Mike K

I did it by turning the front carb backwards then fabricated offset studs and spacers to separate the carbs enough so they could both sit at the same level in the manifold.  I also had to turn the secondary throttles around in the front carb.  The Linkage was double progressive, 2 then 4 then 8 barrels, Most normal(?) driving was done on the primary barrels of the rear carb. This worked surprisingly well and was by no means the worst part of the whole setup. One bad part of that setup was the close ratio top loader and the auto trans rear axle.  But 22 miles to the gal at highway speeds was the norm with that combo.  This was circa 1966 and unfortunately I do not even have a picture of the carbs or engine anymore.

My memory of the Rochester carbs is pretty dim but I think they were almost as simple as the 4100 Ford/Autolite carb.

I know that when the WCFB was used as a dual quad setup on the Ford and Merc it had weighted arm secondaries, but it also had an idle circuit that was not in the carbs used for single 4-bll applications.  The single 4-bll applications had vacuum secondaries and I have several of those, but none with the weighted arms. 

I have seen only one set of WCFB dual quads with weighted arms on the internet in about four years and was outbid for what looked in the pictures to be fairly rough carbs.  On the other hand, a lot of WCFB dual quads for 50s Chevys have been advertised.  I wondered if the Chevy carbs would bolt on a Ford E-code manifold.

I also note quite a few "dual quad" setups advertised that have vacuum secondaries.  I don't know if those are simply carbs for single 4-bll applications someone bolted on a 2x4 manifold or if they were the real deal.

Mike K

Frank,

I was specifically curious if the Chevy dual quad WCFB carbs from 56 or 57 might be a substitute for the Merc WCFB dual quad setup which had mechanical secondaries with weighted arms and a special idle circuit for dual quad applications.  I have a number of WCFB carbs from single 4-bll setups, but they all have vacuum secondaries.  I just wondered if the Chevy dual quads were essentially the same as those for Fords of the same period.  My only dual quads on E-code manifolds are Holley tea pots and I was wondering if the WCFB might be a better setup.  I don't know anything about the Chevy stuff.

Mike K

  The reason I brought that up is because those carbs would be a lot cheaper than "numbers matching" dual quad Chevy carbs. I'd think the vacuum secondary carbs, after you figure out how much spring to use, Might work pretty well. Doug seemed to have had pretty good luck with the 4GC's which are also vacuum.

      As far as the carbs being the same between the Merc and the Chevy, I'd be amazed if they were. The base mounting will be the same though.

I wouldn't recommend any 60 year old carbs anymore but if you want to find out as much as possible about the WCFB's as used on Mercs I would suggest that you contact The Carburetor Doctor http://www.carburetor.ca/.  He has seen a lot of carbs and may know what the differences are between the FoMoCo and GM applications.  You can also google Carter WCFB and come up with at service manual to look over.

BTW I think that the '56 and 57 2/4 manifolds differ as they came from Ford.  The '56's had more space between the carbs.

Thanks for the input.  This gives me some leads to follow up.  I am not sure where I might head with this, but did want to learn more about it.  Originally, this started when I got out bid on a set of original Merc WCFBs with the manual secondaries and idle circuit.  Since then I have kind of watched WCFBs on E-Bay and never saw another set, but lots of WCFBs, including Mercs.  One e-code 2x4 manifold I bought had some WCFBs with vacuum secondaries bolted on it.  They were basically scrap iron, but I wanted the manifold at the time and only later learned the distinction between the single 4-barrel and dual quad carbs.  I guess I just got curious.  I will get the WCFB service manual and check it out - good idea.

When I bid on the actual dual quad setup, I was thinking along the lines of original restoration.  Chevy carbs probably don't fall in that category unless they are exactly the same as Mercs or Fords which is unlikely.  However, this got me wondering about the other WCFB carbs.

Again, thanks for all the input. 

Mike K

This carb was NEVER used as part of the dual quad setup availiable from Mercury or Ford.

 Although the 56 and 57 dual quad Ford manifolds are different from each other,the carb spacing is the same.

The 56 Mercury M 260 dual quad manifold is the intake that has the rear carburator set back creating a different spacing between the carbs when compared to the Ford dual quad intake.

Hope this helps,Oldmics

        So the Merc casting was different than the '56 Ford manifold? 

Yes-the 1956 Merc M 260 dual quad intake is a different casting when compared to the 1956 Ford 260 H.P. dual quad setup.

And to make it even goofier,I have recently discovered that there are several different casting versions within the production run on both (Ford and Merc) styles of these intake manifolds!

The Merc is a dead on Edelbrock design.I believe Bill Strope did the design on the Ford 260,but thats speculation on my part about Strope.

I"m gonna check the Holman/Moody library for more info on Stropes involvement.

It looks like Ford was doing one thing and Merc was doing something different for the factory assisted race program in 1956.

The M 260 Merc setup had different intake,air cleaners,cam,and heads as opposed to its Ford 260 H.P.counterpart.

They share the same carbs,distributor,rockers,valve springs.

I think thats it. Its late and I"m going brain dead

Oldmics

Inside they have two needle & seat assy's, a funky path for fuel to travel from the primary needle to reach the secondary needle within their airhorn.  Mine was clogged from years of bugs & corrosion on a carb I tested once.

The floats hung on ridiculously long arms & there were four floats, two per needle. 

The throttle bases were steel.   A 50 year old steel throttle base that typically contain brass throttle shafts is a fun historical piece to look at as compared to today's precision & manufacturing techniques. 

I too wouldn't reccomend a 50 year old carb as a viable option unless it has been brought up to remanufactured standards to minimize throttle shaft clearance, & drill & re-seal all well plugs. 

Just my opinion, but what you save in $ upfront on the carbs you may end up paying back in multiples with either carb kits, spare parts carbs, so called re-build services, & or burned valves or additional wear on bearings with thinning the oil from overfueling.

Carb's are precision instruments, & as much time & research as the vet's of the y-block have done to realize the engine's potential, putting a 50 year old carb on one is like throwing a can of restore in a wore out y-block... A bandaid at best.

I appreciate these comments.  I have not had to come to grips with the problem of old carbs as I am currently collecting parts for a blower project and have a y-block manifold that is highly modified to run two modern AFB carbs.  That is another story, but bottom line is I haven't been doing anything yet that has made me figure out what kind of carbs to use in the future on normally asperated cars.  I have plans to make drivers out of two 57 Fords I have in addition to the car for the blower project.  One I plan to use the old Edelbrock 257 manifold we ran in the 1970's with two tea pots which are still in good restorable condition.  If there is a good alternative to the tea pots on this manifold, I would like to hear about it.  The other car I planned to equip with an e-code manifold and two 4-barrels but had not decided what to use.  I have a few more old tea pots but never really liked them, even when we used them on the Edelbrock manifold.  I have some old WCFBs of questionable quality for restoration, one of the main problems being wear around the throttle shafts.

My question is what modern carbs are available that will bolt on the old small base manifolds?  I have seen some adaptor plates for modern carbs, but they look messy.

I was planning to check with Mummert about the Blue Thunder intake to see what carbs fit on it as well.  Needless to say, I planned to port the heads and enlarge the valves so a better intake manifold is in order anyway.  I just haven't got around to researching the issue of modern carbs and/or different manifolds for the Y-block as I have some other things to finish before really getting past the parts collecting stage.

Any thoughts or advice about what modern carbs are in use on Y-blocks sure are welcome, especially if they will bolt onto the old small base bolt and flange pattern.  I have not fiddled with these old Fords since about 1972 and I finding there has been a lot of changes since then, plus the fact I did not know that much back then anyway (probably still don't).

Mike K

       Probably the easiest way out would be a couple of small Edelbrocks. They look like Carters and have non mechanical secondaries.

To my knowledge, there are no modern carbs with the teapot bolt pattern.  A couple of small Edelbrocks, like Pegleg suggested, on adaptors is your best bet.

I am using an Edelbrock 600 on a 400 cu in block (bored over ???) in my 78 Ford crew cab 4x4 with stock exhaust manifolds and stock heads.  I have not messed with it for about 8 or 9 years and it runs strong, very easy to tune.  One nice feature is that it doen't have a power valve which I always had trouble with on Holley carbs; either blew it out with a backfire or had to mess with it two or three times to get right size.  The Edelbrock carb on my pickup does need a fuel pressure regulator which I have had the diaphram go out on one time, spraying gas over everything (easy to detect).  Two smaller Edelbrock carbs should work good on a 312 2x4 set up.  Anyone had any experience with the best size for stock heads and Isky E-4 versus ported heads with larger valves and E-4?

Mike K