logo
12 Port News - Features
12 Port History
Casting Numbers
Online Store
Tech Tips
Become a Member
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
#62207 12/19/10 02:06 AM
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 2
P
Newcomer
OP Offline
Newcomer
P
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 2
Hey everybody! I have been a spectator for a while, first time to post....
I Just recently purchased a rebuilt GMC 302, it came with the stock intake and a Holley 2 barrel. I have, over the years, acquired a McGurk SuperDual 2x1 small port intake (I had the orginal 228 in mind, then I found this 302) and a matched pair of rebuilt Stromberg BXOV-2’s. With a set of port adaptors, any reason why this set-up be would not be enough carburetion for the 302? Should I be looking for a large port intake? More carbs?

Last edited by pharmabrewer; 12/19/10 02:37 PM.
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,123
Likes: 3
P
1000 Post Club
**
Offline
1000 Post Club
**
P
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,123
Likes: 3
enough carburetion for the 302

Enough to do what?

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 2
P
Newcomer
OP Offline
Newcomer
P
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 2
Valid question. I am just looking for a good strong runner, nothing outrageous. Just don't want to starve it out (for lack of better description)on the high end.

Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,537
Likes: 15
1000 Post Club
****
Offline
1000 Post Club
****
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,537
Likes: 15
Greetings . . .

I would think that a pair of BXOV-2 carbs would run great on a 302.

The stock Holly 94 is similar to the Stromberg 48 - in the 170-180 CFM range.

The BOXV-2 was standard equipment on small displacement sixes (Chevy and Dodge) during varying years from the early 30's to the mid 40's (sourcing moved about between Carter and Stromberg CarbShop-Applications ). I've never seen a CFM rating - but given the engines it was fitted to - it is likely to be in the 120-130 CFM range. With two of them you will have perhaps 50% more carb then stock.

So you won't be starving . . .

regards,
stock49


[Linked Image from 49fastback.com]
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,123
Likes: 3
P
1000 Post Club
**
Offline
1000 Post Club
**
P
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,123
Likes: 3
There's really no such thing. Without enough air (what will happen) the vacuum in the carb just goes up, and increases flow above the "rating". The fuel gets too rich.

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,015
Likes: 47
1000 Post Club
****
Online Content
1000 Post Club
****
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,015
Likes: 47
I agree with Stock49. That should be a decent street set up. As for port size Bill Fisher liked the small port heads for milder street engines. The velocity may drop as the mixture goes form the small manifold into the large port but with stock valves I don;t think it will be an issue.


"I wonder if God created man because he was disappointed in the monkey?" Mark Twain
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 368
Contributor
****
Offline
Contributor
****
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 368
I too agree that this setup would be a good street setup on your GMC, the small port manifold should give you added air velocity for easy low speed tuning. I always enjoyed driving a jimmy because of the torque, no worry on leaving a stop sign, just let out the clutch and go. There is a thread o the H.A.M.B. with info about tuning the BXOV carbs.

Tim


Tim Tenold
I.I.#498
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 503
6
Major Contributor
****
Offline
Major Contributor
****
6
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 503
 Originally Posted By: panic
There's really no such thing. Without enough air (what will happen) the vacuum in the carb just goes up, and increases flow above the "rating". The fuel gets too rich.


vacuum is cut with 2 carbs though


Tom
I.I. #1475

Moderated by  stock49, Twisted6, will6er 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 533 guests, and 35 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
castironphil, uncle dave, trustedmedications20, Jsmay101, Paul Mahony
6,785 Registered Users
Sponsored Advertisement
Sponsored Advertisement
This Space is Available
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5