1959 Mercury With An Autolite 2100

[58Yeoman]

Thanks KULTULZ, I knew I'd seen that before. I'd started working at a small Ford dealer in 1966 while in HS, though I've worked on many older cars since.

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by 58Yeoman

I'd started working at a small Ford dealer in 1966 while in HS, though I've worked on many older cars since.

I too started at a FORD DLR in 1966. I had moved up from my intro of refueling technology and lube bay shenanigans.

I was a GAS STATION CASANOVA ...

[KULTULZ]

- THIS IS CORRECT INSTALL -

Notice how this manifold shown is a little different from yours? There is a reason.

I'll be back with an explanation but it is time for my HAPPY HOUR NAP ...

[Stephenorf]

Originally Posted by KULTULZ

.

There is. On the B9AE manifold, there is an inlet filter as shown -

Did you previously post your exhaust manifold CASTING ID NOS?

EDIT -

That 1st ILL is marked incorrectly. While it says 292, it is FE only. The INLET FILTER will be directly on the manifold underside of the top fitting.

The 2nd ILL shows the position of the 292/312 FYB B9AE-9430-A fresh air inlet filter.

Well, I can't really get a good look at the engineering casting number with the manifold installed, so I took a rubbing instead. Looks like ECR-9430-A. I guess that might be right for the RH side as the left side is ECJ-9431-C. The note says it "includes retainer, thermostatic choke control and insert". And caccording to the Master Parts list it is specific to 1959 312 ci engines.

I felt all around for another hole, and have not been ale to locate it. Furthermore, I dug all the sand out of the exhaust manifold heat tube orifice and it seems to be a hole with a bottom (no passthrough for air to be moved through a filter or other source other than binging air in from around the tube.)

[dmsfrr]

Originally Posted by Stephenorf

... the left side is ECJ-9431-C. ...

Apologies for this detour but is that left side manifold shaped like the top one in this second photo? With the casting number upside down and facing the valve cover?

If so, and for whatever it's worth ($$$) that manifold is originally from a '57 T-Bird.

http://www.y-block.info/casting/exhaust.html
.

[Stephenorf]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by dmsfrr

Apologies for this detour but is that left side manifold shaped like the top one in this second photo? With the casting number upside down and facing the valve cover?

If so, and for whatever it's worth ($) that manifold is originally from a '57 T-Bird.

http://www.y-block.info/casting/exhaust.html
.

As a matter of fact the LH manifold looks like the top manifold in your pic. And yes, the casting number is upside down and facing the valve cover.

[Stephenorf]

Originally Posted by KULTULZ

- THIS IS CORRECT INSTALL -

Notice how this manifold shown is a little different from yours? There is a reason.

I'll be back with an explanation but it is time for my HAPPY HOUR NAP ...

Do tell, why the difference? It's always happy hour somewhere!

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by dmsfrr

Apologies for this detour but is that left side manifold shaped like the top one in this second photo? With the casting number upside down and facing the valve cover?

If so, and for whatever it's worth ($) that manifold is originally from a '57 T-Bird.

http://www.y-block.info/casting/exhaust.html
.

That exhaust manifold was used on more than one application (57 BIRD). This may be an additional source(s) for you T-BIRD guys.

See chart below -

Look for B7S 9431-A and application/years.

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by KULTULZ

- THIS IS CORRECT INSTALL -

Notice how this manifold shown is a little different from yours?



There is a reason.

I'll be back with an explanation but it is time for my HAPPY HOUR NAP ...

Originally Posted by Stephenorf

Do tell, why the difference? It's always happy hour somewhere!

Do you now see the difference? Your manifold is an earlier style. It can only be considered for correct assy. by the CASTING ID CODE and CASTING ID DATE.

Now just to aggravate you further ... ... . the 312 you show is BLUE, yours is RED (trim). It may be that the 1958-60 MERC 312 was blue and when MERC went to the 292 in 1961, it was RED. This hasn't been documented yet.

As for the CARB ID. The HOLLEY was ID'd by a FORD ENGINEERING ASSY NO. There was also a HOLLEY LIST NO and ASSY DATE usually.

The ILL showing the choke install came from the 1949/59 FORD MPC ILL. I could not find the same ILL in the 1956/59 MERC MPC. It is self explanatory.



Do you see the detail differences between the exhaust manifolds?

[Stephenorf]

Originally Posted by KULTULZ

Do you now see the difference? Your manifold is an earlier style. It can only be considered for correct assy. by the CASTING ID CODE and CASTING ID DATE.

Now just to aggravate you further ... ... . the 312 you show is BLUE, yours is RED (trim). It may be that the 1958-60 MERC 312 was blue and when MERC went to the 292 in 1961, it was RED. This hasn't been documented yet.

Well, it looks like the PO did a pretty poor job of painting the valve covers red. When I pressure washed the engine compartment and engine, most of the red paint peeled off under the pressure, exposing surface rust and original blue paint. So I think blue is probably the original color, plus there is red overspray one the intake manifold.

Originally Posted by KULTULZ

As for the CARB ID. The HOLLEY was ID'd by a FORD ENGINEERING ASSY NO. There was also a HOLLEY LIST NO and ASSY DATE usually.

The ILL showing the choke install came from the 1949/59 FORD MPC ILL. I could not find the same ILL in the 1956/59 MERC MPC. It is self explanatory.

Do you see the detail differences between the exhaust manifolds?

Oh yes, I see the difference. Interestingly, I notice the engineering number cast onto the intake manifold starts with "C0AE"...indicating a 1960 application? The date code on the intake is 4F9 (June 4, 1969)...so I guess Ford used an engineering number that started with "C0" in 1969, or was somewhere in June the cutover for the new model year? Or it could be the whole motor was swaped at some point over the years.

[Stephenorf]

I just went back and looked at where I got this image from. This is a pic of a 1960 Mercury Monterey 312 ci. Could be there is a difference in 1959 and 1960 exhaust manifolds and would explain why the ones on my car look slightly different from the one in the attached pic. But the heat tube should run very similar to the one in the pic....which is where this all started.

[KULTULZ]

I haven't forgotten you. Still ciphering here.

There is a PN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 1959 and 1960-62.

I think the manifold on yours is a pre-1959. Will elaborate.

[fordor41]

Originally Posted by Stephenorf

Yeah, my question exactly. But I think in this case, the way we're figurin gthis out, it doesn't get filtered air. It pulls air from around that hole in the manifold. Condider there might supposed to be a heat stove on there too. Nonetheless, the consensus is that the air is just pulled into the tube that is pushed all the way down inside the hole in the manifod. I suppose some dust or rust specs might be drawn into the carb, but at least nothing too big. I also suspect the heat tube circumference (OD) is such that it just fits in that hole, and maybe also some of that heat-resistant asbestos cloth would get pushed down around the top of the hole. These two factors would mitigate a lot of the junk that could be sucked into the carb such as from an wide-open vacuum leak.

If someone knows the correct setup on the 312 I'd be very interested to see it. I've looked for a pic of a 312 2V on the internet with the air filter assembly removed (so as to get a good view of the passenger side exhaust manifold and choke plumbing), but didn't have much luck. Most of the pics are for modified engines or they have the air cleaner installed and prevents getting a good look at the choke setup.

The minor detail I did notice is that the choke tube hole on the factory carbs seem to be orientated differently than the 2100 I have on the car. That is to say the hole faces the passenger side wheel well (perpendicular to the choke housing) whereas the 2100 I have the hole faces down and rearward (towards the intake manifold). I can still plumb the choke either way, so its no biggie, just an observation.



Well, certainly the PO can have the privelege of taking the blame for all of the tomfoolery on this motor. It also has a spark plug wire seperator attached to the same spot (a big ugly chrome one). I found the matching one in the trunk.

So where is the correct spot for mounting the coil?




It looks like for 1959 the 383 2V would have gotten an Autolite 2100, although an earlier model of the carburetor.

I don't know which 2v holley, or if the Ford part number is stamped on the old Holley carburetors, but per the Master Parts Catalog the correct Holley carb is B9ME-9510-B (see attachment below)



ok, thanks!

coil mounts to intake in front of the dist. Wires to D.S.

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by KULTULZ

I haven't forgotten you. Still ciphering here.

There is a PN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 1959 and 1960-62.

I think the manifold on yours is a pre-1959. Will elaborate.

EDIT - CONTINUATION

There were two styles of EXH MANIFOLDS using the EXH MANIFOLD HEAT STOVE.

The OEM style began in 1959 (B9AE 9428-A). That went to a 1962 SERVICE REPLACEMENT SERVICE PART NUMBER (C2AZ 9430-A).

There was a SERVICE UPGRADE KIT (B9AZ 9A761-A) made available to use a EXH MAN source choke stove on previous year engines (1955-59 FYB) -





And then there was the OEM EXH MAN that was closed. The KIT required drilling the manifold to fit the HEAT CHAMBER (9890) -

[KULTULZ]

I don't know which 2v holley, or if the Ford part number is stamped on the old Holley carburetors, but per the Master Parts Catalog the correct Holley carb is B9ME-9510-B (see attachment below)

CARB Info Here - https://www.carburetion.com/CarbNumb...?Number=B9ME-B

[scicala]

B9ME-B is Holley number LIST 1798
B9ME-A is Holley number LIST 1797

Holley LIST 1929 is a sevice replacement

Sal