Ask Bill about carbing a DeLorean and other K-Jet/Carb tangets

[Farrar]

OK, I've printed out Dave Delman's diagrams and chosen which wires I need to keep in the engine compartment. Bill, can you double-check this list for me?

Here's what I think I need to keep:

3 - top right side of ignition coil ballast resistor
5 - to primary (-) of ignition coil
10-18 - the entire "red plug harness" since I have an automatic transmission
25 - oil pressure switch
26 - choke heater (formerly control pressure regulator)
28 - a/c compressor clutch
29 - coolant temperature gauge sender
30 - oil pressure gauge sender
31 - to alternator light
32 - to starter motor solenoid
34 - auto trans kickdown switch
35 - ground for both tail light assemblies
36 - reverse lights
37 - power to engine compartment light
38 - right directional light
39 - from engine compartment light to switch
40 - left tail light/license plate light
41 - brake lights
42 - right tail light/license light
43 - left directional light

My plan is to simply remove the stock wiring and run new wires from the appropriate pins, making a new and much smaller harness.

Are any of the grounds in the engine compartment ganged together? In my list above I omitted a few ground leads, e.g. for the control pressure regulator and diagnostic port; however, if those grounds are shared by anything else, I suppose I would want to keep them.

Thanks!

Farrar

[stevedmc]

OK, I've printed out Dave Delman's diagrams and chosen which wires I need to keep in the engine compartment. Bill, can you double-check this list for me?

Here's what I think I need to keep:

3 - top right side of ignition coil ballast resistor
5 - to primary (-) of ignition coil
10-18 - the entire "red plug harness" since I have an automatic transmission
25 - oil pressure switch
26 - choke heater (formerly control pressure regulator)
28 - a/c compressor clutch
29 - coolant temperature gauge sender
30 - oil pressure gauge sender
31 - to alternator light
32 - to starter motor solenoid
34 - auto trans kickdown switch
35 - ground for both tail light assemblies
36 - reverse lights
37 - power to engine compartment light
38 - right directional light
39 - from engine compartment light to switch
40 - left tail light/license plate light
41 - brake lights
42 - right tail light/license light
43 - left directional light

My plan is to simply remove the stock wiring and run new wires from the appropriate pins, making a new and much smaller harness.

Are any of the grounds in the engine compartment ganged together? In my list above I omitted a few ground leads, e.g. for the control pressure regulator and diagnostic port; however, if those grounds are shared by anything else, I suppose I would want to keep them.

Thanks!

Farrar

No need to replace wires. Just come over and we can start yanking stuff out while in the shade.

[Farrar]

No need to replace wires. Just come over and we can start yanking stuff out while in the shade.

Oh, I'm not doing this just yet -- I still have to buy the necessary supplies. Besides, I don't want to piggyback this project which I can do myself onto the other work we'll be doing at your place -- I think we'll have our hands full with the evaporator and heater core replacement!

Farrar

[Farrar]

Hey Bill, how's the power steering project coming? I was just looking at Chad's '69 Ambassador for sale and was thinking of power steering, and it reminded me of your #5939 and #2508.

Also, I think you might need to buy that Ambassador -- to keep your other AMC company.

Farrar

[Kenny_Z]

Very cool modification thread. Nice to know that there are some interesting tinkering options on the Delorean. I'm still learning the ins and outs of this KJet so I won't be making the mod myself but I enjoy seeing ingenuity.

I have to disagree with the Ford over Delorean comment. Maybe I don't have enough experience with the D yet but that 66 Mustang I have was built to be a throw away car. The cowl area wasn't even rust protected from the factory until the second gens hit the roads. They were a hastily thrown together car to compete with Chevy and were not originally built for speed, luxury, or longevity. The thing is just a rebodied Falcon so there wasn't any real "designing" going on and the engine selections were taken straight from the other cars in the line. Don't get me wrong, I love that car but she wasn't quality, she was quantity. Parts for her restoration were cheap though

[content22207]

Mustangs have only been mentioned twice in this thread:
Post 59) Explains that our carb conversions basically make the PRV emulate a mid 1970's Mustang Cologne V6 (an owner in Georgia is even running Ford ignition on his in lieu of Bosch)
Post 66) Points out that the number of Mustangs alone (in addition to a host of other Ford/AMC/Jeep vehicles) still running Autolite/Motorcraft 2100/4100's is why that particular carburetor is much more familiar and supported in this country than K-Jet.

Bill Robertson
#5939

[Kenny_Z]

Actually, I was referring to your post that Ford hasn't ever put out anything as bad as a Delorean. I believe they have and it was their most iconic car. I also believe that if Delorean had survived the next generation would have seen an improvement like the next gen Mustangs did. While the death of the company was unfortunate for those that lost their jobs it probably was a blessing for the automotive industry.

And I don't doubt that there's support for the 2100. I had many options for it when it was on my 66 but it was too restrictive and under-powered for my engine plans so I replaced it with a 4 barrel Holley.

[content22207]

You're not telling me anything I don't already know. I've been messing with vintage Fords for decades, yet the boys in Dearborn still continue to surprise me with inexplicable engineering. That said, even at Ford's most diabolical, DeLoreans as built are worse. They can be modified into reliable vehicles, but from the factory they were an unmitigated mess (let's be brutally honest: DeLoreans were the automotive equivalent of a school paper written the night before it is due).

Vintage Fords may not have been perfect, but they were popular. What that means is a ready supply of parts that are plentiful and cheap. It is comforting to know that if worse comes to worse while you're traveling, whatever has broken can be replaced at the nearest parts house.

If you wanted a 4 barrel, I would have gone with a 4100. Autolite/Motorcraft 2100/4100's have several advantages over Holleys:
1) single piece castings (Holleys are prone to leak at their gasketed mating surfaces)
2) simpler overall design (Holleys have lots of valves and diaphragms that do go bad)
3) smaller overall footprint
4) jets are mounted at the bottom of the bowls rather than on the sides (it is virtually impossible to expose the jets)

I am going to replace the Holley my latest school bus came with with a 4100. Tomorrow I will photograph them side by side for a comparison.

Bill Robertson
#5939

[Kenny_Z]

The 2100 left such a bad taste in my mouth that I went with the Holley over the 4100. Amusingly enough my first repair job with the Stang (other than the extensive body damage caused by telephone pole contact) was a hard start issue caused by the 2100. Looking back at it the root of the problem was probably caused by a poor rebuild job by the previous owner. I think my 69 Ford truck has a 4100 sitting on its 390. I'll have to go look tomorrow, I haven't spent much time with that truck.

I do love the simplicity of 60s engineering. I once managed to get the Stang back on the road with some items from the hobby section of Walmart when she left me stranded (brake related).

My main problem with the Mustang is in the handling. I've got a 66 Nova and a 66 Mustang. The Nova, on her suspension's pre-restored state, could out-handle and ride better than the Stang in her completely restored state. The bump steer alone is unforgivable. Sometimes I can't believe people drove these things back in the 60s.

[content22207]

You should have swapped it for a refined (Motorcraft) 2100. Ford struggled with Automatic choke designs throughout the 1960's. In addition to problems inherent with hot air choke operation, there are a variety of pulloff permutations: vacuum operated piston attached to the choke mechanism, a row of bypass holes drilled into the choke plate itself, a spring working against manifold vacuum, etc. Autolite of course didn't have any such problems in its original design because the choke plate was manually operated (which is what many owners who stick with Autolites end up converting to).

There are two Motorcraft 2100 pulloffs, both of which work excellently: a diaphragm integrated into the upper casting (early 70's), and a separate pulloff that hangs off the back of the carb (late 70's).

Ford also went to electrically heated choke springs in the 1970's, which can be substituted for hot air springs on earlier models -- housings are the same size.

If your choke plate isn't working properly, the engine will always be difficult to start. Optimally, the choke plate (without any bypass holes) should snap fully closed when tension is taken off the throttle mechanism, then crack open ~1/8" as soon as the engine starts (and of course continue to open the rest of the way as the engine warms up).

Ford threw out the 4 barrel baby with its bathwater and designed the 4300/4350 from the ground up. It's a rather abortive piece of hardware -- many owners retrofit 4100's in its place, albeit with electric choke springs. Early 60's pistons seem to be preferred over other pulloff options.

The Variable Venturi was another abortive Ford design that fortuitously shares the same bolt pattern with 2100/2150's -- owners retrofit them as well.

And of course Jeeps owners are converting to 2100's in droves from their Carter BBD's.

Bill Robertson
#5939