Why Twin H is 2 1bbl carbs and not 2 2bbl?

50C8DAN

By 1954 many of the manufactures were switching to 4bbl carbs for their higher end engines. Even the '52 Buick Roadmaster straight 8 used a 4bbl. I wonder why Hudson stuck to 2 1bbls for the Twin H and not 2x2. The Edmunds manifold could come with 2x2 back then. it will be interesting to see how the new Clifford 2x2 will compare to their 4bbl and the stock Twin H.

iceblade10

What would the fuel economy have been if they used 2 2-barrels? My guess is they were looking for the "sweet spot" between a nice little power bump, yet still reasonable fuel economy.

50C8DAN

good point, but perhaps they could have offered a 2 x 2 bbl for the 7X only?

SuperDave

The four BBL carbs were progressive.. So under light throttle they were running on two primary ones. Running two 2BBL carbs without being progressive would make for high fuel use. very inefficient. My take on it..for what its worth.
Now two 2BBl carbs that are progressive Now that makes sense.

50C8DAN

Yes the new Weber setup are 2 x 2 progressive. Yes makes sense if the old Carters and Rochester 2bbls were not progressive.

Geoff

Makes more sense to have two single throat carbys for a 6 cyl than two twin throats. Ultimate would be three twin throat, one for each cylinder.

50C8DAN

The Clifford original Weber setup was 3 two bbl side drafts.

Jay_G

Installing and tuning the triple webers is not for the faint of heart.
Jay

50C8DAN

would not think so!

dougson

It is my understanding that Hudson had been researching multiple carb manifolds for their engines for a while. The Carter WA-1 was in wide use, easy to tune, and easier to set up. It is an excellent arrangement considering the "advance" design of the manifold.