|
By junkyardjeff - 15 Years Ago
|
|
When I put the 292 in my 55 I will have have a few choices for a carb and will eliminate the Holley teapot so it will either be the 56 merc Carter or a 57 intake with a modern carb,I prefer mechanical secondaries and the Merc Carter 4 bbl is vacumn so does anyone know if I can take parts from a GM version (which I should have somewhere in the shed) and convert it as I doubt the secondary diaphram is readily available and cheap. I will most likely use a 57 intake and modern carb but if I want a old look might consider the carter and was wondering if anyone used that carb and how did they work and are they any better then the teapot and can I get parts to rebuild it.
|
|
By pegleg - 15 Years Ago
|
|
The Carter will work fine, but I'd think hard about changing it to mechanical secondaries on a street machine. the vacuum actually works pretty well in that situation.
|
|
By Ted - 15 Years Ago
|
|
You might try these guys for hard to get carb parts and/or kits. They can also make new or replacement diaphragms if you have the old diaphragm. http://www.daytonaparts.com/
|
|
By charliemccraney - 15 Years Ago
|
|
You can get a '57 looking carb from Holley, new. I'm sure aficionados would notice the difference but someone like me will never know the difference.
|
|
By marvh - 15 Years Ago
|
The Carter is a very good carburetor. It is much more difficult to rebuild than a Holley due to the metering rods have to be set with gauges and linkages have to be bent for proper settings, however it will out do a Holley anytime when built right. 56 Merc rated their 312's at 235HP and 312's with Holley's at 225 HP only difference was the carb.
The diaphragm is still available however you will have to install the linkage rod as it is only the diaphragm sold. I have seen very few diaphragms that needed replacement on that particular Carter. They can be re-used several times.
These guys I bought the last set from.
http://www.carburetor.ca/
marv
|
|
By Hoosier Hurricane - 15 Years Ago
|
|
Looks to me like you could just install the gm Carter. As I remember them, the secondary linkage is mechanical, but above the secondary throttle plates are another set of plates that are counterbalanced and require a predetermined amount of manifold vacuum to open them, so in a sense these are also vacuum secondary carbs, just no diaphragm.
|
|
By charliemccraney - 15 Years Ago
|
|
John, That's definitely the way the newer thermoquad, and the still newer "Edelbrock" Carter carburetors work. Secondaries are mechanical but the have a vacuum operated air valve above them. I guess a '56 would be an afb which I know little about.
|
|
By Oldmics - 15 Years Ago
|
|
56 Merc rated their 312's at 235HP and 312's with Holley's at 225 HP only difference was the carb. Marv Thats not quite correct. The Merc used a different camshaft.See Ford service bulletin # M-118a for the specifics. Oldmics
|
|
By PF Arcand - 15 Years Ago
|
|
Jeff: Just for info, YBM recently published in issue #97 a 16 carb test of 4bbls done by our moderator Ted Eaton. It included the original Carter that you are asking about. The tests included 3 other 1957 carbs or equivalents. The Carter finished dead last. And from all I've learned, I have to agree with those who are advising you to forget about modifying a street carb to mechanical secondaries. It's old thinking that doesn't work..
|
|
By junkyardjeff - 15 Years Ago
|
|
I looked it over and resembles a Rochester 4GC and nothing like a AFB,I knew Ford took designs from carb manufactures and it looks like GM did it too. The more I think about it I will use a edelbrock carb on a 57 intake.
|
|
By Hoosier Hurricane - 15 Years Ago
|
|
Jeff: The '56 Merc carb is a Carter model WCFB. I had heard that stands for "White Cast Fuel Bowl" ("pot metal"), the AFB meant "Aluminum Fuel Bowl". Don't know if that is true, but it is what the carbs are made of.
|
|
By charliemccraney - 15 Years Ago
|
|
I've heard that they mean "Will Carter Four Barrel" and "Aluminum Four Barrel"
|
|
By Ted - 15 Years Ago
|
|
The Carter carb used in the ‘sixteen carb test’ in the Y-Block Magazine was the 1957 version which is an AFB. Here are pictures of both the ’56 Merc Carter carb and the ’57 Ford Carter carb showing the external physical differences. The ’56 carb fits the ECZ-A intake manifold (smaller carb flange) while the ’57 carb fits the ’57 and up ECZ-B intake manifold. 
'56 Merc Carter carb on the left and '57 Ford Carter carb on the right.
|
|
By marvh - 15 Years Ago
|
Charlie:
I have heard the same as you Will Carter Four Barrel
That 56 Merc carb should have been a Carter 2361S
(Quote) Oldmics The Merc used a different camshaft.See Ford service bulletin # M-118a for the specifics.
Yes you are correct. I tried to write from memory and it sometimes has a problem ... being old. The camshaft was a B6A6250D. I have read somewhere were a test was done on the Mercs with Holley and Carter and the Carter was a higher HP, just can't find it now.
You are lucky to still have a copy of the Manager information sheet M118a as TSB 213 dated 7 May 1956 instructed the dealers to destroy the M118a sheet as it was no longer valid due to the release of the M260 package.
The Carter carb that was used in '57 is very different from the 56 WCFB. It does not surprise me it was dead last as I always hated that particular carb. Ford came out with the 4100 in 57 great carb so am prejudiced.
marv
|
|
By Oldmics - 15 Years Ago
|
|
Marv As one who is studying all of the dual quad 56 information,I was surprised to hear of the 213 Service Bulletin relating to the M260 setup. My TSBs start at 214 (wouldnt you figure). Is there some way that I could obtain a copy of TSB 213 from you. Thanks,Oldmics
|
|
By marvh - 15 Years Ago
|
oldmics:
I was going to send you a PM however your mail box is full.
Send me a PM with your email address and I will try to scan it for you
|
|
By ejstith - 15 Years Ago
|
|
I ran 2 wcfb's carters off a Chevy back in the day on a 312. Worked fine .. Switched back to the original manifold and put an AFB off a '62 Pontiac on it and it was better than the 2-4's ..
|