1966 mustang 625 CFM street demon carb too big for my stock 289? - Ford Mustang Forum
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 16 (permalink) Old 07-19-2012 Thread Starter
Rookie
 
Potrice's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 5
 
1966 mustang 625 CFM street demon carb too big for my stock 289?

1966 mustang convertible, 289 4v, C4 3speed automatic (rebuilt), 2.80 gears, 12 timing, electronic ignition, new MSD Blaster 2 coil, new spark plugs and timing chain. The engine is stock and was never rebuilt.

I was previously using the original Ford 2v carb and just installed a brand new 625 cfm street demon carb. Here's a link to the carb I'm using.

Demon Carburetion 1901 - Demon Carburetion Street Demon Carburetors - Overview - SummitRacing.com

I Installed the carb straight from the box and the car is running good but I noticed a HUGE drop in MPG. Seems like the stang is using twice the gas it was when using the original Ford 2v carb. Is the car running too rich? I'm also a very conservative driver and my tires have more than enough air in them.

Is anyone else using a Demon 625 cfm? Is it too big for a stock 289? Feedback would be appreciated!

Thanks!
Patrick
Potrice is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 16 (permalink) Old 07-19-2012
Apprentice
 
90lxconvert's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 93
 
I would say its to big, did you replace the manifold or did you just get one of those 2-4bbl adapters. I had a 600 on a fully modified 289 but I had a cam heads the works. It's not the end of the world if you willing to do some mods.
90lxconvert is offline  
post #3 of 16 (permalink) Old 07-19-2012
Apprentice
 
90lxconvert's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 93
 
I am sorry, I didn't see you originally had a 289 4v. That changes alot of things, are you running a noticeably rich mixture, check to see if the spark plugs a getting fouled up and the exhaust is really black, if the motor has never been rebuilt check the compression
90lxconvert is offline  
post #4 of 16 (permalink) Old 07-19-2012 Thread Starter
Rookie
 
Potrice's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 5
 
The car came with a 2bbl carb and I changed the manifold. Thanks for the information 90lxconvert. It really sucks if the carb is too big and I have to change it...the throttle response is killer with this carb...argh!
Potrice is offline  
post #5 of 16 (permalink) Old 07-19-2012
Apprentice
Classic Member
 
vsop's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: Pleasantprairie
Posts: 221
 
I put a similar Edelbrock carb (600-650?) and Ford manifold on my rebuilt 289 that cam with a 2v carb.
I had the motor dynoed and ashed if the carb was too big and he said no. It runs great.
vsop is offline  
post #6 of 16 (permalink) Old 07-19-2012
SHELBY GT 350 Member
Classic Member
 
Lizer's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: Kalamazoo
Posts: 6,114
 
I gotta ask, why didn't you look into it before buying it? A 625 for a stock 289 is quite large. Check out a horsepower book, or even go to Holley. My horse power book (David Vizard) as a rule of thumb state 1.8-2 CFM per engine CID for a performance engine. That comes to 578 CFM for a 289 using the high end of that basic CFM estimate.

Go to Holley's interactive carb selector, even telling them you run a highly modified 289, they still suggest a 570 carb.

Holley Interactive Carburetor Selector


An oversized carb decreases your air velocity. When the air is moving too slow it reduces power. The same phenomenon is observed with exhaust pipe diameter. Your engine performance is probably going to be optimized with a smaller carb.
Lizer is offline  
post #7 of 16 (permalink) Old 07-19-2012
PONY Member
 
seph10's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Location: Peach Bottom
Posts: 482
 
Your 625 will work on that 289,,,The jets on the demon 625 are large for that engine,,( this accounts for your mpg loss),,I would try #60 primary and #68 for the secondary,,,and see what happens,,work from there,,jets are cheap,,and easy to change,,also get a set of re-usable carb gaskets,,in case you have to change the jets a few times,,,if you do a little research you can find out how carbs work in relationship to engine size,,cfm and fuel delivery,,,
seph10 is offline  
post #8 of 16 (permalink) Old 07-19-2012
GT Member
Classic Member
S197 Member
 
Jonk67's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: Smyrna
Posts: 1,997
 
I used a demon Jr. 625 on my stockish 289 and added a 1/2" phenolic spacer. It ran really well and mileage was a little better than my 2bbl. when i kept my foot out of it. I'd try the jets as Seph10 suggested to fine tune the carb to the engine.
Jon

'67 Coupe 289 stroked to 333, AOD, 9" w/3.50:1, PDB, Candyapple red w/red deluxe int., PS, ext. decor group, light group, foxbody seats.
'09 Black Warriors In Pink with glass roof - the wifes Mustang.
"If it ain't broke, I haven't fixed it yet" -Jon
Jonk67 is offline  
post #9 of 16 (permalink) Old 07-20-2012
Banned
 
cindys_sn95's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: Gulfport
Posts: 7,991
 
joseph and jon are both correct. the 625 should work really well on a 289. try the jetting that joe sugested and double check everything else. it should not have killed the milage like that.
cindys_sn95 is offline  
GT Member
 
Joes72/65's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Location: Imperial Beach
Posts: 1,462
 
Lizer is right on the money. If a bigger carb worked as well as a smaller one on a stock engine, Ford could have saved a lot of money by just slapping 750's on everything from 260's to 429's, but physics just don't work that way! You will always get the best performance with an appropriately sized carb, not just a big one tuned and jetted down for a smaller motor. A stock 289 has no hope of ever, ever, pulling anything even close to 625cfm through the carb at WOT.

Joe
'65 Coupe, 302, Autolite 4100, C4, 2.80
'72 Grande, 351C, Motorcraft 2100, FMX, 2.75
Joes72/65 is offline  
Banned
 
cindys_sn95's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: Gulfport
Posts: 7,991
 
a little extreme, don't you think joe....45 CFM bigger is not going to kill it. this is the real world, not a theory. he already has the carb. better plan is to figure out where his milage went!
cindys_sn95 is offline  
PONY Member
 
seph10's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Location: Peach Bottom
Posts: 482
 
I only suggested re-jetting to save him some money,,no sense buying a new carb when you don't need one,,as potrice stated he is a Conservative driver,,,re-jetting should work fine,,if he was going to race the car and need to get every ounce of power out of the car,,then I would change the carb,,,he can re-jet the carb, the engine will run good and he should regain some of the mpg back,,of course he won't get the mpg he did with the 2v carb,,but he can come close,,,
seph10 is offline  
Apprentice
Classic Member
 
hunterdog57's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 197
 
Here is a link to a CFM calculator. Since your engine is basically stock The 625 is a bit large for your engine.
Carb CFM Calculator

I ran a 625 on a 383 Mopar years ago with good response and decent fuel mileage.
hunterdog57 is offline  
GT Member
 
kenash's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Severna Park, MD.
Posts: 1,847
 
+1 for down jetting! Too late to throw the baby out with the wash!

Ken
Severna Park, MD
1964 1/2 Poppy Red Cvt Resto-Mod
333 cu.in, dual Webers, CI cam, TW heads,TRI-Ys, 3.55 rear, T5z, TCP susp., real leather seating
kenash is offline  
Rookie
 
HyeVon's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Location: Mission Hills
Posts: 1
 
Exclamation

The Street Demon 625 IS NOT based on a Holley carb, it's a hybrid of AFB and Quadrajet engineering principles. Therefore, you cannot compare its CFM flow with a Holley, and you also cannot conclude that the carb is too big based on online CFM calculators.

2 things to keep in mind: 1) the small 1 3/8" primary bores are going to do most of the air-fuel work, 2) the CFM flow from the secondaries is controlled by the air valve above their butterflies. The primary bores have a triple-stack venturi, design concept taken directly from a Quadrajet, allowing crisp throttle response and good fuel ecomomy. The air valve's purpose is to limit CFM flow to the secondaries. This means the OP's 289 will "suck" what it needs, - it's not going to get force-fed the full 625 CFM if it doesn't need it.

Proper jet/rod combos and power piston springs should correct the fuel economy issues, as well as possibly improving power & performance over the previous carb.
HyeVon is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a VALID email address for yourself, otherwise you will not receive the necessary confirmation email needed to confirm, validate and activate your new AFM member account.

Failure to provide a VALID email address, will result in the cancellation of your new AFM member account registration.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183