<VV> 4x1 4 carb engines

[kevin nash]

> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:34:09 -0800
> From: Mark Durham <62vair at gmail.com>
> Subject: <VV> 4x1 4 carb engines
> To: Virtual Vairs <VirtualVairs at corvair.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAEEoEu6nPPGAjcTS_=+JTDr2T=LoAYLDEimquZz+La9+Xy6BtA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> Gents, I'm looking for people who have converted their engines to the 4
> carb using the 4X1 conversion kit, to get their expereince on the
> driveability of the engine and on how the linkage works.
> 
> Has anyone done the kit and removed the progressive portion of the linkage,
> so all 4 carbs come in together?  I believe Clarks mentions the progressive
> as the better solution, however, I seem to remember an article back in the
> 60's that says non progressive works, too.The article on the 4X1 back in
> the late 60's I ran across somewhere but lost. Does anyone have a copy I
> could get? I think it speaks to this situation.
> 
> The reason I am asking this question?  I am working on a EFI conversion for
> the car. My original intention was to convert the two carbs to throttle
> bodies by boring out the venturi to the 1.25 bore at the throttle plate.
> This gives approxinately 17% more air.
> 
> Another option is to add the 4X1 kit to double the air supply, so the
> engine can breath the best it can. I would then, add a fuel injector at
> each of the 4 throttle bodies. But in this scenario, each carb must open at
> the same time so there would be appropriate fuel flow to the cylinders from
> all four carbs. Alternatively, I could find a place to add the four
> injectors to the intake runner, rather than in the carb, as planned.
> 
> Hence, my question, if anyone has a running a 4X1 without the progressive
> linkage. Or has anyone experimented with it and likes one over the other,
> and why.
> 
> I know there are those who have commented that I should change out the
> heads to 140's and so forth. Some say that adding the extra carbs only
> burns more gas, and so on. There is no doubt that the 140 heads and bigger
> valves provide more breathability potential. My heads have been ported, the
> chambers welded up and modified like a 140's, and the spark plug hole moved
> closer to the exhaust valve. So, I think I have a good set of heads and
> will modify them to be the best they can be. I already am running 140
> manifolds and dual exhaust.
> 
> I've read all of those remarks and we don't need to go over those items
> again. I've got all that data, and just need to fill in a few holes to see
> what will work well for my intended conversion.
> 
> I've also started a thread on Corvair Forum asking for the same information.
> 
> In the mean time, I'm replacing upholstery side panels, rear and kick
> panels, tuxedo carpet, and seat covers this winter! I'm also adding a three
> point shoulder/seat belt system in the car and adding seat belts to the
> rear seats.
> 
> Should be a busy winter!
> 
> Thanks in advance
> 
> Mark Durham
> 
> 1962 Monza Coupe, Red/Red
> 64-110 engine, 4 speed
> 
 Mark- I have not done this, however there was a post on fastvairs awhile back (5-6months ago?)- the gist of itwas that the linkage worked well, but at the carburetor throat size they were running (1.5 inches ), the throttle responsewas poor, and was only of benefit for racing. Since you are going to efi, you dont have to worry about low rpm throttleresponse because the efi doesnt need any vacuum to run correctly. Therefore, you can run 4 1.5" i.d. throttle bodyswithout the driveablility problems that you would have on carburetors that size.Kevin Nash