# Edelbrock 650 -vs- Holley 650 carburetors??



## NYH1

Some of you might recall my dislike for Holley's customer service. And that I even said I won't buy their products anymore. With that being said, I built a mild 385 stroker motor. I want the best compromise between drivability, tunability, economy and performance I can get out of a carburetor. I'm building a daily driver that will be driven a lot. It's not going to be a garage queen.

I'm using Summit Vortec heads, Edelbrock Vortec non-Air Gap RPM intake, my compression ratio's are SCR 9.1 and DCR 7.93, I'm using a Lunati Voodoo 262/268 Hydraulic Flat Tappet Cam, 219/227 dur. @.050", .468/.489 lift, 112LSA 1400-5800 RPM range in a 350 PT# 60102, 1 5/8" full length headers and a 2 1/2" Flowmaster dual exhaust system. Going to use a 2000 RPM converter and 3.42 gears.

Which of these two 650 CFM carburetors do you think will work the best, THIS ONE or THIS ONE. I have a nice drop base air cleaner and a few other accessories for Holley carburetors.


----------



## esshup

The Eldbrock. You know what they say about chrome! 

Personally I perfer the amount of adjustability that is available in the Holley's, and the ease in which they can be adjusted compared to the Quadrajet type carbs. Lots of aftermarket goodies as well, sort of like a 10/22 vs. a bolt action .22.


----------



## mike385

Go with the holley. Parts are everywhere, sort like a small block chevy. Probably buy a power valve at the darn liquor store. Trick parts galor also. Look at demons too, same stuff as holley just better large parts right from the get go. Most of the large parts if not all are billet aluminum not zinc castings.


----------



## treemandan

As far as I can recall I don't think any of them dam things are any good. Sure, you get em hooked up for a little bit but something always goes awry after a spell. You want to put either on a daily driver? GOOD FREAKING LUCK!


----------



## ShoerFast

Your not going to have a real strong bottom in that engine, you forfeited a little for the mid-range tq, your dumping a little vacuum at and just off idle . 

With that, the carb choice is going to need to have it's best in the mid-range where your power will be the best. 

Rochester Q-Jets are one of the finest in that area, just as tunable as anything out there, with as much reliability. 

The beauty of the Q-Jet and the proportions of the overly regulated primary and the power the secondaries can produce would match the way that engine could be tough to breath real well. It would excel with throttle control. (that engine will breath real well 'on-cam' right in the Q-jets prime) 

If your running an HEI you may also want to pick up a Crane Cams Dist vac-advance for it. You could dial in a little longer/wider total vac control, and that advance would dump when you have your foot in it,, if hooked up to manifold vacuum.


----------



## NYH1

ShoerFast said:


> Your not going to have a real strong bottom in that engine, you forfeited a little for the mid-range tq, your dumping a little vacuum at and just off idle .
> 
> With that, the carb choice is going to need to have it's best in the mid-range where your power will be the best.
> 
> Rochester Q-Jets are one of the finest in that area, just as tunable as anything out there, with as much reliability.
> 
> The beauty of the Q-Jet and the proportions of the overly regulated primary and the power the secondaries can produce would match the way that engine could be tough to breath real well. It would excel with throttle control. (that engine will breath real well 'on-cam' right in the Q-jets prime)
> 
> If your running an HEI you may also want to pick up a Crane Cams Dist vac-advance for it. You could dial in a little longer/wider total vac control, and that advance would dump when you have your foot in it,, if hooked up to manifold vacuum.


What to you mean by "not going to have a real strong bottom in that engine"? And a Q-Jet is out of the question so there is no sense even talking about them in this post.


----------



## ShoerFast

NYH1 said:


> What to you mean by "not going to have a real strong bottom in that engine"? And a Q-Jet is out of the question so there is no sense even talking about them in this post.





ShoerFast said:


> Your not going to have a real strong bottom in that engine, you forfeited a little for the mid-range tq, *your dumping a little vacuum at and just off idle . *



I'm out.


----------



## NYH1

ShoerFast, are saying my engine is not going to have good low end torque?? 

If that's what you're saying you quite obviously know nothing about Small Block Chevy Stroker Motors. A 385 cubic inch engine (4.040" bore x 3.750" stroke) using 170cc intake runner Vortec heads (known to make great low end torque) with a dual plain intake using the mild cam I'm using is going to make a lot of low end torque. My operating range is going to be just off idle to around 5600 RPM or so. It should make a ton of low end and mid range torque. 

But then again maybe Lunati, Edelbrock and such don't know what they're talking about!


----------



## chowdozer

NYH1 said:


> ShoerFast, are saying my engine is not going to have good low end torque??
> 
> If that's what you're saying you quite obviously no nothing about Small Block Chevy Stroker Motors. A 385 cubic inch engine (4.040" bore x 3.750" stroke) using 170cc intake runner Vortec heads (known to make great low end torque) with a dual plain intake using the mild cam I'm using is going to make a lot of low end torque. My operating range is going to be just off idle to around 5600 RPM or so. It should make a ton of low end and mid range torque.
> 
> But then again maybe Lunati, Edelbrock and such don't know what they're talking about!



The 112 lobe separation isn't going to do you any favors on the street. I probably would have gone with 108-109. Most people that bad mouth QJets don't understand them. I would take a QJet over any carb on the market. Oh, wait, I had 75-80 of them a few years ago. Nevermind. 

If you have the 170cc Vortec just remember, the intake flow starts dropping off after 450 thou. The flow at 500 thou is about 5% less than at 450.


----------



## NYH1

chowdozer said:


> The 112 lobe separation isn't going to do you any favors on the street. I probably would have gone with 108-109. Most people that bad mouth QJets don't understand them. I would take a QJet over any carb on the market. Oh, wait, I had 75-80 of them a few years ago. Nevermind.
> 
> If you have the 170cc Vortec just remember, the intake flow starts dropping off after 450 thou. The flow at 500 thou is about 5% less than at 450.


chowdozer, that's the cam Lunati recommended I go with. They said the 112° LSA will give it a better idle, broader power curve and better throttle responds and let me use 100/125 shot of nitrous if I wanted to. Crane and Crower both recommended cams with 112° LSA too. Comp Cams was the only one that recommended a cam with a 110° LSA. They recommended one of their Xtreme Energy series cam. I was seriously considering it until I started reading that they're noisier then normal and CC has higher then usual warranty claims with them.

Here are the other cams that were recommended to me. 
Crane Cam-
268/280 adv. dur.
218/230 dur. @ .050"
.459"/.486" valve lift
112° LSA
1800-5800 RPM range.

Crower Cam-
278/284 adv. dur.
218/226 dur. @ .050"
462"/470" valve lift
112° LSA
2000-5700 RPM range

Comp Cams-
262/268 adv. dur.
218/226 dur. @ .050"
.462"/.469 valve lift
110° LSA
1300-5600 RPM range

Here are the flow numbers I got on the better set of factory Vortec heads. There is another 5.7L Vortec head that doesn't flow quite as well as these-
.050" 40-25
.100" 70-49
.200" 139-105
.300" 190-137
.400" 227-151
.500" 239-160 

I'm not using the factory Vortec heads, I went with Summit Vortec heads (made by Dart). The Summit heads ended up being cheaper because I would have had the valve guides machined down on stock Vortec heads. The Summit heads had all that done plus the valve were cut back in the bowl area, the decks are thicker in the areas that the factory Vortec heads are crack prone. And they clean up real nice.


----------



## Den69RS96

Since you may plan on hittin the sauce in the future, i would go with a holley. I think that would be the better carb for your application. I know you dislike holley and if you don't mind spending a little extra coin, check out quickfuel carbs. The company was actually started by ex-holley employees and just about any holley part will fit on them so you can get a holley style carb without the bad service. I emailed them for a carb and they will custom tune it for you app for no extra charge if you order it directly from them. Only downside I saw is there kinda price starting around $500, but their street carb is similiar to the new holley HP series carb or the recently released ultra double pumper/street avenger carb.

I have a edelbrock 600cfm on my 350 and its a ok carb. My car runs fine, don't have any driveability issues. Its a decent carb for the street. The gaskets are all above the fuel line so you won't have any leaks and their are extremely simple to rebuild and tune. After owning one for a while, I just feel like they are more stock replacement carbs than performance carbs which is why I recommend the holley.


----------



## NYH1

Den69RS96, thanks for the reply. I bought a SA Design book on Edelbrock/Carter carburetors a while ago. The more I read through it again the more I understand how they work and how to tune them. The applications in the book go's from mild to wild. 

I don't have plans right now of putting nitrous on it. I just wanted to be able to put a 100/150 horse hitter on it if I wanted to down the road.

Thanks, NYH1!


----------



## 48"BAR PINCHER

I've ran/raced all the above at one time or another. They will all work fine. But if you want something that is as close to fuel injection as you can get then you need a Predator carb. Much simpler and much more responsive than the rest.


----------



## indiansprings

I gave up on Holley's a long time ago, we put the Eldebrocks on everything we build, it's kind of like the Stihl and Husky question, both are good, different strokes for different folks. Since I'm now dealing with teenage boys, the ease of tuning the Eldebrocks seem to fit the bill. They are so easy to work on my 16 year old just completed his first complete rebuild. Works like a champ, he had it give to him, he soda blasted it as it had sit outside, spent 40.00 on a rebuild kit and he's got it on his Chevy 355, he has another one on his little 302 chevy, response and idle have been excellent.


----------



## NYH1

Thanks guys.


----------



## Cerran

I think personally from experience the Edelbrock (carters) are easier to tune but a lot of people swear by the Holley. Why I didn't like about the Holley myself was the power valve having a tendency to blow out if you had a backfire. I know they supposedly have fixed this on newer versions.


----------



## NYH1

Cerran said:


> I think personally from experience the Edelbrock (carters) are easier to tune but a lot of people swear by the Holley. Why I didn't like about the Holley myself was the power valve having a tendency to blow out if you had a backfire. I know they supposedly have fixed this on newer versions.


I bought an Edelbrock 650 AVS. I put the engine and transmission in it yesterday by myself...what a pain in the ass that was. Hope to get it running tomorrow.


----------



## kemo

I couldn't ever recommend another Edelbrock carb. I strongly recommend a Holley over any edelbrock. However, when it comes to intake manifolds... I'm sold on edelbrock!


----------



## Fred482

Good choice, it'll work well for you. The old techs I worked with in the '60's & '70's used to say the Holley was a great "wide-open throttle" carb and the Edelbrock (then Carter AFB, later AVS) was a better idle and low speed carb.

Don't know how Chrysler felt about that, they put the Holley on the Imperial's and big New Yorker's, while the performance products usually came equipped with Carter's. The thermo-quad might have been a bit of a mistake as it caused a lot of warranty work in it's early version.

All said, they all work when properly tuned and maintained.


----------



## corsair4360

*Holley vs Carter/Edlebrock*

Racers like the Holley, they are well understood, and good for wide open power. Lots of spare parts books everywhere, all of the pundits exclaim how good they are, etc.

Edlebrock / Carter's have a very distinct difference and for driving around, etc you can tune them to have good throttle response, good wide open power, and reasonably good cruising fuel economy for a carburetor. Like the Holley they have jets. Unlike the Holley the jets are opened by metering rods which can be stepped and you can tune their rate of opening (lifting the rod) by a spring that changes the vacuum necessary to move the rod. The Edlebrock manuals come with a really good guide on what rods to change to if the vehicle needs more fuel or less. I have one (should be obvious) and was told it was no good, got it running great for my 1968 Barracuda with a non stock 340 in it in three steps using the manual (available on line). Mine is a 750 cfm which some would say is larger than my engine needs, but it works great, no stumbles, no hesitation. Send me a PM if you have questions.


----------



## Fred482

Sorry guys, I wish I'd have paid a bit more attention to this post. I just sold a Carter "Strip Kit" on evil-bay. It was complete with all the different jets, metering rods and two new (unopened) sets of needle/seats. It would have been a nice addition for one of us here. 

I've listed and sold a bunch of stuff that has been collecting dust in the shop. I'll try and keep my eyes & ears open here, if something comes up that I may have a solution for, I'll send a PM before listing it.


----------



## NYH1

Been a while since I've been on the site. I had another TH350 built and went with a 11" Coan 2600 stall converter. This set up is great for what I'm going to use the car for. The little 385 stroker, 2600 stall converter, 3.42 posi with 27" tall tire is an absolute torque monster. It pulls off idle to 56/5800 RPM. Just what I was looking for!


----------

