Register now to get rid of these ads!

Holley vs edelbrock what's the performance advantage?

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by rocketsled59, Mar 10, 2014.

  1. *#%&@*#&!!! Bugger! Now it's not working for me either! :mad: Must be too much fuel pressure. Or maybe it's an ignition problem... :rolleyes:
     
  2. Atwater Mike
    Joined: May 31, 2002
    Posts: 10,295

    Atwater Mike
    ALLIANCE MEMBER


    ...Or it's a HOLLEY! LOL
     
  3. BSL409
    Joined: Aug 28, 2011
    Posts: 546

    BSL409
    Member

    I would take the Quick fuel over Holley any day I use them both for my race & street cars,
     
  4. BashingTin
    Joined: Feb 15, 2010
    Posts: 270

    BashingTin
    Member

  5. OK. Now this is just starting to get on my nerves! LOL! I know I've posted links like this before without this problem.

    I got good results with a site search. 94 hits searching all open threads for "holley vs edelbrock". Copied the URL and pasted it in my reply. Hit "submit reply" to save, click the link and it works the first few time I try it. Then the link goes dead.

    Let's see how long your Google link lasts. Of course you're not linking it back to a page on this site... Maybe that has something to do with it.
     
  6. OneBad56
    Joined: Dec 22, 2008
    Posts: 535

    OneBad56
    Member

    On the street, I don't think there is an advantage of one vs. the other.
    If there is, its very minor.

    One of the reasons I like the Holley, is the fact they have an industrial look to them, as such just look plain mean and ready to go. The dual quad Holley's look better on my engine.


    [​IMG]


    Oh, and I don't like the manufacturers name in plain sight like Edelbrock.
    I'm not a brand name pusher.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2014
  7. rocketsled59
    Joined: Mar 14, 2010
    Posts: 730

    rocketsled59
    Member

    Hey 56, ya know its funny you say that about holleys looking right , not so bad lookin at an edelbrock I guess as long as intake isn't too high but the edelbrock looks silly as hell on top of my pro products high rise. And with a velocity stack!?Just not right... As long as it works I suppose

    409 tell me more about your quick fuel. I've been looking at them and I see they are in bowling green KY. In holleys back yard. Maybe some old holley guys figured they could improve on the holley design??
     
  8. stimpy
    Joined: Apr 16, 2006
    Posts: 3,547

    stimpy

    I know Jon , but I am talking dominator size specs and drag car usage ... you know 200 cfm makes a big difference on time slips with Big CID .
     
  9. carbking
    Joined: Dec 20, 2008
    Posts: 2,908

    carbking
    Member

    True, but if one is good, two might be better! ;)

    Of course, sometimes the rules require only a single carb. And if you need more than 950, you would be correct about the dominators.

    I still would prefer multiples.

    Jon.
     
  10. desotot
    Joined: Jan 29, 2008
    Posts: 1,823

    desotot
    Member

    A holley is like a toilet, when you give it the royal flush it will get you to the other end of the 1/4 quickly.
    An afb or avs is good if carbs scare you and all you want to do is get from pointA to pointB.
    I think.
     
  11. robyyo
    Joined: Sep 8, 2005
    Posts: 235

    robyyo
    Member
    from Orange CA

    I use them both, and I like them both. I've noticed over the years that more guys who are just getting into hot rodding use the Edelbrock.
     
  12. stimpy
    Joined: Apr 16, 2006
    Posts: 3,547

    stimpy


    one is enough thanks , the Dominator gives me fits at times as it is , plus I haven't seen too many tunnel rams or high plenum dual carb manifolds that work as well as the set up we have ( team G ) , plus the fact he has a steel hood and doesn't want to cut it or scoop it . next step is a 4 bbl air valve( apx 1300 cfm and mechanical fuel injection ..

    my preference is neither , I am a Rochester q-jet sicko , not the E-brock kind either . but I have rebuilt and tuned Holleys for others and also tuned the AFB clones . to me they are all gas mixers the AFB IMO is more street freindly ,
     
  13. 1971BB427
    Joined: Mar 6, 2010
    Posts: 6,066

    1971BB427
    Member
    from Oregon

    That's funny! Must have really bad gas in Texas! My cars sit for months during the winter and when fired up they run great. And I've got double the possible problems with dual Holley carbs on both cars!
     
  14. GregCon
    Joined: Jun 18, 2012
    Posts: 689

    GregCon
    Member
    from Houston

    It's also erroneous. Carter/Edelbrocks are far more prone to fuel issues given they have their fuel wells/jets located at the lowest point in the carb. Plus, they are assembled by prisoners and children in sweathouses.
     
  15. A carb guru I used to know (RIP) told me if you want street manners and fuel economy, use a Q-jet. Good WOT performance, Holley is the only answer. Said the AFB was just a 'middlin' carb and could be made to run 'decent'. Pointed out that by the late 60s, almost all US manufacturers factory-installed Holley carbs on their performance motors and it wasn't about which was cheaper....

    I've run both, and can personally say that I've never had a Holley I couldn't make run right (assuming the CFM match was at least close). Can't say that about Edelbrocks....
     
  16. So true. It's like the Pepsi challenge.
     
  17. I prefer my aluminum manifolds in silver rather than the gold they become when running a Holley.
     
    nikwho likes this.
  18. carbking
    Joined: Dec 20, 2008
    Posts: 2,908

    carbking
    Member

    No comment on the edelbrock, as I don't know.

    Carter AFB's have both primary and secondary jets located 0.375 inch above the low point in the bowl. This was an engineered feature of the AFB to help prevent issues from trash caused by lazy users who didn't change fuel filters at recommended intervals. Perhaps you should take the top off of an AFB and check your data.

    Your second statement does not deserve a reply.

    Jon.
     
  19. indyjps
    Joined: Feb 21, 2007
    Posts: 3,991

    indyjps
    Member

    Easy. Are you drag racing/Holley, or driving/AFB style. Either one can be set up for either activity depending on your patience and skill level.
     
  20. gimpyshotrods
    Joined: May 20, 2009
    Posts: 17,893

    gimpyshotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    There is no way for anybody to assign your comments any credibility after that last counter-factual, inflammatory comment.

    You have made an allegation of criminal activity, without presenting any evidence.
     
  21. arkiehotrods
    Joined: Mar 9, 2006
    Posts: 6,032

    arkiehotrods
    Member

    According to Edelbrock's website, and this is a quote,

    "Every Edelbrock carburetor is manufactured in the USA"

    I wonder what their lawyers might do if they saw your comment.
     
  22. my47buicksuper
    Joined: May 23, 2013
    Posts: 321

    my47buicksuper
    Member
    from sunny fl.

    My oppinon if your raceing get a Holley but for ever day driveing the edelbrock are much better there way more reliable ,if you want both get a Holley and leave it in the trunk (with a rebuild kit) when you want to go to the track rebuild it and through it on but there nothing but a pain in the ass always needing adjustments or rebuild hope you got your awnser
     
  23. OLDSMAN
    Joined: Jul 20, 2006
    Posts: 2,423

    OLDSMAN
    BANNED

    If you are driving an all out race car, the Holley would be the way to go. It is much more tuneable than the AFB, however they need constant tun ing on the street. The AFB, AVS Edelbrock carbs are based on older carter designs, and need little tuning to keep them running right. For street this is the better choice. I have a Q-jet on my convrt, but only because that was the carb on the 455 Olds engine I put in the car. If I was using a Chevy engine it would have an Edelbrock on it. The 42 Chevy I am building for my daughter will have an Edelbrock on it. Just my 2 cents worth
     
  24. nikwho
    Joined: Mar 20, 2010
    Posts: 54

    nikwho
    Member

    I'll chime in, since I mess with both. Both are quite capable. Every Edelbrock that I have bought has run better out of the box than any Holley or Quick Fuel carb that I have bought. Not super problematic if you are going to put energy into tuning.

    Additionally, every one step in jet sizes for Edelbrock is equal to roughly 4 Holley jet sizes. So, I've always regarded Edelbrock's as a "set it and forget it" type of carb. I've always had Edelbrock's fire up more readily hot and cold, than with a Holley or Quick Fuel carb. I find that with more tuning and effort I can get a Holley to run at least as well, and most often, even better than an Edelbrock.

    If you want to tinker with it, get a Holley. If you want to make some quick adjustments and simply enjoy driving your weekend street car, I'd use an Edelbrock. That said, I have two vehicles currently with Edelbrocks (1405 & 1406), one with an old school Holley 3310 770cfm, one with a Quick Fuel Q-Series 850cfm billet carb, and one with a Quick Fuel Brawler Series 650 cfm carb.

    With either carb, I would suggest getting a tuning/jet kit, a vacuum gauge, and putting a little effort into tuning it. I also reccomend keeping notes, so you know what setup you have in your carb, and know which way to go if you're going to run it at a different elevation, or need to change the tune for where you live.

    Also, if you travel a lot to different elevations, I prefer an Edelbrock for a quick change in jets and needles. You don't have to drain them like you do a Holley.

    Either way, you can get your car running great with either carb. They're just different. You'll always have people in each camp, that think that the other is complete garbage. If that were true, there would not be so many loyalists to one or the other.
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2020 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.