Quote buoymaker: "The GM engineers working closely with Carter tried it out on 1953-1954 Corvettes with 3 x 1 Factory aluminum intake with 3 original Carter type YH 2066s carburetors. Wow factor, yes. Performance increase, yes a little. Street wise it was good. Put to bed by the humble 265 V8 with a 2 barrel carburetor in 1955. Talk to the classic Corvette owner's about the issues and effort they put into maintaining 3X carbs. The 235 has been carbureted to death. The next hope is possibly MPFI (see picture for 250 intake) but the "baggage" (wiring, tubes, computer etc.) get in the way of desired appearance." End quote
The "issues and effort they put into maintaining 3X carbs" were LARGELY self-inflicted!
I personally have a "love/hate" feeling toward the Carter YH carbs. Love because they are excellent carbs; hate because of some of the early Corvette owners. These were some very reliable carburetors!
There were 4 separate and distinct generations of the Carter YH, and until we started producing kits, only one aftermarket kit available at the FLAPS. And everyone "knows" the dealer parts are way overpriced, why should anyone ever buy parts from the car dealer? ANSWER - to get the right parts! The aftermarket kits had only 2 of the correct bowl cover gasket (the one for the Corvette was not one of these), the wrong fuel valve (the correct one was more expensive), and for about 6 months even had the pump diaphragm turned inside-out!!!!!!!! But yet these early Corvette owners would buy the FLAPS kits, and then gripe about the lousy Carter YF, when they could have just gone to the Chevrolet dealer and the cars would have performed as Chevrolet designed them to perform! Oops, just fell off my soapbox!
Jon
Good carburetion is fuelish hot air The most expensive carburetor is the wrong one you attempt to modify. If you truly believe "one size fits all," try walking a mile in your spouse's shoes! The Carburetor Shop
Mercruiser dual 1 barrel Rochester (7025183 BC and 7025184 B). These were used on mid 60's I6 engines. The following year ~ 1965, Mercruiser changed to the small bore Rochester 2GC. I don't know the reason for it but I can make a guess.
I've read that some of the reasoning behind multiple carburetors, for 50's car manufacturers, is that you could tweak out a little more RPM/horsepower, using the previous year(s) engine, to give marketing leverage against the competition. It had nothing to do with making the car more reliable or easier to maintain.
"Adding CFM to a truck will only help at engine speeds you don't want to use." "I found there was nothing to gain beyond 400 CFM."
Quote Buoymaker "Mercruiser dual 1 barrel Rochester (7025183 BC and 7025184 B). These were used on mid 60's I6 engines. The following year ~ 1965, Mercruiser changed to the small bore Rochester 2GC. I don't know the reason for it but I can make a guess." End Quote
Would you REALLY want a leaky Rochester B on YOUR boat??? Have to run the bilge pumps all the time, even when the boat was in dock!
Jon
Good carburetion is fuelish hot air The most expensive carburetor is the wrong one you attempt to modify. If you truly believe "one size fits all," try walking a mile in your spouse's shoes! The Carburetor Shop
Would you REALLY want a leaky Rochester B on YOUR boat??? Have to run the bilge pumps all the time, even when the boat was in dock!
Jon
Most likely it wouldn’t survive long with gas in the bilge. I watched a maybe 24-26 ft cabin cruiser burn to the waterline just 3 days ago. Suspicion is that someone forgot to run the bilge blower before attempting to start it.
Kevin 1951 Chevy 3100 work truck Follow this saga in Project Journal Photos 1929 Ford pickup restored from the ground up. | 1929 Ford Special Coupe (First car) Busting rust since the mid-60's If you're smart enough to take it apart, you darn well better be smart enough to put it back together.
Sorry it took me so long to realize it but, is this planned build based on nostalgia of what was done in the past? If so then, I guess it was me on the soap box.
For nostalgia, Chevrolet parts on Chevrolet engines...no F@&d parts. Carter W-1 is definitely the way to go. Stromberg 14-22 are good to excellent but hard to find. Rochester B can be finicky and leaky. You use the carburetors that were available in that era. I would definitely plan on running non-Ethanol.
Keeping the closed driveshaft (torque tube)?
It would have been better if the posting was started in the The HiPo Shop section.
"Adding CFM to a truck will only help at engine speeds you don't want to use." "I found there was nothing to gain beyond 400 CFM."
I have 2 Rochester bs and dual exhausts and no issues.
It must have been somebody else writing a mini-novel about gas mileage, right? Jerry
"It is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and eliminate all doubt!" - Abraham Lincoln Cringe and wail in fear, Eloi- - - - -we Morlocks are on the hunt! There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. - Ernest Hemingway Love your enemies and drive 'em nuts!
Ron, didn't you have a problem and posted 06/08/18 a question about replacing them (dual Rochesters)? You were getting 23 MPG (2011 Gallery update) then it suddenly dropped to 15 MPG? It may not have been the same posting but I recall you took the truck back to the shop to have them work on it. I'm fuzzy here. Didn't they install a new kit or something like that. Your first big trip was 2009 so the first rebuild lasted maybe 10 years? All in all, that's pretty good service for old Rochesters. Why not post a picture of what your carburetors look like today?
Before comments erupt about the 23 MPG, Ron has a T-5 transmission and 2.73 rear axle. On mostly expressway driving (no mountains) at lower RPM and carburetors working well, good engine, he can ring out the mileage.
"Adding CFM to a truck will only help at engine speeds you don't want to use." "I found there was nothing to gain beyond 400 CFM."
Ron, didn't you have a problem and posted 06/08/18 a question about replacing them (dual Rochesters)? You were getting 23 MPG (2011 Gallery update) then it suddenly dropped to 15 MPG? It may not have been the same posting but I recall you took the truck back to the shop to have them work on it. I'm fuzzy here. Didn't they install a new kit or something like that. Your first big trip was 2009 so the first rebuild lasted maybe 10 years? All in all, that's pretty good service for old Rochesters. Why not post a picture of what your carburetors look like today?
Before comments erupt about the 23 MPG, Ron has a T-5 transmission and 2.73 rear axle. On mostly expressway driving (no mountains) at lower RPM and carburetors working well, good engine, he can ring out the mileage.
I believe that Ron discovered that he indeed did not reach 23 MPG. I hope he comes in and explains what happened that made him believe that was getting 23 MPG. He has posted it in the past, but I don't recall what it was. Personally I don't think that you can get a whole lot better than 15 MPG in these trucks even if you only drive down hill with the engine off.
1952 5-window - return to "as built" condition | 1950 3100 with a 235 and a T-5 transmission
Sorry it took me so long to realize it but, is this planned build based on nostalgia of what was done in the past? If so then, I guess it was me on the soap box.
For nostalgia, Chevrolet parts on Chevrolet engines...no F@&d parts. Carter W-1 is definitely the way to go. Stromberg 14-22 are good to excellent but hard to find. Rochester B can be finicky and leaky. You use the carburetors that were available in that era. I would definitely plan on running non-Ethanol.
Keeping the closed driveshaft (torque tube)?
It would have been better if the posting was started in the The HiPo Shop section.
Yes, a large part of this build is for past nostalgia, even though I'm recreating something I wasn't around for. Dual carbs are part of the vision and although they may not be the best option by some metrics, I'm trying to get the best performance out of the vision. I already have two Rochester's (the smaller ones for the 216). May just start with them, but not opposed to sourcing two Carter W-1s either. darn engine has been in the machine shop for a year now. Hope I get it back soon. (Keep in mind I haven't expedited it because I got caught in a house reno.)
I have flipped back and forth on the torque tube. I'm sitting at keeping it for now, but reserve the right for a future project.
Just for info. When breaking in a rebuilt engine you don't want to be working on carburetor(s) and other parts at the same time. Running the engine has priority. You may be busy fixing water/fuel/oil leaks and troubleshooting. It helps to have a known good carburetor for break-in. It's one less thing to worry about. Once you are satisfied with the engine, you can install the duals.
There is nothing really wrong with a torque tube except most have worn bushings and seals. Then like anything else, before you rebuild, you need to inspect the ring and pinion gears as well as the $$ bearings. I would drive it as it is for now.
"Adding CFM to a truck will only help at engine speeds you don't want to use." "I found there was nothing to gain beyond 400 CFM."
buoymaker, Thanks! I can see how that is very sound advice. I think one of the problems I'll have is I don't have a sound carburetor. Even though I've owned it the whole time, the truck hasn't run since '96. I will consider running it initially with the original intake manifold and carb though. Not a bad idea at all!
