two fours

M-E-L Engine powered Mercury Car General Discussion
User avatar
alternate
Editorial Group
Editorial Group
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun 26. Sep 2010, 10:41
Gender: male
Music instruments you're playing: Vuvuzela

two fours

Post by alternate » Mon 27. Sep 2010, 09:23

Note: Complete or part of old conversation copied from the archives and brought back to you by admin. New replies can be added if desired.

Originally postet by "Joshua "

Got a '64 continental. Could I put a double four-barrel carb manifold and two holleys on top without making any other modifications to the stock 430? I've had the heads re-done. I'd like to see some serious low-end torque without having to mess with the cam, lifters, crank, etc. I'd just like to bolt on the intake and carbs and not have to mess with anything else. Possible?
Joshua

User avatar
Theo
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 1177
Joined: Sun 21. Dec 2008, 14:10
Gender: male
Location: Berlin / Potsdam in Germany
Contact:

Re: two fours

Post by Theo » Mon 27. Sep 2010, 09:24

2x4 set up is not very suitable for low end torque.......
....what you need is a good low end intake charge velocity. You would disturb it with a 2x4 set up, since it is good for high RPM applications where it all starts to work well at over 6000 + .
If your life depends on it, you might consider to use a 3x2 intake that sure looks cool too. This one can be operated w. a progressive linkage. It allows the center carb to serve in the first stages and the other ones to cut in later as the pedal moves closer to the floor.
Best regards
Theo
Admin

User avatar
alternate
Editorial Group
Editorial Group
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun 26. Sep 2010, 10:41
Gender: male
Music instruments you're playing: Vuvuzela

Re: two fours

Post by alternate » Mon 27. Sep 2010, 09:25

Theo, so, what do I need to do to get the low-end torque?

User avatar
Theo
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 1177
Joined: Sun 21. Dec 2008, 14:10
Gender: male
Location: Berlin / Potsdam in Germany
Contact:

Re: two fours

Post by Theo » Mon 27. Sep 2010, 09:26

General rules, hard to apply to the MEL.....
....Being still a beginner w. MEL, I find it difficult to give the general advise that I usually do w. engines that are widely covered by the aftermarket.
Low end torque is usually produced by small camshafts that mostly read 180 - 220° @ 0.50" Lift. Thats near to most stock cam readings. What the afterm. cams do have what the stck. don't is the added valve lift which is mainly responsible for the L.E. Power. Their faster more aggressive ramps do contribute too. Most have an advanced intake center line @ appx. 108° ATDC vs. 113 or more on the ol' fashioned stck. cams.
All the above remains hot air and dreams if no folk come to jump in and give you some info where to buy or get a modified cam for that motor.
IMO only a slightly bigger cam (a few degrees) w. an emphasis on higher lift will give it some life.
If you don't find a cam as described, you won't really lose much. The stock cam will be O.K. if you just advance it a few degrees.
If that sounds new to you, don't do it w/o any further advise from some more experienced buddy. Please keep in touch w. the folks in this forum for further guidance once you decide to go this way.
That, PLUS changing to a higher ratio rocker arm, is the only way I can think of at this time. Use the FE adjustable rocker arms that are still obtainable at a reasonable prize through various sources like PAW or Crane. Harland Sharp are great roller rockers that will fit too.
Also try to get the later heads that have smaller intake ports. They would help to the intake charge velocity.
Some other thoughts: Cold air iduction, pertronix magnetic point conversion for your distributor, good sparc plug wires, MSD or equal ignition box, big tall air filter, numerically higher rear axle (3,5:1 ratio is a good one to start with), slightly smaller diameter tires.
Hope this gives you some brain food LOL.
Stick around man
Best regards
Theo
Admin

User avatar
alternate
Editorial Group
Editorial Group
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun 26. Sep 2010, 10:41
Gender: male
Music instruments you're playing: Vuvuzela

Re: two fours

Post by alternate » Mon 27. Sep 2010, 09:27

Wow!
That's a lot of info! Thanks...I do have some buddies who know what they're doing. I'll have to mull and ask over everything except the last part: tires. When you said smaller diameter tires, do you mean lower profile tires? I have the stock replacements, which are very, very high profile. I'm planning ultimately to drop the front end 2" and put some 18"s on with moderately low profile tires (I don't want the rubber-band-stretched-around-my-tires look), so will that work? All the other stuff sounds fun, and not too expensive.
Also, what was the cfm of the Carter AFB that came with the 430ci originally, and can I put a beautiful Holley 670 or 770 on there? Is the cold-air intake that you speak of one of those tubes that runs up to the grill of the car to get the freshest air?

Thoughts? All your advice is much appreciated. Wish me luck; I and two friends are shoving the resealed tranny up into the beast on Saturday!

User avatar
Theo
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 1177
Joined: Sun 21. Dec 2008, 14:10
Gender: male
Location: Berlin / Potsdam in Germany
Contact:

Re: two fours

Post by Theo » Mon 27. Sep 2010, 09:28

Profile vs. tire diameter???
...Well, I'm busted. My english language limitations leave me stupid now.
Profile means tire thread in german. You probably use it as diameter. My T-Bird has an appx. tire diameter of 26" I think.
I can't speak for your 64, but the 58 Lincoln that I'm working on has the original 600 cfm Holley carb mounted. I wouldn't go w. a higher cfm rating for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post (Low End Velocity and torque).
The tubes that run from the grill to the carb is exactly what I'm refering too. An other cool way how to duct cold air is from the cowl hoses. Those are the holes where rain water usually exits the cowl via some short rubber hoses. Just plug in there. You'll need to think about how to exit the water though. A smaller hole in those duct tubes will be fine I think.
You're welcome
Best regards
Theo
Admin

User avatar
KULTULZ
Technical Sergeant
Technical Sergeant
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed 12. May 2010, 10:35
Gender: male

Re: two fours

Post by KULTULZ » Mon 27. Sep 2010, 09:28

I Haven't Come Across A Reference...
...regarding the availability of a 8V intake for a MEL, either factory or aftermarket (not to mean there was never one offered).
I have seen the 8V intake designed for the 1957 Turnpike Cruiser with the 368 LINCOLN engine.

User avatar
hawkdouble
Editorial Group
Editorial Group
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun 26. Sep 2010, 06:24
Gender: male
Music instruments you're playing: Remington 5 shot

Re: two fours

Post by hawkdouble » Mon 27. Sep 2010, 09:30

Note: Complete or part of old conversation copied from the archives and brought back to you by admin. New replies can be added if desired.

Originally postet by "Jay "

What block is the Turnpike Cruiser?

User avatar
KULTULZ
Technical Sergeant
Technical Sergeant
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed 12. May 2010, 10:35
Gender: male

Re: two fours

Post by KULTULZ » Mon 27. Sep 2010, 09:32

Engine Options-1958 TC
The reference material(s) I have indicates the TC was first assembled with the 383ci MARAUDER engine (330HP) and that the LINCOLN 430 (360HP) was released as an option later in the model run. It also states the SUPER MARAUDER (3X2) engine option (400HP) was not available until MAR 1958. That may well explain the scaricity of the option.

User avatar
KULTULZ
Technical Sergeant
Technical Sergeant
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed 12. May 2010, 10:35
Gender: male

Re: two fours

Post by KULTULZ » Mon 27. Sep 2010, 09:34

Interesting Contribution From The IMOA Bulletin Board
No score for this post September 8 2004, 3:30 PM

From http://www.mercuryclub.com/cgi-bin/ulti ... 000025&p=3

Jerry Clor # 656 posted August 23, 2004 08:05 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just helped an historian from the St. Louis stamping plant....and he too had his impressions of where the Edsel was supposed to fall in the Ford Family of Fine Cars. It is stated that the Edsel was to be between the Ford and Mercury (stated in "Disaster in Dearborn" but the pricing trully did not bear that out.

_Information I had stated that the Turnpike was to have the MEL large block engine that ended up in the Edsel in 1957, but due to casting irregularities at the Cleveland engine plant, only the Edsel got the MEL 410_...the 368 was taken directly from the Lincoln production line because the sales slump for Lincoln actully began in 56; Remember also that the 58 Edsel started production in June of 1957.

Broken Link to photo here

I was told from the stamping plant guy that the only reason there was a 58 TPC was they were using unsold '57 Body's and they ran them until they ran out in April of '58. The Parklane had the Edsel roof and other Edsel components due to the low sales of the large series Edsels which were made on the Mercury assembly line. I have heard everything from the 9th car interruption theory to the 40th car theory on where the Edsels were in the production line up. Will the truth be known ever?

Would have been a great thing to have the 57 Mercury TPC's with that 410 in it....or better yet the 430.
The 368 has its strong points, but it also has its weaknesses.....I heard that the heads flowed so well, that Chevy actually took the design from the Lincoln 341 head and copied it for the first 265/283's....the 368 could have been a barn burner except that the intake was re-designed to keep the carb low enough for the Lincoln hood...consiquently, all that was gained in the head design was lost on the plenum of the intake (as the rumor goes) I know of guys using extruded hone technology to fix the intakes on the 368 and it just has monstorous inprovement in performance.

The TPC did meet a need for advanced gagetry, but by the time the MEL Division hit the streets with it, the ressession made it unaffordable. Compared to the Buick Roadmaster, or even the top fo the line Packard, it was a match!

I'm afraid tho...that as I said when I started this thread, there just is NOT good dependable production information. I have done the best I could to talk to Edsel and Mercury production folks...those that are still alive, but it has NOT resolved the controversy.
Edsel on either side of the Mercury (low end or high end) ..is its sister car!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post Reply

Return to “MEL Cars General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest