The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network







Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.

Go Back   The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network > 47 - Current classic GM Trucks > The 1967 - 1972 Chevrolet & GMC Pickups Message Board

Web 67-72chevytrucks.com


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-04-2005, 03:02 PM   #1
shelby987
Registered User
 
shelby987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Just outside Durham, NC
Posts: 894
economaster carb?

I was on ebay earlier, and I came across an "economaster carb" seller claimed this was used to replace ferd 4 bbl to allow for better mpg.
Can anyone explain this to me......was it possible that the OE was a carb without secondaries or???
__________________
1969 SS 350 Camaro Sold 2008
1970 3/4T K20, stock height with 33's, 250 I6, 3 on the tree, and locked front and rear 4.10's
1980 Chevy Malibu 2 dr Sold 2007
1993 Olds. Cutlass Ciera Wagon Traded 2006
2003 Saturn L200 w/5pd. D/D
My list spans 5 decades with One common thread.....GM!
shelby987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2005, 03:26 PM   #2
john
member #16
 
john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Yuba City Ca.
Posts: 3,618
Re: economaster carb?

Heres one on e bay.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...category=33550
I had one on a 72 454 vette (factory 360 hp) and it was a pretty good carb for a stock application. 19 mpg hwy. John
john is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2005, 11:33 PM   #3
jimfulco
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Shreveport LA
Posts: 3,170
Re: economaster carb?

They were made by Holley back in the '70s in response to the "fuel crisis". I had one that was marketed as a replacement for a Quadrajet, with two fairly small primary bores, and two equally small secondary bores spread far apart. It was rated at 450cfm, and it definitely choked down the power of the 350 it was mounted on. It didn't stay on long enough for me to see any fuel economy benefits, but I imagine if there was any better mileage, it would likely have been due to the fact that it wouldn't pass nearly as much air as the Q-jet. But aside from the power loss, it ran fine.
jimfulco is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 1997-2022 67-72chevytrucks.com