well, i've got a fresh 283 sittin in a chevelle, she has 10.5:1 cr, unknown cam, but sounds healthy enough with a strong lope to it. she has a 327 intake and an edelbrock 600cfm performer carb. i was thinking of maybe putting on edelbrock's dual quad manifold w/ 2 500cfm (that's the smallest i could find,)or maybe a set of trips. i think it would be cool to go for a throwback vintage hot rod look, with maybe the chromed, small, louvered individual air cleaners on the carbs.... since every other person runs a single 4bbl setup

what are your thoughts? i know it's a lot of carb for a small motor. didn't the '57 chevy have an optional 2x4bbl setup on the 283?

just kind of tossing the idea out there, see what comes up as far as any thoughts you guys have.

Oh Gene,,,this is right up your alley smile.gif

Yes, they did! 245 and 270hp/283 motor's if not mistaken.

And just the little -097 Duntov solid cam was used if I recall right?

Small 1.72"/1.50" valve powerpack heads and 9.5 to 1 CR. too..

pdq67

holley makes 450`s for dual quad units i have a set on a 355 with an old style x-c8 crossram intake with a set of hilburn scoops it looks pretty good but i did loose some low end torque going to the dual quads but it was worth it!! graemlins/beers.gif

Those early 2X4 265 / 283 engines had Carter WCFB's
( Will Carter Four Barrel ) carbs.The 2X4 WCFB carbs
were only approx 400 CFM each.Dont let those small CFM numbers fool ya....ya ever see just how hard some of those circle track cars run that are required to run a single Holley 390 ? and in a 350 at that !

If ya want looks the set up you mentioned will work but a single four bbl will out run it.This set up really needs some rear gears....3.08's and a powerglide wont cut it.

Originally posted by marinablue67:
look, with maybe the chromed, small, louvered individual air cleaners on the carbs.... since every other person runs a single 4bbl setup

what are your thoughts? i know it's a lot of carb for a small motor. didn't the '57 chevy have an optional 2x4bbl setup on the 283?

just kind of tossing the idea out there, see what comes up as far as any thoughts you guys have. Edelbrock C-357-B

"offers excellent performance potential."

Uh huh. Can't comment on the sbc version, but for a stout lil 427 bbc, they're mint street manis. Excellent mpg potential and good track performance. And I haven't tweaked mine off the "out-of-the-box" settings.

http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/427TRI/sbc3x2.jpg

That Edelbrock 3x2 bbl intake is an ancient one...how old ? Try 1955 ! I have an article written by Racer Brown talking about the " NEW " 265 Chevy V8
engine.... And they used that intake to hop it up.It was actually one of the 1st SBC intakes Edelbroke made.

It is quite small inside.Ya have to remember that back then the 1.94 X 1.50 valve and ports were years in the future as all the 1950's 265/283's had 1.72 X 1.50 and small intake runners.

A kid who used to work where I work used on his 350 he had in a 1964 Chevy II.... 30-30 Duntov cammed no less ! Ran well and would get to 6500 but honestly it was too small for it....

For a modest 283 that 3X2 intake would be close to ideal....but like just about anything about 283's ..they like gears.

I think E-brock made at least three trip intakes if not mistaken.

A three bolt base Stromberg carb. low-rise, a low-rise and a high-rise Rochester 2CG four bolt base.

They might have made a Stromberg high-rise but I don't think I have ever seen one but again, even though I'm old, when this stuff came out, I was just a pup!!

pdq67

PS., Offy also made trip's with both large base and small base Rochester carb'ed intakes but again, this has been a long time ago. But yo never know, check out an Offy cat, they might still be in it??

2G's and 2GC's which ever is big and which is little, I forget???

Pdq...

2G = Manual choke mostly used on truck and marine applications.

2GC = automatic choke... used on most everything.

2GV = automatic choke of a vacuum break design.

1 1/4 in flange carb.

1 7/16 in bore with 1 3/32 venturi = 278 CFM
-------------------------------------------------
1 1/2 in flange carbs... 1 11/16 bore.

1 3/16 venturi = 352 CFM
1 1/4 venturi = 381 CFM
1 5/16 venturi = 423 CFM
1 3/8 venturi = 435 CFM

All the Rochester 2 bbl carbs above rated at 3.0 in HG.

Thanks 69LS1,

I'm going to save the info b/c it comes up every so often..

My Brother gave me a set of SB trip Strombergs years ago but I ended up giving them back to him. Then a so-called friend of his broke into his place and stole his stereo, the old Stromberg trips AND the MOPAR trips off his '70.5 340 TA Six-Pak Challenger!!

I think I woulda got a quarter pound a flesh, but my brother didn't...

pdq67

PS., plus, I still have a set of, (I think), J-2 little Rochester trips from the mid to late '50's in the front floorboard of my car.. The front and rear carb's. don't have any idle jets like the middle carb. does..

so, the question becomes- which setup(dual quad, or trips) do you think would be a cooler combo on the 283, and which of the two do you think would be better overall for the motor?

double post graemlins/clonk.gif

Some pros and cons...

2X4's... on an inline type manifold...BY ALL MEANS make the linkage progressive !! If useing Edelbrock carbs then jets , rods and springs are easy to obtain and service.IMHO even with 500 CFM carbs they are too big for most uses.Remember the 426 street Hemi used a pair of 600/625 type carbs !!
Flooring it with this set up can mean a massive bog if the car isnt geared correctly !

The tripower really needs progressive linkage also and the Rochester 2bbls are harder to modify..there are some people out there who specialize in them tho.

If you used the tripower type set up to get an idea of CFM compared to a 4 bbl the formula is :

CFM @ 3.0in HG/1.414 = CFM @ 1.5 in HG.

So if you used the 352 CFM @ 3.0 in HG 2 bbls would be approx 249 CFM @ 1.5 in HG times 3...
That would still be a very healthy 747 CFM !! You still need to be carefull with this set up also with respect to gearing....I dont mean to sound like a broken record but 283's NEED gearing.

If I had to choose one or the other and could get service parts for either I would opt for the trips.

Ditto the gearing and tire size AND make her so she can wind!!

And remember 8,000 rpm isn't all that much for one with a decent solid cam and good valve springs, imho.. And this is just with 1.72"/1.50" valved heads mind you b/c it's such a little motor..

pdq67

PS., it's a shame the old WCFB's are more than likely long gone b/c they were stock in 2x4 applications so were sized about right.

yeah, i understand the need for gearing, i've got an Eaton posi loaded w/ 3.73s..... you think that'll be enough? ...i can pretty easily get my hands on a set of 4.10s, but i'd probably want an overdrive tranny when i break into the 4-series gears i imagine.... there's a powerglide behind the 283 right now, and it's definetely going out the door soon. it's just a matter of what goes in its place, like a TH350, or a 200-4R. a 4-spd would be fun (way more $$ too), but with 4.10s, i dunno...... decisions, decisions, decisions = $, $, $.

when you say "progressive linkage" what exactly does that entail?

The linkage for either can be set up to operate as a 1 to 1 or progressive.

With a typical inline 2X4 lowrise (non Tunnle Ram set up ) you have the 2X4 bbl carbs ...typically the rear carb is the primary carb and the foward carb is the secondary carb.... Normally only the primary (rear) carb has a choke.....The secondary is chokeless.If you had a linkage designed for a 1 to 1 operation both primary and secondary carb would open the simultaniously <sp>.... that generally would mean a large loss of air speed through the system and a bog or sluggish response would likely be the results in normal passenger car use..... What the 2X4 409 Chevy , 421 Pontiac , 426 Hemi , 265/283 Chevy ext... did was to make them progressive so that the primary carb ( rear ) opened first ..then after 30 degs or so the linkage would start to open the secondary ( front ) carb...
Much like a typical mechanical secondary Holley does.This allows for less of a bog at low engine speeds as you sinply dont need alot of extra air at low speeds.It tends to be a much more responsive and drivable system over the 1 to 1 linkage.

On the 3X2 system the primary carb is the center carb and normally is the only one with a choke.The outboard carbs ( front and back ) are the secondary carbs.If you used a linkage designed for 1-1 use it would open all 3 carbs simltaniously <sp>..... If progressive it would be designed to open the primary ( center ) carb first and then after so mant degrees of primary opening the secondary ( End carbs ) would open up.

For allround drivability and throttle response the progressive linkage is the way to go....

Now, keep an open mind here...this guy is excellent and specializes in smaller motors, but just as a great summation of why trips are such a highly efficient induction system....

http://www.ponycarburetors.com/newspecials.htm

GPT....AKA Barry Grant will later this year be offering a 3x2 set up for SBC's...complete intake manifold to A/C set up.... should be intresting.

And someone told me there's a new 3X2 progressive linkage out. The street rod ones are high dollar, Edel used to make a nice $20 one ( which I copied).

DOes anyone make an aftermarket big block tri-power manifold. I want to put tri-power on my 69 but cant afford the major $ for a used factory set up. Any thoughts?

Joe, out-of-luck. Back when I bought my mani, 5 years ago, the low rises were $400, high rises were $650. Now they've doubled from there.

The local dude I got mine from had like 25 manis., literally, one after the other all along one long wall of his basement. Crane's Corvette bought ALL of them. So, I do think that's part of it. The Vette dealers have hoarded them.

DOes anyone make an aftermarket big block tri-power manifold. I want to put tri-power on my 69 but cant afford the
major $ for a used factory set up.That was exactly the reason I chose to go with the dual-quad... Brand new I was looking at about $800 from Summit... A rebuilt highrise GM setup was alot more (at least double with the places I checked)...

Originally posted by 69LS1:
GPT....AKA Barry Grant will later this year be offering a 3x2 set up for SBC's...complete intake manifold to A/C set up.... should be intresting. I read list price for the complete setup is like $5k... :eek:
http://www.barrygrant.com/pages/news.aspx?articleid=SixShooter

That Barry Grant set-up is sweet looking, but I don't think it's $5K worth of sweetness.

Regarding the 2 X 4 set-ups, PAW has the progressive linkage for around $45. I'd recommend the Edelbrock set-up over the factory 2 X 4. The Edel set-up is a little taller and is a 4 hole plenum design.

Regarding the factory 2 X 4 manifold, does anyone feel there would be much benefit to porting one out... would extrude honing provide any benefit? The block and heads in my '59 vette are correct for a 2 X 4 set-up. I'm in the process of building a 350 (4.00" bore * 3.48" stroke) out of the 283 block, and cutting the heads for larger valves and port work. I'll be running a '61 Rochester fuel injection on it for a while, but in the mean time, I'm trying to assemble all the pieces for the 2 X 4 set-up. Sorry for side tracking the post.

if your going to get 4.11's you'll need to an OD tranny. 1:1 isn't going to cut it if you every drive on the freeway.

Funny but there was a time when you couldn't give a set of trip's away right after Holley brought out the great old 3310-1!!

Gene knows what I'm talking about, don't you Gene..

And those old 'Vette 2x4's with the old WCFB's were just about door stops too!!

pdq67

Check these out:

http://www.vintagespeed.com/

http://www.hotrodcarbs.com/3deuce.html

I'm thinking about a tri-power set up for my 400 SBC in my '58 Delray Sedan Delivery - that's a cool look :cool:

And another----

http://www.candsspecialties.com/store/html/streetrods.html

PDQ, no I don't! That 427 was orignally a crate L88, so I was not thinking about tripower, back then especially.( they were for high dollar, and finiky Corvettes!) But a good friend who recently had the L88 ran one with great result. And I thought it was just too efficient and retro to let slide! Sure did bump the engine budget up though. Phew.

Extrude honing the factory 2X4 intake huh? That's fascinating. Wonder how much benefit you'd gain?

5K for that new system. Assume its EFI then. Doug FLynn and I spoke of turning a bbc 3X2 into EFI. In fact, if the stock market hadn't crashed, the same buddy I speak of above would have funded one , I'm sure. About $2500-ish. Now, an EFI tripower would be cool. The most awesome fuel distribution of a 3X2 intake, dual plane on the center carb, and open plenum/single plane at WOT. I mean Heavens, with the non-linear mapping you can do with such a setup, you'd certainly be able to run a mix cruise at a very high mpg, and then harness lots of HP at WOT. It'd be an astonishingly docile and streetable pure race setup!

But I digress. Now that type of system, to me, is worth half of 5G's. OK, 2/3rds of 5G's.

Nobody pays list price....Thats just an old obsolete reference... street pricing will be a couple thousand less.Still wont be inexpensive tho.

man, this has gotten me pretty psyched up...... couple more paychecks, and the 283'll be sucking air through a sweet set of trips! that'll turn some heads at the cruises....

Gene,

You are lucky that you aren't old enough to remember trip door stops..

AND to this day, I bet there are literally thousands out there that the owners all say that one of these day'as I'm gonna get them put together and put them on a motor!!

pdq67

Originally posted by 427L88:

Extrude honing the factory 2X4 intake huh? That's fascinating. Wonder how much benefit you'd gain?

Gene, I have no idea what it would gain, but the runners are very small, and I doubt gasket matching alone would do much good. It looks like there will be about 3/4" hood clearance to allow for a spacer under the carbs and still fit under the stock hood. I'm not sure if that will be enough to be of much benefit. I'm trying hard for a retro/sleeper look for my '59. The guy doing the 1959 #550 heads for me says he expects to get 240 CFM @ .500" out of a 2.00" intake and about 70-75% of that with a 1.55" exhaust. He'll be doing some extensive reshaping of the ports and chambers. The 2 X 4 will be down the road a little ways. I still don't have the carbs and linkage, but I've got everything else.

[5K for that new system. Assume its EFI then. Doug FLynn and I spoke of turning a bbc 3X2 into EFI. In fact, if the stock market hadn't crashed, the same buddy I speak of above would have funded one , I'm sure. About $2500-ish. Now, an EFI tripower would be cool. The most awesome fuel distribution of a 3X2 intake, dual plane on the center carb, and open plenum/single plane at WOT. I mean Heavens, with the non-linear mapping you can do with such a setup, you'd certainly be able to run a mix cruise at a very high mpg, and then harness lots of HP at WOT. It'd be an astonishingly docile and streetable pure race setup!]I like the idea of a converted tri-power fuel injection. I was seriously considering a tri-power for the BB I'm building for the '65 Malibu, but have decided to pass for now. I don't think the intakes are too expensive, but the carbs are tough to find. If someone makes it work, I'd be more than happy to copy it down the road. BTW, I believe Hot Rod converted a 2 X 4 intake into a dual throttle body FI with port injection. It was pretty trick looking.

The cheapest way to set up a BB tri power set up is to use three big Rochester two barrels and a swap meet Rochester pattern manifold.

And I think that was what was used on several of GM's finest way back when..

You should be looking at enough cfm to feed a good sized motor plus they package very well since their really quite compact!

I had three of them on my .060" over 409 that I had in my car for a while and they did fine, imho.. I reworked a 348 tri-power intake to get them to fit.. And if I recall right, I had to raise the back one with a homemade aluminum two hole spacer ..

But I did have a hassle with the breather..

pdq67

And more

http://www.mooneyes.com/MISC/drive.html

These are throttle bodies made to look like carbs. Can be used as singles, duals, trips, quads, or as shown,

One other very interesting multiple carb. combination that I always liked and remember from when they were actually still being sold way back when was the "Man-a-fre Induction System" setup that sat four (4), two barrel Rochesters in a square, one over each pair of intake ports!

This put two barrels over two ports..

It was for the time about the closest thing there ever was to an american carb'ed I.R. system even though it wasn't really I.R....

The system was usually ran with tall stacks like a Hilborn Injection System, one for each carb.

pdq67

Aw , just today, at a new clients shop, I saw a big Mopar I thouight, that side-by-side dual quad deal outfitted with twin throttle bodies. Very neat. Didnt even have a chance to ask about it.

Wes, I'm doing a seach on this "extrude honing" since I have never seen , nor read about the operation. But if there's enough wall to open up the innards of that manifold some, can't see how it could hurt, particularly if its breathing for a larger than production set of heads. You know, it's that ol "funnel" effect, the velocity incrases as it flows through a smaller volume just before the valve.

EDIT: WOW, WAY SPENDY! (http://www.extrudehone.com/price_list2.pdf)

Sheesh, for that kinda dough, I'd buy a new one and 'camo' it in Chevy orange.

Gene, that extrude honing is way spendy. I bet you'd get dinged even more for having two carb pads to run through. I honestly have no idea what kind of power it would add, but I doubt it would be much. The only thing I really know about the extrude honing is that some of the local 3rd Gen Camaro guys were getting there intakes and runners done in the early 1990s. A friend of mine claimed 10-15 horsepower, but I never saw anything to substantiate that.