No announcement yet.

Edelbrock 1403 VS. the new AVS2 aka 1906

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fuel System: Edelbrock 1403 VS. the new AVS2 aka 1906

    Hello Anyone have a comparis
    on opinion of the new AVS2 compared to the 1403 Edelbrocks ?
    I am in the market for a new carb ( 4bbl )


  • #2
    The AVS vs. the original (more simple) Carter/Edelbrock...same - same.
    The AVS is just more tune-able if you like to play.

    As to size (CFM), stay with the 500cfm unless you have a lot of modifications and a lot of rear gear..!



    • #3
      The AVS 2 has the new annular discharge booster venturis. Also the AVS has an adjustable secondary air valve flapper so it can be tailored to the CFM demands of a particular engine so it won't be starved, or bog by opening too early. That is something you can't do on an AFB or Edelbrock clone without lots of trial and error.
      Bez Auto Alchemy

      "Don't believe every internet quote" Abe Lincoln


      • #4
        Which engine? I installed an Edelbrock 1403, Stock specifications, on a freshly rebuilt 289, and it's just perfect.


        • #5
          The 500 CFM Edelbrock AVS2 is part number 1901. Have installed a dozen or so 1403's on Stude engines with total success. Recently did one 1901 AVS2 on a 289 V8 again with total success. On that car I replaced the port fuel injection with the AVS2. It became more usable, reliable and trustworthy than it was with the fuel injection. Success!

          - - - Updated - - -

          Spend the extra few bucks. Buy the AVS2.


          • #6
            Thought I'd add a note here.
            The annular booster design is not a gimmick. I've converted a couple of Holleys from straight and down leg boosters to their annular boosters.

            The way the fuel comes out of the annular booster is more like the way the fuel comes out a fuel injector.
            That is...MUCH smaller drops of fuel, and much better atomized (smaller, better spaced droplets) rather than larger, uneven drops as from a standard booster. And, as the fuel enters the combustion chamber, it's MUCH easier for the spark plug to light the small drops of fuel, than it is large drops of fuel.

            Fuel mileage "may" go up, but in all likelihood, the drive-ability will be noticeably better than when using any carburetor with the old design, tube style boosters.

            So yes, if you are thinking about a new four barrel carburetor, the Edelbrock 1901/1902 is hands down the best way to go.

            And...if they come out with a 600cfm version, for you guys that just have to have a larger (too large) carburetor, with the smaller primary throttle bores, this will also be a better choice than using any standard 600cfm carburetor.



            • #7
              I installed several when they first came on the market. I do not know which of the current ones that one "morphed" into, numerically. Find that out--which was the first released--and use it. All worked superbly on R1s. Bolt-on and go. All the best.


              • #8
                X -

                The actual "annular" booster is pretty new for the Edelbrock carburetors. Been part of the Holleys for many years.