Best Edelbrock model recommendations for Studebaker 289 in 64 GT

[64V-K7]

If you put a Mr. Gasket #98 Spacer/heat shield under the carb, you won't have to cut anything & it's suggested to heed the pointers on this page

http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.com/showthread.php?86542-Installing-the-Edelbrock-140x-Tips

[Paul Keller]

The 500 cfm/electric choke model performs very well on my "warmed up" 289. The power spring was changed to one step lower which helped drivability and mileage a bit. It is not an All Out competition engine, stays under 6,000 RPM.
Some users that have made more extensive performance changes have obtained good results w/ the 600 CFM carb after trial & error and/or dyno tuning.
How much effort/time/money do you want to invest?
My vote: easy change, low cost for 5000 CFM.
Pautlk

[Chartrain]

I own the car now & agree it runs great.
if I could keep my foot out of it, I might get more than 6 mpg in town but hey, that’s me

[Chartrain]

[CampbelHawk]

I just bought a 500CFM Edelbrock 1901 AVS2 (electric choke) and the converted stock 2 to 4 barrel manifold for my 63 Hawk, having that and a pertronix installed. Will report back on how it works.

[sals54]

The Edelbrock AFB GM A/T kickdown arm will contact the heat crossover passage if left 'as is'.
If you are not running a GM auto trans, all you need to do is trim the lower arm at the stamping fold line (see pic).
Then the carb will fit without any adapter plates.
If you have a stock OE WCFB intake, you will need to open up the secondary bowls slightly to clear the secondary butterfies.
The adapter plate (or the thick Mr. Gasket heat isulator stacked gasket) will buy you that needed clearance, but...
But the 'step' in the secondary throttle bore to intake bore will cause some unwanted turbulence and ultimately affect upper RPM performance.
Best to open up the secondaries slightly, or buy an AFB ready intake from a Stude vendor.

It's not necessary to cut this part off. I just bend it out of the way to gain clearance for the manifold. If you ever switch to a GM transmission, you may need that tab for the cable for the automatic trans.

[StudeRich]

Quote Chartrain: "For what it’s worth, the 289 4V advertised at 225 hp after a fresh rebuild was dynoed at 164 hp with no accessories on a 10 part you tube series
that should start a conversation"

YES it WILL!

Knowing that Studebaker's advertised H.P. was always very conservative and LOW; example an R3 rated at 335 H.P. when they can easily Dyno at over 400.

That makes this statement just not believable, somehow the Parameters must be wrong, I believe the Machine said that, but just not believing it sorry.

Speaking of Carburetors, (the Topic remember) which one were you running?

[Chartrain]

This was not my engine
it’s a Multipart series from a guy named Pete on You Tube
The engine was a 289 with original Carter carb in a 62 GT Hawk

[Chartrain]

Revisited the video part 8 Dyno pulls on Pete’s garage
final # after 8 hours of dyno tuning were 163 hp @ 3800 rpm & 258 ft lbs torque at 2600 rpm with a perfect 14.7 air fuel mixture. Cranking pressure was 150 across the board.
The builder was as surprised as anyone especially with a .030 overbore but it is what it is.
i assume the dyno was calibrated but who knows.

[bezhawk]

The "best" carburetor, isn't even a carburetor. Fuel injection takes all the guess work out of the equation.

[52-fan]

The "best" carburetor, isn't even a carburetor. Fuel injection takes all the guess work out of the equation.

A wonderful solution if you have the $$$ and can set it up. For most of us a carb swap using the other parts as is is much more practical.

[64Avanti]

Revisited the video part 8 Dyno pulls on Pete’s garage
final # after 8 hours of dyno tuning were 163 hp @ 3800 rpm & 258 ft lbs torque at 2600 rpm with a perfect 14.7 air fuel mixture. Cranking pressure was 150 across the board.
The builder was as surprised as anyone especially with a .030 overbore but it is what it is.
i assume the dyno was calibrated but who knows.

Those speeds for max torque and hp are low for a 4 barrel engine. Without fan, mufflers and air cleaner Studebaker engine dyno test showed 300 lb-ft @ 2900 rpm and 208 hp. This is with 8.2:1 cr.

This is with 8 deg initial timing. The same engine with 4 deg was about 24 hp less.

The same engine with 2 barrel carb at 8 deg had 300 lb-ft @ 2600 rpm and 197 hp @ 4500 rpm.

Going back to 4 deg dropped power to about 164 hp @ 4000. Power was almost the same from 3600 to 4500. This is with WCFB carb.

I suspect that the engine in the video was not getting secondaries open.

[64Avanti]

So I viewed the YouTube video and see that the timing was set to 4 deg normally in a dyno tune you would adjust the timing for max power. Max power was at rather low rpm.

So my speculation about carb may still be right but without looking who knows. The numbers still don't add up even if it were a 2 barrel @ 4 deg advance. The torque at 2600 rpm was low.

[Flashback]

I am running a street Demon, 1901. It is 625 CFM. But it has the small primaries, large secondaries , like a quadrajet , and the qualities of a thermo quad. I like it

[Chartrain]

289 on the dyno

Those speeds for max torque and hp are low for a 4 barrel engine. Without fan, mufflers and air cleaner Studebaker engine dyno test showed 300 lb-ft @ 2900 rpm and 208 hp. This is with 8.2:1 cr.

This is with 8 deg initial timing. The same engine with 4 deg was about 24 hp less.

The same engine with 2 barrel carb at 8 deg had 300 lb-ft @ 2600 rpm and 197 hp @ 4500 rpm.

Going back to 4 deg dropped power to about 164 hp @ 4000. Power was almost the same from 3600 to 4500. This is with WCFB carb.

I suspect that the engine in the video was not getting secondaries open.

The secondaries were opening as he had a 14.7 air fuel ratio
don’t forget this wasn’t one pull - they spent 8 hours on the dyno enlarging secondary jets etc.
i hope it’s wrong but in the end, it is what it is. Mine has plenty of get up & go regardless of what the actual number is.