carb spacer
Printed From: CorrectCraftFan.com
Category: Repairs and Maintenance
Forum Name: Engine Repair
Forum Discription: Engine problems and solutions
URL: http://www.CorrectCraftFan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15788
Printed Date: September-16-2024 at 3:49pm
Topic: carb spacer
Posted By: Waterdog
Subject: carb spacer
Date Posted: November-10-2009 at 9:26am
|
Should I use the stock carb spacer or not, with a Weiand stealth intake ? ------------- - waterdog - http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3896&sort=&pagenum=2&yrstart=1978&yrend=1978" rel="nofollow - 78 Ski Tique |
Replies:
Posted By: SS 201
Date Posted: November-10-2009 at 9:33am
| I used one with mine to get a better angle. |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: November-10-2009 at 11:19am
|
I reused my spacer. Im thinking of going with an open spacer instead of the 4-hole, though. ------------- |
Posted By: Waterdog
Date Posted: November-10-2009 at 11:56am
|
The engine is a 351W (bored)stealth intake,gt40p (ported),1.7 cobra roller rockers cam reasch cam, windage tray, crane d/r timing set, 4160 carb & 540 acme prop. I'm really hoping for 320 hp & 50 mph ? (Silver Nautique 86 2001) ------------- - waterdog - http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3896&sort=&pagenum=2&yrstart=1978&yrend=1978" rel="nofollow - 78 Ski Tique |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: November-10-2009 at 12:09pm
|
I would say 50mph is a reasonable goal with that engine package in a 2001 hull. Out of curiousity, why the 1.7rr's if you upgraded the cam? You could have stuck with the stock 1.6 ratio, right? ------------- |
Posted By: Waterdog
Date Posted: November-10-2009 at 12:33pm
|
My original block was cracked when I got the boat(I knew it was bad).I "found" another block out of a bronco with the intake & rockers in the deal. The heads I picked up, I ported myself. I think are just right. Cleaned up the intake bowl, cleaned up the exhaust bowl.& worked the roof of the exh. runner & gasket matched the intake(very little off the intake) & heads.
Also I just picked up a set of NOS DOOE heads that were never installed. ------------- - waterdog - http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3896&sort=&pagenum=2&yrstart=1978&yrend=1978" rel="nofollow - 78 Ski Tique |
Posted By: lewy2001
Date Posted: November-10-2009 at 8:52pm
|
Tim I found this information about carb spacers thought you might be interested before modding yours.
http://www.pavtek.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=33 - Carb Spacers I have managed to source a Stealth intake also. Went through your old threads and found that I will have to shorten or change flame arrestor to fit the spacer with the Stealth. I have 2" clearance at the moment looks like I need 2.5". ------------- If you're going through hell, keep going http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2999" rel="nofollow - 89 Ski <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=5685" ta |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: November-10-2009 at 9:17pm
|
Lewy, Ive seen the blended style of spacer before- they really look awesome and are supposed to provide the best of both worlds. The $120 pricetag hurts though!
If youve got 2" of clearance, then you may luck out. 2" is about the shortest arrestor you can fit on a Holley and not have it too hung up on the j-tubes. Thats what Ive got on my boat. ------------- |
Posted By: GottaSki
Date Posted: November-10-2009 at 10:38pm
|
Yes, CC's appear to have specified a much taller arrestor than was typical on the PCMs you see on other boats. ------------- "There is nothing, absolutely nothing, half so much worthwhile as messing around with boats...simply messing." River Rat to Mole |
Posted By: Waterdog
Date Posted: November-10-2009 at 11:17pm
|
I know I'm AFU - but I'm using a Moroso 14" low profile air cleaner and instead of a 3" filter I made a 2 5/8 flame arrester of stainless screen and stainless perforated .032 sheet metal.It clears the J tubes by 1/8 inch. USCG approved AHHH - SAFE YES. That's as low as I could get. ------------- - waterdog - http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3896&sort=&pagenum=2&yrstart=1978&yrend=1978" rel="nofollow - 78 Ski Tique |
Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: November-11-2009 at 12:29am
|
[QUOTE=TRBenj] The $120 pricetag hurts though!
QUOTE] Tim good news, with the exchange rate it's only $111  ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS 95 Nautique Super Sport |
Posted By: lewy2001
Date Posted: November-11-2009 at 3:52am
May have misled you a bit. I have 2" available above the existing arrestor with the PCM cover on it. The Stealth is 2.5" taller than the standard manifold according to the old posts. So I will need to adjust either the arrestor or engine cover. ------------- If you're going through hell, keep going http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2999" rel="nofollow - 89 Ski <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=5685" ta |
TRBenj wrote:Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: November-11-2009 at 12:03pm
Gotcha. Either way, you should be good by swapping arrestors. I assume your stock piece is 3" tall? ------------- |
Posted By: behindpropeller
Date Posted: November-11-2009 at 12:31pm
I could make up a few of those for around $50 each. They would only take 30 mins of so on our cnc mill. Tim ------------- |
Posted By: YooperSully
Date Posted: November-12-2009 at 11:51pm
|
All right I'm curious. Can I bolt one of these intakes on without any other mods? And second, is it the 8023 for our engine? ------------- 87' 2001 |
Posted By: bud@cmenow.com
Date Posted: November-16-2009 at 9:58pm
|
are you using a flat spacer or a wedge spacer. if you are looking for an open wedge spacer, then i have one i tryed and didn't like. i will sell to you forty $40 icluding shipping. the 4 hole works much better on my 302. you might want to go to www.skidim.com and check out what they have and email them for their advice. ------------- bud sellers |
Posted By: davee40
Date Posted: November-21-2009 at 12:39pm
|
who carrys a 2 inch spark arrestor , didnt see one at skidim ,getting ready to install edelbrock perfomer manifold and looks like im going to have clearance issues ------------- davee40 lakeland,fl |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: November-21-2009 at 12:56pm
They are hard to find but are out there. I'm sure someone will chime in with a idea. BTW, Skidim is no longer a supporter of this site so shop elsewhere. There are plenty of good if not better sources out there for parts. "Correct parts"? give them a call. ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: davee40
Date Posted: November-21-2009 at 12:59pm
|
didnt know that pete thanks ,i waz wondering if i could just cut down the one i have ? ------------- davee40 lakeland,fl |
Posted By: davee40
Date Posted: November-21-2009 at 1:41pm
|
Hey jody chime in your input if you see this ------------- davee40 lakeland,fl |
Posted By: Waterdog
Date Posted: November-21-2009 at 2:52pm
|
Try Googling E basic power. I got one from them a while back. ------------- - waterdog - http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3896&sort=&pagenum=2&yrstart=1978&yrend=1978" rel="nofollow - 78 Ski Tique |
Posted By: SS 201
Date Posted: January-10-2010 at 11:00am
|
If you put 1.7 rockers on the intake valves you can gain some more power, leave the exhaust at 1.6 Be sure you have enough clearance, multiply 1.7 x the true valve lift, it will give you the valve lift. With the standard deck clearance there should be no problem.
This way it allows the valve to open sooner and more fuel to come in the cylinder. |
Posted By: LaurelLakeSkier
Date Posted: January-10-2010 at 6:25pm
This may be a small detail but the 1.7 rockers shouldn't make any change in when the valves open, that would require a different cam. It will allow them to open up further however. |
Posted By: SS 201
Date Posted: January-11-2010 at 11:46am
| It does, do the math, done every day. It was suggestion I guess this forum doesn't want to learn, Now I know why I quit posting, never changes. |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: January-11-2010 at 12:04pm
I'd like to see the math on the concept. I'm totally open to learning whatever the result shows however am curious how the rocker ratio will change when the valves open. I would think a cam profile change would be needed as well. BTW, this is a forum of open discussion with different views. I'm sure by now you have run into many different opinions but haven't learned to listen to different opinions. I'm sorry to hear that you will be no longer posting as I do know you have many years of engine experience behind you. Make sure you provide the math before you stop posting!! 
EDIT: Doing a preliminary search, I was able to find this. Looks like all the opening and closing points are the same with different ratio rockers. 
Maybe more math is needed!! ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: January-11-2010 at 12:38pm
|
Keep posting SS201. Everyone likes your posts! ------------- |
Posted By: 81nautique
Date Posted: January-11-2010 at 1:39pm
|
Sometimes the way people describe things really doesn't get the point across. Pete's graph shows that the valves don't open any sooner BUT higher ratio rocker arms do in effect change the profile of the cam. You'll see that not only do the valves open to a higher lift but they open "faster" evidenced by the wider curve in the graph, I think this could easily be misinterpreted as opening sooner. Either way you want to call it the advice to install 1.7 rockers is good bang for the buck without having to go with a new cam.
Only question I have is why only on the intake valves? ------------- You can’t change the wind but you can adjust your sails |
Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: January-11-2010 at 9:22pm
Only one problem tho,changing 1.7's won't do him any good, he already has them
------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS 95 Nautique Super Sport |
Posted By: LaurelLakeSkier
Date Posted: January-12-2010 at 12:03am
Your suggestion on using the 1.7 rockers to give a performance boost was a good one. As I said, I was just trying to clear up a small detail in your explanation as to why they worked. I think most of us are on this forum to learn from others..... |
Posted By: SS 201
Date Posted: January-12-2010 at 8:46am
|
Tip
Ask the cam grinder how the cam is ground. ex. some cam grinder use a advance or retard . ex. some are 2-4-degrees advance, some are 2-4 degrees retard. Now Ford uses a 8 degree retard built into the timing gear, suggest to buy a after market timing set to eliminate. When you know the cam specs you can either retard cam, or advance. Retard usually gives 100-200 rpm, advance loses 100-200 however gives more low in torque. Also can got the ratio change that's makes the cam change lift. |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: January-12-2010 at 9:26am
Bill, Thanks for posting back on the subject. I understand the concept that retarding or advancing the cam in relationship to the crank degrees changes the valve opening and closing degrees. Are you also saying it's really the profile of the cam and not the rocker ratio that governs the opening and closing degrees of the valves? Off site, it's also been suggested to me that hydraulic lifters come into play with changing rocker ratio. Any comment? ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: Waterdog
Date Posted: January-12-2010 at 11:20am
|
I talked to Scott at Cam Research a couple of times before installing there ski boat grind cam 2* advanced with a Crane double roller timing set. He really didn't have a opinion about it ether way (you install it 2* retarted to get 2* advanced on a reverse rotation engine)It should have a stronger hole shot w/ a 540 prop.
The engine "should" be running this weekend and the cam broken in or maybe just broke I liked the "ported" carb spacer but only have 1 inch clearance so I got one from Auto Zone ($20-) and ported the 4 hole insert with a cartridge roll & a hi speed. We'll See... ------------- - waterdog - http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3896&sort=&pagenum=2&yrstart=1978&yrend=1978" rel="nofollow - 78 Ski Tique |
Posted By: 81nautique
Date Posted: January-12-2010 at 11:36am
What did you hear Pete? ------------- You can’t change the wind but you can adjust your sails |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: January-12-2010 at 12:16pm
It was a PM that came to me from the PN site defending Bill's statement on rocker ratio affecting the opening and closing timing of the valves. I don't know who it is because the PN site only uses screen names. He obviously must be on CCfan as well because he saw this thread. He stated that hydraulic lifters with higher ratio rockers will cause the valves to open sooner. I'm having trouble with the concept and if anything would think the hydraulic compression of the lifter would cause the valve to open slightly later? BTW, he thinks we "pick" on Bill!! I do not feel this is the case and just the way some wording is interpreted. As always, I'm listening and always curious. EDIT: I forgot that "bobchris" was 79's screen name on PN!!! ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: January-12-2010 at 1:10pm
|
I just got a email from "bobchris" (aka79) of PN along with a explaination. He also suggested posting his explaination:
"Yes on paper the starting point is the same and is based off of the cam lobe profile, but the resulting effect of when the fuel/air mixture actually moves and enters the combustion chamber happens faster with a 1.7:1 ration thus sooner than a 1.6:1 rocker, what you can’t see in the graph is the fine detail of where the slope of the curves are because of the scale shown." "The end effect being the fuel mixture enters the camber sooner with a 1.7:1 because it has traveled faster than a 1.6:1 rocker, then it travels greater distance generating more lift because of the increased lever arm and stays open longer because of the quicker closing of the valve due to the lever arm." "So if you want to look a Point O then yes they are both the same only problem you have to look at the points after point 0 and the 1.7:1 will always be ahead of the 1.6:1 regardless of the distance traveled thus resulting in a larger sooner entering charge of fuel into the cylinder." BTW, he still hasn't gotten any better with his spelling!! ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: Waterdog
Date Posted: January-12-2010 at 2:41pm
|
I can see the 1.7 following the cam profile "quicker" than 1.6, what I can't get my head wraped around is the degrees of the cam base circle hasen't changed, as long as the lifter is on the base circle of the cam the valve is closed.
Kinda sounds like I may want to retard the timing with a longer rocker arm ??? ------------- - waterdog - http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3896&sort=&pagenum=2&yrstart=1978&yrend=1978" rel="nofollow - 78 Ski Tique |
Posted By: SS 201
Date Posted: January-13-2010 at 8:55am
|
To answer your question yes it effects when the valves open and close. ex. advance open the valves sooner, retard they open later in relation to dead center.
As I said all Fords with a stock Ford timing chain gear are 8 degrees retard. To wake up that engine purchase a non ford timing timing, the retard was built into the crank gear. Hydraulic lifters do play into opening, the biggest thing the is to do a perfect preload that lets the lifter work properly. If not you can lose power. |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: January-13-2010 at 10:12am
|
Ok, I think I've got this!!
Getting back to square one on the ratio and putting cam advance/retard aside which is a different subject, here's how I see it. Rocker ratio does not change the opening/closing degrees of the valve but does cause them to open quicker and farther. Next on the lifters: Hydraulic lifters will cause the valves to open quicker slightly because they preload the valve which removes the valve clearance needed on solid lifters. ???? correct???? ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: SS 201
Date Posted: January-13-2010 at 2:31pm
| You got it. Every bit helps, the biggest thing I see is preload most don't even what it means and does. |
Posted By: GottaSki
Date Posted: January-13-2010 at 7:21pm
But, consider the following... I think it all depends what one defines as 'open'.. Obviously, zero-lift is not yet 'open'. If one where to call .1" or .2" , or .16435236" 'open', then it appears to me the 1.7 rocker met the arbitrary criteria, sooner. ------------- "There is nothing, absolutely nothing, half so much worthwhile as messing around with boats...simply messing." River Rat to Mole |
Posted By: Waterdog
Date Posted: January-18-2010 at 10:56am
I ported this 1 in.spacer in less than an hour.
   ------------- - waterdog - http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3896&sort=&pagenum=2&yrstart=1978&yrend=1978" rel="nofollow - 78 Ski Tique |
Posted By: Watarski
Date Posted: March-22-2010 at 5:40pm
|
I didn't want to rehash this post from 2 months ago...but there isn't much info on the topic-
I'm about half way through my 351W rebuild and I will be using an Edelbrock Performer intake - concern obviously is clearance. I can't seem to find shorter arrestors anywhere...any problems with running shorter carb spacers? ------------- 1985 Ski Nautique 2001 |
Posted By: kapla
Date Posted: March-22-2010 at 7:44pm
|
Craig
what year is your boat? I recently did the engine rebuilt/upgrade on my 1992, and put the performer intake, stock spacer and stock flame arrestor, and it fit under the box fine. Maybe if you choose the performer rpm that its a tad taller you will need to cut the arrestor but someone else can verify. Don´t forget to buy the adapter plate edl-2732 or summit sum-g1420 to put between the intake and the stock spacer as if not you will suck air as the carb spacer is bigger than the intake base...that will also make the setup a 1/4 inch or so taller.... ------------- <a href="">1992 ski nautique |
Posted By: Watarski
Date Posted: March-23-2010 at 1:18pm
|
Thanks for the reminder - I had planned on picking up an adapter plate when I place my last round of parts order.
My boat is an '85, and I believe the box is shorter than yours. I'd rather not cut my arrestor - hoping to find one shorter, or hear if a shorter carb spacer won't cause problems. ------------- 1985 Ski Nautique 2001 |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: March-23-2010 at 1:52pm
|
A shorter carb spacer is fine. There are also shorter arrestors available: http://marineengineparts.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/page77.html - Marine Engine Parts (scroll down to part number 3745649).
I would be surprised if the Performer didnt fit under the 2001 box though, even with the stock arrestor and 1" spacer. Have you actually measured it? ------------- |
Posted By: kapla
Date Posted: March-23-2010 at 5:44pm
|
A tip I was given here to measure the clearance is putting a ball of clay bar or like over the arrestor and close the cover, then see how much it was compressed, the thickness it ends up is the clearance you have...is it clear my explanation?
------------- <a href="">1992 ski nautique |
Posted By: Watarski
Date Posted: March-24-2010 at 1:32pm
|
TRBenj - I was basically going off the original posts on this thread. I've learned a lot, mostly last minute, from this site...I was trying to be proactive. I'm getting closer to having my boat in the water and I didn't want something like this to bite me in the end. Thank you for pointing me in the direction of additional arrestors.
Yes, kapla, your explanation makes perfect sense. I will try that. Thanks for the help- ------------- 1985 Ski Nautique 2001 |