hey guys, my B I L is building a Pontiac LeMans with a 326. The car is just about done and were looking for a carb. Its 100% stock....except for rebuilt heads. I was looking at this one.... http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Holley-650-CFM-Double-pump-spread-bore-6210-1_W0QQitemZ320156075053QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item320 156075053

Let me know what you think.... 650 should be plenty for the car...and were trying to keep it under 300 bucks...

Also....the carb is suppose to be mechanical secondaries...why do i see something that looks like its for vacuum secondaries? any help would be great
Thanks
Ed

get a quadra jet, Its what the car came with might as well keep it looking stock since everything else is. I don't think those spread bore Holley's ever ran correctly.

There were no QJ's on the 326's ,just the AFB's for the 4 bbl. versions.
1967 was the last of the 326's and the 4bbl was the AFB4243 for the stick and AFB3651 for the auto.
So if your going for a stock look either the AFB or the Eddy will do.

Agree with Mike, AFB was the carb for that period. This carb will work , providing you have that manifold for it. This adapters just dont get it with me. This is not a vac secondary carb. I would look for a 1405 or 6 Eddy.
You didnt say which manifold you had.

i just got off the phone with him and hes getting an Edelbrock manifold.... hes not sure if he wants the performer or the performer rpm. So...that being said... i may go with an Edelbrock 1405, sound ok???

get a quadra jet, Its what the car came with might as well keep it looking stock since everything else is. I don't think those spread bore Holley's ever ran correctly.

Mine ran fine...I even passed emissions with it. It's a good carb if you know what you are doing with it. It's different than standard Holleys in quite a few ways.

Honestly, the spreadbore double pumper is probably too much for that engine anyway. You'd be better off with a Qjet or a VS Holley. Nothing wrong with a spreadbore double pumper for the right engine, though. However, it certainly is not the best for fuel economy.

This is a cool thread, imho, b/c the 1st year 326" Indian engine's were really 336" jobbers!!

pdq67

This is a cool thread, imho, b/c the 1st year 326" Indian engine's were really 336" jobbers!!

pdq67


You lost me there pdq.....fill my brain in!!! :yes: