Question for carb experts

[Dobie Gillis]

Henry Ford and George Holley were big buds. The Holley brothers actually produced a car at the same time Henry was working on his 1st car. The lore is Henry took a look at it and immediately made a deal with Holley in which Holley would supply carbs to Henry and not make cars and Ford would not make carburetors except under license from Holley.

http://www.bristolmotors.com/Holley-ad web.JPG

 

[KULTULZ]

The big air filter housings were designed to cut down on the sound levels.

Most manufacturers employed large housings for this reason.

...hmmpf...

Makes sense and good point.

 

[KULTULZ]

Interesting info about the old 4100 carb. I would have never though it was designed by Holley. It's way too simple to be a Holley.

If you think the 4100 is a good design (and it was), GOOGLE HOLLEY 4010 and see the ultimate 4100.

 

[KULTULZ]

BTW, the 4100 pictured is not a Holley. It's an Autolite Ford made carburetor.

Sal

I should have said HOLLEY designed...

My bad...

 

[Bleach]

I don't think I've seen a 4010 yet hear of it. Now I know. Thanks.

Here's my air cleaner. I don't know why the 2nd photo uploaded rotated. It appears normally on my computer.

 

[KULTULZ]

I don't think I've seen a 4010 yet hear of it. Now I know. Thanks.

Here's my air cleaner. I don't know why the 2nd photo uploaded rotated. It appears normally on my computer.

THANX for those shots.

That is a 56 FORD 292 right?

I understand the engine sound suppression but it will hold a lot of engine heat around the carb.

 

[scicala]

The carb, intake and air cleaner appear to all be for 1957 to me.

Sal

 

[Bleach]

The carb, intake and air cleaner appear to all be for 1957 to me.

Sal

Yes that's what it all looks like to me even though I never really planned it to turn out like that.
KULTULZ, all of these have been on my 56 with a 292. All have bolted on without any real modifications. I was able to use my original 56 bellcrank. I just needed to add a spacer under on of the bolt holes on the manifold with it bolted on. The other thing was I needed to readjust the accelerator rod that goes from the bellcrank to the carb linkage.

 

[KULTULZ]

Just wondering. My CRS is not allowing me to remember much detail of the period.

This is a 1956 292, right?

 

[scicala]

Just wondering. My CRS is not allowing me to remember much detail of the period.

This is a 1956 292, right?

Yes, what is pictured is '56 292 or 312. except this one appears to have a later carb on it. '56 was the last year of the Holley 4000 teapot carb on Ford, Mercury and T-bird, except for the '57 dual 4 barrel setups.

Sal

 

[Bleach]

Sal, I see the air cleaner looks like a later 56 one because of the air inlet but how can you tell what carb is under it? You must really know your carbs.
I still have my original 56 manifold, teapot and air cleaner. This is what it looked like before I bought my car.

 

[scicala]

Herman,

I can tell it has a different carb because of the fuel inlet location on the front passenger's side of the carb. Teapots had rear fuel inlets. Now after a 2nd look at it it looks like a later '57 intake manifold too because of no adaptor to change the bolt pattern. More than likely a Holley 4150 or 4160 carb, or even a two barrel intake and carb.
I also agree I have seen two different 4 barrel air cleaners on '56 Fords. The one pictured and one with no vertical bar in the inlet.

Sal

 

[dmsfrr]

... Now after a 2nd look at it it looks like a later '57 intake manifold too because of no adaptor to change the bolt pattern. ...

He is good.
The '57 4bbl intake manifold is bigger & chunkier looking than the '56 (& '55) 4bbl intake manifolds because it was upgraded with larger passages for the D code 312 engines.
The carburetor stud mounting holes are also noticeably closer to the intake runners.
.

 

[KULTULZ]

...hmmph...

GOOD CATCH!

So, although the photo appears as a dedicated restoration, in reality it is not.

One has to be sharp as to what he is purchasing.

EDIT-

It also appears the carb to be a WCFB it's fuel inlet being where it is.

 

[Bleach]

Herman,

I can tell it has a different carb because of the fuel inlet location on the front passenger's side of the carb. Teapots had rear fuel inlets. Now after a 2nd look at it it looks like a later '57 intake manifold too because of no adaptor to change the bolt pattern. More than likely a Holley 4150 or 4160 carb, or even a two barrel intake and carb.
I also agree I have seen two different 4 barrel air cleaners on '56 Fords. The one pictured and one with no vertical bar in the inlet.

Sal

The fuel line inlet should have been an easy catch now that you said it. I forgot the teapot had it the back. I have the same CRS disorder KULTULZ mentions.

He is good.
The '57 4bbl intake manifold is bigger & chunkier looking than the '56 (& '55) 4bbl intake manifolds because it was upgraded with larger passages for the D & F code 312 engines.
The carburetor mounting bolts are also noticeably closer to the intake runners.
.

I'll have to put the two side by side and compare them. I'll try to take a photo.

 

[Bleach]

...hmmph...

GOOD CATCH!

So, although the photo appears as a dedicated restoration, in reality it is not.

One has to be sharp as to what he is purchasing.

EDIT-

It also appears the carb to be a WCFB it's fuel inlet being where it is.

I'm now trying to make mine look like a period correct upgrade since all the parts I've come across are 57's.

 

[Crankster]

Tough crowd, that thing looks nice. I suppose it's not concours, but.

 

[dmsfrr]

So, although the photo appears as a dedicated restoration, in reality it is not.
One has to be sharp as to what he is purchasing.

I'm now trying to make mine look like a period correct upgrade since all the parts I've come across are 57's.

Tough crowd, that thing looks nice. I suppose it's not concours, but.

I'm attempting the "period correct upgrade" route with a '55 Bird.
or at least a bit more like it should have been than when I bought it.

While I can definitely appreciate a car that's 'original', I'm not that hung up on it unless something is represented as what it isn't.
(like the engine in a certain car that was listed in 3 unrelated places as a 292, but was a 256)

.

 

[KULTULZ]

Tough crowd, that thing looks nice. I suppose it's not concours, but.

Not so much as others, but I am definitely anal...

To me, a period piece such as these being discussed should be assembly correct, and although that is actually an impossibility owing to all of the assembly detail/dealer prep/general repair procedures/variances ... well ... hard to explain.

There is a huge difference (to me anyways) between someone displaying a dedicated restoration or a modified car.

OCD- Correct Alphabetical Order CDO

 

[KULTULZ]

I'm attempting the "period correct upgrade" route with a '55 Bird.
or at least a bit more like it should have been than when I bought it.

While I can definitely appreciate a car that's 'original', I'm not that hung up on it unless something is represented as what it isn't.

(like the engine in a certain car that was listed in 3 unrelated places as a 292, but was a 256)

.

It is difficult for the untrained eye to differentiate between engines of this period as there is and was so much interchangeability.

You do some nice work. Are you a past tech or just advanced hobbyist?