Please tell me if this is correct.

-
John12377

John12377

Member
Joined
May 4, 2016
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
So I am stumped. I have seen 2 different setups for what is running to and from my carburetor and I have no idea if I am set up correctly or not. I stopped driving this Dart almost 20 yrs ago and I really didn't have much to do with the engine back then. The valve cover has a pcv valve running into the 4bbl Holley Carburetor, too big for the slant 6, I know, but that's what it had when we bought it. On top of the Holley is an Edelbrock air filter with a port in the bottom with a hose running into a hose, running to a breather cap. Is this correct, or not. I have seen this engine set up with a breather cap with no hose connector and with the hose connector. Also, there was some oil in the air filter which leads me to believe that oil was being pulled from the valves through the pcv valve. Please look the image over and tell me what you think.
Engine.jpg
 
That looks right. The pcv system is supposed to draw filtered air from the air cleaner into the cranckcase then out through the pcv valve into the intake to be burned. If the system does not function at 100%, some oil/fumes into the air cleaner will result. I wouldn't worry too much about it unless it's excessive. Do be sure you have good stro g manifold vacuum and an operating pcv valve.
 
Looks pretty normal as said. If you go to wide open throttle, then there won't be much vacuum under the carb and some of the vapors in the crankcase will tend to be pulled up into the air cleaner, and may condense into liquid oil.
 
On some of the OEM air cleaners there was a small plastic fitting with a filter built in, you obviously don't have that on that aftermarket air cleaner. That would catch the little bit of oil and any debris flowing though there.

Secondly, if you find the time, it might help to pull the valve cover and see if there is a baffle under that breather, if not, the oil can overload the filter in that breather cap and flow through to the air cleaner.

This isn't a major issue, nothing a little tinkering won't correct.
 
Oops, bad proof-reading on my part; It should ask; is that a 4-bbl on an engine with a cast iron oem exhaust manifold?
Bad?,no. Effective?,no.
But it could be a split manifold, I just can't see it in the pic. Some creative fellows have cut the oem manifold in half and welded on a second dump, then installed dual exhaust. Not as good as a header, but somewhat effective at lower rpms.
 
It is a 4bbl Holley List 8007 on an Offenhaiser manifold. I feel like the guy who had it before me was trying to maybe make it a faster vehicle but with the slant 6 it seems to me like a waste of $. Maybe not.
 
John12377 said:
maybe make it a faster vehicle but with the slant 6 it seems to me like a waste of $. Maybe not.
Click to expand...

Slant 6's can be made to run, but it takes more than a carb, lol. There are some that run 9's in the quarter.
 
John12377 said:
Would it be better for me to go back to a 2bbl or am I okay with what I've got here?
Click to expand...

With either the 2 barrel or what you have I would want to up my compression to at least 9.0 to 1 by either decking the block, milling the head, or a combination of the 2 and upping the exhaust system to a larger single, going with a set of Dutra duals into a larger single exhaust or possibly headers.

I will be running about 9.4 to 1 with my deck cut 90 thou, head cut 10 thou, 4 barrel Offy with a FiTech TBI and NOS Clifford long tube headers in my 65 wagon.
 
What year is your car? I don't believe the filter to breather deal came out FEDERALLY until about 67 and may have been 68. This may have been earlier in CA sold cars

But the breather hookup is correct for later cars and certainly will not hurt older cars, and may have been required "upgrade" IE smog inspection for states like CA

Here's the artist rendition out of the 66 manual. You can see "according to this" that it was not there in 66

slant.jpg
 
67Dart273 said:
What year is your car? I don't believe the filter to breather deal came out FEDERALLY until about 67 and may have been 68. This may have been earlier in CA sold cars
Click to expand...

I think you are correct that it was required in 67, certainly NLT 68. My CA built 65 wagon had the hose from the oil filler cap to the air cleaner; I would have to check my 65 literature but think it was mandatory for CA and an option for the other 49 states.
 
65 Dartman said:
With either the 2 barrel or what you have I would want to up my compression to at least 9.0 to 1 by either decking the block, milling the head, or a combination of the 2 and upping the exhaust system to a larger single, going with a set of Dutra duals into a larger single exhaust or possibly headers.

I will be running about 9.4 to 1 with my deck cut 90 thou, head cut 10 thou, 4 barrel Offy with a FiTech TBI and NOS Clifford long tube headers in my 65 wagon.
Click to expand...
Is your goal to make it a much faster vehicle or a better running vehicle? I personally just wanted to be a smooth running vehicle with a little more power when I want it.
 
67Dart273 said:
What year is your car? I don't believe the filter to breather deal came out FEDERALLY until about 67 and may have been 68. This may have been earlier in CA sold cars

But the breather hookup is correct for later cars and certainly will not hurt older cars, and may have been required "upgrade" IE smog inspection for states like CA

Here's the artist rendition out of the 66 manual. You can see "according to this" that it was not there in 66

View attachment 1714932709
Click to expand...
Mine is a 65 so it's very similar to the 66
 
John12377 said:
Is your goal to make it a much faster vehicle or a better running vehicle? I personally just wanted to be a smooth running vehicle with a little more power when I want it.
Click to expand...

With all the mods, I expect to have both a better running and more power on tap
 
I think the primaries in that carb are actually smaller than the 1920s and certainly have less total throat area (IIRC) than the big singles. So if it runs good, there's not much point to pull it off.
Unless the exhaust is still oem, then I would just probably defeat the secondaries, until you do something with that.
 
I really only see one thing that kinda freaks me out, and that is the single reservoir master cylinder.
If you loose seal on any of the four brake cylinders you loose all of them with a single master.
My Dad used to tell me "For every dollar you put into the go, you should put a dollar into the stop." :D
Can't really take that literal, but it's good thing to keep in mind.
 
TrailBeast said:
I really only see one thing that kinda freaks me out, and that is the single reservoir master cylinder.
Click to expand...

Since TrailBeast brought up the safety question, I would ditch that glass fuel filter and go with the metal one.
 
65 Dartman said:
Since TrailBeast brought up the safety question, I would ditch that glass fuel filter and go with the metal one.
Click to expand...

But glass fuel filters and fusible links go together so well. :D
Those cleanable glass filters are pretty nice, but for function AND safety they are not the best.
 
If you are gonna put a metal can filter on it, put a lifetimer on like I did. 125,000 miles and 15 years and never touched it yet. Good thing too, cuz it's at the back, underneath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top