Yes its a type 1 cam and a type 4 version I wouldn't see it as ordinary. Doesn't look like European Motor Works show the type 1 version anymore Web are good, I use 1 in my type 4.
I know very little about the carbs side of things and is an area I need to read upon on more. I have the original 34 pict 3 at the moment so have looked at the complete kits as I guess that’s what I need to buy. I think from what’s been said the following are potential options (although I don’t think the IDFs were mentioned?): Type 1 dual port – twin Weber 34ICT kit: CSP bellcrank, £464 Type 1 twin Weber IDF40 kit – CSP bellcrank £852 Type 1 twin Dellorto DRLA40 kit – CSP bellcrank, £1195 (reconditioned!) General opinion seems to be that ICT will do the job but are not the best, what are the general downsides when compared to more expensive carbs given I’ll be going for the 1776? The Dellortos are priced really high, are they really worth that much?
Dellortos are twin-barrelled carbs, so you end up with one carb per cylinder. ICTs are single-barrel, much the same as the stock Solex...and that’s fine. The Dells will cover all the odd corner-cases of carb operation...which you likely won’t notice in a van. The main thing is to get rid of the t-shaped manifold. Then you’ve got an engine that can breath properly.
Not much can go wrong with ICT Webber's from new get the fuel pressure right and your good. The empi knock offs seem a little errrrrr
IMO either Weber or Dell 40’s are too big for a 1776cc bus engine, better to use carb bodies suitable for the capacity rather than fit small venturis in big carbs. Of course, many peeps fit much bigger carbs on much smaller engines but carbs that are too big are harder to tune. As a rule of thumb to calculate carb size: (Square root of (cylinder cc X maximum rpm)) divided by 40. You probably won’t rev a Type 1 more than 4,500, not often anyway, so √(444 x 4500)/40 = 35.34. If you think you’ll rev the engine to more than 4,500 on a regular basis then 40mm carbs might be more suitable, below 4,500 and Weber 34ICT are good enough.
May I ask if that rule of thumb calc take into account single or double carbs? I'd imagine that makes a difference!
Only one cylinder sucks at a time so it makes no difference up to the point where the total volume of air finds the carb to be a restriction as per Mr Westy's calculating.
It’s per cylinder but as zedders points out, on a four-cylinder four stroke engine there is never more than one cylinder sucking at a time. In theory a single carb would work, but and it’s a big but, the manifold has to be considered and a single carb on a flat four engine is poor because the manifold is so tortuous.
Then why can I get 5500 RPM or 37mph in second gear out of my supposedly choked off engine ? Breathing is not the issue, its lack of capacity ... The progressive 32/36 comes from a 2.8 litre Ford Granada.. I went the progressive route because the other carburettors all have their fun points for more money. The ICTs are dual single barrel carburettors and like the single centre mount have idle smoothness issues, as air flow is uneven between the left and right sides of the engine. Its why the stock "dual" Solex ICH carburettor has a third central idle carburettor feeding the balance tube with effectively even longer runners for idling and slow running, and short runners for power and efficiency once the throttle opens in the main carburettors. The other carburettors are getting too big for smaller engines, the vacuum is weak, so the jets are big and they become over sensitive to fuel level. In the same price bracket, the lowest cost EFI setups are getting competitive.
Of course you can get a progressive to work - with endless determination, an AFR gauge and a couple of spare years to experiment.
I’m well tuned then ha ha Actually, I miss being idle forgotten what it feels like. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’ve been in contact with a company to enquire about a 1776 engine build and they mentioned that they were just building a 1914cc for a customer with a t2 bay. I asked if they tended to run hotter and if that was an issue, they said the engine would be fine. They said they used a head which gave improved cooling? I guess this confirms what was mentioned earlier in the thread concerning MOFOCO heads (it was the same company that built paulcalf 2110cc).
My rebuilt engine, controversially, is a 1914cc. Not thread hijacking as OP and I have shared PMs on the subject; though i’ve been less than no use to him. From what I can gather the rebuilt engine details are: •Crank = Scat 69mm •Pistons = 94mm •Deck Height = 1.5mm -Down from previously 3mm •Camshaft = Not long throw •Heads = 50cc •Compression Ratio = 8.5:1 -Up from previously 7.3:1 The builder agrees that a 1776 would have been the safer bet, but if a 1914 is setup well, and maintained, it should be fine. So that’s now my intention and hope. From what has been said on here i’m now considering a staggering array of gauges, and other ideas, so I don’t melt this investment. Cue new thread: Pan’s Rebuilt Engine https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/to...lt-Engine.91216/&share_type=t&link_source=app Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I really liked them. I've only done a 100 miles but no issues at all. It pulls nice and ticks over well
