Stuff in more fuel/air
What are the thoughts on this , my old 37 212 the guinea pig . If going to 2 barrel gives 10 more hp , [ more venture area/bigger butterflys ] Useing the later Rochester carbs used by GM [sorry about that Mr. purist] gives still more area and are easily fine tuned by simply changeing main jets where as the Carters use rods/jets , few tools availeable to adjust , parts hard to find . The bigger the total amt of air/fuel the bigger the bang provided it is mixed correctly . Would this not seem the way to go to get all the engine can effectively draw in ? Granted there is a point where valve size/cam come into play and going to extremes would lose the venture effect in the carb if left to the valves to have the greatest restriction so don't get too carried away on carb size . BUD
0
Comments
-
For good power and flexibility which is what you want on the street, choose a slightly smaller size. Flexibility means good responce at all RPMs and throttle openings.
It is important to correctly size the air flow going into the engine. Use of a mixture that is too large for the engine displacement makes it very difficult to get the proper idle adjustment, think of slow moving air atomizing the gas.
On the same motor when riding on the street we would use a small carb, "go kart" style race tracks would use only slightly bigger carbs. The only time we would ever use a large carb was when we would be on high banked tracks were we would run WFO, bottom end was terrible.0 -
The biggest bang for your buck is increased compression. My '36T now has around 7.3:1 and is going like a rocket, see separate threads on this topic. It still has just the single throat carb and the standard horribly restrictive exhaust manifold.
There are horsepower charts on one of the '36 or '37 Hudson info booklets Alex has on his site, that show the difference in power with the various compression and carbs. Most of the gain (about 4-5hp?) with the twin-throat carb I think is found higher up the rev range which stands to reason.
As far as the single throat carb is concerned I think the H8 pre-'37 used the same size Carter carb as the 212's. Since the H8's developed up to 122hp on this carb with the higher compression option, it should be more than adequate to give the 212 all the power it needs. That is to say, boosting it from around 90hp up to say 105-110hp with compression, better cam profile and better exhaust manifold.
Increased compression really is the first thing to do IMO (assuming the engine is in sound condition) as 6 or 6.5:1 is very inefficient with today's fuels. Not much point having more carburetion with low compression.0 -
Fully agree on more compression , I had the heads milled .030 which I have heard is generally considered as far to go on this engine and still hold the head gasket . How much did you do yours ? The question of air flow is what I am wondering about , with stock cam/valve size how big can one go without loseing the venture effect of the carb ? As long as it still has enough suction at that point the fuel will break up . The proper mix of fuel/air wouldn't care if it was in a coffee can or a 5 gallon bucket as far as the power produced and the more of it the more power . , it's the size of the can [equated to compression ] that produces captured power , if I'm useing the right terms . With the Rochester carb the low end / high end is much easyier to get right than Carter with the rod/jet / proper rod higth . I would think the max power range could be set about anywhere you wanted it in the rpm range pretty precise with the main jets as the only thing to change to control mixture. Lets see now , If one were to compare vacume in the cylinder and vacume in the intake under the carb , with different carbs would that not give some answeres ?0
-
FYI
Its now all yesterdays news but a stock 212 in decent shape was pretty fast back in its day. I read where State Police used them in several States during the 30's. I began racing a Terraplane Sdn 212 for two yrs in a V8 Jalopy class until the mtr finally failed then moved up to Hornet power.This may help your direction.....
The only mod's were opening up the exhaust manifold (but no split), hogged out the Int manifold under the carb, then adapted a White Mustang 2bbl carb from a truck sitting in our yard. (Nobody knew what a stock Terraplane carb looked like being the only Hudson)I think we ground the (Int) valves & seats 30 degrees and milled the head.
The Jalopy Mtrs were supposed to be all stock but most flathead v8's idled like they were cammed but our 212 idled smoothly since we had nowhere to get regrounds at that time as beginers. There were also a few Olds 88's and a V12 Lincoln cpes competing but they were nose heavy.
Features were 25 laps wide open and It took a real good Ford/Merc Flathead V8 to beat it depending on starting position.0 -
37 Terraplane#2 wrote:The proper mix of fuel/air wouldn't care if it was in a coffee can or a 5 gallon bucket as far as the power produced and the more of it the more power .
Correct. Since the volume of the engine is fixed to increase the volume of fuel and air burned over time, RPM is increased. There are simple formulas that have been used over many years that combine volume and RPM to determine the size of the carb needed.
I am sure that you can find one on line at a web page for carbs. This will tell you at what RPM your car would be starved for fuel and would need a larger carb.
As I recall you would take the minimum carb size for the max RPM. That way you will not starve the motor and have the highest air speed where the fuel is introduced .0 -
Hey Bud! If you need a smaller carb I have a couple of Crolsey tillitsons laying around. LOL!!
Barry Smedley
53' Super Jet
and a bunch of Crosley's0 -
hoosiercrosley wrote:Hey Bud! If you need a smaller carb I have a couple of Crolsey tillitsons laying around. LOL!!
Barry Smedley
53' Super Jet
and a bunch of Crosley's
HEY BUDDY , This is a GO CAR , not a GO KART. HEEHAW!!! Seriously , would like to find that chart mentioned above , gotta be some usefull info in it , looked all over the net , came up empty .0 -
Ol racer, can you post some photos of those good old days with the Terraplane 212?0
-
FYI
We didnt have many pictures of the early days with the 212 because cameras were rare, however later some pictures surfaced when using Hornet power. Attached are a couple early pictures.
(Raced Hudson Sdn's against all the V8 coupes because couldnt find a coupe in those days).
Incidently, I posted a lot of Hudson Racing pictures from people from all over the Country who sent them to me a couple yrs ago. If interested go to the Search Window and type Racing Pictures and a few Threads will appear to view.0 -
Here are two links. One has a plugin sheet for the calculation and the other is an article stating that the formula and what I wrote was junk.
Both might be of use.
http://www.classictruckshop.com/garage/shopmathcfm1.php
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/selecting_right_carb/index.html0 -
Ol racer wrote:FYI
We didnt have many pictures of the early days with the 212 because cameras were rare, however later some pictures surfaced when using Hornet power. Attached are a couple early pictures.
(Raced Hudson Sdn's against all the V8 coupes because couldnt find a coupe in those days).
Incidently, I posted a lot of Hudson Racing pictures from people from all over the Country who sent them to me a couple yrs ago. If interested go to the Search Window and type Racing Pictures and a few Threads will appear to view.
Great shots! The rollover doesn't seem to have hurt the Terraplane much. Interesting in the background of that shot are various coupes to be seen, so you would have had a weight disadvantage with the sedan body.
Incidentally what is the hole in the bonnet for, it seems to have been made after the signwriting was put on?
Yes I've seen the many racer shots but not these ones before, thanks. I love seeing this history being posted here.0 -
37 Terraplane#2 wrote:Fully agree on more compression , I had the heads milled .030 which I have heard is generally considered as far to go on this engine and still hold the head gasket . How much did you do yours ? The question of air flow is what I am wondering about , with stock cam/valve size how big can one go without loseing the venture effect of the carb ? As long as it still has enough suction at that point the fuel will break up . The proper mix of fuel/air wouldn't care if it was in a coffee can or a 5 gallon bucket as far as the power produced and the more of it the more power . , it's the size of the can [equated to compression ] that produces captured power , if I'm useing the right terms . With the Rochester carb the low end / high end is much easyier to get right than Carter with the rod/jet / proper rod higth . I would think the max power range could be set about anywhere you wanted it in the rpm range pretty precise with the main jets as the only thing to change to control mixture. Lets see now , If one were to compare vacume in the cylinder and vacume in the intake under the carb , with different carbs would that not give some answeres ?
I put a Hudson 112 head on mine, which has also been milled a bit. The compression is around 7.3:1 and so far the head gasket is fine with the head torqued to 45lbs. There seems to be a problem with some studs pulling out and block distortion if the torque goes over 50lbs. If the compression needed to be up towards 8.0:1 I think firstly you'd have to weld the chambers over the pistons to get the chamber volume reduced and secondly you'd have to o-ring the block surface or something like that to ensure a good head gasket seal.0 -
Super 7 wrote:Here are two links. One has a plugin sheet for the calculation and the other is an article stating that the formula and what I wrote was junk.
Both might be of use.
http://www.classictruckshop.com/garage/shopmathcfm1.php
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/selecting_right_carb/index.html
THANKS , can't say that evaluateing what you said/they said contradicts anything , The one thing I fully agree on is that only practicle experience on the car being used and conditions it is driven in is conclusive , too many variables to spec a certain size . On that score the bigger the carb while still giveing decent low end performance the better for more power . Big / little as in elephants and mice . The 37 is fairly light as cars go and I do have some really stiff gears so good low to mid range will be my goal . Gonna try a Rochester 2 barrel with 1 3/8 butterflys and see what happens to the vacume versus the original single barrel . Mixture is easy to change on it , so if the vacume comes out right it ought to provide a substantial gain and the only way I have to check that is SOTP, Don't think a neck brace is needed . BUD0 -
37 Terraplane#2 wrote:
THANKS , can't say that evaluateing what you said/they said contradicts anything , The one thing I fully agree on is that only practicle experience on the car being used and conditions it is driven in is conclusive . On that score the bigger the carb while still giveing decent low end performance the better for more power . Big / little as in elephants and mice . The 37 is fairly light as cars go and I do have some really stiff gears so good low to mid range will be my goal . Gonna try a Rochester 2 barrel with 1 3/8 butterflys and see what happens to the vacume versus the original single barrel . Mixture is easy to change on it , so if the vacume comes out right it ought to provide a substantial gain and the only way I have to check that is SOTP, Don't think a neck brace is needed . BUD
Let us know what you find Bud. The top gear increments are easy enough to measure on the '36 at least given the large speedo! Eg 20-40,30-50,40-60,50-70, 30-70 etc before and after. Where are you connecting the vacuum pipe, in the manifold or where?0 -
Gonna be a while before I get it going , got a fresh engine ready to install and it suddenly got BRRR around here ! My garage has got terrific AC . I mean I put a 307 rear under it . Gonna take the vacume reading in the intake right under the carb . Yeah , I'll post what I find when the time comes as there are several opinions on the subject , and again I really do think it's likely a one on one deal . BUD0
-
I found this comment on carb sizing using a vacuum gauge somewhere on the web:
Try a check with a vacuum gauge: Hook the vacuum line to a manifold vacuum source (not ported) and run the line inside the car to the vacuum gauge. Have someone read the gauge while you run up to redline through the gears (whatever your personal redline is). If the vacuum reading stays at zero or maybe goes to 1", your carb is big enough. If the vacuum reading climbs as you get near redline, the carb is acting as a restriction to airflow (or the air cleaner is the restriction).0 -
Thanks , I've found a lot of info on the net , most of it from racers/hotroders . Some of it contradicts other sources , by the time I shake it all out and take what you might call an average on things about 1 inch of vacume WOT is the goal for max power , less for economy . When I compare the carbs , The 2 barrel Carter has 1 1/4 butterfys--1 3/16 venture tapering to 1 1/4 ,--the Rochester has 1 7/16 butterfys , 1 3/32 venture tapering to 1 7/16 , this in itself is going to break up the fuel better which translates to more power / better response . BUD0
-
Try this Formula from the Carb Shop
www.thecarburatorshop.com. Cubic Inch/RPM....If motor is in good shape use 75%, if little worn reduce the percentage. Usually Smaller Carb will always give Quicker throttle response ....0 -
We all must consider here that bigger /smaller is in relation to WHAT . A carb that leans toward a lean mixture will respond better at intial throttle opening as the fuel will burn more completely , but then it will become too lean at higher rpm , loss of power , compromises are the order of the day . Any given engine size requires a certain amount of fuel/air to run . From there we go to what is it being used for, street or raceing. In my old days raceing with carbs I always went for a clean burn out at halfway down the stretch or so on a circle track , that seemed to give the best competition wise . The street is entirely different , and for any use there is no magic "formula " to determine the right size carb , all the other things of which there is too much to get into here figures into the equation . I'm not looking at/for anything other than getting the best I can out of the ole gal with the said compromises , ie. max power will not give the best economy and vice versa . The old carbs have been improved on in the past 30 some years in both areas beyond any doubt, I intend to make use of that best I can but not to the extent of testing every possable configureation . Just gonna check the chosen Rochester { used on small block bow ties } with main jets sized to get an all-around clean burning engine against the old Carter that I really can't do much with to perfect and use the best one . BUD0
-
Well I road tested with a vacuum gauge today with interesting results (the gauge was connected to the wiper port on the inlet manifold).
In second gear at full throttle from 15mph the vacuum dropped to 3lbs then slowly rose to 4lbs as the engine reached maximum revs. It didn't get anywhere near zero.
It would appear then that the standard carb is significantly undersized for maximum power according to theory which suggests a lower vacuum at WOT of 0-1" for maximum power.
I just wonder whether a carb with a vacuum secondary would be ideal. Is there a Holley/Weber that does this? I'll have to see what is out there. That way the secondary barrel would open open if required.
The engine is a '36 212 with Carter W1 1bbl carb, standard exhaust, higher compression of 7.3:1.0 -
terraplane8 wrote:Well I road tested with a vacuum gauge today with interesting results (the gauge was connected to the wiper port on the inlet manifold).
In second gear at full throttle from 15mph the vacuum dropped to 3lbs then slowly rose to 4lbs as the engine reached maximum revs. It didn't get anywhere near zero.
It would appear then that the standard carb is significantly undersized for maximum power according to theory which suggests a lower vacuum at WOT of 0-1" for maximum power.
I just wonder whether a carb with a vacuum secondary would be ideal. Is there a Holley/Weber that does this? I'll have to see what is out there. That way the secondary barrel would open open if required.
The engine is a '36 212 with Carter W1 1bbl carb, standard exhaust, higher compression of 7.3:1.
Those have been my suspicions all along . I don't think that back at the time enough was known about carb/engine size. Hudson themselves without any other changes put 2 carbs on the engines to make them have more power / run better . I wouldn't recomend the vac secondary on our 212 engines unless you put one on that had sufficient air flow on the primary . Better bet would be a modern 2 barrel carb where more was known and used , one thing you'll notice right off is the venture shape is better on the newer carbs , the old ones were a straight shot from the butterfly to the manifold . . Use one that's easy to change the fuel/air ratio with the main jets , I'm going with a Rochester but any you could get to mount would work . I had to do some grinding on the base plate to allow for allen head bolt head clearance , not enough meat there for cap screws , and elongegate the holes to get it to mount . Too dang cold here to work on the thing and I'm anxious to see what happens. Some formulas I ran accross say we need a 250 cfm air flow carb , but given the poor design of the intake maniflod that could be wrong . I'm using a 2 barrel intake which is better than the single barrel intake , allows for more air to be taken in and helps on the vac situation. One thing disscussed was blocking the heat chamber under the carb . I"m not gonna do that unless I have a fuel boil problem as it is true the warmer the fuel the better it will vaporize . It's really cooler air, which gets more of it in [ hence more oxygen ] that helps . Blow up a balloon and then heat it , it will get bigger . OH YEAH , have you checked to see if the air cleaner is causeng a restriction ? BUD0 -
Interesting stuff. I'm kinda glad you Terraplane fanatics are messing with the 212 and such.
The road test with a vacuum gauge is the best test of what a person's engine is really doing. The test would be just as described here, stomp on the engine and the vacuum gauge should go to zero and be barely below 1" at whatever redline you set.
A bit about undersized carbs, they were designed to enhance an engine's peak torque rpm range. The peak torque rpm was usually right in the usual driving range of the vehicle. Not only did the undersize work in concert with the peak torque rpm, but made the throttle response snappy and quick to get up to peak torque rpm.
To preserve the best of both worlds, peak torque performance and on the top end, whomever suggested a progressive 2 barrel was also on the money. We've had alot of success with the Holley/Weber 5200, or DGV series Webers. They are a progressive 2 barrel of around 200-230 cfm.
That carb came in alot of configurations and was licensed as OEM on both GM and Ford vehicles, mostly Ford. It was made by Holley, Carter, Motorcraft, and Weber.
A remanufactured OEM type can be bought at Tom Langdon's online store for a rediculously cheap price.
http://www.stoveboltengineco.com/acartpro/product.asp?productid=149
Tom's carbs can come with either an electric choke or a water heated choke. The water heated choke isn't a bad option for those of us still running 6 volts. If you send him an e-mail, he can tailor up a OEM-type with some different options and perhaps provide a particular make of carb, such as either a Motorcraft or Carter etc. For $75-$85 its cheaper than most rebuild kits! Tom stocks jets, air bleeds, etc so you can tune/tailor them in like you'd want. A deal that's tough to beat. He also carries 1 to 2 barrel adapters for these carbs. If you want to be adventurous; there's a good, cost effective, and easy option.
Weber still makes their own version of the carb, as its wildly successful to retrofit it to many different engines. MUCH more expensive than the OEM types, but long term availability of service parts, flexibility in tuning, and a higher degree of quality exist.
http://www.redlineweber.com/html/Types/making_the_right_choice.htm
Most of the 1 barrels flow about 140-160 cfm @ 2.5" of vacuum. Carb capacity testing for 1 and 2 barrels is done at 2 or 2.5" vacuum. 4 barrels are rated at 1" vacuum. So, just seeing a flow rating doesn't always mean the same things. Without over complicating the math, we'll do a quick comparison of a stock type 1 barrel @ 2.5" vs. a progressive 2 barrel.
Lets work backwards and see what rpm that peaks out at for the 212. Assuming the intake tract is 75% efficient. The more efficient the intake tract is the more restrictive the carb's cfm capacity will become.
Stock 1 barrel @ 150cfm
[(150cfm/.75VE)x3456]/212CI = 3260.38rpm
Now we'll use a Progressive Weber-type.
[(220cfm/.75VE)x3456]/212CI = 4781.89rpm
I don't know how hard you guys want to run these splasher engines, but I'd speculate that just by using the DGV-type carb you'd see the vacuum gauge at 3500rpms to be around the sweet spot of 1" vacuum.
Don't get all worked up when studying the capacity of a DGV type carb when they mention being designed for 1200 to 2400 cc engines. Lets take a quick look at what those engines do. They normally run 6-7000 rpm redlines. We'll say a 2000 cc engine / 16.39 cc's per CI = 122 CID. OHV engines are typicly 85% efficient through the intake tract.
[(122CI x 6500rpm) / 3456] x .85VE = 195.4 cfm So, we're still in the ballpark on an "air demand" type comparison.
Hope that helps you guys out, now get those Terraplanes runnin!
Mark0 -
Hudson308 wrote:Thanks for the great info, Mark!
The more I read about these DGV's, the more I'm starting to think that carb may be just the ticket for the dual-2bbl. Edmunds intake I've had sitting on a shelf for lack of carb tuneability on a 308.
You've probably read the other thread dancing around the issue of carb vs. engine size in the "Street Rod" section...
http://classiccar.com/index.php?option=com_jfusion&Itemid=62&jfile=showthread.php&t=20469
They are talking about engines that I care to discuss much. I've built alot of street performance v8's, and just got bored with them. To be honest, I always had better all around performance slightly undercarbbing a hot V8. Reason? Just as I mentioned before, quicker revs and better torque band usage. Its not just how much hp you make, its how fast it makes it. If you can bang through the gears faster due to increased rev rate - you cross the finish line first.
Using those formulas, its always best to stick as close to what they compute at and error on the "smallish" side. If a engine theoreticly calls for a 536cfm carb, its best to go for a 500cfm over a 600. More than likely, a person overestimates their true VE anyway.
I don't care to get into V8 discussions regarding carbs, because alot of the info out there just don't wash and is just swallowed as gospel. And, why you see alot of "help me tune this carb" questions - they likely have a carb that's too big and struggling with A/F mixture at very low venturi velocities and depressions. Its curable, but very tough and likely has a idle and low speed issues. Not a problem on a full-on drag racer that only operates at WOT - nightmare for a street machine!
The DGV carbs won't fit on the Edmunds intake. Somewhere I have the part# of the adapter needed to make it work. Seems like its the DGV adapter plate for some Datsun engine, but still needs some filing of the bolt holes to mate it to the Edmunds. But yes, they are the ticket. The smaller versions of the OEM types are best in dual on a 308, getting down near 400 total cfm.
Another good choice for the Edmunds is the Weber DCNF. DCNF carbs use the same removable venturis the larger DCOE and IDA carbs use and can be cfm tailored to match whatever big six build you have. Not cheap, but very flexible and the larger public doesn't know what they are - so you're likely to not get copied! I seem to recall the same adapter for the DGV works for the DCNF. In the link I gave in the previous post for the DGV series, you can scroll down and read up briefly on the DCNF series. I need to get that stuff back out and read it. I'd like to build a Edmunds equipped 262 one of these days.
Mark0 -
Mark, thanks for the info. I'd looked at Tom's stovebolt options so it's nice to hear your good words in that respect. He must know more than just about anybody on improving the carburetion on old street driven sixes.
On the matter of the 308 I remember once seeing a photo of a worked 308 with a triple Weber sidedrafts. It looked very purposeful I thought. Lots of guys of course run triple Webers on for example the '70's Z car straight sixes, which are a lot of fun to drive so equipped. I am one of those who likes a resonant induction sound as much as an exhaust sound and a set of triple Webers on song is just heaven to listen to. They're not really for economy though! But they would be good for a worked 308 for those who wanted something different, rather than the old style intake system. I suppose triple downdraft Webers would also work and get the carbs away from exhaust heat at the same time compared to sidedrafts.0 -
Scratch what I said about the DCNF and DGV adapters. I retrieved my notes on the subject as it relates to both Edmunds and WGD/WDO type Hudson intakes using DCNF carbs.
The bolt pattern for the WGD/WDO carbs = 1.875" x 3.250" odd pattern unique to that type carb.
DCNF Weber (translated from the mm pattern) = 2.0472" x 3.3465"
If you half that difference, you roughly get the amount needed to file the carb base holes to fit the Edmunds. 0.086" and 0.049". With very little work, the DCNF carb mounting holes can be filed out to fit over the original WGD pattern - no adapter needed.
Handy for not only the dual Edmunds, but a great carb to replace a single Hudson 2 barrel. Remember, its cfm rates are adjustable via replaceable venturis - a carb than can be matched to several engine builds! You could tailor it up and down to suit alot of things in both single and dual.
To make it easy and accurate, you'd just file fit the DCNF bolt pattern to fit the original Hudson gasket bolt holes when positioned properly, then trim the gasket out to fit the DCNF throttle bores. Easy Peasy, then you run into the linkage adaptation (I never tackled that!).
Mark0 -
terraplane8 wrote:Well I road tested with a vacuum gauge today with interesting results (the gauge was connected to the wiper port on the inlet manifold).
In second gear at full throttle from 15mph the vacuum dropped to 3lbs then slowly rose to 4lbs as the engine reached maximum revs. It didn't get anywhere near zero.
It would appear then that the standard carb is significantly undersized for maximum power according to theory which suggests a lower vacuum at WOT of 0-1" for maximum power.
I just wonder whether a carb with a vacuum secondary would be ideal. Is there a Holley/Weber that does this? I'll have to see what is out there. That way the secondary barrel would open open if required.
The engine is a '36 212 with Carter W1 1bbl carb, standard exhaust, higher compression of 7.3:1.
Bud: Can you do a similar test with the exhaust system unbolted, at the manifold, to see how the vacuum will be affected, without muffler back pressure? I'm wondering how a more free flowing exhaust system would change the vacuum readings. As I get older, these types of information I used to know have been slipping away. It's a learning time again.
I have a 212 and am interested in all the information you are getting from your test results.
Thank you and everone else who has contributed there information.
Lee0 -
MARK, Allrighty ! Glad you jumped in here , yeah, messing with is right , this is the kind of stuff we've been trying to dig up . BIG THANK YOU !! That stuff about " Ive done this so - so many yrs on my car on any subject so do it this way " don't get it with me . What your giveing us has been worked out by pros who don't give a hoot what/who's car it's on and will save us all a lot of time + $$ . Ought to be a lot of better running HUDS out there when this is all done . What are your thoughts on the Rochester I Described a few posts back ? I chose it just as a shot in the dark . Need to change plans there ? Actually I have no idea what the CFM's of it are . The Holly/Weber or DGV at 200-230 cfm sounds to me like the way to go for a 212 street machine , I found a formula that says about 250cfm is needed for a 218 cubic inch {been bored .030 , head milled .030} but I'm not sure if that was intended for a max power or street use formula . Most of us just want it to get down the pike good and have no desire to see how far we can go before we make shrapnel .
LEE, yes the exhaust plays a HUGE part , Again I have my engine out finishing a rebuild , got it ready but it's too dang cold to work on it , lousy heat in garage, so I can't do any tests for a while, wish I could . That was Terraplne8 that did the test BUD0 -
thanks for the kind comments.
The Rochester 2GC is a good carb, but is being used alot in nostalgic hot rodding. This does for them what has also happened to the Stromberg - makes them high and scarce. To be honest, the Carters Hudson used were much better carburetors and more tunable to wider conditions. You can't get tuning parts any easier than you can the Carter. If I could easily use new-fangled Edelbrock metering rods in the WGD/WDO - I wouldn't use anything but those carbs in some setup for Hudson. But, difficulty finding different metering rods for those carbs kill the prospect.
To really enhance things beyond the norm, we're going to have to look past the mainstream Rochester and Carter. The main reason is tuning ability. That's why I lean toward the Weber types for 1 and 2 barrel carbs. If one keeps a keen eye on e-bay, the DCNF's pop up alot as they were popular VW carbs. The DGV carbs represent the cheapest practical route, the DCNF represent the most flexibility - but at a premium.0 -
`Hudsonator wrote:thanks for the kind comments.
The Rochester 2GC is a good carb, but is being used alot in nostalgic hot rodding. This does for them what has also happened to the Stromberg - makes them high and scarce. To be honest, the Carters Hudson used were much better carburetors and more tunable to wider conditions. You can't get tuning parts any easier than you can the Carter. If I could easily use new-fangled Edelbrock metering rods in the WGD/WDO - I wouldn't use anything but those carbs in some setup for Hudson. But, difficulty finding different metering rods for those carbs kill the prospect.
To really enhance things beyond the norm, we're going to have to look past the mainstream Rochester and Carter. The main reason is tuning ability. That's why I lean toward the Weber types for 1 and 2 barrel carbs. If one keeps a keen eye on e-bay, the DCNF's pop up alot as they were popular VW carbs. The DGV carbs represent the cheapest practical route, the DCNF represent the most flexibility - but at a premium.
MARK , I allready have the Rochester, newly rebuilt, got it dirt cheap, got it to where it will mount , can get any size main jets on Ebay about $8 a pair. Has 52's in it now . Know what the CFM's of it are ? On metering rods , they are the reason I got off the Carter thing , Seems everything I ran accross was pretty well worn at rod/jet point, take forever trial error to adjust . A while back there was A guy that was trying to figure out just what you would like to do, retrofit different rods in the Carters. He was told " you can't do that " but said it would not stop him from trying . BUD0 -
If you already have the Rochester, I say try it! I'm not a Rochester expert by any means, so I can't help in identfying yours cfm-wise. There is a good book on them that is highly recommended and does have ID information in it. I never bought one because I didn't intend on working with them. Check out Amazon, they usually run about $15.
My favorite is the DGV-type progressive 2 barrel for street use. Either single or multiples, depending on application. That doesn't mean some other carb won't work- and I certainly like to hear folks who know about other types share their knowledge. I had no idea jets were out there for the 2GC, which I suppose is a benefit to its recent popularity.
The Carter metering rod thing can be whipped. The lower ends of the rods are identical to the Edelbrock rods, its the upper end thats the bugger. Either a new rod hanger needs to be made/designed, or re-bend the Edlebrock rods accurately. Its on my to-do list, but that's a long list!
Mark0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- 37K All Categories
- 106 Hudson 1916 - 1929
- 19 Upcoming Events
- 91 Essex Super 6
- 28.6K HUDSON
- 560 "How To" - Skills, mechanical and other wise
- 993 Street Rods
- 150 American Motors
- 174 The Flathead Forum
- 49 Manuals, etc,.
- 78 Hudson 8
- 44 FORUM - Instructions and Tips on using the forum
- 2.8K CLASSIFIEDS
- 599 Vehicles
- 2.1K Parts & Pieces
- 77 Literature & Memorabilia
- Hudson 1916 - 1929 Yahoo Groups Archived Photos