I'm probably not going to convince anyone to change their mind about this,
but since I started this with my remark, I'll clarify the reason I had for
making my original derogatory statement.
It was not because of any inherent design or performance defect in the
Holley 4160, but rather the fact that ham handed mechanics and untrained
owners so often overtighten the endcaps, thereby warping the pot metal
castings, that usually, when a 4160 has been in service for a few years,
they have developed an incurable internal leak problem. This produces a
very poor idle, and a very unhappy owner. Once a carburetor has been warped
this way, it is trash; you have to replace the carburetor.
This doesn't stop "rebuilders" from processing them and foisting them off on
the unsuspecting customer.
I personally doubt there is a performance difference between the two choices
offered, given that both are adjusted and jetted optimally. My comment had
to do with reliability and durability.
As if to confirm my feelings, yesterday, I started my 67 Convertible for the
first time since just before Christmas, as I had to get at something that
was stored behind it. I put a battery in it, pumped the gas one time to
set the choke, and cranked the engine for 4 seconds before - - - - varooom!
It was running smooth and steady, just as it ran when I parked it. What is
the carburetor, you ask? An AFB, still unrebuilt since 1967, dirty and
disreputable looking (as is the rest of the engine!). My 64 NY'r T&C often
sat for months at a time, and the restart is exactly the same. I think the
AFB is the most reliable 4 bbl carburetor ever made, with the possible
exception of the WCFB, which I have on many Packards and Studebakers (and my
tow truck!) - also a Carter product.
This is opinion only, based on many years of playing with old cars, but no
scientific study, so don't bother arguing with me.
Dick Benjamin
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark McDonald <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: IML: maligning the Holley
> I know a guy who was a Chrysler divisional manager in the late 60's, and
> he told me that there were so many complaints about the Holley carbs on
> the 68's that the dealers were almost overwhelmed.
>
> At one point, it got so bad that he stood up at a corporate meeting and
> asked why Chrysler was continuing to put Holleys on Imperials. The
> answer he got was, boiled down, that the Holley carburetors were costing
> Chrysler something like $2.35 each. (Not an exact figure, but it was
> less than $3.)
>
> This guy said he just sat down after that. Even in 1968, that was dirt
> cheap.
>
> Mark M
>
> KerryPinkerton wrote:
>
> > Another solution to the fuel overflow due to heat
> > soaking is to simply lower the fuel level in the bowl
> > so that when it expands it has not expanded enough to
> > overflow the bowl. An old carb guy told me this and
> > it has worked for numerous IMLers on a variety of
> > carbs.
> >
> > Btw, my 68 has a holley and it runs rough but then I
> > haven't messed with it at all. yet.
> >
> > Kerryp
> >
>
>
>
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network