For all you that have run both twin 2 Bbls. and 4 bbls. on the same car, how do they compare as far as tuning, driving and gas mileage? I have a Holley 450 on my 289 Stude now and I'm REALLY happy with it ( Thanks S****s! ) but I also have an Edmunds 2 X 2 manifold stashed away that's eating at me. It would look cool as hell BUT...... the Holley is working SOOOOO good I hate to mess with a good thing. The car is a 3 Spd. manual with OD and 3.73 gears. Stock '56 289 4 bbl. engine for now, it will get a rebuild eventually with 8.5 to 1 compression and a very mild cam, just a bit hotter than stock but not quite as hot as the factory R-1 cam. That's when I would do the intake swap IF it gets done. Some hands on experience would be greatly appreciated. TIA.
This may not be the info your looking for but some food for thought. My Dad had a 62 hawk that came with a 2bbl 289 4/speed factory dual exaust and 3:73TT. The car was low miles and ran well with the 2bbl. With no other modifications we switched to a 4bbl holley 650 and it ran very nicely. Seemed quicker and liked the 650cfm holley but the mpg was worse(didn't care) Then we stumbled across a Caddy 2x4bbl intake and installed it with two holley 390cfm carbs and the stock 289 loved it, ran great,good plugs,started good,idled well , and turned some heads. But single digit mpg (didn't care) That motor seemed to defy cfm logic. It seemed every cfm increase was welcomed by that motor. Good luck
I ran a Vintage Speed dual Holley 94 on top of my 350 which had a b&m 142 blower, ran fine looked great, was a little hard to start always acted like the carbs leaked down. Then switched to three carbs a little more challenging to tune still looked great, BUT never really had the performance I was after. Eventually gave in and switched to the ugly single Holley double Pumper...WOW now I have the performance I was after. I will admit it doesn't have the "wow" factor as far as looks but runs 10 times better. In my opinion it all comes down to do you want it to look cool or go fast. My two cents anyway.
That's what is in the back of my mind, common sense is telling me to stick with the single Holley. It works. Thanks.
Rudebaker, I have a lot of early years experience with both. I ran the g***er cl***es at Lions and Irwindale with both a 259 and a 289. Ran the early four barrel manifold with a WCFB and later modified to run an AFB. Found a Weind 2X2 manifold in a wrecking yard and ran two Carter WW carbs that were standard issue on 259's in the late 50's and the 60's. The 259 in a Lark wagon ran in the 13's at over 100 mph with that manifold. I drove it on the street and it worked great with non progressive linkage. Tried making a progressive linkage set up and it didn't like it at all. I think you will find the 2X2 manifold to be fun but don't expect great gas mileage unless you jet it down for the street. You won't lose any noticable power when you jet it down for street driving. Just keep the stock jets for those times you want to just make power. If you need more advice please visit Racingstudebakers.com as there are lots of people who have used both manifolds and they are willing to help and share info. Dan
Thanks Dan. I'm currently running a 450 Holley on the '56 WCFB manifold with an adapter made specifically for the WCFB/4GC intakes not a "one size fits all" and it works pretty well but if I keep the Holley I have the later AFB intake I'm drilling with the Holley pattern so I don't have to run an adapter and I'll use the extra half inch to run a heat insulator. Hood clearance is TIGHT! While the Edmunds intake has a definite cool factor it doesn't look especially efficient. I think it's destined to become trading stock.
There is no firm answer to your question. Even if both set-ups are calibrated correctly, it depends on the particular manifolds being compared. A lot of old manifolds actually were mediocre or worse, but they were a big improvement over what the manufacturer put on the engine. I know of two different aftermarket 2x2 manifolds where one works great and the other isn't very good. Unfortunately the ****py one is still available and the good one hasn't been made for years. I remember an aftermatket "performance" 4-barrel manifold that didn't work as well as stock! All things considered,(flow properties, mixture distribution, driveability, etc) a good, modern, dual plane(180 degree), single four barrel manifold is the best compromise for a V-8 street engine, and many race V-8s as well. But as I said, it depends on the manifold, and, the application can be a factor too.
Hmmm....Having a 2 x2 set up UNDER the hood, is going to be sort of like..Who's going to hear the tree when is falls in the forest, if there's no one around....It might look cool, but unless you run without the hood, who's to see. For a street car, nothing beats a well tuned 4 bbl for performance and even for gas economy. HellRaiser.
Coolness factor is an entirely different subject, and it often has nothing to do with what's actually best.
I switched from a 4 barrel to a 2x2 set up using an Edmunds intake and 2 Rochester 2gc carbs on my Stude 289. Absolutely love it. Improved fuel distribution and noticable improved performance. The 4 barrel was well tuned and ran well, but the 2x2's look great and run even better.
Thanks for the input, did it have much affect on mileage? Is yours a full flow or are you running a remote filter? In the pic it looks like you're running the window type Delco distributor from a '60-'61 Lark. I just got done refurbishing one for my 289. When I get the trans & OD rebuilt and put the new clutch in I'm going to swap it in.
I have not run a 4bbl on this engine but it certainly has not been difficult to tune or a problem to maintain. I have not touched the carbs in 2 years...no need to.
Wait a minute, you said you had a Holley that was working SOOOOO good? They do that just before they die. I would go for the 2x2 setup just for the cool factor.
Depends on whether you want bling or bang. FWIW, the old Edmunds/Weiand/Stu-V 2x2-bbl intakes were all designed for the '51-54 232" engines with small intake ports. They don't flow as well as the later OEM iron 4-bbl intake. The best Studebaker intakes for bling are: 1. Spenser 4x2-bbl log manifold (anyone seen one lately? I've got bucks!) 2. LS repop R4 2x4-bbl intake for stock port heads 3. Smoljan 3x2-bbl 4. Edmunds/Weiand/Stu-V 2x2-bbl The best performing readily available intake is the LS R3 repop for stock port heads. jack vines
"Bling" I can drive with a little zing and not a bunch of headaches, I think my "bang" days have run their course. I have no need or desire to go fast in this car, I just want to cruise it and get a little rubber now and then. I break enough parts as it is.
The Jalopy Journal
