yes were can we get one
If you look closely, you'll see the one in my post is 3 Autolite carbs, not Holleys. Pony Carburetors makes that setup, using modified Autolites, which are superior to Holleys, in several ways. Annular discharge, for better atomization (improves power and mileage) and no gaskets holding the float bowls together, which eliminates leaking and cross-channel problems. Also no power valve blowouts, which renders Holleys next to useless when it happens.
Mine are Holleys, three 250 cfm. No leaks, no powervalve blowouts. No other problems either. Ain't been touched for at least 4 years. Mileage? how's 16 mpg @70 mph with 3.73 rear, 28" tires, 3500 lb in an 89 Ranger with no overdrive. I've had Holleys for 30 years without a P/V blow out.
I had the 2881/2882 Holleys on my daily driver for 15 years. I bow to your luck and expertise that you have zero problems for 4 years- I never got more than a couple of months or so without having to adjust the idle jets or something.
If I were shelling out $1500 for an intake setup, I'd choose the Autolites, no doubt about it.
If you did have problems, it was either due to old worn out carbs, or you were trying to run it with a points ignition. I tried that with an original, 30 year old 3x2 setup back in the 80's. The carbs suffered from vacuum and fuel leaks and the points ignition did nothing for it either. My setup was a year old when I bought it and bolted it on. And I've never run it with points. And the current Holley bowl and metering block gaskets are far and away superior to the old corkers. They virtually never leak.
Doubly strange. I have had no trouble with the dual points, which is why I never got the Pertronix, etc.
Even with the gasket problem solved, I still like the top plate design and annular discharge mains of the 2100. It is a superior design, compared to the Holley. There are also various sizes usable with the 2100. I talked to a tech rep at Holley one time, they rate the 2881/2882 combination at 785 cfm, which is probably enough to wind up to 9000 rpm in my 289, which is basically wishful thinking. I have a dual-quad setup with AFB's thats never been used. I have to think 1000 cfm would be just showing off, and would do little good for performance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?