Edelbrock Performer Carb

[IC2]

I'm shortly going to put new valve covers on my SB Ford which is in my project '31A roadster. The pair I'm removing have both the oil fill and PCV in the front - these covers came without the holes which I had to drill. The new ones will have the holes already there - and will be the normal LF and RR. Since my engine is well tucked under the firewall due to errors by both TCI and Brookville, I intend on using the valve cover hole in the back right side for the PCV since it will be very difficult to put oil in that one. Now, my question, can the rear and currently plugged vacuum port on my Performer carb be used for the PCV rather then looping a bunch of unsightly tubing to the front port? Edelbrock "recommends" the front - but I can't see what difference it would make.

[enjenjo]

Yes it can. Never caused a problem for me.

[IC2]

Yes it can. Never caused a problem for me.

Thanks - thought so, vacuum is---vacuum  - and right after I posted my question, I for another reason looked at a picture of an earlier car's engine - and I did have it that way.

[C9]

Seems like I read a while back that running the PCV to the front was for a more even mixture.

Maybe . . . I run the hose into the back center large bib on my Edelbrocks and Carters.
Plug readings show the front two cylinders slightly leaner than the rest with the right front leanest of all.

Hasn't created a problem in 14 years of running the engine this way including several different cams and a dual quad setup.


Edelbrocks instructions show the right front bib to be the vacuum advance bib.
That's ported vacuum (zero vacuum a idle) and imo you don't want that.
Creates overheating for one thing.

The correct bib for vacuum advance is the left (drivers side in the US).
That bib supplies full time vacuum.

Not sure how you're running the rest of the PCV system, but the incoming air should be from a filtered source.
The carb filtered area is the place to pick up this air rather than use a breather with or without a filter for 'make-up' air into the crankcase.

[IC2]

Seems like I read a while back that running the PCV to the front was for a more even mixture.

Maybe . . . I run the hose into the back center large bib on my Edelbrocks and Carters.
Plug readings show the front two cylinders slightly leaner than the rest with the right front leanest of all.

Hasn't created a problem in 14 years of running the engine this way including several different cams and a dual quad setup.


Edelbrocks instructions show the right front bib to be the vacuum advance bib.
That's ported vacuum (zero vacuum a idle) and imo you don't want that.
Creates overheating for one thing.

The correct bib for vacuum advance is the left (drivers side in the US).
That bib supplies full time vacuum.

Not sure how you're running the rest of the PCV system, but the incoming air should be from a filtered source.
The carb filtered area is the place to pick up this air rather than use a breather with or without a filter for 'make-up' air into the crankcase.

On the front of the carb I'm using the ported vacuum connection for my MSD billet distributor and the manifold vacuum port for my C4 transmission (and that transmission may be another problem for possible later discussion). Currently and until I put my new valve covers on, I'm using the front PCV port then will install a fitting in the plugged hole on the back side. Currently I'm using a separate cap for the PCV air but have considered the air cleaner as my source, if for no other reason then to clean up the miscellaneous hoses and wiring drooped over the engine. I will have to admit (sadly), a GM engine is easier to keep extraneous hoses and wires out of the way then the front distributored Ford or MoPar

[C9]

Hoses?

Heck, I like hoses and weird stuff running all over the place.



Can ya tell?


Anyhoo, my pal just went through an extravaganza of sorts with his recently obtained 46 Ford sedan with 302 SBF and C4.

Wouldn't shift into 3rd.
Even after a rebuild by a local trans shop of good repute.
The shop did a couple of other checks.

We found the engine had very low vacuum at idle which is what was causing the poor shifting

Found the cam out of time, straightened that out and the engine gained enough vacuum to make the trans shift better.

That and replacing the Holley 600 cfm double pumper with an Edelbrock 600 made the little engine run pretty good.

Nothing against Holley carbs here, just that a double pumper on the street was a poor choice.
And sometimes they're a poor choice at the drag strip....

[IC2]

All that visible claptrap on the top of the engine is what I'm trying, though not very successfully, to avoid. I don't have FP regulators as I'm using a standard mechanical pump.....but....I do have air conditioning (yeah, I know, for a roadster!!) but I also have an as yet unfinished hard top for my car.

The C4 - I had to glue the pan gasket in place with some Permatex Gold RTV and so far this morning after one more bolt snugdown last night, no new puddle - hopefully that little niggler is cured or at least down to an occasional drip - like 1-2 a year

I had run Holley spread base carbs since they came out (1957) then Edelbrock came out with the Performer in the late '80s. I really dislike the Holleys for a street carb, a statement that I'm sure on another forum would get me roasted. I did have a very nice 3310 that ran beautifully on my 390GT Torino then my 460 pickup, but it just plain wore out at the shafts. A 4160, IMO, is a fire waiting to happen with the external fuel tube/O ring configuration and I have been there 3 times. A dbl pumper - why?? Especially on a mild small block and on the street. I occasionally still hear guys bragging that they have a mega cfm double pumper on their DD - what a waste - but I digress. Now I have to go find out where I wired my gauge panel wrong as a couple of the needles peg. Then maybe, first start today or tomorrow. When that happens, I can put the doors back on, bolt the rest of the parts together and off to the upholsterer in a week or so.

Dave W

[C9]

DD?

Small block of some kind?

[enjenjo]

DD?

Small block of some kind?

Daily Driver