New product wondering if anyone has seen them or used them? http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive_new/mc/carbs_acc/94_two-barrel.shtml
Used the old tried and true search function: http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=414396&highlight=edelbrock+94&showall=1
You tried to be snarky and shoot the new guy down but your search result thread does not answer any questions about the carbs They were just being shown at sema and people are speculating about them. No hard info whatsoever. Next time read through the thread before posting a useless link. As an FNG I noticed that a lot of people on the HAMB like to chastize newbies for asking questions. I guess it brings pleasure to their empty lives....
The carbs look nice, as is typical of Edelbrock, but I have a couple questions... to no one specifically, just questions out of curiosity: Edelbrock intakes were made for 97's, which are just a bit larger, so 94's wont fit on an original multi carb intake. Did Edelbrock widen the bolt pattern on their intakes or reduce the front-to-back dimension of the repop 94's?? I'd like to see inside the carb ... What series of 94 did they base this design on???
No he was right on the money, bump the existing thread with the question. Keeps everything a bit more together. Nice try though...
As far as I know 94s have always been a bolt for bolt swap for 97s, and vise versa. Always seen both carbs on the same intakes, as the bolt pattern is identical. I have some OLD Edelbrock intakes that I have 94s bolted onto for display. Id like to see the guts of these also.
I'm thinking he's confused on something. Bolt patterns are the same. Both bolt on to this with no changes... I went with 94's because they are a better carb to me and less than 97's
Im thinking he's confused also Zman. Not sure what carb hes thinking of. I run the 94s also, its all I have. Never messed with any 97s. Im too cheap to buy them.
I think he's talking about the carb spacing. I have an offy tri carb manifold for a flathead. 97's fit, but 94's hit each other.
I forgot about that. I have seen a few 3 and 4 carb intakes for flatheads that are spaced too tight together for 94s.
The reason older hambr's chastise the newbies is because they DON'T use the search function and clutter up the board with reposts that are already here. Mediumriser asked a question and posted a link about the new carbs. If he were to have read his own link, it states that the carbs won't be available till spring 2010, so how could anyone here give advise on carbs that aren't even available yet? 2002p51 used the search function and came up with the thread that already addressed his questions. He wasn't being 'snarky' (***** word), but YOU certainly were. Grow thicker skin, or go away...
I am sure this is a dumb question but what is the difference(s) between a 94 & a 97. I have never played with either.
I think where he is going with this, is that the 94's need the front bolt boss shaved almost off to fit on some 3x2 manifolds
agreed, the bolt pattern is not in question, it's the overall dimension of the 97 vs the 94, the 97 is just a tad bit "smaller" so that translates to a "tight fit" on some old manifolds when using 94's, but a sure thing when 97's are applied. old car stuff is fun. Cheatercarl
Yeah, this is what I'm referring to... I have a pile of 94's., some of which have had the back of the housing ground out to allow room for the front screw of the rear carb..... I've had both a Wiend and Edelbrock three carb intakes where 94's would'nt fit because of the spacing unless the carb body was "relieved".
I had a Weiand 4 carb manifold on my early hemi. 97's fit, but 94's wouldn't without cutting down the front where the center bolt went, which I didn't want to do. Rather than ruin 4 94's, I saved my pennies until I could afford 4 97's.
The body is larger by just enough to give the problems already mentioned but the three major differences are the top mounted float, the "Holley" style power valve, and the use of spray bars instead of emulsion tubes.
ACTUALLY, when I read the Edelbrock page at that link, I see this about the carbs: "Flash-forward to 2010 and the 94 is once again available, by none other than Edelbrock!" ... and the only mention of 'Sping of 2010' is here: "Coming in Spring of 2010... Triple-Deuce manifold for Ford 289/302" So, it's not clear to me when the carbs will be available, if they are not already. They were added to the catalog 'New Products' page on 11/9/09.
Thats how I read it. But I also know Edelbrock does out source testing. And was wondering if any one was able to test them.
Vintage Ford now lists these carbs as coming soon. http://www.vintageford.com/sect_sea...V-8&Category=Carburetor&StartRow=41&PageNum=3
As long as we're talking about these again, I've got a question. Every time you look up old articles comparing 94s and 97s, it always says that Vic Edelbrock himself didn't like the 94 for multi-setups. Something about the vacuum power valve being unsuitable (I think I got that right). So have they made any changes there, or are they just pushing these to market anyway? Are they really any more troublesome than 97s to set up?
That must have been a lot of pennies Speaking of pennies, has anyone heard anything concrete on the pricing of these new carbs? Flatman
Repost or not I missed it first time. So Thanks. Yes, it will be interesting to see how much they are. Did I read that they paid particular attention to the power valves? Mart.
Our local Yearwood's has a new Edelbrock 94 in stock for promo purposes so I was able to hold it and check it out, couldn't take it apart of course. I honestly thought the casting was a tad rough and it had miss matched screws (?) but it was a brand new looking 94! Still no time frame for availibility or price, I was told thier waiting to get the support parts ready for them before they start actually selling them. Hmmm...94s will fit an Edelbrock triple manifold but not the Offy, suppose they want to force you to run them only on their manifold?
That's Offy's fault if it is indeed so. The 94's are slightly bigger than 97's so some manifolds won't take them.
The Jalopy Journal
