Ford alum 2 x 4 Barrel Manifold (rare?)

Bonestock2k · Jun 22, 2004

Hi all, I'm new here with this name anyway - participated couple of years ago when I was rebuilding my engine for 66. I only recognize D. Hearne on the threads I've read so far. My question is: I have a alum 2 x 4 barrel manifold for small block Ford . It has 2 Holley carbs with Fomoco tags. Front carb: Series = C60, Type = AAA, Date = 6CD. Back carb: Same except Type = ABA. The manifold has FOMOCO cast in the front under the front carb. Front Carb has manual choke, both carbs have vacuum secs and the large accelator pumps. I can provide more info but curious if anyone knows much about this set-up. I believe but not sure that the carbs are 600CFM. Was this dealer option or strictly for racing - I can't imagine it being installed on any thing for street use. Any info is appreciated.

rbohm · Jun 23, 2004

actually the rear carb should ahve the choke on it as that is the carb you run on in normal driving. that said, if you use either the 390 or 450 cfm holley carbs it can be very streetable. in fact i would like to find an old dual quad intake to put on my 66 coupe. the edelbrock dual quad intake only accepts the edelbrock carbs, not a bad thing but the smallest edelbrock 4bbl carb is 500 cfm. i would like two 390's on mine.

D.Hearne · Jun 23, 2004

While the original Ford 2x4 for the small block is rare, they ARE available new thru Mustangs Unlimited. I believe they run $350. The originals were available over the counter from the dealers back in the late 60'-early 70's. If the small block linkage was anything like the 427 linkage, you run off both carbs full time, the secondaries only open on demand.

Ronstang · Jun 23, 2004

I'm with D. Hearne here....the 2x4 setup is not progressive from all the examples I have seen. Both carbs work all the time. I have an original Buddy Bar 2x4 Cobra intake with the dual Carter 500s and it is not progressive either.

Bonestock2k · Jun 23, 2004

The front carb is the only one provisioned/mfr'd to accept choke linkage. The back carb would require modification (drilling a hole in the air horn) to accept choke linkage. The linkage is set-up to be progressive but the secondaries have 6/32 screws and nuts installed so as to defeat the vac secs thereby making them mech secs. The linkage is adjustable and could easily be made to have both carb primaries open at the same time. Removal of the 6/32 screws would return them to vacuum operation. Info on the carbs where Holley usually puts their info is: (Front carb) C60A-9510-A, LIST 3360, 634. (Back carb) C60A-9510-B, LIST 3361, 634.

Bonestock2k · Jun 23, 2004

Thanks to all that replied with info - it's all very helpful. D. Hearne - great tip on Mustangs Unlimited. I took a look at their 2 x 4 manifold and it looks a lot like mine, slightly different vacuum connection between the secondaries was all I could see. Also appears that I probably don't have Holley 600's, more likely 390 or 450's. As you can see I'm trying to establish a baseline value for my unit as it is indeed an original from the 60's.

BobV · Jun 23, 2004

Bonestock2k said:
The front carb is the only one provisioned/mfr'd to accept choke linkage. The back carb would require modification (drilling a hole in the air horn) to accept choke linkage. The linkage is set-up to be progressive but the secondaries have 6/32 screws and nuts installed so as to defeat the vac secs thereby making them mech secs. The linkage is adjustable and could easily be made to have both carb primaries open at the same time. Removal of the 6/32 screws would return them to vacuum operation. Info on the carbs where Holley usually puts their info is: (Front carb) C60A-9510-A, LIST 3360, 634. (Back carb) C60A-9510-B, LIST 3361, 634.

Those are 460cfm each. They are the 1966 Holley version over-the-counter 289 2-4 carbs. The "634" is the date code - 1966, March, 4th week. Should also have 4672/2007-16 metering blocks.

D.Hearne · Jun 23, 2004

Bonestock2k said:
Thanks to all that replied with info - it's all very helpful. D. Hearne - great tip on Mustangs Unlimited. I took a look at their 2 x 4 manifold and it looks a lot like mine, slightly different vacuum connection between the secondaries was all I could see. Also appears that I probably don't have Holley 600's, more likely 390 or 450's. As you can see I'm trying to establish a baseline value for my unit as it is indeed an original from the 60's.

Baseline value is hard to tell. Especially with the current Mustangs Unlimited (and possibly others too) intake and carb setups out there. Take me for instance, I recently posted a couple ads looking for a 3x2 Holley setup for a small block. I received one response from a guy who claimed he had an original setup and would "let it go" for "only" $2100. We'll I replied that I wasn't interested in a rare part with the associated "rare" price, since I'm gonna put it on top of a built 331 stroker motor in my 89 Ranger and I could buy a NEW setup, that is virtually identical to his original setup for $1350 Bottom line is I bought a year old Mustangs Unlimited setup for $1100 ( shipped) To get top dollar ( more than the Stangs Unlimited setup sells for) for an original setup 2x4 setup for a small block, you're gonna have to be patient and find the right buyer.

Bonestock2k · Jun 23, 2004

Bob V. Thats one beautiful mustang - I'm filled with envy. The metering blocks are stamped with 4672 as you said - You said they were 460 CFM - was that a typo - did you mean 450? D. Hearne, I totally agree with you on the value thing and finding the right buyer. Most people (myself included) would rather buy new unit for $1200.00 from Mustangs Unlimited than pay the same or more money for 38 year old "rare piece". I too ran into a guy selling a "rare 2 x 4 original" at a swap meet - he had a price of $3500.00 on it - it was obvious that his needed complete restoration - I told him he was crazy.

BobV · Jun 24, 2004

Thanks!

I believe 460cfm to be correct. I found it in two different printed resources I have (one of them from the 60's).

Here's a nice picture I found online:

1320stang · Jun 24, 2004

Bonestock2k said:
Hi all, I'm new here with this name anyway - participated couple of years ago when I was rebuilding my engine for 66. I only recognize D. Hearne on the threads I've read so far.

Oh, I'm hurt.

What was your old name on here? Should still be in the system as they never delete any of them. There are people that joined in the first few days that never posted anything.

Bonestock2k · Jun 24, 2004

I believe 460cfm to be correct. I found it in two different printed resources I have (one of them from the 60's).

Thanks BobV for the info on the carbs and the ad from the 60's - that was great!!!

Bonestock2k · Jun 24, 2004

Oh, I'm hurt.

What was your old name on here? Should still be in the system as they never delete any of them. There are people that joined in the first few days that never posted anything.

I believe it was either 66bonestock or bonestock66. When I tried to post the other day I was told that name was already taken/used and I couldn't use it. So I came up with new name - if its not too hard or much trouble I certainly would go back to old name. I did a few posts when I first joined - really had a lot of fun - learned a lot. Getting old - almost a senior citizen so that's why I forgot your name. Sure didn't mean to slight you.

1320stang · Jun 25, 2004

I was just kidding. If you couldn't use your old login, its probably because you entered the wrong password. Believe me, they don't delete ANY names from the system. You should be able to appeal to 2bav8 to get that straightend out, they just need to know stuff like what was your email addy back then or something that only you would know.

Larry

Ford alum 2 x 4 Barrel Manifold (rare?)

Bonestock2k

Member

rbohm

D.Hearne

New Member

Ronstang

New Member

Bonestock2k

Member

Bonestock2k

Member

BobV

D.Hearne

New Member

Bonestock2k

Member

BobV

1320stang

Bonestock2k

Member

Bonestock2k

Member

1320stang

Similar threads

Ford alum 2 x 4 Barrel Manifold (rare?)

Member

New Member

New Member

Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency