• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech

Picking a carb for my 393.

  • Thread starter Thread starter GSP393
  • Start date Start date Jan 1, 2008
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
First Prev 2 of 2

85_SS_302_Coupe

it sucks (I know) to be on the receiving end
15 Year Member
Nov 11, 2003
6,945
1,598
223
Northern KY
Jan 3, 2008
#21
  • Jan 3, 2008
  • #21
I've gotta ask...why does your uncle think his 750 is too small? Has he ever had the car dynoed and got an air/fuel mixture reading? I can't stress how bad the "i NEED a huge carb" mentality is. It's been that way since the musclecar days and people never seem to get it.

I'm not saying you DON'T need an 850....i AM saying talk to the PROS (because hey, i'm no pro, i've got too much carb myself) and find out what you really need before you buy something based on what anyone else says.

I would've bet that a 750 would do you just about right on an all motor 393 pushing 6500rpm...but again i'm no expert.
 

Wallzy

New Member
Aug 20, 2006
128
0
0
Orlando, FL
Jan 3, 2008
#22
  • Jan 3, 2008
  • #22
here's my 2 cents:

393 c.i. is .2274 c.f. and as a 4 stroke you are only intaking half that volume per revolution, thus .1137 c.f. and at 6500 rpm you are looking at 739 CFM, so i would check into a 750 CFM.

Good Luck,

Walz

EDIT:
Just remember that carbs are depend on velocity to work, this velocity is defined by the CFM rating of the carb.
 

85_SS_302_Coupe

it sucks (I know) to be on the receiving end
15 Year Member
Nov 11, 2003
6,945
1,598
223
Northern KY
Jan 3, 2008
#23
  • Jan 3, 2008
  • #23
Wallzy said:
here's my 2 cents:

393 c.i. is .2274 c.f. and as a 4 stroke you are only intaking half that volume per revolution, thus .1137 c.f. and at 6500 rpm you are looking at 739 CFM, so i would check into a 750 CFM.

Good Luck,

Walz

EDIT:
Just remember that carbs are depend on velocity to work, this velocity is defined by the CFM rating of the carb.
Click to expand...


Exactly. That's why too much carb is a bad thing. I'll try not to get too in depth on this one, but here's the "staw concept" on why too much carb is a bad thing:


Think of your typical McDonalds straw. You know that you can get a nice average size gulp of your favorite beverage from it with little effort. It's an average size, or at least it's a good size for getting your drink.

Now think about one a straw that's 1/4 the size (in diameter) of your McDonalds straw. You can still get your drink, but you're gonna have to really suck the hell out of it to get any liquid. This is the equivalent of having a carb that is too small. Your engine has plenty of power to suck air and fuel but it isn't getting much drink for it's work.

Now imagine a McDonalds straw that's 1 inch in diameter. You can still get your drink, but your cheeks are going to be numb after a couple sucks because of all the effort it takes to get the drink up the straw. You might get a big drink for your efforts, but it takes forever to get it and you're tired by the time you do. This is like having too much carb.

When air moves through a passage, the size of that passage plays a huge part in how fast the air moves, because air has to speed up to move the same amount through a small passage, and it slows down to move the same amount through a large passage. If you have a very small passage, air has to travel really fast to get to its destination, and it'll take a lot longer to get X amount of air from A to B. When air has a large passage, it slows down to move the same amount of air from A to B.


Too much carb means your engine is going to starve for air because air is moving really slowly into the engine (until it's running at such a high RPM that the demand is high enough). As a result your engine will be soft and unresponsive. Too little means it'll get plenty of air until the RPMs and demand get high enough that it can't move enough air through the smaller passage. The throttle will crack open super fast but it'll fall on its face in the upper RPMs.

You wanna be right in the sweet spot between these two. I could go on for days about this but i don't think anyone would read it
 

GSP393

New Member
Aug 14, 2006
217
0
0
Orange County, Texas
Jan 3, 2008
#24
  • Jan 3, 2008
  • #24
After that read and the guy from Holley calling for a 750, plus my engine machinist, I might just go for a 750HP.
 

GSP393

New Member
Aug 14, 2006
217
0
0
Orange County, Texas
Jan 3, 2008
#25
  • Jan 3, 2008
  • #25
Maybe one like this:

http://www.spiderautomotive.com/holley0805281.html

or this one, but there goes my choke.

http://store.summitracing.com/partd...919007+4294902704+4294902722+115&autoview=sku
 

85_SS_302_Coupe

it sucks (I know) to be on the receiving end
15 Year Member
Nov 11, 2003
6,945
1,598
223
Northern KY
Jan 3, 2008
#26
  • Jan 3, 2008
  • #26
Those Holley HP's are nasty. I had a buddy who owned a speed shop and they basically built cars for fun since they got everything so cheap. He built a 347 and put it in this crazy all out coupe rolling chassis and put a box-stock 650HP on it and it ran 10s without even jetting it.
 

GSP393

New Member
Aug 14, 2006
217
0
0
Orange County, Texas
Jan 3, 2008
#27
  • Jan 3, 2008
  • #27
I found these two:
http://store.summitracing.com/partd...506943+4294902670+4294902704+115&autoview=sku
http://store.summitracing.com/partd...506943+4294902670+4294902704+115&autoview=sku

The differance is the booster type, I don't know which one I need or if these are out of the box carbs or if they will need tuning.
 

93notchback

Member
Apr 5, 2005
39
0
6
Soperton, GA
Jan 12, 2008
#28
  • Jan 12, 2008
  • #28
Have a 393 with afr 205 heads, victor jr intake. run a proform 750. 1.42 60 foot, 6.34 in 1/8 on 150 NOS. 750 is just right.
 

85_SS_302_Coupe

it sucks (I know) to be on the receiving end
15 Year Member
Nov 11, 2003
6,945
1,598
223
Northern KY
Jan 12, 2008
#29
  • Jan 12, 2008
  • #29
GSP393 said:
I found these two:
http://store.summitracing.com/partd...506943+4294902670+4294902704+115&autoview=sku
http://store.summitracing.com/partd...506943+4294902670+4294902704+115&autoview=sku

The differance is the booster type, I don't know which one I need or if these are out of the box carbs or if they will need tuning.
Click to expand...


I prefer annular because they're more efficient but also better for racing. You can typically get better mpg out of them and they're still badass for racing. That's what the HP carbs have.


Also i'll second the Proform parts....for being inexpensive Chinese parts, they make really nice main bodies.
 

93notchback

Member
Apr 5, 2005
39
0
6
Soperton, GA
Jan 13, 2008
#30
  • Jan 13, 2008
  • #30
Yeah. I am very happy with the proform. It wasnt but a little over $500 and it has billet metering blocks, main body, and throttle plate. Looks just like an HP and in my onpinion runs better. Not cold natured at all.
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
First Prev 2 of 2
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
351w stroked to 408 CARB
  • Ric4eyedFox
  • Mar 20, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
17
Views
726
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Mar 22, 2025
General karthief
6
Hey all,I’m putting together a 302 for my 1968 Mustang and wanted to post the combo + some questions to make sure I’m not missing crucial
  • 68_Disgustang
  • Feb 22, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
888
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jun 20, 2026
gray owl
G
A
1987 408 Stroker comperssion
  • AnonymousIguana
  • Oct 2, 2018
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
28
Views
5K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 4, 2018
a91what
  • Locked
“Doing stuff the wrong way for the right reasons”: A related stupid story.
  • CarMichael Angelo
  • Apr 26, 2020
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
7
Views
4K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Apr 27, 2020
a91what
What It Cost Me To Not Put An Ls In My Fox.
  • CarMichael Angelo
  • Feb 14, 2014
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
14
Views
3K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Feb 15, 2014
CarMichael Angelo
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?