• Welcome to For E Bodies Only !

    We are a community of Plymouth Cuda and Dodge Challenger owners. Join now! Its Free!

440 carb size?

Chryco Psycho

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2008
Messages
4,687
Reaction score
2,322
Location
Panama
I still totally disagree , we put a 1050 proform on a 512 stroker , it was making just under 18 MPG with fantastic drivability & while the heads could be the ultimate restiction , putting a 650 carb on a 440 may offer drivability but it will definatly trim off power in the mid & top of the powerband by being restrictive not matter what heads are on the engine . Going back to my original point did the 340 + 6 have poor drivabilty & did it make better power with a 950 cfm [rated as a 4 bbl] 6 pack over the AVS four bbl ?, why even consider putting the 6 pack pn if it hurts drivability & will not increase power due to restrictive flow through stock heads ??
 

Chryco Psycho

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2008
Messages
4,687
Reaction score
2,322
Location
Panama
If mpg is a consideration, go with the thermoquad, because of those small primaries your car will get much better mileage . And yet they have the rather large secondaries for great WOT. Go to the summit web site and type in thermoquad. They have quit a few, maybe one for your year, and you don't have to scour the swap meets hoping to find a good one. I just took a nice 750 holley off my Challenger that worked just fine except for the mileage, and put the stock carb back on and love it.
so going from a 750 Holley to an 850 TQ helps !! that that would re-inforce it also , obviously the smaller carb was not better hmm
Personally if it was not so expensive I would just install a 1200 CFM EFI system with far better tunability !!
IMO it reallly doesn't matter to me what size carb you use , I just know what I do with the engines I am involved with .
 

TinCuda

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
Yeah & if you believe that I have some swamp / ummm nice real estate for you !!!
My 440 ran far better with a 1050 dominator over an 850 DP & try to explain the approx 950 cfm 6 pack on a 340

I am not trying to start a fight. I was just quoting something that I read in a book once. I am a six-pack man and always will be. I was really trying to keep the guy from going with the 650 cfm carb.

This is mine... Built with a lot of advice from Chryco Psycho.

P.S. Don't look at my oil filter, it's going in the trash. I bought a couple of WIX filters for it.


.,

!a1.jpg
 
Last edited:

Cranky

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
170
Reaction score
4
Location
Pasagetdowndena TX
An 850 TQ will generally give better mpg over a Holley 750 square bore (DP or vacuum) because the primaries on the TQ are much smaller than the primaries on the 750 Holley.

The OP has only said the engine is stock and still hasn't said how the car will be used so imo, we're wasting time making recommendations. A 440 can benefit from an 850 if the plan is to have your foot stuck through the firewall the majority of the time but if you plan on driving it with an egg under the gas pedal, put a 600 on it...
 

Avalanche

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
589
Reaction score
81
Location
Massachusetts
I decided to go with a holley 770 with vacuum sec. It was the largest carb I could get with vac secondaries. Pro form was out of my range and this car is only a driver.
Thanks for everyones help, it is greatly appreciated.
 

Rob C

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
528
Reaction score
51
Location
Mid Florida
Cranky hit it on the head. The other carb choice was an Edelbrock, if ya like'em.
(They come in a few sizes, 750 afb, 800 AFB & my fav, an AVS style)

Chryo, the 6 pak is a 2 bbl. carb and rated differently as such. They work out to be approx. a 780 cfm in 4bbl. terms. Still large CFM wise for the engine it was on.


Interesting note, the early non hi-po 440's got a small 600 AFB without a secondary air valve. Later, the HI-po versions got a 750 AVS. The 6 pak's rated dlightly higher when converted to 4bbl. rates where only about 30 cfm more in flow terms, but, on top of a superior intake and wide open filter. (It's the little things in life.....)
 

Super-G

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
48
Reaction score
1
Location
Doylestown PA
Not to steal this post but I have a quick question. For a 4 speed street driven car that will only see 1500-2000 miles per year is it better to go 6 pack or 4bbl??

I ask because I have a 440 6 pack in my 73 Challenger. All 3 carbs need a rebuild and the car needs a good tune up. Over the winter the engine is going to be gone over, tuned up, and detailed. I've had quite a few people suggest to me that I might be better off removing the 6 pack set up and just going with a nice 4bbl. I love the idea of popping my hood at a cruise night and showing off my 6 pack but I really don't know much about multiple carb engines.
 

Chryco Psycho

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2008
Messages
4,687
Reaction score
2,322
Location
Panama
for drivability & power the 4 bbl is a better system , the 6 pack will get good fuel milage & looks better
 

Rob C

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
528
Reaction score
51
Location
Mid Florida
IMO, stick with the 6pak. Have the carbs rebuilt and realize that what your tuning is simple only made complicated by what you see, not what it is.

Center your focus on the center carb for idle, part throttle driving. Tune it up well. Then move on to the outboard carbs (Secondary side of a 4bbl.) and tune likewise for wide open throttle.

It takes a bunch of time to do this like any other carb or thing worth anything.
 

moper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
241
Reaction score
16
Location
Columbia, CT
I disagree with most of the advice given. IMO, there are several different types of carbs being lumped together to make a larger choice seem "right" to a novice. The stock 440 did come with an 850cfm carb. But, that was dry flow rated which means it realy flowed about 780cfm when fuel is run in it too, plus the primaries were sized similarly to the throttle bores of the 600cfm Holleys, and the secondaries were entirely metered by a spring loaded plate that when set properly did not allow the engine to behave as an overcarbed engine. That system of controlling the secondary air flow, while done in different ways, is consistant with all Thermoquads, AVS, AFBs, all the Edelbrocks, and all the factory 6bbl setups Mopar offered. Again I'd remind you of the difference between dry and wet flow rated carbs, which is fairly drastic when trying to decide... So... My own opinion... If the engine is 100% stock, the dry flow rated carbs - the stock Thermoquad would be my 1st choice but they can be troublesome if you aren't used to them or yours is very tired; #2 is the oldschool 3310 series Holley 750cfm; #3 the 750 cfm Edelbrock Thunder AVS. For wet flowed carbs - the Holley 670 Street Avenger Vacuum secondary. You definately don't need or want a mechanical secondary, nor do you have the cam or valve springs to make use of the rpms where a larger carb would benefit you at all. In fact, the square bore design of the Holleys mentioned have the capacity to hurt idle quality and response because they are larger diameter.
 

Chryco Psycho

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2008
Messages
4,687
Reaction score
2,322
Location
Panama
which would make sense compared to the "formula" for determining carb size that even though the formula calls for something in the area of 680 CFM on a 440 maybe they are over rating the carbs so if an 850 only flows 780 or less cfm it is less over carbed than it seems
 

Rob C

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
528
Reaction score
51
Location
Mid Florida
I know Holley wet flows the carbs. IDK about the Carter line.
The 6 pak, flows around the 780 mark when the conversion is made to 4bbl. spec. That is enuff CFM to get most builds rolling in the street real well.
 

VeteranCosmicRocker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2011
Messages
73
Reaction score
9
Location
The Other Side of Life
I disagree with most of the advice given. IMO, there are several different types of carbs being lumped together to make a larger choice seem "right" to a novice. The stock 440 did come with an 850cfm carb. But, that was dry flow rated which means it realy flowed about 780cfm when fuel is run in it too, plus the primaries were sized similarly to the throttle bores of the 600cfm Holleys, and the secondaries were entirely metered by a spring loaded plate that when set properly did not allow the engine to behave as an overcarbed engine. That system of controlling the secondary air flow, while done in different ways, is consistant with all Thermoquads, AVS, AFBs, all the Edelbrocks, and all the factory 6bbl setups Mopar offered. Again I'd remind you of the difference between dry and wet flow rated carbs, which is fairly drastic when trying to decide... So... My own opinion... If the engine is 100% stock, the dry flow rated carbs - the stock Thermoquad would be my 1st choice but they can be troublesome if you aren't used to them or yours is very tired; #2 is the oldschool 3310 series Holley 750cfm; #3 the 750 cfm Edelbrock Thunder AVS. For wet flowed carbs - the Holley 670 Street Avenger Vacuum secondary. You definately don't need or want a mechanical secondary, nor do you have the cam or valve springs to make use of the rpms where a larger carb would benefit you at all. In fact, the square bore design of the Holleys mentioned have the capacity to hurt idle quality and response because they are larger diameter.
I agree wholeheartedly with this opinion of carb choice. However, I must make mention that the AFB is not a air-valve secondary in the truest sense as the other carbs, similar to a Quadrajet. And the 6-pack carbs are not air-valve secondary carbs.
 
Back
Top