...save yourself a bunch of headaches and install either a Carter BBD or an AFB (or Edelbrock, same difference). Leave the holley junk for the shivvy 350 crowd.
D/W
| Slant Six Forum https://www.slantsix.org/forum/ |
|
| seeking opinion on possible peril with carb https://www.slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13478 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | rock [ Sun Jun 26, 2005 7:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | seeking opinion on possible peril with carb |
Hello folks, Following advice from this forum and from much other reading, I started my /6 225 rebuild about 2 weeks ago and am closing in on nearly done. I am installing it to my '64 d100 pickup with standard 3 speed and whatever rear end it had. I bought it new and wore it out. So I collected parts for about 10 years and advice from this site motivated me to mildly pep it up, with a modest cam, porting, shaving, stainless oversize valves, solid lifters and on and on. I got a 76 block with forged crank and 71 head cause I needed those adjustable rockers. Truck is till to be a daily driver. Went so smooth I am still surprised. I should'a got into this 25 years ago! BUT, I have accumulated many possible configurations of manifold and carbs over a long period of time. I am thinking to use the offenhauser 4 barrel intake and install a Holley 4360 (9694) economaster 450 cfm carb. Anyone see any peril here? I have found out that most folks haven't heard of this unit outside of CA, and none of them have heard of it on trucks. I could go with the offenhauser 2 barrel, for instance. Thanks Dennis rock |
|
| Author: | Dennis Weaver [ Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
...save yourself a bunch of headaches and install either a Carter BBD or an AFB (or Edelbrock, same difference). Leave the holley junk for the shivvy 350 crowd. D/W |
|
| Author: | DusterIdiot [ Mon Jun 27, 2005 12:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | I concur... |
This time a I concur with Dennis, the 4360 is expensive to rebuild and some parts are $$$ to 'tune' that carb up...it was meant as a replacement for the Rochester on Shibby 'smog' vehicles.... Try to stick to the 'known' carbs: Holley 4150/60 #8007 390 cfm Carter AFB Edelbrock |
|
| Author: | Dennis Weaver [ Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
...agreed, except I suggest that you avoid all holley "carburetors" like the plague!  D/W |
|
| Author: | CStryker [ Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't really understand the anti-Holley bias that seems prevalent on this board. I know everyone says they are hard to tune, but to me, it seems like there is much more information out there about them, compared to other designs. Also, I've noticed that parts for Holley's are much easier and cheaper to find. Could someone explain their reasoning as to why they are inferior, please? |
|
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Mon Jun 27, 2005 8:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: I don't really understand the anti-Holley bias that seems prevalent on this board. I know everyone says they are hard to tune, but to me, it seems like there is much more information out there about them, compared to other designs. Also, I've noticed that parts for Holley's are much easier and cheaper to find.
There's a lot more information and a greater variety of cheaper parts out there for the Chevrolet 350 engine than for any Mopar, too. That doesn't change the fact that the Mopar engine (any Mopar engine) is vastly superior from an engineering, materials and original-build standpoint than the 350 Chevy.McDonalds sells more greaseburgers in one day at one location than all the steakhouses within 100 miles of it sell prime steaks. Look how many Tauruses Ford sold. Garbage, bumper to bumper. Look how much Chinese trash Wal-Mart sells, in every product category. Cheap, nasty and crappy sells more than expensive-and-good, even though buying the cheaper item often means spending more money and wasting more time and effort in the long run. There are design and engineering stupidities in many Holley carburetors. Sure, there are aftermarket fixes for many of them, but a lot of people get tired of having to rework dumb engineering just to get to a starting point of having a reliable, working carburetor (and that's before tuning it and dialling it in to work well on whatever specific application). So...there's the explanation! |
|
| Author: | Dennis Weaver [ Mon Jun 27, 2005 8:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Quote: I don't really understand the anti-Holley bias that seems prevalent on this board. I know everyone says they are hard to tune, but to me, it seems like there is much more information out there about them, compared to other designs. Also, I've noticed that parts for Holley's are much easier and cheaper to find.
There's a lot more information and a greater variety of cheaper parts out there for the Chevrolet 350 engine than for any Mopar, too. That doesn't change the fact that the Mopar engine (any Mopar engine) is vastly superior from an engineering, materials and original-build standpoint than the 350 Chevy.McDonalds sells more greaseburgers in one day at one location than all the steakhouses within 100 miles of it sell prime steaks. Look how many Tauruses Ford sold. Garbage, bumper to bumper. Look how much Chinese trash Wal-Mart sells, in every product category. Cheap, nasty and crappy sells more than expensive-and-good, even though buying the cheaper item often means spending more money and wasting more time and effort in the long run. There are design and engineering stupidities in many Holley carburetors. Sure, there are aftermarket fixes for many of them, but a lot of people get tired of having to rework dumb engineering just to get to a starting point of having a reliable, working carburetor (and that's before tuning it and dialling it in to work well on whatever specific application). So...there's the explanation! D/W |
|
| Author: | blue195 [ Mon Jun 27, 2005 9:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
.... |
|
| Author: | Jeb [ Mon Jun 27, 2005 10:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
How about a Quadrajet? I've only heard of one person slapping one on a slant. Just curious, what is it that makes the 305 and 350 inferrior to MOpar engines? |
|
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: How about a Quadrajet? I've only heard of one person slapping one on a slant.
They're OK carbs, not spectacular.Quote: Just curious, what is it that makes the 305 and 350 inferrior to MOpar engines?
Oh, name it! Block material (harder, higher-Nickel iron in the Mopars), bearing sizes (larger in the Mopars), rod ratio (VERY bad in the 350, only "fairly shìtty" in other small-block Chevy sizes), oil pump design, valvetrain geometry, strength and oiling...I could go on, but I'm hoping Magnum_440 will chime in, 'cause he can go into greater detail.
|
|
| Author: | 440_Magnum [ Mon Jun 27, 2005 12:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Quote: How about a Quadrajet? I've only heard of one person slapping one on a slant.
They're OK carbs, not spectacular.Quote: Quote: Just curious, what is it that makes the 305 and 350 inferrior to MOpar engines?
Oh, name it! Block material (harder, higher-Nickel iron in the Mopars), bearing sizes (larger in the Mopars), rod ratio (VERY bad in the 350, only "fairly shìtty" in other small-block Chevy sizes), oil pump design, valvetrain geometry, strength and oiling...I could go on, but I'm hoping Magnum_440 will chime in, 'cause he can go into greater detail.I think most of the problems with the Chevy came from two design constraints. First, it had to be narrow because it was going in places where the old splash-oiled stovebolt six had gone (why didn't Chevrolet go to full pressure oiling until 1955 when Chrysler had it since 1929?????). The second was that it had to be CHEAP to build. The size limited things like the bore spacing, deck height, and bearing size, and cheapness dictated a softish block alloy and the cruddy ball-stud valvetrain. None of that was a horrible problem when it displaced 265 and 283 cubic inches. Not even really so much when it displaced 302 and 327 cubic inches, but by the time you get to 350, the rod ratio really started to suffer and the small bearings were over-worked as the power went up. When it hit 400, the rod ratio was pure crap, the bores were siamesed, and life expectancy was WELL below 100k miles if you worked it hard at all (it loved to blow head gaskets between cylinders, and the bad rod ratio combined with the soft block material meant that the cylinders wore egg-shaped in a hurry). Really, the SBC is pretty much the bottom of the heap when you compare the actual engineering features of similar-sized v8s from Chrysler, Ford, Olds, and Buick. Even the corporate siblings Olds and Buick got shaft-mounted rockers, taller deck heights, better rod ratios (except the big Olds engines) and harder block alloys.It also strikes me as odd how much GM invested in band-aiding the SBC over the decades, when they had several chances to either abandon it or apply REAL fixes- which they finally did with the Gen III smallblock. And don't even get me started on the big-block Chevy. Its got all the SBC problems and THEN some! |
|
| Author: | Jeb [ Mon Jun 27, 2005 1:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tell me more. Does the 305 have a better life expectancy than the 350? I've always heard that the "rat" motors were some of the best ever built. |
|
| Author: | Dennis Weaver [ Mon Jun 27, 2005 1:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: I've always heard that the "rat" motors were some of the best ever built.
|
|
| Author: | SlantSixDan [ Mon Jun 27, 2005 1:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Tell me more. Does the 305 have a better life expectancy than the 350?
About the same.Quote: I've always heard that the "rat" motors were some of the best ever built.
er...no. There is no objective, real criterion by which that is a true statement. Some people say it when they really mean "The Chevs are the only engines I've ever messed with, and so I know them really well".There's a fair amount of denial involved in believing that Chev V8s are particularly good. You can hear it if you listen for it. "Oh yeah? Well I built a 350 so powerful I've been through five crankshafts, four complete valvetrains and two blocks!". |
|
| Author: | rock [ Mon Jun 27, 2005 1:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | My love for mopar renders me totally GM carb ignorant so... |
Wow guys! I sure have NOOO problem switching in mid stream to an AFB or Edelbrock, EXCEPT for one thing...ignorance. I selected the 4360 because it's 450 cfm was as close in operating character to the 390 cfm 8007 as I could get readily and that seemed likely to run my slightly built 225. After y'alls advice, I spent the afternoon today looking at AFB and Edlebrocks and see only 600, 800, 1000 cfm. I can't beleive these are being suggested so wonder what model number of AFB and/or Edelbrock you are suggesting? (For a 225 slightly improved for daily use by being enabled to breathe better in a '64 d100 half ton shortbed.) (Shaved, ported, milled, solid lifters, electric ign, mild cam, big valves, 4 bbl offy, etc,). Thanks for the great advice to date! I oughta post a pic, this truck makes grown men weak. Dennis rock |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC-08:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|