Holley 885 carb vs Holley 94

Pilot31135

Pilot31135

Senior Member
I’m wondering if the reason for the Mercury flatheads having a higher horsepower rating is due to cam or head differences or perhaps the 885 carb. The venturi’s are quite a bit larger in diameter than a 94, a 1/4” larger. Yes I know the merc had a 4” crankshaft. Is there a reason no one seems to use the 885 except for original restorations? I kinda like the strange design...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
9f40cbf3f2da6aef0acc81a43fb479ae.jpg
 
I agree they're kinda cool looking but I suspect not as easy to find as 94's. Ya gotta find one and rebuild. Nobody makes a clone and nobody has rebuild to buy. Thinking the 4" stroke gave most of the added HP and torque. Cam and heads too. Minimal on the carb.
 
One of the main reasons I suspect is that an intake manifold with the same 4 bolt pattern or an adapter has to be used for whatever Ford flathead engine you are putting it on.
 
Last edited:
The Merc carb has the same bolt pattern as a "small base" Rochester 2GC (the throttle bores are smaller on the Merc carb). It was a popular bolt pattern back in the day; I have an Offenhauser three carb manifold for a '54-'56 Olds, and it has the same bolt pattern as these carbs. When I got it, it had one Carter two barrel bolted to it, so that was a pretty common pattern.
 
I can’t believe these carbs wouldn’t flow a bunch better than a 94 or a 97. I just can’t believe no one ever checked to see if these could help produce more power.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I don''t see why anyone would run one on anything but a stock Mercury. If you want to run a bigger two barrel on a Ford using a Merc manifold, you are much better off using a small base 2GC, they flow more, are easier to find, kits and parts are much easier to find and pay for, and they're just an all around better carb. I have them on a couple of engines now and really like them. You should bore the manifold out to 1 7/16" if you want to use one, which is not difficult if you have the proper jig. It's amazing how well everything lines up if you mount them on the manifold backwards, The fuel line and linkage are located properly. The only problem is that the manual choke works backwards. However, if you don't mind using an automatic choke, that lines up properly with the Merc manifold as well.
 
The shroud is one problem. You can't put them front to back and use any type of air filtration so that was one problem. The 4-bolt vs 3-bolt pattern, as mentioned, is a work around problem. No manifolds were made for them in a dual capacity that would work well.

They make the old Mercs run well enough but they can be more difficult to find good cores for replacement parts. Many have been warped & bent due to to mishandling and shade tree over torque of fasteners. Folks don't understand them, so they don't generally try to use them. If you have a poor fitting float bowl, they like to leak. If the shroud doesn't fit the base very well, the power valve won't work right due to vacuum leaks. There was a time when parts were very hard to find too. I like them but then I understand their ups & downs pretty well.
 
I like the 885 also. I run one on my '51merc. it is original to the car. the car is a survivor, with 87k. I rebuilt mine when I first bought the car back in '94. I have never done anything to it since, and it has not given me any problems, and works well.
 
My understanding is that the 1949 Mercury body redesign left no room for the air cleaner to sit on top of the carb, so they used the "sidedraft" carb to put the air cleaner on the side. Some other makes (Studebaker?) did the same thing.

If they just wanted a bigger carb, they could have resurrected the Stromberg 48.
 
The Stromberg 48 doesn't flow near as much air as the Mercury Holley 885. Also the 885 has a sideways air inlet, but is a downdraft carburetor. Not a side draft.


Sal
 
Guys,
Edmunds made an 8ba 2x2 intake for these carbs and could supply beautiful cast
air cleaners that just fit on 2x2's. Edmunds also made an intake and air cleaners for
early Olds (2x2)....very beautiful. These babies are loud but funky.
The pita is wear between the throttle shaft and base....3 out 5 need oversize
shafts to tighten things up.....making these is no big deal but it takes some time.
Charlie ny
 
The Holley 1901 carbs would be easier to adapt to dual carb applications. Are you sure that manifold is for the 885 or maybe the 1901 series?
 
The cast alum air cleaner attached to the rear facing air horn opening via a neck, shall I say. The actual air cleaner 'element' connected to the neck and ended up sort of over the cylinder head. The intakes are out there but the cast air cleaners are unobtainium.
Things were tight even on the Olds 2x2.
Charlie ny
 
Wonders never cease. I'll have to pay more attention when looking at old aftermarket flathead manifolds. I think if I found one, I'd just put a couple of 2GC Rochesters on there and make life easier.
 
rotorwrench said:
The Holley 1901 carbs would be easier to adapt to dual carb applications. Are you sure that manifold is for the 885 or maybe the 1901 series?
Click to expand...







Not 100% sure, but pretty positive the 885 and 1901 Holley carbs used on '49 thru '51 Mercury's/Lincoln's, and '52 thru '53 Mercury's share the same bolt pattern. Also '52 Lincoln 317 OHV V8's.


Sal
 
There all 4-bolt type. The air filtration would be easier to adapt for the 1901 types anyway. I'm going to use a single 885 on my AV8 project at the outset. I'm using one of the cone type filters on it with the pipe removed from an old Merc air filter housing to attach (90 degree pipe). The old motors hauled those heavy Mercury cars pretty well. I want to see how well it will do in a light body car for a change. Even with a single 885 carb it should do OK. If I go dual, I'll have to do something with the ignition so I'm in no hurry to do that.
 
The Mercury air cleaner that mounted off to one side of the carb. was not the only option that was available. This one mounts to the rear and slightly over the carb. I had it on mine until I converted to a 4bbl. Edelbrock.
352779
352780
 

Attachments

  • a.jpg
    a.jpg
    127.5 KB · Views: 281
  • b.jpg
    b.jpg
    126.9 KB · Views: 281
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top