500 CFM Holley for 259

[studeclunker]

There's a 450 to 500 cfm Holley listed on e-bay right now that I would like to try on Ed. The question is, will this drown the motor like the 600 cfm Holley did?


Home of the famous Mr. Ed!
Lotsa Larks!
K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Studebaker!
Ron Smith
Where the heck is Lewiston, CA?

[gordr]

Might burn it down?

IMHO, you really have to go far to beat a 500 cfm Edelbrock, brand new out of the box. Leave the Holleys to the Holley fans.

Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

[DEEPNHOCK]

No, it won't.... If....
If it is jetted properly, and has the accellerator pump set properly, and has the secondary jets set properly, as well as the secondary vacuum spring chosen correctly (it is a vacuum secondary Holley, right?
Shoot, a 600 CFM Holley won't 'drown' a 259 if it is set up right.
You may have a bog right off idle, but it won't drown the engine.
Now, Unless you have a real late model Stude intake manifold (AFB/Holley capable wide base), you'll be running a carb adapter, so spend some time blending the adapter to the intake inlets.
Having said all that, I'd respectfully suggest an AFB. You'll be money ahead, driveability ahead, tuneability ahead, yada yada yada.
I have no love for any Holley on a street car. Drags f'er sure, but not on the street.
I do have a definite predudice for an AFB on a Stude V8...and that is strictly experience based and satisfaction based.
Jeff[8D]

quote:Originally posted by studeclunker

There's a 450 to 500 cfm Holley listed on e-bay right now that I would like to try on Ed. The question is, will this drown the motor like the 600 cfm Holley did?

[Tom Bredehoft]

A 259 at 6,000 RPM uses 382 cubic feet of air per minute. Any more than that is just excess. Too much more and the flow through won't pull the fuel with it. Thats' what happened with your 600 cfm carb.

[img=left]http://www.alink.com/personal/tbredehoft/Bothcars.jpg[/img=left]
Tom Bredehoft
'53 Commander Coupe
'60 Lark VI
'05 Legacy Ltd Wagon
All three Indiana built OD cars

[DEEPNHOCK]

In actuality, there will not be enough pressure differential to push the fuel into the intake manifold (via the carb venturi rings).
The engine does not suck air/fuel in.
Outside air pressure pushes air in, and the carb does the same thing with the gas through the venturi.
You can't break Bernoulli's Law (but you can try)..
Too big a carb means not enough intake manifold vacuum off idle (you lose it too fast due to the large throttle bore), then the airflow has to speed up (with the RPM) to create the vacuum across the venturi ring to get the pressure differential there to get the fuel to push into the low vacuum area at the venturi.
Too big a throttle bore=Low flow=low signal=less fuel=lean out=bog
Splitting hairs on Labor Day for fun and profit[:0]
Jeff[8D]

quote:Originally posted by Tom B

A 259 at 6,000 RPM uses 382 cubic feet of air per minute. Any more than that is just excess. Too much more and the flow through won't pull the fuel with it. Thats' what happened with your 600 cfm carb.

[Guest]

HOLLEY ALSO MAKE A 390 CFM VACUUM SECONDARY 4BBL THAT WOULD BE GREAT ON A 259.
HOLLEYS ARE AS TROUBLE FREE AS EDELBROCK. I HAVE RUN BOTH. I LIKE THE HOLLEY FOR RACING MORE BECAUSE I LIKE THE ADJUSTMENTS BETTER. I HAVE FRIENDS THAT LIKE THE EDLEBROCK BETTER. SO YOU MIGHT DO A SEARCH AND LOOK FOR A 390 CFM HOLLEY I THINK YOU WOULD LIKE IT.

Erin Hays
"From Stuck and Rusty to Slick steel and sex appeal"
RZRECTD
1961 Hawk
1962 Lark
1963 Wagonaire

[Dick Steinkamp]

quote:Originally posted by 1961HAWK
I LIKE THE HOLLEY FOR RACING MORE BECAUSE I LIKE THE ADJUSTMENTS BETTER. I HAVE FRIENDS THAT LIKE THE EDLEBROCK BETTER.

I'm a Holley fan also...but not just for racing. Their vacuum secondary 4 barrels work beautifully on a street engine. For some reason, a big hunk of the Studebaker crowd gravitates towards the Edelbrock, but IMHO, the Holley is just as good or better...and FAR more Holleys are sold than Edelbrocks (maybe for a reason? [}])

[JDP]

I like the saying, "Holley's are good for two things, drag racing and keeping the garage door open."

JDP/Maryland
64 Daytona HT/R2 clone
64 GT R2
63 Lark 2 door
58 Scotsman
52 & 53 Starliner
51 Commander
39 Coupe express
39 Coupe express (rod)

[StudeRich]

That would be because; REAL Studebakers have CARTER four barrels and they ALWAYS worked GREAT! [^][^][:0]

So of course the Edelbrock Carter clone(since it is basically a Carter) IS the choice Carb. of Studebaker Owners!!

quote:Originally posted by Dick Steinkamp

For some reason, a big hunk of the Studebaker crowd gravitates towards the Edelbrock

StudeRich
Studebakers Northwest
Ferndale, WA

[Guest]

In case you didnt notice carters arent made anymore. edlebrock is a good copy, but i believe carter went under for a reason. holleys are better!!!!!!!
anyone that has had trouble with a holley had a crappy rebuild or someone that doesnt know how to tune. they are the simplest easiest to deal with carb out there. we put a 390 cfm holley on an 83 camaro recently tuned it in and had a 34 mpg car that ran high 14's. no thats no barner 1/4 mile time but hey drive it to the track and drive it home getting mileage most econo boxes dream of. i dont understand why everyone on this site is opposed of someone thinking out of the studebaker box? what mufflers do you run? why are they NOS? they must be the best studebaker engineers picked em out.

a 259 will benefit more from a small cfm carb and frankly a 500 CFM isnt small enough i ran one on my 259 i went back the 2bbl the edlebrock 500 works great on the 289. the 259 needs a little less and holley makes a good carb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! as does edelbrock wake up!!!

Erin Hays
"From Stuck and Rusty to Slick steel and sex appeal"
RZRECTD
1961 Hawk
1962 Lark
1963 Wagonaire

[Guest]

Dick Stiencamp posted this on another thread check it out.

http://www.4secondsflat.com/Carb_CFM_Calculator.html

Erin Hays
"From Stuck and Rusty to Slick steel and sex appeal"
RZRECTD
1961 Hawk
1962 Lark
1963 Wagonaire

[DEEPNHOCK]

Carter was purchased by Federal-Mogul a while back.

http://www.federal-mogul.com/en/AftermarketSolutions/NorthAmerica/EngineSolutions/Brands/Carter

They used to offer the AFB in their catalog, but I haven't seen it in a while...
Carter still builds electric and mechanical fuel pumps, as well as fuel regulators, and a line of water pumps.
My comment about Holley's is just my opinion.
I based it on a few years of experience with both Holley's, Carter AFB's, Weber AFB's, Edelbrock AFB's and some off the wall stuff.
Most Stude owners that just want to bolt a 4 barrel carb on their Studebaker and go.
I'll leave it it that...
Jeff[8D]

quote:Originally posted by 1961HAWK

In case you didnt notice carters arent made anymore. edlebrock is a good copy, but i believe carter went under for a reason. holleys are better!!!!!!!
anyone that has had trouble with a holley had a crappy rebuild or someone that doesnt know how to tune. they are the simplest easiest to deal with carb out there. we put a 390 cfm holley on an 83 camaro recently tuned it in and had a 34 mpg car that ran high 14's. no thats no barner 1/4 mile time but hey drive it to the track and drive it home getting mileage most econo boxes dream of. i dont understand why everyone on this site is opposed of someone thinking out of the studebaker box? what mufflers do you run? why are they NOS? they must be the best studebaker engineers picked em out.

a 259 will benefit more from a small cfm carb and frankly a 500 CFM isnt small enough i ran one on my 259 i went back the 2bbl the edlebrock 500 works great on the 289. the 259 needs a little less and holley makes a good carb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! as does edelbrock wake up!!!

Erin Hays
"From Stuck and Rusty to Slick steel and sex appeal"
RZRECTD
1961 Hawk
1962 Lark
1963 Wagonaire

[JRoberts]

Okay I will show my lack of mechanical knowledge here what is the Volumetric Efficiency Of Engine and what is it for a 259 and 289 Stude V-8? This is part of the formula on the site provided by Dick Stiencamp.
Joe Roberts

[Tom Bredehoft]

Its' about 85%, ie., 85% of the full flow potential of the cubic inches is used by the car. It probably has something to do with valve overlap, or some such.

[img=left]http://www.alink.com/personal/tbredehoft/Bothcars.jpg[/img=left]
Tom Bredehoft
'53 Commander Coupe
'60 Lark VI
'05 Legacy Ltd Wagon
All three Indiana built OD cars

[Guest]

ok i am drawing back to college on this so dont rip my head off if i dont match an encylipedia. volumetric effenciency has to do with the ability your engine has to move the air and fuel in and out of its cylinders. idlely it would be 100 percent but naturally aspirated engine cannot make 100 percent. so generally a real effecient engine will run around 85 percent. if you supercharge an engine you obtain over 100 percent volumetric effenciency. you can change how effecient your engine is with head and valve work intake runner change. i remeber in school they said if you were 100 percent volumetric efficient then you wanted an air fuel ratio of 14 to 1. but since an n/a engien isnt capable of achieving that your goal would be about 12.5 to 1. i hope that helped if not google it i am sure there is a bunch out there about it.

jeff i understand your point of bolt on thats why i bought my edelbrock for my 259. on a stock 259 it is just overkill in even with 500 cfm and since edelbrock doesnt make them smaller that i have found i would suggest a holley 390 cfm on an engine that calls for between 375 and 400 cfm it would work well. but would take a little more work to put it on. i know carter had left over for a long time but i was under the impression carter hadnt offically made the carb we know in any form since about 86 and that was the AVS? i not positive on this.

Erin Hays
"From Stuck and Rusty to Slick steel and sex appeal"
RZRECTD
1961 Hawk
1962 Lark
1963 Wagonaire