Thread: which direction on carbs?

Tweet

Just a question that was brought up in discussion. I've seen 3 duece set ups with the carb bowls facing both frontward and backwards. Is there a correct way? I can see mounting them forward so they would clear the distributor, but backwards looks better. Just an interesting question.

While changing the orientation of the carbs may make slight performance changes, the primary concern (at least in OEM setups) has been a matter of clearance and ease of linkage hookup. The only factory setups that come to mind with the fuel bowls to the rear are the FE Fords and small block Fords. In those cases it is physically impossible to clear the distributor with a forward facing Holley without relocating the carbs to the rear away from the intake ports. While the rear facing carbs cleared the distributor, it also resulted in a rather complicated and awkward looking linkage setup. The other popular applications using Holley carbs that come to mind are the Big and Small block Six-Pac and 427 Chevy setups which in both cases have no problem with clearance and had the fuel bowls oriented forward.

Originally posted by chevy 37
Just a question that was brought up in discussion. I've seen 3 duece set ups with the carb bowls facing both frontward and backwards. Is there a correct way? I can see mounting them forward so they would clear the distributor, but backwards looks better. Just an interesting question.

as long as when stopping, turning a coiner or accelerating the gas dont slosh one-way or another and run the jets or pump lean it wouldn't make a dif.. on a st. car it should work either way.

Thanks for the answers. There were about 10 of us discussing this and we all agree that using rochester carbs on a chevy block, they wouldn't work because of the distributor in the way. The ford block using hollys would seem practical but as far as what this would do for the bowl set up for getting enough gas I don't know.

My Rochesters on the Edelbrock intake on my 390 had to be mounted facing rewards for the same reason the Holley's did in the stock application. Interfered with the distributor. Works out okay.

I'm running Rochester 2 BBLs (large base center/small base outboards) on my modified 63 T-Bird FE intake. The bowls are foward, but I have to use a mallory small base distributor (currently a dual point soon to be changed to the electronic version). There is no way with any distributor that a Holley will fit facing foward.

As far as Holleys they really don't seem to mind which which direction they go, as I said before both Chrysler and Chevy used them facing foward and Ford had them rearward. The main differences between the Ford tri-power carbs and Chryslers were that the Chrysler used metering plates (resulting an a slightly shorter carb) and no accelerator pumps in the outboard carbs with vacume linkage. The Ford set up used a metering block and bowls with an accelerator pump with mechanical linkage.

Or just bolt on a TBI, run slightly larger jets and re-program your computer for a richer mixture at lower Rpms. And it'll start easy too

Nice looking ford tri-power. WhenI get a chance I'll take a picture of my chevy tri-power and post it.

This is the way mine looks with Edelbrock manifold and Rochester Carbs. And yes I know I need to rethink my fuel lines, but hey they work for now. Oops, that was before I redid the carbs with the speedway kit and new linkage on the other side. Sorry.

Originally posted by DennyW
That's true to, but, if you read back on all of this, that's what Henry was saying about using a accelerator pump, and hydro-carbons, hahaha. Money wise, a carb or predator, plus the mechanical challenge of a carb, is more fun to me. You know, like on mine, I would have to buy ALL the stuff to change it over. So, a carb is way cheaper. I don't even run electronic ignition. I like the dual point distributor. I have no problem with rpm's either. Plus, the cost is less.
I think injection is better because of the trim of fuel, and computer control, just the cost, and the fun is not there for me.
I guess I like to tinker more.

that's where we part co. Danny, if it ant computer controlled then i don't wont it. the first dirt round track car i had in 74 was a mustang, tried every dist i could find and points was all ways a problem so i went to the junk yard and took the ign box and wiring harness off of a ford wagon and fabricated the pickup in my point dist. and eliminate all of my ign. problems. Haven't used a set of points sense.

ps... i guess i got tired of tinkering

Just took this picture. Darned cheap camera and overcast skies.

Originally posted by Oldf100fordman
Just took this picture. Darned cheap camera and overcast skies.

looks good fordman, little over kill on the filters there. id forgot how small they came.

Originally posted by DennyW
Below is a picture I was looking for. This is also a nice setup.

thats to pretty to run.

Originally posted by DennyW
I know what you mean. I ended up using a Judson Magneto, and the original points for the dual point distributor, much better than after markets, and added an o-ring around the distributor cap, and that pretty much curred it. I like the Judson, because points last twice as long. (passes half the amps through the points).It has a transistor trigger.

never got into magnetos, but they wouldnt let us run it anyway. they didnt wont to let me run the elc. ign.

Old100fordman Can't believe the room youhave in that ford. Which I had more room in my 37. Nice looking intake.