|
Author
|
Topic: Do you think a 2" open spacer will be better than a 2" 4 hole?
|
70coupe
Gearhead Posts: 483
From: Toronto,Ontario,Canada
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 07-22-2003 05:56 PM
  
I've also run a 2" 4 hole spacer on my cleveland and this up coming weekend I will try a 2" open spacer. I launch at 4000 on the two step with a transbrake and the convertor stalls at 4800. What do you guys think?------------------
351c 4v clsd heads
60'1.580
1/8 [email protected]
1/4 [email protected]
IP: Logged |
kid vishus
Gearhead Posts: 6405
From: middle of NC
Registered: Oct 2000
|
posted 07-22-2003 06:06 PM
Not sure about how your motor will like it, but mine works best with a 2" open spacer. Maybe it has something to do with my really loose convertor.
IP: Logged |
70coupe
Gearhead Posts: 483
From: Toronto,Ontario,Canada
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 07-22-2003 06:28 PM
Hopefully,I'll get a couple of guesses and I will post the results after the weekend. I have a very loose convertor as well but I dont spin the rpm you do. I shift at 6700 and go through the traps at 6800.
IP: Logged |
N266fords
Gearhead Posts: 1652
From: Sierra Vista ,Az USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 07-22-2003 11:04 PM
there are just to many variables to know for sure>trial and error ..bruce
IP: Logged |
clevelandstyle
Gearhead Posts: 1189
From: Connersville, IN
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 07-23-2003 12:09 AM
My engine always ran better with a 1" open vs a 1" 4 hole. I have never tried a 2". Maybe soon.------------------
Ben
Grabber Green '70 Mach I 351C 4V
Robbin Egg Blue '79 Fairmont 351C 4V
IP: Logged |
mvierow
Gearhead Posts: 209
From: Bay Area, Ca
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-23-2003 12:54 AM
I thought that the 4 hole spacers we're best for dual plan manifolds that like low - mid end torque. The open spacers are nice for single plane manifolds that could use the open plenum design. Both increase the runner length so I would assume both would be used to increase torque at some point in the power band.
IP: Logged |
70coupe
Gearhead Posts: 483
From: Toronto,Ontario,Canada
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 07-29-2003 12:32 AM
I ran about .04 slower with the 2" open spacer as compared to the 2" 4 hole but this was at a National event where the track has so much glue on it, that it might actually have slowed me down! I will have a true comparison at my points race this upcoming Sunday and I will let you know how the spacer worked. I wonder about all the glue because my 60's stayed the same as the 4 hole and thats where the open spacer should have hurt me. I have hundreds of logged runs with wind speeds, direction and density altitude readings so this comparison will very accurate for those who care about how spacers affect certain set ups.
IP: Logged |
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 26813
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 07-29-2003 10:16 AM
The speed would have been the indicator.
Less speed, less power.------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
MCA member# 53321
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00,'01,'02,&'03
First SS/MA in the TENS!
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"
Quote #3: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch!"
www.moneymakerracing.com
IP: Logged |
70coupe
Gearhead Posts: 483
From: Toronto,Ontario,Canada
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 07-29-2003 10:33 AM
The ET's are so close and the 1/8th mile ET's and MPH are close but top end is higher with the 4 hole? This is strange, I would have figured the 4 hole would be better top end? Here are a few slips. The first two are with the 4 hole the last with the open. Is there any chance that a well sprayed track would lose a little MPH due to glue all the way down the track?
60' 1.615 1.615 1.613
330' 4.808 4.795 4.800
1/8 7.518 7.501 7.506
MPH 90.47 90.56 90.55
1000' 9.877 9.858 9.871
1/4 11.881 11.863 11.884
MPH 112.31 112.33 111.66
Weather conditions and winds were almost identical.[This message has been edited by 70coupe (edited 07-29-2003).]
IP: Logged |
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 26813
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 07-29-2003 04:20 PM
It's all about HP my friend in case you haven't figured it out by now.
More speed = more HP.
The 4 hole makes more power as I said before. (for your particular combo)
No brag, just fact!  ------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
MCA member# 53321
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00,'01,'02,&'03
First SS/MA in the TENS!
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"
Quote #3: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch!"
www.moneymakerracing.com
IP: Logged |
N266fords
Gearhead Posts: 1652
From: Sierra Vista ,Az USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 07-29-2003 04:49 PM
I would listen to alex if I where you but hey he only broke a couple of records right!
IP: Logged |
70coupe
Gearhead Posts: 483
From: Toronto,Ontario,Canada
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 07-29-2003 06:00 PM
Well, looks like back to the 2" 4 hole spacer. I will keep the open spacer on for my Sunday race, check the numbers and replace if necessary. The bottom line is there really isn't much gain either way for my combination but its nice to see for yourself rather than always take someone else's opinion. I started this post to find out what the majority thought and maybe we could learn something. I guess some of us did.
Brian------------------
351c 4v clsd heads
60'1.580
1/8 [email protected]
1/4 [email protected] [This message has been edited by 70coupe (edited 07-29-2003).] [This message has been edited by 70coupe (edited 07-29-2003).]
IP: Logged |
Mustangsandmore Forums
