52 255 mercury V8

[oldford2]

The 1952 255ci Mercury engine had an advertised 125 HP. The Ford 239 engine had 100 HP. O K, the Merc had a 4" stroke. What other changes account for the HP increase? Carb, cam, or marketing hype?
John

[ford3]

about the only difference is stroke, the cam specs are almost the same as ford, if any thing a bigger carb may have been used, bigger jets, bigger throat, ask Ken Ct about the carb, hes the guru on carbs in here, leave a post saying Ken Ct and he will read it and answer

[ken ct]

Originally Posted by ford3

about the only difference is stroke, the cam specs are almost the same as ford, if any thing a bigger carb may have been used, bigger jets, bigger throat, ask Ken Ct about the carb, hes the guru on carbs in here, leave a post saying Ken Ct and he will read it and answer

49 to 53 carbs were much bigger than the ford 94. Venturies are much bigger and bigger jets than them also. 49-51 were backdrafts and 52-53 were teapots. ken ct.

[Walt Dupont--Me.]

Originally Posted by oldford2

The 1952 255ci Mercury engine had an advertised 125 HP. The Ford 239 engine had 100 HP. O K, the Merc had a 4" stroke. What other changes account for the HP increase? Carb, cam, or marketing hype?
John

The 52-53 Merc has a good cam but the 52-53 Ford EAB cam is also a good cam. The 4 bolt intake on the Merc is bigger and flows more air, They went to bigger carb, I don't know the CFM of those later carbs. I think the 52-53 Ford was 110HP not 100, I think the cam, bigger intake and bigger carb must of raised the HP. Walt

[itsa52]

The 53 Merc was listed as 135 HP but at a different RPM.. Always wondered where that came from.. Probably just where it was measured.. Possibly larger exhaust??

[Ol' Ron]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Most of this is advertizing hype. The stock 49/53 239 engine produces onlt 80 HP on a good day. (read JWL's Book). Dyno testing built 276 engines, produce about an honest 135/150. However they do produce a good deal of torque at low RPM.

[BILL WZOREK]

ol'Ron:

Isn't it Torque that gives you the get up & go ?

[rotorwrench]

The 49 thru 50 Mercs were 110 as advertised and the 51 changed to 112. Rotator valves and some slight cam differences for 52/53 may account for a couple more horse power but thats about it. The two Holley carbs had very little difference between them other than one had a shroud and the other didn't.

[Mike51Merc]

Originally Posted by BILL WZOREK

ol'Ron:

Isn't it Torque that gives you the get up & go ?

Ah, the old torque versus horsepower debate. You need both to get up and go.

The heavier the car, the more torque you need to move it. Diesels have gobs of torque but not so much "get up and go" (except modern diesels). Horsepower gives you the "spinning up" acceleration feeling once the car gets moving.

[HCO41]

I picked up a 4-bolt Mercury intake today. Will this bolt pattern align with a 2GC Rochester carb.? Would there be any performance benefit to a bone stock 8ba? Would a bow tie distributor along with the Rochester help the performance and gas mileage?
Thanks, Howard

[prpmmp]

Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall and torque is how far you push it? Or vise versa,I can't remember(old)! Pete

[Lawson Cox]

Originally Posted by prpmmp

Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall and torque is how far you push it? Or vise versa,I can't remember(old)! Pete

Love that analogy. LOL

[tiquer]

Originally Posted by HCO41

I picked up a 4-bolt Mercury intake today. Will this bolt pattern align with a 2GC Rochester carb.? Would there be any performance benefit to a bone stock 8ba? Would a bow tie distributor along with the Rochester help the performance and gas mileage?
Thanks, Howard

yes sir that is wright. I have one with an adaptore to bolt a new style holly or motorcraft two Ven. carb on. (289) CI ford small block .