from the MSD box, is this correct?

If thats possible, why do people go to the expense and trouble of swapping dizzies, is it just to get the HEI component or is there some other advantage im not quite aware of?

Danny

 

The main reason people switch to electronic I think is that they require less maintenance. But if you fire a MSD box, there is very little required of the points and they last a very long time. Another reason to go with electronic triggering would be for a more precise adjustment of the timing, which on most street cars, isn't that important and if you use a Capacitive Discharge box like the MSD, which either lengthens the spark plug's burn duration or fires it multiple times per trigger, timing precision isn't quite as critical.

I'll give you my reasons for going with a modified stock dizzy.

1. I had one that was in good shape.

2. I liked the look of it better than the HEI or Mopar conversions. (Let’s face it, flatheads are as much about look and feel as the are about performance these days, perhaps more so)

3. I wanted a distributor that controls the spark advance based on the vacuum signal rather than a completely mechanical advance.
I think on a street-car that goes up and down the RPM range frequently; it's inefficient to run a centrifugal advance only distributor. The engine requires different spark advance levels at different times, under different loads and the way to compensate is with vacuum advance. People describe the old ford dizzy as vacuum advance only and say they aren’t tunable. That isn’t exactly true in that you can modify the curve using springs just like the more modern dizzies. It’s always a vacuum signal that sets the advance on the distributor, but you can modify the “curve” for souped motors just like the mechanical dizzies. Granted it’s a little harder to do than on other types.

4. I don’t like relying on electronic distributors. In my experience they fail at the most inopportune times, with no warning. Points are easier to replace in a pinch.

Now given all this, if they had the MSD distributor with the vacuum advance out, and I could have afforded it, I might have run it with my old ford dizzy in the trunk as a back up. I do like the fact that I can do both, triggering the MSD box or running without it if it fails on me out on the road. I’d be curious to see if MSD got the curve right on their dizzy too. The Mallory just used the SBC curve, which ****ed for a flatty.

Oh well, I hope this helps!

 

Dear Phil,

Thanks for the info, its much appreciated.

I was always wondering what the advanctaged/disadvantages were. Would I be correct in saying modern dizzies are both mechanical and vac***m advanced?

Did you notice any difference in shifting to the MSD box over points alone?

Danny

 

For my flathead, this is all theoretical. I don't have it on the road yet but will let you know how it works if I ever do?

I have run both points (Single, not dual) and electronic (MSD Billit Mech. adv.), firing an MSD box and without, in my 390 Ford '60 T-Bird.

I found that there was a noticeable improvement in performance when I went from the stock setup, to firing the MSD box off the stock dizzy.

However I didn't notice much of a difference running the MSD box off the stock dizzy versus the electronic MSD dizzy.

In fact it seemed to run a little better with the stock dizzy and vacuum ***isted advance. This might be because it was a heavy car with 270 or so gearing. The engine was under a lot of load off the line.

You are correct about modern vacuum dizzy's having "Vacuum ***isted" advance in addition to a mechanical setup.

I think the Mechanical only dizzies work better for race applications where the engine is under a more constant load throughout the RPM range. That's where the greater precision of the mech. adv. shines.

 

286,

hve been meaning to ask you for a while, have you cc'd the
EAC heads at all? I was wondering how they compaired to the EAB that you like?

Reason is that in OZ we only got Canadian engines ( unless someone personally imported a US car ) so most of our 49-54 engines are equiped with EAC heads.

Just interested in how the stack up in the pecking order.

Thanks

 

While Phil made a few good points, actual use has evaded him sofar. Speaking from well used experience I can say that tuning the stock dizzy is an excercise in frustration and a compromise at the very best.
For someone on a budget the Ford dizzy is OK to get you on the road, even with dual 94's, but dont expect real flatty performance. Just by turning the plate eccentric you will improve the curve.
If maintaining looks is that important then just install the Mopar inside the Ford. Not that involved, been discussed here in the past.

Boi, If you want electronic on the cheap check out the CD ignitions of the 60-70's era. Often show on EPay in the $10-20 range. Some even support 6 & 12V along with positive and negative ground. The point life will approach 40K or the rubbing block wearing down first. Ive used them for years in the past and on some vehicles I have now. Never any problems with gennies either. They are simply low voltage/current switches to virtually eliminate point arcing and not multiple discharge as some high end modern units. I'm sure there were many sold in Aussieland also.

OZ, Im thinking you may be confusing Canadian castings with engine applications.
The 52-3 Ford used the EAB, the 52-3 Merc used the EAC. Canadian heads should be C-EAB and C-EAC respectively unless they shipped Fords with lower compression heads.
From info I got from Ron on Fordbarn the EAC is in the 80cc range, just a bit smaller than the 8CM. Abbin lists the EAC along with the 8BA which I believe is incorrect. I havent run across one in several years to test here.

How about some details on that Falcoln conversion? Does it equate to something available over here?

 

286-
I'm getting ready to tear into my first flathead which will eventually replace the 327 currently in my deuce 3W. '78' trans, V8-QC, etc, I like the idea of all ford driveline. The 327 will go into another deuce ch***is with all GM driveline. But thats another story...
Anyway, its an unrebuilt, good running '51 merc. Whats the scoop on the 8CM heads? I want to run iron instead of aluminum. Are these good ones? Milled down? Anything else? I havent decided on intake, 3-81s look good but prolly too much(but I have the 81s), 2-97s on an Edmunds(dont have 97s) good but common, Rochester 2GC on stock intake maybe, 4GC on aftermarket. What was your preference? ***uming the block is good, what do you suggest for it and the bottom end?
Homey

 

The 8CM has the biggest chambers and were used to keep the Mercs cr down to the 6.8 Ford numbers plus run on the regular gas of the era.
If you put EAB heads on a stock 255 the resultant cr would be around 7.7. Give it a .050 cleanup shave and you will be around 8; add a few carbs and you will feel the difference.

If you are going to be adding carbs you will need to do something about the dizzy. Your Strombergs and Rochesters have no provision for venturi vacuum. A 2G on the stock intake for starters, a Offy 4bbl with a WCFB/4G when you can. Dual 94's are nice also; the 4bbl is pretty idiot proof tho if you dont want the tuning h***les.

A Schneider 270F/365 and Johnsons if you have the money, might as well do it while the heads/intake are off. Leave the lower end alone for now.

Sell off the 81's to finance it all.

 

Carl, I stated that it was theoretical. Thanks for clearing that up.

However, I forgot to say that when Jerry does carbs or an ignition he tunes them on his flatty and dyno. The distributer works fine. The dyno run indicated the performance difference between the electronic dizzy and mine (firing his MSD box) would be negligable on the street.

I guess I should have said that to begin with.

 

Well I was intending to tear the whole thing down. Clean up the crank, dip the block and hope for no cracks, balance the bottom. You dont think I should replace valves and install new seats? What about block work?
Rats about the heads, I was really digging the Mercury-script on them.
My Rochesters have timing vacuum ports on them, does the flatty dist need a different point of vacuum?

 

286,

I will see if I can get hold of a digital camera to take some pics of the dizzy, its a bosch body I guess they make the shaft, you just have to supply the gear.

The internals are I guess standard bosch units, its just the capand rotor are the local XD FALCON units ( fords large family car of 79=80 fame)

Again, for me , I saw this as a better idea, being that the parts were all local and readily available, again, if a cap cracks, etc, can get one. Where when I did have a mallory dual point. Trying to get parts for it here was like looking for chicken teeth. Again as I said, probably not a problem for you lot, but I wanted something that gave me parts availability.

As for the heads, was just wondering as all the 8BA heads I have have EAC on them, as all our engines ( well most anyway) came from Canada ( thanks to the sharing might of the british empire) so Australia never made flathead engines here to speak of. That was the reason for asking.

Thanks

 

Good stuff, guys. There's still so much to learn about Henry's L-heads. I'm about to commence work on a new motor for my F-1 while the original is still running great. I'm beginning with an excellent standard-bore Canadian casting from a '51 F-5 which we'll bore to 3-5/16 inch. Using the Merc crank and rods, with only a bit of carving and polishing on the crank -- it's going to be daily transportation and a Bonneville tug so it won't be spinning very high.

Porting and port match will be done, 1.6 intakes, 1.5 exhaust, Johnsons, and three-angle seat cut, etc, etc . . .

I will probably use a converted GM HEI because I have a pal locally who has been doing them for years, and another pal who has a spare he'll let me road test for as long as it takes to convince me it's what I need. You're right, Carl, they're ****-ugly, but the truck has a hood to cover the ugliness as well as hide the alternator that will replace the generator when I do the six-to-twelve change.

I'm also opting for the easy and economical way out in carburetion, with an Offy 4-bbl manifold and Holley 390-cfm carburetor. I know several people who run this setup, and the one who is most influential is the pal who offered up the HEI loaner. He is running essentially the same motor in his 1950 coupe that I will have in my truck, with a T-5 which is also part of my package, and enjoys strong performance combined with fuel economy in the low and mid 20s. I'm thinking high 'teens-low 20s for me.

Phil -- How did the port work look when you were done? Haven't heard from you for awhile. Hoping you found horsepower and not water.

 

av8, Ron Hollerhan (undoubtedly mispelled), author of one of the better flathead books, is making HEI conversions using the early type Chevy distributor. He uses the actual HEI pickup and innards, not an aftermarket conversion kit. Better looking, and the early setup is easier to tune for a flathead because it has a stop mechanism for total advance that is easier to rework.
Phil and the Loadomatic crew--the late flathead distributor is hooked to TWO DIFFERENT sources of pressure drop. One is just ported (that is above the throttle plate) manifold vac, easily replicated on any carb and also likely to behave about the same no matter what your rig. The second source, connected by a p***age up into a venturi in the original carb, is the venturi pressure drop, the force that draws the gas through the main fuel system. This has NOTHING in common with any hookup to manifold vac, and indeed runs essentially opposite to manifold vac, increasing at full throttle as the manifold vac goes to nothing--exactly why Ford used it. With any sort of vac hookiup other than one replicating Ford's, you will have close to right advance up to maybe 3/4 throttle, then ZERO advance--you will be running your static advance at full throttle, turning your fuel into a heating system for the water jackets rather than power. The next problem is this: the venturi pressure drop is barely adequate in a stock '49 (many would say inadequate...), and obviously the air flow creating this drop is a lot less when there are two carbs splitting it.
This means fairly major tuning to allow any full throttle advance at all, while attempting to control a spring vs vac system that still has to control the much stronger ported vac a low speeds.
I wouldn't say use of loadomatic is impossible in a rod....286 has described flogging the spring system for two Ford carbs--but it would be real damn challenging, especially starting with carbs lacking a venturi pressure drop tap. Your post suggests that you still don't have a workable full throttle advance, unless I have misunderstood it.

 

Hi Bruce,

I'm a little confused...are you saying that even after market dizzies still have advance issues with dual 94's... excuse my ignorance on this subject ...trying to keep up!

Danny

[ QUOTE ]
av8, Ron Hollerhan (undoubtedly mispelled), author of one of the better flathead books, is making HEI conversions using the early type Chevy distributor. He uses the actual HEI pickup and innards, not an aftermarket conversion kit. Better looking, and the early setup is easier to tune for a flathead because it has a stop mechanism for total advance that is easier to rework.
Phil and the Loadomatic crew--the late flathead distributor is hooked to TWO DIFFERENT sources of pressure drop. One is just ported (that is above the throttle plate) manifold vac, easily replicated on any carb and also likely to behave about the same no matter what your rig. The second source, connected by a p***age up into a venturi in the original carb, is the venturi pressure drop, the force that draws the gas through the main fuel system. This has NOTHING in common with any hookup to manifold vac, and indeed runs essentially opposite to manifold vac, increasing at full throttle as the manifold vac goes to nothing--exactly why Ford used it. With any sort of vac hookiup other than one replicating Ford's, you will have close to right advance up to maybe 3/4 throttle, then ZERO advance--you will be running your static advance at full throttle, turning your fuel into a heating system for the water jackets rather than power. The next problem is this: the venturi pressure drop is barely adequate in a stock '49 (many would say inadequate...), and obviously the air flow creating this drop is a lot less when there are two carbs splitting it.
This means fairly major tuning to allow any full throttle advance at all, while attempting to control a spring vs vac system that still has to control the much stronger ported vac a low speeds.
I wouldn't say use of loadomatic is impossible in a rod....286 has described flogging the spring system for two Ford carbs--but it would be real damn challenging, especially starting with carbs lacking a venturi pressure drop tap. Your post suggests that you still don't have a workable full throttle advance, unless I have misunderstood it.

[/ QUOTE ]

 

Mike- To answer your question about finding power and not water, the answer is BOTH!

Actually the porting went great. I got kudos from the machinist but then he went and had a leaky roof right over my freshly polished block! A few of the ports have a bit of surface rust on them now but should clean up fine.

I've run into some financial roadblocks right now so the engine is sitting for a while but I'm sure it will haul when I find the right wrapper for it! Thanks again for the step-by-step instructions!

Bruce- Jerry set up the dizzy to be connected just as Ford intended. He first dialed in my carbs and intake on his dyno motor, then installed the rebuilt dizzy and tuned it form there, compensating for the lower vacuum signal. It wasn't an easy process necesarily, and there is some trial and error involved, but it definately worked, looks correct, and it was cheaper than buying an MSD (he says the mallorys are junk, the have the wrong curve and wear out prematurely).

Jerry is in the process of moving to Montana right now so I haven't been able to ask him specifics about what he does to compensate for the lower vacuun (he told me when he set mine up but that was months ago, I need a refresher ), or about what he thinks about the various intake manifold designs and if he has a preferance, but I will as soon as he gets back

 

I guess a comment I made early in this thread went right over many heads.

Why not just put the Mopar guts into the stock Ford dizzy?
Looks original except for the extra wire and doesnt require a lot of work.
Tommy has been running that setup for years and turned me on to it as well as the conversion for the Y Block which was published by Frank Oddo in the 70's.

 

I've got a basically stock 49 8BA in my 31. I'm running an Offy dual intake with 2 94's on it. It is the one w/ the carbs about 6" apart. Using a Mallory dual-point dist firing a stock Model A coil at 6 volt. I have excellent throttle response at any speed, get 16-17 mpg running a 4/11. Am putting on about 1,000 miles a month currently w/ no problems.
Butch http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/smirk.gif

 

Phil--sounds good if set up to your stuff. I had the idea that it was dynoed with one carb, which would have been a different kettle of worms--


"I'm a little confused...are you saying that even after market dizzies still have advance issues with dual 94's... excuse my ignorance on this subject ...trying to keep up!"

If you can find an aftermarket with vac and centrifugal (early mallory, some oddballs and conversions, don't know about MSD), that's great, vastly superior under most real world cir***stances to centrifugal only.
The stocker is both vac and venturi drop, hard to adapt to new cir***stances. Referring to it as vac only is technically accurate, but misleads people into focusing on manifold vac.
Current Mallory has issues--many reports of totally inappropriate advance curves. They are, however, adjustable. Almost any conversion of a later distributor will also need to have its advance curve shortened considerably.

 

Carl it didn't go over my head...

Like I said, I don't like electronic dizzies. I hate the way they can leave you stranded without warning. I like the fact that points "go out" rather than "Fail." I like the fact that I can keep an extra set in the trunk without breaking the bank. I guess the same could be done with a Mopar module but why?

The module doesn't effect performance. It's just a triger. It may be more precise and or efficient but I'll take the trade-off for simplicity of design and an unnoticeable (in a street flatty) if at all, reduction in performance.

I guess we could go into the turbulance of a flatty intake charge making it more forgiving to the slight inconsistancy of a point ignition but I think it all comes down to whatever works for you. Electronic ignitions, and I've run just about every brand (MSD, Chevy HEI, Stinger/Mopar, Jacobs) and even sold Mallory, have given me nothing but headaches even when they worked. Whereas points always seem to keep me running.

 

Hey Butch,

I know without dyno testing its all subjective..but how did you find the improvement going to dual 94's over the stock setup... is the improvment noticable and worth the $?

Danny

[ QUOTE ]
I've got a basically stock 49 8BA in my 31. I'm running an Offy dual intake with 2 94's on it. It is the one w/ the carbs about 6" apart. Using a Mallory dual-point dist firing a stock Model A coil at 6 volt. I have excellent throttle response at any speed, get 16-17 mpg running a 4/11. Am putting on about 1,000 miles a month currently w/ no problems.
Butch http://www.jalopyjournal.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

 

Hey Bruce,

Thanks mate, I understand now i think. I was speaking to FlatOz at a local cruise night and his ford conversion is both vac and centrifical advance. Vac comming from manifold not venturi.

Danny

[ QUOTE ]
Phil--sounds good if set up to your stuff. I had the idea that it was dynoed with one carb, which would have been a different kettle of worms--


"I'm a little confused...are you saying that even after market dizzies still have advance issues with dual 94's... excuse my ignorance on this subject ...trying to keep up!"

If you can find an aftermarket with vac and centrifugal (early mallory, some oddballs and conversions, don't know about MSD), that's great, vastly superior under most real world cir***stances to centrifugal only.
The stocker is both vac and venturi drop, hard to adapt to new cir***stances. Referring to it as vac only is technically accurate, but misleads people into focusing on manifold vac.
Current Mallory has issues--many reports of totally inappropriate advance curves. They are, however, adjustable. Almost any conversion of a later distributor will also need to have its advance curve shortened considerably.


[/ QUOTE ]

 

Phil,

you could always just carry a stock set up dizzy in the boot ( sorry trunk) so if the electronic gives up your not stranded

 

THIS post is why I hang around here!!! I'm just starting an 8ba project...fantastic stuff....

 

That's exactly what I did in my TBird Flat...

Was glad I did too. I had to swap out the MSD on the road to get home.

 

Why would anyone want to own a shebby?? after all you've got to love the flathead they always let you down, but provide the BEST for bench racing stories

 

"I know without dyno testing its all subjective..but how did you find the improvement going to dual 94's over the stock setup... is the improvment noticable and worth the $?"

Here's a summary of a 1954 dyno/drag test of a stock '40 Merc I've posted before, from the 1955 HRM yearbook. Actual nimbers from this period (or any period on flatheads) are scarce, so I love this article. Note the first mod was on dead-stock car with stock cam, single exhaust, etc, HP numbers are rear wheel, not engine:

Here’s a dyno/drag test from about 1954, excerpted from the 1955 HRM annual. Real numbers from these times are scarce, and even E.T.’s were rarely reported. Most drag results were strictly MPH.
Note a few things about these tests: They are modifications on an existing used car, not a full build up. They are entirely bolt-on mods on a stock 239 short block, without even a cam change. The HP numbers are rear-wheel ch***is dyno numbers, NOT flywheel HP. Onward:

The car involved was a stock 1940 Merc club coupe, which would have been a typical back-row-of-the-used-car-lot teenager’s car in 1954. The engine was a commercial rebuild, described as “in neither excellent nor in poor shape” with 12,000 miles since rebuild. The pictures show it to have a Stromberg and a dime store chrome aircleaner, probably giving a slight power loss from stock.

Stock with distributor freshly strobed and new plugs (H 10), it pulled 69 HP at 50 MPH on the rollers and turned a blazing 17.23 @65.47 MPH at the Santa Ana dragstrip.

Test 2 added a Sharp super dual with two 97's, stock except for .048 jets (I would think a bit rich?). This produced a 16.56 @ 71.01 MPH, power peak moved to 80 at 55MPH. (Power was tested at speeds from 30 to 60 in high, with practically all mods showing improvement at all tested power levels, by the way).

Test 3 was with the addition of 8.5 to 1 rated finned heads; They carefully avoid stating or showing brands, I would guess because they had so many advertisers to offend. They were R type heads requiring changing out the shorter studs. This produced 84 HP at the wheels at 55, and went16.07 @74.99 at Santa Ana.
Test 4 added dual exhausts and a pair of Hollywood Deeptone mufflers, used with stock manifolds. 86HP, 16 flat @ 75.01.

Test 6 added a Harmon-Collins dual coil, which produced only trivial gains over the fresh stock distributor.

And that was it for that issue–only modifications that an ignorant teenager with $5.00 worth of tools could have performed in dad’s driveway on Saturday. I really wish they had gone on to a cam and headers, but no such luck. Bruce.


The cam is a serious omission here--I think almost any 3/4 cam would have made significant improvements at all speeds here, as the stock Flathead cam is a real cork in the system.