Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

63 Hawk--Little Carter Carb any good of 289

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Engine: 63 Hawk--Little Carter Carb any good of 289

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1875 carb.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	109.3 KB
ID:	1760088Click image for larger version

Name:	engine.jpg
Views:	3
Size:	91.8 KB
ID:	1760089


    I recently got this 1963 GT Hawk. It has a tiny Carter 4947S in the 289. Assume this is not stock based on what I have read. Seem to run fine with it if a little underpowered. Anyone have experience with these carbs? Are they any good? Any recommendations if I were to change? I have seen the posts saying that the 4 barrel intakes (converted from stock 2-barrel manifold) with the 500 cfm Edelbrocks are good. Thanks
    Last edited by CampbelHawk; 02-24-2019, 05:38 PM.

  • #2
    No, the Carter is not OEM; that would be a Stromberg WW. Probably there's not much difference in performance.

    Yes, the late 2-bbl intake and the 4-bbl begin life as the same casting. Only the final machining of the carb mounting base differs. However, it's not an easy conversion at home unless one has a mill and much experience using it. Jeff Rice has a shelf full already converted.

    Maybe, notice how often you run the revs above 3500 RPM. Below that, the 2-bbl is about as strong.

    jack vines
    PackardV8

    Comment


    • #3
      Of course most of us have tried and proven the Edelbrock Auto Choke Performer 1403, 500CFM to be very good and the AVS 1900 Series and Thunder 1800 Series Better, but there is nothing wrong other than the Manual Choke with that Carter, IF you can find out if the CFM's are close enough for a 2 Barrel.

      Does the Base have the correct 3/8" Vacuum Tube for the '64 Type PCV System?
      StudeRich
      Second Generation Stude Driver,
      Proud '54 Starliner Owner
      SDC Member Since 1967

      Comment


      • #4
        Carb

        Click image for larger version

Name:	carb2.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	130.8 KB
ID:	1725476

        It looks like it has 2 unused vacum tubes (look at lower left hand corner of picture)--are these what you referenced? What are their significance? Thank you.
        Last edited by CampbelHawk; 02-24-2019, 05:35 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          I did not mean to imply I could modify the intake--would buy the great looking one made by Mr. Rice if it would make a performance difference.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by CampbelHawk View Post

            It looks like it has 2 unused vacum tubes (look at lower left hand corner of picture)--are these what you referenced? What are their significance? Thank you.
            That is not the Carb. Base as I said, those are just Heat Tubes in the Intake Manifold Heat Port.
            There is no vacuum there, air goes in and out of the ends of ONE Tube and is heated to go to the Automatic Choke that you do not have.

            That large Hose on the right of the Carb. may be going to the Dist. Vacuum Advance or the Crankcase PCV Valve and Crankcase, but it is ABOVE the Throttle Plate not in the lower Base as a PCV Fitting should.

            I know nothing about this Carb. or what Car it belongs on, certainly not a Studebaker.
            StudeRich
            Second Generation Stude Driver,
            Proud '54 Starliner Owner
            SDC Member Since 1967

            Comment


            • #7
              If you're going to switch carbs, then go after the Edelbrock 500 cfm carb. You'll love it. Great milage, much better performance, and the wonderful sound of the secondaries kicking in.
              sals54

              Comment


              • #8
                That carb is from a late 60s Chrysler 8 cyl.

                JT

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thank you.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Would changing to the Edelbrock require a fuel pump change?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by CampbelHawk View Post
                      Would changing to the Edelbrock require a fuel pump change?
                      Probably not.

                      jack vines
                      PackardV8

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Reading up on this I see a spacer is required. When using the modified stock manifold, 1403 and 1/2 inch spacer required so that linkage works, does this setup fit under a 63 Hawk hood without clearance issues?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by CampbelHawk View Post
                          I did not mean to imply I could modify the intake--would buy the great looking one made by Mr. Rice if it would make a performance difference.
                          It will perform the same when driving mild.
                          You only operate off the 4bbl primary circuit until you press harder on the accellerator pedal.
                          The engine will run many happy miles with the small 2bbl on it.
                          A good 4bbl will perk it up and make it better during freeway jaunts.
                          You can, of course, get an AFB ready cast iron 4bbl intake from me, or.. Studebaker International has some in stock, too.
                          My only suggestion is that if you do go to the 4bbl intake and carb...Get the manifold install kit. Makes it an easy upgrade to do.
                          Last edited by DEEPNHOCK; 02-25-2019, 01:16 PM.
                          HTIH (Hope The Info Helps)

                          Jeff


                          Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain



                          Note: SDC# 070190 (and earlier...)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by CampbelHawk View Post
                            Reading up on this I see a spacer is required. When using the modified stock manifold, 1403 and 1/2 inch spacer required so that linkage works, does this setup fit under a 63 Hawk hood without clearance issues?
                            It should, on my '62 I have a stock 4V manifold with a thermo-quad,(did have AFB before) on a 1" thick phenolic spacer, with a 3 1/2" thick air filter and a 3/4" tall nut on top and still have 7/8" clearance to the hood. I do not have insulation on the underside of the hood. Of course, if you break a motor mount while stomping on it under heavy load, that nut will hit the hood. Fixed that with bolt through mounts, but still have a tiny reminder.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X