Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Edelbrock "AVS2" Four Barrel Carburator

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

  • 52-fan
    replied
    I noticed in the specifications for the AVS2 it says dual inlet. Does this mean it takes two fuel lines to the carb? My current Edelbrock has one line.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mike Van Veghten
    replied
    Grumpy -

    Yes. The 500cfm version of the AVS 2 should be the only one on the list to buy. The original carburetor and even the newish, AVS 1 should be pushed aside for the latest series.
    Time marches on...and sometimes, updates are a good thing.

    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • GrumpyOne
    replied
    After reading all these posts my head is beginning to hurt badly. Being that I have never nor will I ever win any sort of drag race, would this new AVS contraption be a good fit for the low mileage '63 289  that I plan on installing in my '55 Prez sedan equipped with the accompanying F-O-M tranny? I do plan on pulling the heads to replace the valve seals and will reinstall with metal shim head gaskets.

    If the consensus agrees with my plan, what are my options to utilize the original wet air filter along with any other suggestions that won't hurt my head?

    TIA

    Leave a comment:


  • 41 Frank
    replied
    Originally posted by Mike Van Veghten View Post
    Ah yes, one of those guys that holds back critical details..!?
    A 4.09 gear and a 2.74 first gear...the only choice is the larger carburetor.

    And DO NOT polish the metering rod pistons..! ANY material removal will cause an air to leak. Remove any burrs, yes, nothing from around the outside of the pistons.

    Mike
    I believe the 600 cfm would be better for what I have as well Mike. I talked with an Edelbrock rep at the Goodguys show in Arizona last week and not surprisingly he said: " we don't recommend using our carburator on a blow through application" he also added: "that is not to say it can't be made to work" That of course was their standard disclaimer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mike Van Veghten
    replied
    Ah yes, one of those guys that holds back critical details..!?
    A 4.09 gear and a 2.74 first gear...the only choice is the larger carburetor.

    And DO NOT polish the metering rod pistons..! ANY material removal will cause an air to leak. Remove any burrs, yes, nothing from around the outside of the pistons.

    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • 41 Frank
    replied
    Originally posted by 52-fan View Post
    Sounds like Frank is upgrading his 41.
    A fair observation Howard!

    Leave a comment:


  • 41 Frank
    replied
    Originally posted by PackardV8 View Post
    Larger will usually make more horsepower; smaller will usually be more responsive and better fuel economy.

    FWIW, superchargers make the carburetor larger. The 600 CFM is @ 1.5" vacuum; at 5# PSI, it probably flows 750 CFM or more. Remember the '57 - '58 GH/PH made 275hp with the 2-bbl. With 625 CFM 4-bbl, better cam and valve springs, the R2 was rated at 289hp; difficult to believe there isn't more than a fourteen horsepower improvement. Could be some marketing optimism involved.

    jack vines
    Jack
    Agreed, I have always believed the R-2 horsepower ratings were way low. I have ran away from a few cars with horsepower ratings much higher than my R-2.

    Leave a comment:


  • 41 Frank
    replied
    Originally posted by Mike Van Veghten View Post
    Frank -

    Yes, the carburetor is a bolt on. No extra "adapting" required.
    The main new items are the booster ventury's, and the secondary adjustability.
    I would still get the 500 version if I were you. If you do a LOT of freeway driving, you "may" see a little more driveability. But overall, the standard Stude engine requires LESS...than 500cfm..! Even with the changes you've made.

    About the only time I would recommend a larger carburetor, is with at least a 3.70 (or lower) rear end gear (plus the internal engine modifications) and a four speed trans., or a looser than stock torque converter in an automatic trans. Then...the 600cfm version might be a reasonable choice.
    While many use the 600 with shorter gears (3.31, 3.55 etc.), they are only shortchanging themselves and refusing to understand what is actually going on with their combination.

    What the "new..." booster does, is make the fuel come out of the booster ventury in much smaller droplets, than how things work with a standard booster ventury. That's its main claim to fame. Then as long as the fuel stay's better atomized as it passes thru the intake manifold and cylinder head ports, it's much easier for the spark plug to light once in the chamber.

    That's basically how the annular booster is better.
    Another application...take a look at the current crop of aftermarket, bolt-on fuel injector systems. Holley, FAST, FITech, et-al. They ALL use a similar design to get the fuel into the throttle bore...LOTS of small holes, in an annular fashion around the throttle bore.

    Mike
    Mike and Jack V. what i failed to mention is that my R-2 '41 Champion has a 4.09 rear gear with a built to the hilt 200 4 R trans. with a 2500 stall converter. I also have been known to go to the track and abuse it from time to time so that puts a different light on things. It has been into the high 13's in the quarter mile at 100mph. I can use an adapter on the air horn of an AVS for my bonnet as hood clearance is not an issue. Just have to raise the blower some. I am also installing a high output impeller. This old afb is now more that 50 years old. While a well known to all of us vendor rebuilt it 12 years ago it has always had a stumble off idle. Like the metering rods have a problem transitioning. Polishing the vacuum pistons was no help either. All the many rod and spring combos I have tried have made no improvement either. Accelerator pump ok as well. I have rebuilt many carbs during my 45 year career in the automotive field but this one has me stumped, hence my frustration. This lag even occurs at freeway speeds at slight tip in, especially in converter lockup mode.

    Leave a comment:


  • PackardV8
    replied
    Originally posted by 41 Frank View Post
    If it can be made to work should I get a 600 CFM rather than the recommended for small displacement engines 500 CFM since the engine has R-3 intake valves, some valve pocket work done and R-3 exhaust manifolds.
    Larger will usually make more horsepower; smaller will usually be more responsive and better fuel economy.

    FWIW, superchargers make the carburetor larger. The 600 CFM is @ 1.5" vacuum; at 5# PSI, it probably flows 750 CFM or more. Remember the '57 - '58 GH/PH made 275hp with the 2-bbl. With 625 CFM 4-bbl, better cam and valve springs, the R2 was rated at 289hp; difficult to believe there isn't more than a fourteen horsepower improvement. Could be some marketing optimism involved.

    jack vines

    Leave a comment:


  • 52-fan
    replied
    Sounds like Frank is upgrading his 41.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • DEEPNHOCK
    replied
    Air hat inlet is larger (than the older AFB).
    I do not know (and do not believe) the AVS2 top will swap with an old Stude AFB top.

    Originally posted by 41 Frank View Post
    Could the new AVS2 be adapted to work on an R-2? The current AFB on mine is at the end of its useful life. I am aware of the different throat size and can deal with that. If it can be made to work should I get a 600 CFM rather than the recommended for small displacement engines 500 CFM since the engine has R-3 intake valves, some valve pocket work done and R-3 exhaust manifolds.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mike Van Veghten
    replied
    Frank -

    Yes, the carburetor is a bolt on. No extra "adapting" required.
    The main new items are the booster ventury's, and the secondary adjustability.
    I would still get the 500 version if I were you. If you do a LOT of freeway driving, you "may" see a little more driveability. But overall, the standard Stude engine requires LESS...than 500cfm..! Even with the changes you've made.

    About the only time I would recommend a larger carburetor, is with at least a 3.70 (or lower) rear end gear (plus the internal engine modifications) and a four speed trans., or a looser than stock torque converter in an automatic trans. Then...the 600cfm version might be a reasonable choice.
    While many use the 600 with shorter gears (3.31, 3.55 etc.), they are only shortchanging themselves and refusing to understand what is actually going on with their combination.

    What the "new..." booster does, is make the fuel come out of the booster ventury in much smaller droplets, than how things work with a standard booster ventury. That's its main claim to fame. Then as long as the fuel stay's better atomized as it passes thru the intake manifold and cylinder head ports, it's much easier for the spark plug to light once in the chamber.

    That's basically how the annular booster is better.
    Another application...take a look at the current crop of aftermarket, bolt-on fuel injector systems. Holley, FAST, FITech, et-al. They ALL use a similar design to get the fuel into the throttle bore...LOTS of small holes, in an annular fashion around the throttle bore.

    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • 41 Frank
    replied
    Could the new AVS2 be adapted to work on an R-2? The current AFB on mine is at the end of its useful life. I am aware of the different throat size and can deal with that. If it can be made to work should I get a 600 CFM rather than the recommended for small displacement engines 500 CFM since the engine has R-3 intake valves, some valve pocket work done and R-3 exhaust manifolds.
    Last edited by 41 Frank; 03-24-2019, 10:39 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DougHolverson
    replied
    My Grandpa's '79 LTD had a variable venturi carb. It ended up getting replaced a (IIRC) Motorcraft 2-barrel from Westside Auto Salvage back when that was around. A guy at work, who use to work on cop cars in the '80s, claims that they weren't so bad, except that varnish and other dirt did a number on them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hawklover
    replied
    Yes along with that other great "engineering marvel" the Variable Vagina carb AKA the "VV"...Variable Venturi:-(
    Originally posted by Caso wannabe View Post
    Ford used annular discharge nozzles on the autolite 4100 carbs for many years and they worked great,If I'm not mistaken,Ford invented the annular discharge Venturi's.
    Dave

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X