OK I usually run holly NH
Just wondering witch brass T carb is a good second choice
There was a post here but can't seem to find it
Stock or aftermarket? They swear by the Stromberg OF model. Never tried one myself.
1913 holly S 2 screw and 1914 holly G are both good runners.
Schebler OF is another good choice.
(Message edited by redmodelt on August 31, 2015)
Either any reports on Kingston model L L2
I have a brass body Kingston L-4 on my '14 and I am happy with it.
Within the past couple of years, I think, there was a piece in the Model T Times on tests of all the popular Model T carburetors. I didn't fully understand all the technical info, but as I recall the G and the NH both came out pretty well and the Kingstons didn't. My memory isn't the best, so don't take that as Gospel. Better to read it yourself.
Russ Potter tested all the stock Model T carbs on an engine dynamometer several years ago on the same Model T engine on the same day.
The overall winner among stock Model T carbs was the Kingston 5 ball.
Second place was the straight thru version of the Holley NH.
Near the bottom were the Holley G and the overall least power was the Kingston L.
I admire the writing skills of the fellow who wrote the article for the T Times but feel his test is strange and not representative of how a T carb performs on a T engine. Russ Potter used a stock Model T engine. The test engine used for the article in the T times was a home made 2 cylinder using T parts, which in my opinion is a very poor representation.
I am all about testing. I'm an Optical Engineer so my entire career is built around it. But I have to argue the results that weigh heavily against the Holley Model G. Living in the mountains of West Virginia like I do, I NEVER have the luxury of running on level ground. There's always a hill to deal. Heck, I have to use the low band just to climb up my driveway!
In any event, In the search to spare the wear-n-tear on my left leg, I've tried several carburetors on my cars in an attempt to find the best formula to climbing the hills. I've tried both versions of the NH, the G, the 2-screw, and the L-4.
NONE of them will pull the mountains around here like the Holley G. The Holley S pulls equally hard but I've only ever used it on my 13. The G is definitely my "go-to" carburetor. Just my 2-cents..
So I'm guessing here we need several of each carb get a true picture
Guess I try find a couple redo them and test
Or you could give Russ Potter a call. He's got a spread sheet with the actual results for each. Bottom line the common NH makes great power and is cheap to buy. Any of the Kingston L/L2/L4 carbs are like disconnecting a plug wire. They are down by 3 - 4 horsepower compared to a straight thru NH, and 2 - 3 horsepower less than the more common NH carbs.
"Any of the Kingston L/L2/L4 carbs are like disconnecting a plug wire."
Huh. Not my experience with my L4 as my Holley NH equipt T seems to run just as well. Golly, maybe that car (the NH one) has a plug wire off! I had better go out and check! Golly!
I run a kingston 5 ball on my 1911. I use Marvel mystery oil and star-tron enzyme treatment in the new junk gas. The car runs well but,does not like hills.
Not saying that the Kingston L series causes the car to run rough. On the contrary, the Kingston carburetors - all of them of any model - can be great running, easy to start. But still a big loss in power compared to the NH, or any other T carburetor. It's not just my opinion. Every dyno test shows exactly the same results. The Kingston L series carbs are restrictive, they just don't flow air / fuel mixture as well.
Pete maybe its time for a valve job or a timing adjustment?
I run a Kingston 4-ball on the '14. Starts easy, runs well. Russ Potter rebuilt it.
I have a fuel shut off in front of it but don't need to use it. It doesn't leak fuel.
Where does it fall in the pack of carbs performance wise?
Ken in Texas
All you have to do is look at the amount of machining and parts it took to make the carb and you can tell what is going to run better. The early 4 and 5 ball Kingstons were expensive to cast and took a lot of machining and parts assembly. The later ones have far fewer parts and were designed and built as quickly and cheaply as possible and still have an acceptable level of performance.
The Holley two screw, which is really just an early version of the G, took a lot of parts and accurate machining. The G is the same. There are many machined places, it takes a separate venturi, a snap ring, an idle tube with a threaded jet and an attachment nut, a screwed in fuel nozzle with a gasket, a cover for that hole that the venturi fits into; threaded for the friction nut, 4 slits in that threaded boss for the friction nut, three screws to hold it on, an adjustment knob with a separate knob, a two piece throttle shaft and arm, etc. Just think about the three screws to hold the cover on. If they cost 1/10 of a cent each ten of them cost a penny, a hundred cost a dime a thousand cost a dollar, ten thousand cost ten dollars. In 1914 that was a lot of money. Think about what it cost to machine the body and all those parts compared to an NH. Overall, an NH has only one or two parts that have to fit fairly accurately and those fits are all in the body, not separate parts that have to fit and be assembled.
Think about the assembly time to put together a Holley G as opposed to an NH.
In 1914 Ford made over 200,000 cars. That means 200,000 carburetors. Ten cents saved on every carburetor was $20,000 at year's end. That was a lot of money. If Ford could save $1 or a little more on every carburetor that is close to a quarter of a million dollars a year. They bought those carbs on contract from Kingston and Holley, not only low bid but who could supply them.
Ramping up production from 35,000 cars in 1911 to over 200,000 in 1914 took a lot of capital outlay for machinery and facilities, not just at Ford but for Kingston, Holley and the other Ford suppliers. I'm sure they were looking for designs that were faster and cheaper to build with the machinery and trained employees they already had. Ford could hire assembly workers and teach them to turn the wrench to the right to tighten whatever bolt they were putting in but the carburetor builders had to have machinists who could run a lathe and other machines to produce more carburetors. That they were able to increase their production nearly 6 times over between 1911 and 1914 is a story that should be told.
The cost of material is also significant. A Holley G or Kingston 4 ball weighs far more than the later carburetors and is made out of brass or a variety of bronze mixes which are even more expensive than brass. A 5 ball Kingston weighs more than any of the later carbs. There must have been a significant reduction in material cost when Holley figured out how to cast the G in iron instead of brass for the 1918-19 model years. The cost of brass at the time was probably very high due to the demand for brass during WWI for shell casings. Saving 5@ on the cost of each brass carburetor by making a smaller carburetor or reducing the material cost by 50@ between brass in 1920 and the new cast iron Holley NH made it possible for Holley to supply those carbs to Ford for around 30 Cents where in 1914 they were paying well over a dollar per carburetor - as near as I can tell.
The Model T begged for improvement and a lot of owners must have decided the carburetor was a good place to start. There were over 200 accessory carbs built for the Model T beginning in 1910 or thereabouts. Stromberg sold over half a million OF's in about 4 years of production and many other companies sold thousands and thousands. I think it was mostly Kingston L's, L-2's and L-4's that got replaced. That was the era of most sales of accessory carbs.
I'm not pimping my business but if you want to see some of the accessory carbs built you can visit this page on my web site. I have more that are not on here and have sold some of the ones that are. Russ has some I don't have, I have some he doesn't have and another guy named Bill somebody has a pretty good collection, too. At one time they were going to do an article or video or something on accessory carbs. Nothing ever came of it.
Here are some to look at.
Several years ago I did the winter seminar in Hutchinson on carburetors, how they work, the accessory ones, etc. Most people even stayed awake. Not everybody but most. It was fun. I printed a book on part of my collection and gave them out at the seminar. I only have one copy for myself and have never had time to reprint it. I should do that. Never enough time.
I don't recall if the 4 ball came in above the Holley G or below it. You might call Russ and ask him. I tried both the 4 ball and the Holley Model S on my '13. They seemed to run about the same, not bad, but not as good as an NH.
Stan is dead on, the accessory carbs often make a huge improvement. I have a Winfield manifold / carb on one car and a U&J manifold / carb on another car right now because they work great and provide a big increase in power.
A little thread drift. IMHO, which as you know is not so humble, the U & J is one of the best performance carbs. Last year about this time I bought the only NOS U & J I have ever seen. It came with the only original choke control I have ever seen for a U & J, I'd only seen photos of. With the help of Mike Lebsack of Iowa, we reproduced those choke controls. 20 of them. I have the rough castings but haven't had time to machine any of them. They are very cool. I also got all the original printed material with that NOS carb as well as the original manifold muff, etc.
Neat, thanks for showing that, Stan!
My 1924 cut-off pickup runs well with its Kingston L4, but I have one of Stan's rebuilt Stromberg OFs in the basement, and I wonder how much better my car would run with it installed.
The trouble is, I'm having too much fun driving the car as it is to mess with it! Maybe this winter...
Mark, I look forward to your eventual comparison report. Glad you are busily enjoying driving the car now!
Royce,I have tried a reguler Nh and a straight thru NH,rebuilt by Russ. The five ball runs the best. The valves and timing are good. The car does not like hills. THe car is completely stock, with the exception of TRU_FIRE Ignition. I have gone thru 4 sets of tires so far. It just does not like
In 2013 out in Kanab Utah, the first day tour was
around 180 miles at 8 or 9 thousand feet.The car never missed a lick. I had never been in country like that before. It just didn't like hills.
When you come to Hershey next year,I will take you for a ride one afternoon
Stan, Put me down for one of those choke controls when you get them finished.
Here's a great past Thread
Forum 2008: Accessory Carburetors Stan Howe; Robb Wolff & ?? Collections