Back to the OP. A '32 has been and is perhaps the ultimate in traditional 'Hot Rod's. As such, tri-carbs are a hot rod element that became traditional from their inception -whatever year that was. Thus, 3x2s are almost always era correct for a '32 -unless your era correct '32 has no parts that were not available before, say 1936 (Miller Ford Indy) Thus also no '32 could have /would have sported an aluminum 2x4 intake before 1952. Nothing at all 'wrong' with 2x4s, they just tend to date your vehicle to the 60s+ 'Street Rod' era. Nothing wrong with that either, if that fits to where you had your roots and your fun, and intend to memorialize.
Dual quads were quite common in the 50's. Ford, Chevy, Cadillac, Olds, Chrysler, all had dual quad intakes in the 50's, and many of those dual quad OHV engines made it into '32 Ford hot rods.
'tend to'. Of course if your engine is a '52 Caddy or some such traditional engine, dual-quads do not 'tend to' date it to the 60s+ 'Street Rod' era. But a 350 is -not- a dual-quad 283. Most rodders can spot the difference at a glance. Using any SBC dates the build to represent the year 1955 or latter. Guys spend tens of thousands on acquiring era appropriate engines and rare parts to build 'traditional' hot rods. A GM crate 350 may run sweet and trouble free but certainly was never installed in -anything- before 1967.
Well Ron, made a decision yet? Are you planning to buy a new set up from somewhere or piece one together? By three Holleys do you mean 94s? I ran three 97s on the 292 inch SBC in my roadster for a while and it was anemic. I switched to 94s and could immediately feel the difference. I had three Rochesters with a small solid lifter cam in the 327 in my '29 pickup and it would run rings around my roadster. If you go 3x2 and want to keep the performance up I suggest the Rochesters. IIRC, there are some bigger 94 style carbs: 1 1/16" venturi/1 3/8" throttle bore vs 1" venturi/1 7/32" throttle bores, they say ECW - truck carbs I think. They are bigger but you have to change the top cover or machine off the air cleaner clamping ring to use most of the popular air cleaners.
No Contest. Dual Quads. 3x2's do look Bitchin' but they are no match for the tuning, reliability, and performance of 2x4's. As an example I have two 327's. Both are very similar builds 9:5 compression, 1:94 heads, mild cams, Vertex Magnetos timed at 10', Tube Headers on one, Rams Horns on the other. The Dual Quads are in a '54 Chevy, the 3x2's in a '29 Woody. The heavier Chevy will run circles around the Woodie. off idle both feel pretty comparable. But when the duals kick in it's good by Cabinet the People Mover is long gone. and yes all three are hooked up on the 3x2 and both run a progressive set up. Dual Quads and never look back.
I had 3x2 on a 440 sixbbl 69 Roadrunner a few years ago and loved them....This is a really good running roller cammed 350 sbc and I.m leaning towards the 2-4s on this one...
As a teenager , I had 3 deuces on an FE , huge cam 428 cubes . In the area where I live , constant temp and humidity changes , it was a constant chore to keep it tuned up . It ended up with a single 4 barrel with factory 428 CJ sidewinder , my Buddy had 427 , dual quad intake , his was a bit less radical than mine and less trouble . It my age simple is best , kinda like women more than one is trouble the minute you light the wick .
My first car in 1971 was a tri-power GTO so I'm kinda partial to 3x2. Had several of both setups over the years and set them up for the engine they were going on. Properly dialed in, either will haul ass. In your case I'd probably aim towards the "look" you're after.
My coupe has a 383 roller cammed SBC that also starts and runs great but it has an endurashine Edelbrock Performer RPM and a 750 Demon. Ugh. I have a nice Edelbrock C26 intake and two nice Carter AFBs for it but it runs so nice I hate to screw with it. So I bought a new Rootleib hood and it’s getting painted now. Out of sight, out of mind. I have other projects that don’t run that need my attention, I’ll leave the coupe well enough alone for now. The dual quad deal will look real racy on your roadster. Dual quads were out there in the mid-fifties so don’t let the period correct police bug ya.
Hello, Our new 1958 Impala had 3x2 carbs from the factory. It was a simple set up that ran the center carb only, until the throttle was pushed past a certain pressure angle. Then the two other carbs kicked in and it was another new day on neck snapping power, while going down the dragstrip or street. 1957-58 The 3x2 system was not without fault. If care was not taken on the stock system, as was the normal case, power is had when stepping on the throttle. But, if a little black hose was not thoroughly connected or fell off, it was a 348 motor using only the center two barrel. Sure, the 348 power was there, but not all of it. So, we tried a manual progressive linkage system, it was fine for the drags, but not for daily driving. The limitation was the stopping point of the center carb and when the outer two carbs kicked in during the acceleration, on the street. May-June 1962 It did not matter where the stopping point of the progressive linkage was set, it just was not for daily driving. We always felt limited in the normal acceleration from any stop light when the linkage was adjusted and stopped just too early. More adjustments and when we thought it was right, the outer two carbs did not have full power to help out. Yes, everyone has their own progressive linkage system, but we took it off and hooked up the black vacuum tube with a clamp on it for future no fault usage. That worked the best with a 3 speed transmission and when we got the C&O Stick Hydro, it was a dream to drive and accelerate at any level of driving. But, we did have to check the black hose for cracks and leaks, just in case. Jnaki With our experience with 3x2, our friend got his hands on a 2x4 system as he traded a person his stock 4 barrel from his 283 for a 2x4 system from a Corvette. The Corvette owner did not like the way the 2x4 system worked on his motor. For him, like us, the system was too limiting and he wanted easy daily driving motion. The 4 barrel carb did the trick and he was a happy camper. It cost him nothing, as we did all of the work, for the trade of the system, itself. We decided that the 2x4 carb system should go on my friend’s 57 Chevy Bel Air Sedan. We already had Hedman Headers on his 283, as well as headwork, a mild cam, and this was a bolt on with adjustments, project. My friend did not care about the limitation stop adjustments on the progressive linkage for the 2x4. He just stepped on the throttle any time, any place. We got it to run at peak performance and he, too was a happy camper. So, since gasoline is a factor these days with rising costs, the 3x2 uses less, drives smoothly during normal daily stuff and has the additional power when you need it. There is no need to run a 4 barrel all of the time. The two barrel will power the SBC nicely and give you all of the power you need. That system is very usable… Back then, gas was about .25 cents per gallon. We used a lot of it for our daily drives and long distance road trips, too. But, for me, it was the daily drivability that was the limiting factor. The 2x4 is a gas hog as it uses two barrels from each 4 barrel all of the time. Sure, it has another 4 barrel power anytime the throttle is pushed down. But, for us, it was not the most handy of daily driver situations. When my friend and I exchanged cars for a weekend experiment, I did not like the limitations in his 2x4 set up. It always seemed like the whole 2x4 system was on and making the 283 motor just surge ahead. But, it was overlooked as my companion while driving the 57 was very distracting, anyway. I also had to make sure the newly added 4 speed shift lever did not make my hand move too far away, when shifting. Hah! So, what to do? The 3x2 is easier on the foot, gas usage and just ordinary driving. The 2x4 is powerful but limiting, to me, it is not for fun normal driving. YRMV
The problem with the 390 Caddy stuff is the fact that they use the small footprint wcfb carbs. I have one slated for my 390, but I have a fellow hamber working on a new sexy adapter for the AFB.
3-2’s or 2-4’s set up progressive both run on a two barrel. The 3-2 manifold is probably better designed to run in daily traffic. My 2-4’s mileage is the same now as it was for a single 4 barrel. My foot is just smarter.
Recently went to a rod run and a friend of mine had changed his intake to a 6x2 setup with the little bell mouth intakes pointed on about a 45 degree angle from straight ahead. I had to say that it looked really good on his nostalgic 30 Coupe. Personally I always liked 2x4s...................but I really liked how his looked. Heres a picture........
I think most people that have done much research have already figured out that the 3 x 2 setup is not going to outperform, horsepower and torque wise, a single 4 barrel or dual quads. I think though, that the multiple carb setup, regardless of whether it's 2 x 4 or 3 x 2 or any other multiple carb setup outperforms in the visual catagory. I've been running 3 deuces for about 20 years on my Galaxie and never been to the dragstrip. I have no clue how much horsepower I left on the table by my choice of induction systems and it doesn't matter to me. It's all about aesthetics, at least it is for me.
My take 3x2s have a better fuel distribution with progressive linkage but 6 idle mixture adjustment instead of 4 unless carbs are set up with out idle curcuits.
No matter what you choose an investment in a Unisyn it well worth the money. For use on 4 barrels or early WCFB’s or AFB’s an adapter or 2 may be needed. I made mine from an aluminum carb top with a plastic adapter glued on.
I watched with interest the video referenced in post 47, thanks for sharing. If one has 16 minutes, it is worth watching. A few items I find interesting: (1) Even though the dual quad imitations beat the Holley tripower, the testers all preferred the eye candy of the tripower to that of the dual quads. This theme also seems to permeate this forum. (2) I would have liked to see more information on less than WOT (read driveability). For street engines, few are going to see WOT often. The WOT figures are more for bench racing than practicality. Circuit transition is really more important than WOT. (3) And while it was quite obvious from the video that these folks were testing "packages" that are readily available to anyone with a computer and a credit card, I would have liked to seen a third test with genuine AFB carbs, rather than the modern imitations. (4) Would also have liked to have seen torque and horsepower plotted versus fuel burned, not just at WOT, but through the RPM ranges. Not really an issue with "garage queens", but certainly of interest to those of us who drive their vehicles. Eye candy does NOT have to be analogous with "gas hog". Jon.
^^^^^^ I watch all the Friebeger test stuff and agree with Jon above. You need to be pretty quick when they show the screens to look at 3500 rpm where they always start; it would be great at 2500.. Not your typical but if you was to see a shoot out on manifolds and carburetor combinations for dual quads on a y-block mule engine Ted Eaton of Eaton Balancing in Texas has a great one on his site. Many many combinations and single 4 barrel for comparison.
Exactly! I would rarely get north of there in regular driving, so really it's academic. To me, it's how well it feels from the stop light to the speed limit, i.e. off idle.
Not a problem for my 390 as I have the rare Weiand WCA 408 that has the AFB bolt pattern. Its presently set up with a pair of 400cfm AFBs. Also have a stock iron 2x4 fitted out with aluminum Elco AFB adapters that I bought before I had a Caddy engine. Actually bought it to put on my 289 Studebaker, but never did, because I found the 390. Bought this stuff decades ago when there wasn't much interest in old Cadillac stuff, for about 1/10 of todays asking prices.
I have to agree with them, that triple Holley setup is pure eye candy, much more so than the triple 2GC or 3-bolt carb intakes we normally see. And also to be honest, I've never seen that intake package out on the street, at cruise nights, car shows, etc. Maybe it would've been a better comparison if they'd have used a trio of Rochesters.
The Jalopy Journal
