Back in the day I ran 2 Carter WCFBs on a '57 312 (324). They worked fine. That weighted thing isn't the secondaries. It's something else but I always took it out. After many runs down Atco dragway in NJ I never got it to run as good as one AFB off of a '62 Pontiac ..

Doing Fords for 45 years. '56 Customline Victoria

E.J. in Havana FL

Suspicions confirmed.  Sounds like I need to get my milling machine back from my kid in Idaho so I can make adaptor plates (or take a manifold over there and see the grandkids).

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

Mike:

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.

John - "The Hoosier Hurricane"

Mike,

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

Frank/Rebop

Bristol, In ( by Elkhart) 

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

I am a carb history nut, & was kept out from under foot(or under car) when I was a kid growing up in my dad's shop by being allowed to take apart all the old carbs in the carb "junk" box.  I have also dwindled in a few 4g's & 4gc's since & recall that early Rochester 4g was a mechanical secondary carb with no air valve or other dampening or additional accelerator pump to prevent lag's or bogs. Then they added an air valve under the secondary booster venturi, & I don't recall seeing a vacuum secondary that was factory.  The early 4g's were the small square base, later were the larger base with the bolt holes inboard as compared to a std. holley of latter days. The 4gc was a manual choke if I recall.

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.

Frank

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

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.

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

Frank/Rebop

Bristol, In ( by Elkhart) 

The WCFB carb used on the 56 Mercury is a 2361.

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

All,

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