Dual Carb vs. Triple Carb?

[Matt Wilson]

For those of you who have run dual and/or triple carbs, what are your experiences with those setups?

It seems that the triple carb setup would allow the engine to produce more power, but is that your experience?  It also seems that fuel economy might go down, although maybe only if you take advantage of that extra power by putting your foot into the throttle.

All things being equal, more complex systems are inherently more failure-prone than less complex systems, so then it seems that running three carbs vs. two would increase the chances of having a carburetor problem, and would also cause more difficulty in troubleshooting when you do have a problem. 

I have never run a dual-carb setup, so getting the two carbs to play nicely together is unfamiliar territory to me, and I can only imagine that a triple carb setup might be far and away more complicated to get working correctly than a two-carb setup.

Also, what does it take to get multi-carb setups to run properly?  I did a search on this site and saw mention of a synchronizing device, but what else is required?

Finally, once you do get the dual-carb or triple-carb setup working well, does it tend to stay that way, or does it need tinkering/adjustment every so-often to keep it working right?

Thanks!

Matt

[55 Fargo]

14 minutes ago, Matt Wilson said:

For those of you who have run dual and/or triple carbs, what are your experiences with those setups?

It seems that the triple carb setup would allow the engine to produce more power, but is that your experience?  It also seems that fuel economy might go down, although maybe only if you take advantage of that extra power by putting your foot into the throttle.

All things being equal, more complex systems are inherently more failure-prone than less complex systems, so then it seems that running three carbs vs. two would increase the chances of having a carburetor problem, and would also cause more difficulty in troubleshooting when you do have a problem. 

I have never run a dual-carb setup, so getting the two carbs to play nicely together is unfamiliar territory to me, and I can only imagine that a triple carb setup might be far and away more complicated to get working correctly than a two-carb setup.

Also, what does it take to get multi-carb setups to run properly?  I did a search on this site and saw mention of a synchronizing device, but what else is required?

Finally, once you do get the dual-carb or triple-carb setup working well, does it tend to stay that way, or does it need tinkering/adjustment every so-often to keep it working right?

Thanks!

Matt

Hi Matt, listen why don't you do yourself a big favor and read Tim Kingsburys blogs, many of your questions will be answered there.

Or better yet, PM Tim or call him or George Asche nd they can share with you in great detail all of what info you are seeking, with professionalism and total experience.

Most on this forum will not be able to answer your questions, as they have no experience with dual carbs let alone tri carb set-ups.

Tri carbs dual carbs, intake manifold style type and engineering will vary in producing power and torque. This just the induction part of the equation.

Seriously you will not find as much accurate and experienced info without contacting the AoK boys....good luck.

Not to be picky or critical, some will start expounding all their knowledge, but really don not know first hand, skip the rhetoric and go right to the experts for a real answer.....good luck

[55 Fargo]

Another point of interest or possible debate, is this.

Strombergs, installed on dual intakes make more power than tri-carb Carter B&Bs, now there is a point of debate.....

Strombergs are being touted as superior to B&Bs  for performance and reliability, not sure they are or aren't can somebody bring this to light for us all...

[Matt Wilson]

Thanks, Rockwood.   I have talked with George just a little bit on this subject, but not at great length.  I'll talk to him some more, and to Tim.  I just figured I'd try to gather some additional opinions from a wider audience, although as you say, there are always some folks who offer opinions and advice when they don't really know about a situation.  But we'll see what people have to say.

 

Thanks,

Matt

[55 Fargo]

1 minute ago, Matt Wilson said:

Thanks, Rockwood.   I have talked with George just a little bit on this subject, but not at great length.  I'll talk to him some more, and to Tim.  I just figured I'd try to gather some additional opinions from a wider audience, although as you say, there are always some folks who offer opinions and advice when they don't really know about a situation.  But we'll see what people have to say.

 

Thanks,

Matt

Okay great, will be talking to George soon about another subject, will mention you and to expect a call possibly on your questions....

[scruff]

Good morning Matt 

   For what it'sworth I have a 48 ply with 2 carbs. It runs well, no stumble, idles well and 16/20 mpg. Eng--216" .090 over, Edmunds head and intake 2 b&b carbs Fenton exhaust, Isky cam   I think it would take a lot of motor to handle 3 carbs Good luck

[classiccarjack]

On 1/17/2017 at 4:39 AM, scruff said:

Good morning Matt 

   For what it'sworth I have a 48 ply with 2 carbs. It runs well, no stumble, idles well and 16/20 mpg. Eng--216" .090 over, Edmunds head and intake 2 b&b carbs Fenton exhaust, Isky cam   I think it would take a lot of motor to handle 3 carbs Good luck

The three carb set ups are made for the big six.  I am going to run triples on my 265 and doubles on my 230.  Can't wait to get these projects started.  I am still collecting parts.

[55 Fargo]

I do not see why a hopped up 230 woild not respond to 3 carb intakes, again an engine design with 3 siamese intake ports.

Thus 3 balanced intake runners feeding the 3 ports for a better balanced atomized fuel mixture.

The later 230s some were nearing a 140 hp stock, so not slouches.

As Per Tim Kingsbury's Blog,

 

 For Decades I have listened to people talk about Flathead Mopar 6 Cylinder Engines in terms of intakes, what is the best carb configuration for their particular situation.   

Discussions on putting two carbs and those who claim to be sure that is too much carburation or that it will use to much fuel. Then every once in a while the discussion of 3 carbs comes up, and that almost always sparks the debate on how it would take a race motor to need it, or how the engine will bog, or run poorly.   In the last 20 years with a good friend of the AoK boys coming across a huge stash of 2 barrel carter weber carbs which were designed for slant six engines, the discussion on utilizing a 2 barrel instead of two singles comes up.

I just smile, but then I know that when the stash of 2 barrel carter webers were found, its finder handed  once opened up a flathead mopar.  Its amazing how a market can be created and how quickly – “this is the way to go” spreads like rapid fire, without as much as any background check into something.

But 1^st, let me go back to the 1^st time I heard the discussion on multiple carbs vs a single multi-barrel carb, or  but another way comparing that “old technology carter ball and ball vs a modern 4 barrel carb”..

It was about 45 Years ago that  was the 1st time I heard someone in a conversation with my Grandfather and my Dad, suggesting they knew a lot about Flathead Mopars and were  sporting a 4 barrel carb on a homemade intake.

This gentleman had played with flathead ford v8s and had came across a Dodge 2 door sedan from the mid-50s.  He was suggesting he had built the ultimate flathead Chrysler Engine and were one of those guys that whatever they had at the moment was just the best.

Well after my Dad explain he had far from the ultimate flathead Chrysler, but his wife’s daily driver was good enough to kick his ass, Dad pulled out my Mom's pickup.  It was sporting a bored out 265, with a cam, a factory dual intake and exhaust with a pair of carter ball and balls, an a833 4 speed tranny.  After a little bit of fun that really wasn't much of a contest, licking his wounds sort of speak, Mr "Ultimate Flathead Chrysler" started down the road of excuses when Grandfather shook his head and cut him off at the pass.

 Grandfather like my Dad were automotive Engineers, and Grandfather literally knew more about Chrysler Flatheads than any person alive. Given he saw the very 1^st flathead roll of the line in Windsor in 1935 and saw the last block cast in 1959 he had some pretty good credentials to give a lecture.

What is explained in a few minutes was not only how the flathead engine worked, but why the engine this gentleman had came with only1 carb.

Most think that 1 carb was put on the engine and that it has sufficient carburation for the engine, and if it needed more ChryslerEngineers would have put more on.

On a basic level that is true, but what engineering was building was an engine to a specific HP, torque  and fuel consumption target and not to get the most out of the engine, make it as efficient as possible or even have it run to anything close to 100% optimum performance. 

By Optimum  performance I am not talking maximum  hp or maximum rpm.

Grandfather then explained that in fact Chrysler faced with the need to meet a 5 ton truck specification for dump/plow trucks asked for by Canadian municipalities during the winter of 1950,  had  filtered to engineering in late 1950. They  developed the 265 ci motor which was 3 7/16" bore and 4 3/4" stroke and have dual carbs and dual exhaust on them which is what was in Mom’s pickup.

 Few realize that that engine actually had more hp than any other engine on the market.  I will attach the picture of the poster that was on Grandfathers office at the time.  I gave it to George years ago.   In any case you can see the hot v8 mopar had in 1952 was 133 hp and the flathead 6 had more hp.

 

 That engine and the fact it had a factory intake, immediately became a stock car favorite in the 1952 season, when Mopar dominated stock car racing everywhere it landed.

 In any case Chrysler didn't just put on a second carb on it because they needed more carburation.  By then Chrysler already had Carter building Ball and Ball carbs from 85cfm -  425 cfm each and we now know they had a 625 cfm carter ball and ball single barrel carb if they needed it.

The reason for two was the basic issue, some would call flaw, but Grandfather  would call basic restriction to taking the engine to the next level.  I say that folding back to the earlier point that Chrysler was building engine to a spec of "x" hp, "y" torque and "z" fuel consumption.

The flathead 6 build by Chrysler has 3 Siamese intake ports,  each of which feed two cylinders.  Setting aside the exhaust for a second, and keeping in mind that an engine is really just a giant vacuum pump, putting 1 carb in the middle of the block, basically over the middle intake port feeding cylinders 3 and4, means that if all cylinders are the same in compression ratio and ability to create vacuum and suck in a fuel mixture coming from the carb, that cylinder 3 and 4 are going to get more fuel than the intake ports feeding cylinders 1 and 2   or 5 and 6.   Yes Chrysler made intake modifications to help that, but they again were not trying to make the perfect engine, just have it meet specs required. 

Now if we add the exhaust component which depending on what year engine and what vehicle,  has the single exhaust exiting at one of a few  different locations. For this discussion lets  say it exits at the back as does the post ww2 cars.      What you find is as the cylinders push out exhaust there is almost no restriction or back pressure at cylinders 5 and 6,  where there is a great deal of back pressure atcylinders 1 and 2.   

So here we have the most back pressure making it tough to push away the exhaust and actually the front intake port receiving the least amount of fuel. 

While the engine meets specs with no problem, its clear that if you can balance the exhaust, by having 3 exhaust cylinders exit through 1 exhaust pipe and the other three the same, you can better  balance back pressure.  We sort of glossed over the face that while there are only 3 intake ports, each cylinder does have its own exhaust port.   Something that changed with the introduction of the slant 6, which had  6 equal intake runners each feeding a cylinder.

 

Back to the flathead,  if we can better distribute fuel to balance the opportunity for each of the 3 Siamese ports to get fuel, the better theengine will run.   So if you were to take a big block 25 1/2" engine, and anyone of them, not just the 265 and put the factory dual carb and dual exhaustsetup on it and then put on the appropriate carter ball and ball carb on it, it will gain hp, torque and improved fuel mileage.  The reason is it runs more efficient. 

 

 If you take it one step further  putting 1 carb on top of each intake port,  you can provide the optimum amount of fuel efficiency for theengine.

Back to our 4 barrel friend,  putting on a large carb  just  provides a further opportunity to over fuel the center siamese intake port.  When he hammered the throttle it was actually not able to burn all of the fuel in the middle two cylinders and was “bogging” until it could gain enough RPM to use some of the fuel.   

When he was running against Mom’s pickup, it had more balanced back pressure, and a better distribution of fuel. 

Years later when we created the AoK triple intake, we placed the 1^st on  an almost rock stock 201 ci motor.  It had been rebuilt stock, although required to be bored out 10 thou to clean up cylinders.  With 3 of the smallest CFM carter ball and ball carbs on board, and headers made from a stock exhaust systems, the car ran smoother, had better acceleration and  got 6 miles per gallon better highway mileage over the single carb and single exhaust.    In the end, it is just a myth that you need some bored out and cammed up engine for 2 carbs and a full race motor for 3 carbs.

The reason why Chrysler didn't run 3 carbs was simple. 1) The cost of 3 carbs was no inconsequential and 2) They could meet the HP, Torque and Fuel useage targets with 1 carb.  The exception was when there was a time window where the dual carb, dual exhaust 265 ci motor was released, but with overhead valve v8 and Hemi's coming shortly after the multiple carb flathead life-cycle was short lived.

There is a bit more it than that. I have glossed over a bunch of the engineering parts of why you don't just put a carb directly to each intake port, but I am sure you get the drift.

Unlike a v8 where you might try and make carbs progressive because your feeding a intake plenum feeding a v8, either 2 or 3 carbs on the flathead 6 you want them to produce the exact same fuel. Its not progressive in terms of additional barrels or carbs, its progressive by pushing on the gas peddle.

 The key is making sure both or all three carbs are identical and then you want to have linkage that operates all of them the same. 

Its a common misconception that they must be hard to keep synced. We have engines with tens of thousands of miles on them with multiple carbs and are never adjusted.  George Asche's 1929 Desoto that he has owned since 1950 likely has an unbelievable amount of miles on it and likely carbs only touched when George has done the engine over.  I vehicles with 100,000 + miles on them and the linkage for the dual carbs have never touched. That has a lot to do with just how good Carter Ball and Ball carbs are.. 

We also get asked  quite often about modifying the block to provide 6 intake ports, or using webers or other carbs, or running fuel injection.   Dad and Grandfather with too much time on their hands as my mother would say,  did modify a couple of engines to provide 6 intake ports. There were several  intakes made including one with an 18" runner set on it, one with 6 side draft webers and one with modified hilborn fuel injection.

At the end of the day, with various levels of success, nothing seems to outperform an Edmunds triple carb intake with riser blocks and 3 matched 1952-56 Truck carbs with some jetting changes.   Of course, since then we have developed a couple of new cam profiles and of course or AoK  triple which utilizes better and modern casting technology, as well as better flow bench testing and computer modelling.   Have we thought about digging out the 6 intake port block that is still in Dad's shop, well yah we have, but that is another project and a blog entry for another time.

Edited March 28, 2017 by Rockwood