carbking

The last time I posted about a Buick carburetor I was told since I had never rebuild a nailhead, I knew nothing about Buick carburetors. So will limit this post to Carter information only, the readers may draw their own conclusions. One gentleman that is a member here called, and we had an interesting discussion, and he suggested that I read the thread. Carter produced a lot of different auxiliary air valves for different applications. I have maybe 25 different in my AFB parts. AT LEAST FOUR DIFFERENT HAVE HOLES IN FRONT! Not just Buick. Several have no holes, and no flats. Several have the machined flats in the back, but no holes. Unfortunately, the surviving Carter drawings file is incomplete, and the Buick AFB prints are not included in the files. Jon.

Since there has been no interest, this thread should be considered closed. I have moved the item to my website. Jon.

Matt - as far as rebuilding one of the ENGINES, you are correct. I only rebuilt engines for myself, not for others. As far as rebuilding, installing and tuning carburetors (in person), helping customers tune via telephone, changing to different carburetors for these engines; You are wrong, I have lots of experience with them. So I guess your 100 bucks is a wash; you win the first half, and I win the second half. Jon.

Willis - a number of facts which intrigue me: (1) If one compares throttle bore/venturi size on Carter AFB's and the new "AFB"/"AVS" units, one finds: 1-A Carter rating 625 CFM, Edelbrock rating 650 CFM 1-B Carter rating 750 CFM, Edelbrock rating 800 CFM This may be an example of the "new math" Taking these figures back to 1963: Carter offered a 750 CFM (new math 800 CFM) which Buick engineers chose to NOT use on their production vehicles in 1963. If the 750/800 is so much superior to the 500/610/625 versions used by Buick on various engines in the early 1960's; one wonders WHY these were NOT used. My GUESS (not necessarily fact) would be that the Buick engineers were interested more in driveability than absolute power at wide open throttle. One can look at Carter 3529s (Buick number 1356948) that was tested by Buick, and rejected. The only examples of this carburetor were the six prototypes sent by Carter to Buick. There was no standard production. As far as the OP's original question, I suggested the original carb, and still believe that is the best carb for basically stock street (not necessarily race) application - BUT THAT IS PROFESSIONAL OPINION, not necessarily fact. Others obviously have a different opinion. I guess if absolute power is the most important consideration, then maybe the larger carburetor could be used. All of us can learn from a respectful dialog. The only reason I posted in this thread, other than the original carb suggestion, is a modification of history as to carburetor introduction dates, sizes, etc. As an automotive historian, I find this less than satisfactory. I believe we have an obligation to keep history separate from opinions. As far as dyno tests go, in 60 years of playing with cars, have seen way too many tests that prove what the tester wished to prove. Dyno tests CAN be a useful tool, especially in designing/tuning race engines. As I do very little with racing these days (and then it would be vintage racing, not modern stuff), I have little need for dyno tests. Again, my professional opinion; others obviously have differing opinions. Jon.

FOR SALE - A carburetor textbook from 1925. This text has information and adjustment on quite a few seldom documented carburetors. In addition to the common makes, this book has information on Eagle, Scoe, Hudson, Essex, Johnson, Miller, Franklin, and Pierce carburetors. I am including the "table of contents" to show all makes covered. The book is in two parts: part 1 is 55 pages, part 2 is 60 pages. Price, to include priority mail postage in the United States - $110.00 MasterCard or VISA accepted. 573-392-7378 (9-12, 1-4 Mon-Tues central time). Jon

There are at least four different fuel orifice sizes for fuel valves for the various Carter type BB-1 carburetors: 0.085 0.093 0.101 0.118 Be careful in boring these larger than the existing orifice. Some of the pointed area of the plungers will not seal an orifice larger than 0.101. CHECK BEFORE BORING! Using the wrong size orifice can result in issues; both running out of fuel, or flooding. Another issue that some find is the misapplication of which BB-1. CARTER PRODUCED 70 DIFFERENT TYPE BB-1 CARBURETORS! Obviously these come in different flange sizes, but also different internal venturii sizes. Many refer to the many BB-1 carbs as a single BB-1. That is analogous to referring to a model T Ford and a Rolls Royce as being the same After all, both are automobiles, and both have four tires that touch the pavement The largest engine Carter recommended using ANY of the BB-1 was the 319 CID Packard, and that was the 289s superseded by the 289sd. We have found THROUGH ACTUAL TESTING that either a Stromberg SF-3 or Zenith 63AW12 with the venturi suggested by Stromberg works MUCH better on this engine. Much as I like to adhere to information published "in the day", I really believe Carter was optimistic is this recommendation. Personally, I don't recommend any of the various type BB-1 carbs for engines larger than 290 CID. Using the wrong venturi (in either direction) will NOT give optimal performance. Too large a venturi will result in the venturi air velocity being low, and the engine will run lean. Too small a venturi, and the venturi air velocity will be too high, resulting in higher than normal fuel usage, the possibility of "icing", and the possibility of the bowl running low on fuel, regardless of which fuel valve orifice is used. EDIT: this link will explain the range of engine sizes a single carburetor can service, based on flange size and venturi size: http://www.thecarburetorshop.com/Stromberg_SF_carburetors.htm Probably someone has "successfully" used a BB-1 on a 600 CID engine, and will post about their success in this thread. If the individual is happy with the performance, then I am happy for them. Just remember the old saw (and I wish my memory were better to remember whom to cite) "balonga tastes good, if one has never tasted steak"! Jon.

Matt - with no offense meant, Carter AFB 3636s, released in 1963 for the Pontiac 421 flowed 939 CFM when tested on the 4-barrel scale, and 1128 CFM when tested on the 2-barrel scale. Somewhere, I have the actual Carter flow test. In addition to the 939, Carter made several 750 CFM AFB carbs. Even Chevrolet had one, Carter part number 3593s. Buick chose NOT to use the larger carbs on their production street engines. Pontiac and Chrysler both had 700 and 750 CFM AFB carbs. The companies jumped on the Q-Jet, not because it was larger, but because of the higher venturii velocity for street use with the smaller primaries. Jon.

Nope - dyno results have their place, but not overly useful for street use. As far as ET is concerned, we had a lot of Buick 455 owners 40 years ago that were extremely surprised when they found their 455's were actually quicker with the 850 CFM carbs than with the 1000 CFM carbs on the drag strip. We also had quite a few that found no discernible difference ON THE STREET from the 800 CFM to the 850 CFM; and the 1000 CFM were actually slower on the street. Bigger is not always better. The old saw about multiple carburetors coming in the mid-1950's because there was no carburetor sufficiently large is basically hog-wash. This is why I posted the fact that Holley had a production 600 CFM 2-barrel carburetor in 1929. Since someone will remember that 1 and 2 barrel carbs were tested on a different scale than 4-barrels, I also posted the 600 was on the 4-barrel scale. On the 2-barrel scale, this carb would have flowed more than 800 CFM. Significantly large carburetors for street use were available. The Buick engineers were certainly aware of what was available, and chose NOT to use the larger carburetors on production vehicles. Dyno results are quite useful for trailered racecars. Today, because of better design cylinder heads, computer-designed camshafts, and better exhaust scavaging, more CFM may be utilized on pure race cars than 40 years ago. But street performance is more about venturii air velocity at all RPM's than wide-open throttle only. Jon.

By 1963, Carter produced, and sold AFB carbs in CFM figures from 400 to 939! Buick had access to them all. Biggest carb available??? Holley had a PRODUCTION two-barrel that flowed 600 CFM on the 4-barrel scale in 1929! Large carburetors were readily available! Jon.

To add to Ed's comments: Most updraft carburetors were originally designed for gravity feed; either gravity from the fuel tank, or gravity from the vacuum tank. The fuel inlet in the carburetor was sized for the vertical distance the fuel traveled. As an example, on a fairly small Stromberg carburetor for a small 6 cylinder engine, Stromberg specified a fuel inlet of 0.125 if the vertical distance was 13 inches, and 0.140 if the vertical drop was 9 inches. Contrast this to a 1971 Pontiac 455 H.O. (with pressure pump) with an orifice of 0.135 inches. If you figure the "pressure" with a vertical drop of 13 inches, it is about 1 psi. So, some are already saying "OK, that is why I also bought a pressure regulator"! Check this link: http://www.thecarburetorshop.com/Electric_fuel_pumps_and_old_cars.htm So now, some are thinking "why not simply machine a different size fuel valve"? And this can be done, and it WILL help, MARGINALLY! If one looks at the placement of the float pin in relation to the buoyancy of the float and the distance to the fuel orifice, still the MAXIMUM pressure that most updraft carbs with modifications can withstand would be less than 2 psi. I don't like the word "never" so won't say never use the electric pump; but if you do use it, a pressure gauge at the carburetor when dialing in the pump is a good insurance policy. Understand the problem, not just band-aid the symptom. Jon.

An example of looking up factory data: Let us assume a prospective customer calls looking for a carburetor for a 1919 Stoughton truck with a Waukesha type BUX 4 cylinder engine. A quick check of the database shows original carb was a Stromberg type M-1. A somewhat slower check of the prints shows that Stromberg placed a venturi of 13/16 inch in the carburetor. The M-1 is an excellent carb for the day, but expensive to rebuild, and the customer wishes to replace. So I am looking for a more modern (less expensive) S.A.E. size 1 (from the M-1) carburetor with a venturi of appoximately 13/16 inch. Simple. Jon.

Mark - the oft-posted engine airflow requirement equation: CFM = (CID x RPM) / 3456 More correctly, the equation should be written: CFM = (VE x CID x RPM) / 3456 where VE is the volumetric efficiency of the engine (a decimal number less than 1) But what is virtually NEVER mentioned is that this equation in either form assumes a four-stroke multiple cylinder engine of at least 4 cylinders (cylinder pulsing is important in the airflow calculation). For four-stroke engines of less than four cylinders, convention is to multiply the resultant CFM from the above by 4 / N where N is the number of cylinders from 1 to 3. And while I am sure you are aware of the following, some may not be: The constant 3456, written for clarity, is 12 x 12 x 12 x 2. The three 12's are necessary to convert cubic feet (left side of equation) to cubic inches (right side of equation). The 2 is necessary due to a four stroke engine having one intake stroke per 2 revolutions of the crankshaft. Volumetric efficiency is where I tossed in the square root of the big oak tree in the back yard. It truly is a "guesstimate"! The figures I use, just from experience: 1970 Pontiac RA IV V-8 engine - 0.9 Most standard V-8 engines 1950's up - 0.85 Most post-WWII inline 6 cylinders - 0.75 Pre-WWII - 0.6 This is NOT an exact science, and exactly why, when possible, I rely on engineering data done when the cars/trucks were new. Jon.

In person, very few (not too many movers & shakers in the Baja boondocks of Missouri, and I have been too busy with carburetors to attend a show/meet for 30 years!). However, through the shop, have had the opportunity to converse with many via telephone. One of the telephone contacts (and my mentor in the carburetor business) was Jim Rowe of the J. R. R. Company. We spent many pleasurable hours on the telephone some 50 years ago. He is missed. Jon.

Dennis - would I rebuild the Marvel? NO!, but a number of folks do rebuild them, many of whom frequent these forums, and seem happy with them. (Of course some wag, and I cannot find the citation, stated "bologna tastes good if you have never had steak") The only way I would personally leave a Marvel on any vehicle I owned would be if the vehicle were a numbers-matching (or all original) show/museum vehicle that was never started. Again, my personal opinion, for which you asked. Others have differing opinions. If it were mine, and I wished to drive it, I would do some research, and equip it with either an SF series Stromberg or a 63 series Zenith of the appropriate size. The criteria for determining proper venturi size can be a sliding slope. But the method I use (99 percent of the time) is to look it up (yes, I am lazy). If one has a vehicle made in the USA, Stromberg or Zenith PROBABLY offered a replacement carburetor which was sized, selected, and TESTED by an engineer working on the project. Since I am the current caretaker for these records, I look up what the engineers determined to be a good fit at the time the vehicle was new. In the unlikely event, that neither Stromberg nor Zenith offered a replacement, it becomes a set of "20 questions" (actually a few less), to include: engine design, CID, RPM, vehicle mass, number of cylinders, eventual application (Sunday afternoon, modified show, vintage racing.....etc.) and multiply by the square root of the big oak tree in my back yard In other words, there is no hard and fast rule that always works. Jon.

"Missing the original carb" is an EXPENSIVE issue! The 440 could have come with either a single Carter type AVS four-barrel, or three Holley 2-barrel carbs. The AVS was a "smog emission first, any performance is secondary" carburetor. Because of this fact, depending on the finances of the original buyer; these were either trash-canned at purchase, or trash-canned one micro-second after the warranty expired. Very scarce, very expensive for this reason. Don't really know the value or availability of the six-pack. Jon.

Dennis - if you are happy with the way it runs,..........................then you are happy with the way it runs, don't "fix it"! I sometimes tend to be too much of a perfectionist with carburetor selection; but the proper internal venturi will allow best performance, regardless of the type of fuel delivery system. Stakeside - fuel valve orifices sometimes may be enlarged on a lathe, provided the "needle" will still function properly. Check the diameter at the maximum of the pointed area of the needle. One does not wish the needle to "stick" in the seat from a diameter that is too small.Remember to use a thicker seat fiber washer to compensate for the added distance the needle is inserted into the orifice on its taper. Always best to NOT adjust those old floats by bending. The thickness of the seat gasket can take care of most adjustment. I am rapidly running low on EXPENSIVE floats because folks ignore this advice. Jon.

Four different orifice fuel valve seats were available for the Carter type BB-1 carburetors. Interesting that the valves specified in the universal replacement Carters (245s,sd, BB1A,D, 289s,sd) were all sized for fuel pumps. We ask our customers the application when kits are ordered for these carbs. Most parts for these carbs are available, just not ala carte. These are probably the most popular aftermarket carburetor for older cars, and the one most often misapplied. Using a BB-1 with too small an internal venturi will cause venturi air velocity to be too high, creating a greater requirement (read WASTED) for fuel than the proper sized carburetor. Jon.

Correct - DL did use the "I" in the date coding. Some manufacturers do, some do not. Jon

Rod - in post 5, I suggested several different Carter, Stromberg, and Zenith carburetors. ALL of these: Used carbs are readily available (read inexpensive). Rebuilts, and even new old stock (mostly) are not overly scarce. Were made in the USA. Use S.A.E. sizes. Calibration specifications are readily available Spare parts (kits, calibration parts, even to a certain extent, castings) are readily available. Each are calibrated specifically for a 216 CID 6 cylinder engine. The calibration includes venturi size (air flow), jetting (metered fuel), and air bleeds (metered air). As to what I have available? That is best done off the board. My answers are to share information gleaned over a few years (rebuilt my first carburetor in 1959), NOT to advertise my business. I gave you actual part numbers, which you may shop around. The only advertising is in my signature block. Jon.

West - checking the parts list: Low compression head: Aspirator valve 180192 Metering pin assembly 180193 High compression head: Aspirator valve 179908 Metering pin assembly 179850 There are other differences as well. Jon.

Since you have made your decision, no recommendation from me is necessary. Jon.

West - yes, there were some other differences as well. The Packard section is easier to understand if one checks the listing on my website which gives more information than the index: Packard Detroit Lubricator made running changes. On the Packards, the identification is in the format: myynnn m = month (A=January, B=February, etc. yy = last two digits in the year (29 = 1929, 30 = 1930, etc.) nnn = is what we would normally think of a tag number Example: A30753 was produced in January 1930, and was tag number 753. Checking the chart shows this to be used on a 1930 726 or 733 from January through April. Those carbs built in Feb, Mar, or April would have different letter prefixes. The 734 used two carbs: A-30825 (Packard number 178032) from January through February C-30825 (Packard number 179852) from March forward Difficult for me to tell from the Packard literature, but seems there was a high compression cylinder head, and a low compression cylinder head. The calibrations in the carburetors were changed accordingly. Jon.

In a different lifetime, I started to write a book on Detroit Lubricator and Stewart carburetors. The Stewart Carburetor Company was a division of the Detroit Lubricator Company, so I have included both. I have long since realized that the book is not going to happen. But I thought some might like to see the customer list, at least of what I have been able to research. And apologies beforehand to any of you who have Graham blood running in your veins. I have spent hundreds of hours poring over Graham material, and have come to the conclusion that it is much easier to work with Toyota books than Graham (and no, I do not read and write Kanji!!!). One other apology, while I can line up table columns on my own website, doing so on this forum is an art that has eluded me! As always, with any of my posts, documented corrections are ALWAYS welcome. No ego here, simply a desire to organize and share information. Jon. Detroit / Stewart customer list Make Year Cylinders CID Model ID number Model O.E. Cadillac 1932 12 368 370-B (left) 51 894184 Cadillac 1932 12 368 370-B (right) 51 894183 Cadillac 1932 16 452 452-B (left) 51 896327 Cadillac 1932 16 452 452-B (right) 51 896326 Cadillac 1933 12 368 370-C (left) 51 894184 Cadillac 1933 12 368 370-C (right) 51 894183 Cadillac 1933 16 452 452-C (left) 51 896327 Cadillac 1933 16 452 452-C (right) 51 896326 Cadillac 1934 8 353 355-D 1640 51 1408233 Cadillac 1934 12 368 370-D (left) 1683 51 1404894 Cadillac 1934 12 368 370-D (right) 1682 51 1404893 Cadillac 1934 16 452 452-D (left) 1681 51 1404923 Cadillac 1934 16 452 452-D (right) 1680 51 1404922 Cadillac 1935 8 353 355-D 1640 51 1408233 Cadillac 1935 12 368 370-D (left) 1683 51 1404894 Cadillac 1935 12 368 370-D (right) 1682 51 1404893 Cadillac 1935 16 452 452-D (left) 1681 51 1404923 Cadillac 1935 16 452 452-D (right) 1680 51 1404922 Cadillac 1936 12 368 36-80, 36-85 (left) 1753 51 1414375 Cadillac 1936 12 368 36-80, 36-85 (right) 1752 51 1414374 Cadillac 1936 16 452 36-90 (left) 1681 51 1404923 Cadillac 1936 16 452 36-90 (right) 1680 51 1404922 Cadillac 1937 12 368 37-85 1752 51 1414374 Cadillac 1937 12 368 37-85 (left) 1753 51 1414375 Cadillac 1937 16 452 36-90 (right) 1680 51 1404922 Cadillac 1937 16 452 37-90 (left) 1681 51 1404923 Chevrolet 1923 4 171 Superior (Canada) 25 Chevrolet 1924 4 171 Superior (Canada) 25 Make Year Cylinders CID Model ID number Model O.E. Chrysler 1925 4 186 58 30 Chrysler 1926 4 186 58 30 Colonial 1917 6 191 Dixie Flyer 1920 4 192 HS-60 Dodge 1914 4 212 30, 35 25 Dodge 1915 4 212 30 25 Dodge 1915 4 212 30, 35 25 Dodge 1916 4 212 30 25 Dodge 1917 4 212 30 25 Dodge 1918 4 212 30 25 Dodge 1919 4 212 30 25 Dodge 1920 4 212 30 25 Dodge 1921 4 212 30 25 Dodge 1922 4 212 30 25 Dodge 1923 4 212 116 25 Dodge 1924 4 212 116 3 25 Dodge 1924 4 212 116 4 25 Dodge 1925 4 212 116 4 25 Dodge 1926 4 212 126 350 25 Dodge 1926 4 212 126 351 25 Dodge 1927 4 212 126 355 25 Dodge 1927 4 212 126 550 25 Dodge 1927 4 212 Fast Four 851 25 Dodge 1928 6 208 Standard six, Victory 855 25 Essex 1918 4 179 Essex 1919 4 179 Essex 1920 4 179 Essex 1921 4 179 Essex 1922 4 179 Essex 1923 4 179 Essex 1924 6 145 55 25 Make Year Cylinders CID Model ID number Model O.E. Essex 1925 6 145 55 25 Essex 1925 6 145 57 25 Essex 1926 6 145 58 25 Essex 1927 6 153 59 25 Essex 1928 6 153 59 25 F.R.P. 1914 4 454 A, B, C F.R.P. 1915 4 454 A, B, C F.R.P. 1916 4 449 45 F.R.P. 1917 4 449 45-A F.R.P. 1918 4 449 45-B Ford 1932 8 221 Ford 1933 8 221 Graham 1930 6 207 Standard Six 51 74904 Graham 1930 6 224 Special Six 51 74903 Graham 1930 8 299 822 51 75245 Graham 1930 8 299 834 51 75245 Graham 1930 8 299 Special Eight 51 75245 Graham 1930 8 299 Standard Eight 51 75245 Graham 1930 8 322 Custom Eight 51 Graham 1931 6 207 46 (Standard Six) 51 76127 Graham 1931 6 224 45 (Special Six) 51 76126 Graham 1931 6 224 53 (Standard Six) 1040 51 76909 Graham 1931 6 224 54 (Special Six) 1040 51 76909 Graham 1931 8 245 820 (2nd series) 1030 51 77091 Graham 1931 8 299 822 51 75245 Graham 1931 8 299 834 51 75245 Graham 1931 8 299 Special (1st series) 51 Graham 1931 8 299 Standard Eight 51 Graham 1931 8 322 Custom 51 Graham 1932 6 224 53 (Standard Six) 1040 51 76909 Graham 1932 6 224 54 (Special Six) 1040 51 76909 Make Year Cylinders CID Model ID number Model O.E. Graham 1932 8 245 57 (Blue Streak) 1030 51 78496 Graham 1932 8 245 820 1030 51 77091 Graham 1932 8 299 822 855 51 76553 Graham 1932 8 299 822 51 75245 Graham 1932 8 299 834 51 76553 Graham 1932 8 299 834 51 75245 Graham 1932 8 322 837 51 Graham 1933 6 224 65 (Standard Six) 1580 51 79577 Graham 1933 6 224 Standard Six (2nd 1040 51 Graham 1933 8 245 57 (Blue Streak) 1030 51 78496 Graham 1933 8 245 57A (Custom Eight) 1030 51 78496 Graham 1933 8 245 63, 64 1030 51 Graham 1934 6 224 65 (Standard Six) 1580 51 79577 Graham 1934 6 245 64 (Standard Eight) 1030 51 78496 Graham-Paige 1930 6 191 612 51 74904 Graham-Paige 1930 6 224 615 51 74903 Hollier 1915 8 240 Hollier 1916 8 240 Hollier 1917 6 180 186 25 Hollier 1917 8 240 178 25 Hollier 1919 6 211 206 25 Hollier 1919 8 240 188, 198 25 Hudson 1917 6 289 H, J Hudson 1918 6 289 M Hudson 1919 6 289 O Hudson 1920 6 289 O Hudson 1921 6 289 Hudson 1922 6 289 Hudson 1923 6 289 75 25 Hudson 1923 6 289 Hudson 1924 6 289 76 25 Make Year Cylinders CID Model ID number Model O.E. Hudson 1925 6 289 77 25 Hudson 1925 6 289 78 25 Hudson 1925 6 289 79 25 Hudson 1926 6 289 80 25 Hupmobile 1925 6 196 A-1 25 Hupmobile 1926 6 196 A-5 25 Kline 1916 6 224 36 Lozier 1914 4 369 84 (29 HP) Lozier 1916 4 369 84 (29 HP) Lozier 1917 4 369 84 (29 HP) Lozier 1918 4 369 84 (29 HP) Maxwell 1923 4 186 25 Maxwell 1924 4 186 25 Maxwell 1925 4 186 30 New Era 1933 Packard 1905 4 266 N 83217 Packard 1906 4 350 S (24) 83218 Packard 1907 4 432 U (30 Packard 1908 4 432 UA (30) 83220 Packard 1909 4 266 NA (18) 89618 Packard 1909 4 432 UB, UBS (30) Packard 1910 4 266 NB (18) 89618 Packard 1910 4 432 UC, UCS (30) Packard 1911 4 266 NC (18) 89618 Packard 1911 4 432 UD, UDS (30) Packard 1912 4 266 NE (18) 89618 Packard 1912 4 432 UE (30 89617 Packard 1912 6 525 Series 1-48 21113 Packard 1913 6 415 Series 1-38 40565 Packard 1913 6 525 Series 2-48 22958 Packard 1914 6 415 Series 1-38 40565 Make Year Cylinders CID Model ID number Model O.E. Packard 1914 6 415 Series 2-38 39176 Packard 1914 6 525 Series 3-48 47538 Packard 1914 6 525 Series 4-48 49872 Packard 1915 6 415 Series 3-38 60169 Packard 1915 6 525 Series 5-48 60940 Packard 1916 12 424 Series 1-25, 1-35 62991 Packard 1917 12 424 Series 2-25, 2-35 76617 Packard 1918 12 424 Series 3-25 Packard 1918 12 424 Series 3-35 Packard 1919 12 424 Series 3-25 Packard 1919 12 424 Series 3-35 Packard 1920 12 424 Series 3-35 Packard 1921 6 242 116 Packard 1921 12 424 Series 3-35 Packard 1922 6 242 116 Packard 1922 6 268 126 118982 Packard 1922 6 268 133 118982 Packard 1922 12 424 Series 3-35 Packard 1923 6 268 126 118982 Packard 1923 6 268 133 118982 Packard 1923 12 424 Series 3-35 Packard 1924 6 268 126 118982 Packard 1924 6 268 133 118982 Packard 1924 8 358 136 126519 Packard 1924 8 358 143 126519 Packard 1925 6 268 226 118982 Packard 1925 6 268 233 118982 Packard 1925 8 358 136 126519 Packard 1925 8 358 143 126519 Packard 1926 6 289 326 118982 Packard 1926 6 289 333 118982 Make Year Cylinders CID Model ID number Model O.E. Packard 1926 8 358 236 126519 Packard 1926 8 358 243 126519 Packard 1927 6 289 426 141420 Packard 1927 6 289 433 141420 Packard 1927 8 385 336 141439 Packard 1927 8 385 343 141439 Packard 1928 6 289 526 145998 Packard 1928 6 289 533 145998 Packard 1928 8 385 443 145999 Packard 1929 8 319 626 163391 Packard 1929 8 319 626 750 51 Packard 1929 8 319 633 163391 Packard 1929 8 319 633 750 51 Packard 1929 8 385 640 145999 Packard 1929 8 385 640 775 51 Packard 1929 8 385 640 776 51 Packard 1929 8 385 645 776 51 Packard 1929 8 385 645 145999 Packard 1929 8 385 645 775 51 Packard 1930 8 319 726 753 51 Packard 1930 8 319 726 755 51 Packard 1930 8 319 726 756 51 Packard 1930 8 319 726 754 51 Packard 1930 8 319 726 757 51 Packard 1930 8 319 733 756 51 Packard 1930 8 319 733 753 51 Packard 1930 8 319 733 755 51 Packard 1930 8 319 733 754 51 Packard 1930 8 319 733 757 51 Packard 1930 8 385 734 825 51 179852 Packard 1930 8 385 734 825 51 178032 Make Year Cylinders CID Model ID number Model O.E. Packard 1930 8 385 740 781 51 Packard 1930 8 385 740 782 51 Packard 1930 8 385 740 779 51 Packard 1930 8 385 740 780 51 Packard 1930 8 385 740 778 51 Packard 1930 8 385 740 776 51 176825 Packard 1930 8 385 745 778 51 Packard 1930 8 385 745 776 51 176825 Packard 1930 8 385 745 780 51 Packard 1930 8 385 745 779 51 Packard 1930 8 385 745 782 51 Packard 1931 8 319 826 762 51 Packard 1931 8 319 826 759 51 Packard 1931 8 319 826 758 51 190607 Packard 1931 8 319 826 763 51 Packard 1931 8 319 826 760 51 Packard 1931 8 319 826 764 51 Packard 1931 8 319 826 761 51 Packard 1931 8 319 833 761 51 Packard 1931 8 319 833 759 51 Packard 1931 8 319 833 758 51 190607 Packard 1931 8 319 833 763 51 Packard 1931 8 319 833 760 51 Packard 1931 8 319 833 762 51 Packard 1931 8 319 833 764 51 Packard 1931 8 385 840 787 51 Packard 1931 8 385 840 786 51 Packard 1931 8 385 840 788 51 Packard 1931 8 385 840 784 51 190608 Packard 1931 8 385 840 785 51 Packard 1931 8 385 845 785 51 Make Year Cylinders CID Model ID number Model O.E. Packard 1931 8 385 845 786 51 Packard 1931 8 385 845 787 51 Packard 1931 8 385 845 788 51 Packard 1931 8 385 845 784 51 190608 Packard 1932 8 319 900 200 51 202644 Packard 1932 8 319 901 764 51 190491 Packard 1932 8 319 902 764 51 190491 Packard 1932 8 385 903 788 51 190490 Packard 1932 8 385 903 789 51 Packard 1932 8 385 904 788 51 190490 Packard 1932 8 385 904 789 51 Paige 1913 4 251 F 12 Paige 1914 4 251 F 12 Paige 1915 4 251 F 12 Paige 1930 Commercial Car Pilgrim 1915 4 188 Pilgrim 1916 4 188 Regal 1915 4 154 E Regal 1915 4 221 D, R (39 HP) Regal 1916 4 221 D, E 25 Regal 1916 8 254 F 25

Rod - I would like to offer some information: Using the three options offered by Hubert: (1) Rebuild the Marvel. In 1928, Marvel was transitioning from a brass bowl to a zinc alloy (pot metal) bowl. If yours is the zinc alloy, either find one of the brass bowl versions to rebuild, or bypass this option. If you choose this option, the brass bowl carbs have the same casting number (10 over 103) as your existing carburetor. (2) Replacement of the Marvel with a more modern (read better ) updraft. The listed reference thread is for a 1925 Buick. By 1926, Marvel had changed to a proprietary mounting flange. There are no modern carbs (maybe no other carbs) that have that mounting flange. Thus one would require machining of an adapter to adapt the modern updraft to the Buick intake. This will lower the carburetor by the thickness of the flange. The lower the carburetor, the more negative pressure must be created by piston movement to allow fuel flow from the carburetor to the engine. (3) Downdraft - Mark, I rarely disagree with you on anything, but in this case I must do so, with apologies. The Rochester B carburetor, if anything, is more problematic and less reliable than the original Marvel! The only thing the B has going for it is price! We have been trying to GIVE them away for 15 years!!! They are quite common, as most of the Stovebolt folks (not all) have given up on them and replaced them with Carters. They have major body warpage issues, in a couple of areas, either of which will cause the power valve to be open at all times. Reference: Free carburetors The 1928 Buick Standard Six is 207 CID, so the sizing of the Rochester B for the Chevy 216 is correct; but much better (opinion) carburetors are available. My choice would be the Carter W-1 tag numbers 574s, 483s, or 420s. These were all used as original equipment on the Chevrolet 6 in various years. They are relatively common, and ALL internal parts are readily available. Other possibilities would include aftermarket replacement carburetors produced by Carter (YF), Stromberg (BXOV series), and Zenith (28, 228 series) specifically as replacement for the Chevrolet 216. Jon.

UPDATE: I had digitized this print. Stromberg did not give a number for the switch assembly, only the component parts of the switch: The above is a copy of the applicable part of the listing. Jon.