carbking

Will leave here through Friday 21 August, then off to ebay. Jon.

I can't read the number on the side, which would give us the Zenith family; but if the float is inside the bowl, I will take it. Jon.

Setting for the highest vacuum with a non-airbled carburetor. Jon

While I would agree to a degree with Rusty about the throttle shaft clearance; I would say the most common cause of a "hunting" idle would be improper use of a vacuum gauge to adjust the idle. Following closely in second would be choke/fast idle not properly adjusted. One other possibility, although probably not overly high on the frequency would be a fatigued throttle return spring. Jon.

Dave - I DO have brass floats for some of the earlier Marvels, but none as new as yours. Jon.

Since I was mentioned in this thread, thought I should check in: Many older carburetors were originally equipped with cork floats. We have always supplied replacement float pontoons in rebuilding kits for these carburetors. We still do, except for those used in the Cadillac/Johnson carbs, but that is another story. The original cork floats were made from natural cork. We are not suffiently important to warrant the suppliers selling us natural cork when they can sell all they have to the BIG users. The cork available to us is "composite". The scraps from the big users are gathered, ground, and recombined with glue. The resultant composite cork will not float! We use the modern foam. It has been mentioned that the poly-nitrophil (spelling, and too lazy to look it up) floats used as O.E. in the 1970's and 1980's had issues. This is true! But true because our benevolent government changed the requirements of fuel to the oil companies every time the sun set in the west! The company that made these floats changed the sealing compound at least a dozen times, and it would work, for awhile. And then, when the fuel changed, the float would fail. The current foam SUPPOSELY is closed-cellular, and the ethanol/fuel will not permeate the cell walls (I'm from Missouri!). We suggest to our customers that they install the original float arm onto the new pontoon, AND THEN SEAL THE FLOAT AND THE AREA CONTACTED BY THE ARM! We cannot do the sealing ahead of time, as installing the arm would break the seal. Two products that I KNOW will work for sealing are P.O.R.-15 and the fabric dope used to dope the fabric used on model airplanes that fly. Other products MAY work, but I have no knowledge of them. Occasionally, we get a customer that had issues with the foam in the '70's and '80's and does not wish to use the foam. I understand, and don't argue. We suggest balsa wood as an alternative to these customers, but stress that the surface MUST be sealed where the arm makes contact. Balsa also is fairly readily available to those who need a float NOW and don't like our backlog (as a matter of fact, neither do I )! Buoyancy differences between the cork and foam and balsa have been mentioned in this thread. I personally do not feel there enough difference to be concerned with, but most updraft carburetors require a guesstimate for an initial setting, and then measurement of the fuel level with the carburetor mounted on the engine and the fuel line, and fuel, connected. Which brings up another issue: NEVER bend one of the old brass float arms unless you (A) own a casting shop, or (B) are independently wealthy! Never is a word I rarely use! The fuel level in the bowl may be adjusted by changing the thickness of the gasket (or gasket pack) between the fuel valve seat and the casting. By changing this gasket thickness, one changes the height of the valve, and thus changes the required height of the float to acquire the correct fuel level. For those who may be new to carburetors, MANY carburetors REQUIRE the float setting at a specified fuel pressure. Yes, the shop manual will have a suggested initial setting for the float, but many of the more expensive carburetors had "sight plugs" in the bowl into the late 1950's. The float(s) was/were set at the suggested initial setting, the carburetor installed, a fuel pressure gauge installed at the carburetor, the engine started, and the sight plugs removed. Different companies had different settings, but generally, the fuel would just weep from the sight plug passage at idle if the fuel lever were correct. Jon.

See what I mean about pictures being upright? Some of the pictures appear less clear, due to a mylar sheet protecting the stamps. Lots of different shapes of stamps. The next to last picture has some of the 3-D stamps (the kids love them) as when one tilts the stamp, the image moves. These are stamps from the sale item (which will go on Ebay at higher cost if it does not sell here). I have made special pages for the stamps in my own collection. Jon.

OK Terry, as requested, pictures. Please remember that I am technologically challenged when attempting to post pictures. Even though they display correctly on my computer, sometimes they are right side up, sometimes on end (haven't yet had any that were annie-goglin ) Jon

YES - I would love to have it back (1956 Ford 2 door with 292 CID). Dad bought it for me (with my money) needing work when I was 13. Had it finished by the time I was 15 1/2, and Dad drove it for awhile until I turned 16. Rebuilt my first carburetor on that car at age 13. The now infamous Holley 4000, demonized on the internet as the "Towering Inferno" by those with no knowledge of carburetors. I got more than 100,000 miles on that rebuild. If a 13-year old can get that kind of results, the design just cannot be too bad. Only Holley 4 barrel I ever owned that didn't leak. Of course, like all Holleys, it was exceptionally fickle, falling in love with each new gas station we met! At some 200,000 miles plus, the oil mileage was almost as bad as the fuel mileage, and we traded the car. Wish we had kept it, and rebuilt the engine. Have had many other cars I would love to have back, if I were independently wealthy, and had storage, and a care-taker to care for them (I don't have the time). Among those was a special-order 1963 Corvette with some options the Corvette folks still tell me weren't available in 1963 , a Jaguar XK-120, a Triumph TR-3A, a special-order 1968 Ford Mustang GT 390, and many others. Jon.

For sale: topical stamp collection of stamps depicting mostly cars and trucks, with a few motorcycles and a few tractors. The collection consists of 1728 different stamps plus an additional 49 souvenir sheets, from 107 different countries. Additionally, there are 1278 duplicates to trade. There is duplication in the duplicates (more than 1 of some). The entire collection is organized. The 1728 different stamps are sorted alphabetically by country in 5 volumes. The duplicates are also sorted by country, and the duplicates from each country are in separate glassine envelopes. Price, including mailing, insurance, and handling is $500. to any address in the 48 contiguous United States. Will also mail to Alaska or Hawaii, but there will be an additional shipping charge. For addresses outside of the U.S.A., I am sorry, but will NOT ship outside the USA. Shipments to Canada which were taking 4~8 days a few months ago were taking 4~8 WEEKS in July. Even when you supply a customer with a tracking number, some tend to become somewhat irate for that length of delay. If the virus is ever contained, we will again ship to Canada, but not now. This collection is much better than average. Yes, there are CTO's (cancelled to order), but many of the sets normally found as CTO are mint. This is a good starting topical collection, with room to expand. My own personal collection of car stamps exceeds 4000. For those unfamiliar with topical stamp collecting, there is an association of topical collectors. They have a database listing all stamps by topics, and will burn a copy by topic for a nominal fee for their members. One collection only, first come, first served. VISA, MasterCard, and (reluctantly) paypal accepted. Email, or 573-392-7378 (9-12, 1-4 central time). Jon.

The M-1 comes in a number of different venturii. Make sure you get the correct one for your application. With the different venturii, the M-1 was used on engines from 87 to 350 CID. Jon.

Charles - easier to find now with the internet, but compare power losses through transmissions comparing automatic to standard. Yes, there are losses in the standard transmission, but generally about half what is lost to an automatic of the same year. One can also compare carburetor calibrations and see the differences. Sometimes the differences are easy to spot (metering rods/fuel jets). Sometimes more difficult as the manufacturer changed the calibration with air jets. I have personally converted several vehicles for myself and family members from dogmatics to stick. I always expected a 20 percent increase in fuel economy and was never disappointed. Generally, 25 or more. I have been told by folks that specialize in automatics that, modern automatics with lockup converters, don't have these same losses. I will take their word for this. All of the conversions I have made have been 1968 and earlier. I can say one good thing about the automatics: when I had major surgery many years ago, the doctor allowed me to drive my modern vehicle with the dogmatic, 6 weeks before he allowed me to drive the sticks. But I am healed now. Jon

Paul - they are QUITE scarce. I have a letter from Carter stated that Carter only hand-built 15 to 20 examples. This is somewhat low, as when I was researching the SD Pontiacs, I located 24. My guess would be maybe 30~35. I currently have two of them. Jon.

Yes - Carter 3636s. Carter also tested it using the 1 and 2 barrel standard (3 inches Hg) and it tested 1128 CFM. Carter was pretty much at the limit of their flow bench. Jon.

I guess I should not have posted that there were three applications of the EE-2, I wasn't trying to start an argument. The three EE-2 applications were Franklin 12, 1932 Nash 8, and 1932 Oldsmobile 8. The Pierce 12 used a pair of E-2 single barrel carbs. The Auburn 12 used a pair of EX-2 single barrel carbs. As mentioned above, the Oldsmobile 6 in 1932 used a single EC-2. The E-2, EC-2, and EX-2 (all single barrel) were in the same family. The double first letter (to Stromberg) always meant 2 barrel (EE-2, EE-22, or earlier OO-2 UU-2, UU-3, UUR-2). The following article is a bit newer, but still has applicable information: Stromberg model coding Jon

The Stromberg EE-2, and the revised EE-22 cause lots of folks confusion. Stromberg only made 3 different model EE-2 carburetors. Stromberg made 58 different models of EE-22 carburetors. Two major identity issues, plus a service issue: (1) Most O.E. literature refers to the carburetors my model ONLY, not by identification number. (2) For some reason which I have NEVER been able to find the cause; Stromberg EE-22's made in 1933 have EE-2 cast on the bowl! The 1934 and newer castings have EE-22 cast on the end of the bowl; AS DOES THE BOWL USED ON AN EE-23. It is quite easy to determine if the carbs marked EE-2 are really EE-2's or if they are EE-22's. The fuel valve on the EE-2 is on the side of the bowl (like the EE-1, and the mis-named Stromberg "97" which is actually a Ford version of the EE-1). Thus, the float in an EE-2 will have the hinge on one end. All of the EE-22's, whether they have a cast EE-2 or EE-22, have the fuel inlet on the end of the bowl; and the float hinge is in the center of the float. Without pulling a lot of prints, I know there are at least 5 different internal venturii sizes of the EE-22 bowls; plus there are a number of different linkages, some of the air horns are right angle rather than straight, and of course Chrysler has the "backwards" (at least backwards to all of the others) choke. And the above is why there are 58 different models. As a general rule, one should NOT attempt to change a bowl from one model to another. (3) The bowl is the MAJOR issue with the carburetor; as this design was Stromberg's first attempt at what Stromberg called a "thin wall casting". The area surrounding the fuel inlet is thin, and breaks easily. Stromberg discovered this quickly, and newer (maybe 1935?) castings were reinforced around the fuel inlet. Stromberg issued service bulletins to both the car manufacturers, and Stromberg distributors. The bulletins stated that whenever installing or removing a fuel line from the carburetor, two wrenches were to be used: one to hold the fuel inlet, the other to rotate the fuel line fitting. These were thence dispensed to dealers, and since these were on soft paper, the mechanics (AND MANY ENTHUSIASTS) used these to substitute for the Sears catalog slick pages, neglecting to read them first! 40 years later, Rochester had a similar issue with a fuel inlet, but because the fitting used exceptionally fine threads, and the torque applied would strip the zinc alloy threads. Rochester tried humor with their bulletin: Rochester bulletin Jon.

Probably, if I can find a print with the internal venturi size; but why bother. The Zenith engineers specifically calibrated the carb for this engine only. I don't claim to be as smart as they were. One of the reasons I have been as successful as I have, is to listen to the engineers. Jon.

Ed sent me a picture of the Zenith carburetor. I have yet to see any White documentation of White carburetors, but have seen a number of Zenith carburetors over the years with a bowl cover that had cast "Manufactured for White". Until someone posted a picture some time ago of the White, I was under the impression the White carburetor may have been made by Zenith. An early Zenith book lists Zenith number 216 for the 16 valve White four cylinder. Zenith number 216 is a type L6L brass carburetor, which would be an S.A.E. flange size 3 (2 15/16 inch center to center on the mounting bolts). The book was published in January 1922. Jon

As a general rule, the Schebler model D is the most reliable of all of the Scheblers. Try removing the bowl, and lapping the fuel valve seat with some valve lapping compound. Be sure to wash the residue thoroughly. It should work. If this is not satisfactory to you, we need to play "20 questions" to answer your request. By the way, very pretty car! Jon.

Thanks Gary - I have mis-pronounced and misspelled this word my entire life! Guess you can teach an old dog new tricks! Corrections made! Jon.

Question was asked in another thread about does modern fuel effect neoprene fuel valves. I started the new thread because I believe it to be an important issue, and did a tech/history article on it years ago. The article may be found here: Carburetor fuel valves We have found ethanol fuel will eventually degrade either neoprene valves or Monel steel valves. But the mean time to failure is longer with the neoprene valves than with the Monel steel valves. The removal of the "staking" step in the manufacture of the valve seats is much more destructive to the neoprene valves than the ethanol. Jon.

Zeke - it is a great question, and I think I will post a new topic for it. Jon.

0.116 is huge for a 218 engine. Rochester used 0.112 on a Pontiac 400. I would have to pull a print to check the diameter of the 25-102s, but Carter used 0.086 for the Chevrolet 216. I sell enough of those to remember. Jon.

Carter developed the spring-loaded fuel valve in the 1930's for use with off-road vehicles, and marine applications. It was not original to your carburetor. If the plunger is Monel steel, and you don't off-road, the neopreme-tipped valve with the correct orifice seat would be way to go. Jon.

Piedmont used a Carter type L-0 (the 0 is a zero, not a oh) from 1917 through the end of production of the four cylinder, with one exception. For part of 1919, they used a Carter type F-0. I have found no explanation of why, or why they switched back to the L-0. Jon.