Stromberg 81 or Holley 92 ????????

T

TheRustyRanch

Member
I am building a little lakes belly tanker with a v8-60 engine and will be running two or three carbs, my question is is which is the better carburetor to use the stromberg 81 or the holley 92 model and easier to rebuild, tune and parts availabilty wise. Any help???

Thanks
 
I like the strom 81's better [and not because of price] Their a simpler carb and easy to work on [at least for me] . I have some in stock rebuilt if you interested.No peskey PV either like the 92's I have both. 92's are a little cheaper to buy. ken ct.
 
Yo Rusty, I, too, am building a tank with 60. Actually, I am still in the parts accumulation and planning stage, gotta tank and a 60. I met a gent at Bonneville last year who is running one. We should exchange e-mails so that we can check on each other's builds. We may need strength in numbers to petition SCTA to give us a class for the small flatheads. Right now a flathead is a flathead is a flathead.
 
I two am in the parts stage. I have a tank, its a small p-82 size. I have a good 37 tin sided engine, two transmissions, just picked up a 34 rearend, stilll need a front end and perfrormance parts for the motor, like heads intake and camshaft. I have a box full of rod, main and cam bearings and four sets of rings. Have extra water pumps and front mounts to, havent desided to use them or use a midget style water pump set up. Hoping to get started on it this next winter. Thanks for the help.
 
Fortunately, my tank is a large one, from an Albatross. Something I saw last year at Bonneville were some tanks that were stretched and/or widened. More work, but you do not have to be constrained by the size of the tank you happen to have. I have a '40 v-8 60. I am trying to brainstorm an automatic trans to adapt to it so that I can avoid the linkage problems. I understand that racers use automatics without the torque converters and just have a in/out valve. But, I need to find someone smart on those to educate me.
 
Automatic might not be a good idea with such a small engine, even with no converter. The multiple seals and the pump absorb some power beyond losses in the actual gears.(a lot, in older transmission designs) and a 60 does not need any losses that can be avoided! Each set of gears engaged also eats power, so I would think you would want a manual that is straight through in high gear. Hydraulic clutch actuation would solve most problems. Also look at some of the circle track transmissions at Speedway...there are designs that allow you to ditch the whole clutch.
 
Just put it in high gear and slip the clutch, the tank should be under 1000 pounds and with the push of car that can go faster the tank it self it should be no problem. I am hoping for 120mph but we will see. Hard to go to fast with only 125 or so horse power.
 
Bruce, I was thinking that some like sized asian car might be an auto trans donor, with a lot of adaption work. With the cast in bell housing, couldn't it be as simple as a drive coupling and a flat plate with the face of the trans machined to bolt up to the plate? I am a real neophyte to any of this car design, but I was trying to go for the widest options possible for different lengths of track. While it would be a great adventure to actually run the thing at Bonneville, here closer to home we have the "Texas Mile" which I am going to for the first time tomorrow. So, I am trying to get an automatic coupled to a quick change to offer the wide range of gears to run a mile or 3 miles.

Rusty, be sure to pick up the latest Rodder's Journal where they talk about the SoCal car doing 156 with a 60.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top