cd1048@aircanopy.net

Holley is misrepresenting their HP carb flows, a HP 950 is really a
830, a HP1000 is about a 870 if measured the same vac as a 47-- series.
The industry standard for cfm ratings was 1.5"Hg vac for a 4 barrel.
holley decided to follow the deciptive lead of it's competitors and use
28"wc which is 2.06" hg.
Holly has all their carbs listed with flow spects. They make no
distinction between a HP type and a older 4781 type. Unless you
actually flow a carb, with holley's listings, you can't tell what flow
it may be since the listed flows of the 4 barrels are not made with the
same test standard. Their all listed together by flow ratings. I'm just
for the truth in advertising, if holley actually told the test vac for
carbs it would be better, Esp if they use different test spects for
different 4 brl carbs. It looks like Holley uses a 1.5"HG vacuum
standard for the 47_ _ series carbs and for the HP series they use
2.06"hg vacuum test standard. The result is a false comparison between
the two carbs. I got tricked and many others will be also. Spread the
word about this .

The HP950 has a 1 3/4 base plate and a 1 3/8 venturi.
A older 850 has a 1 3/4 base with a 1 9/16 venturi
A HP830 has a 1 11/16 base and a 1 9/16 venturi

http://www.thecarburetorshop.net/bigger2.html

Spike

On 23 Oct 2005 14:31:58 -0700, cd1048@aircanopy.net wrote:

>Holley is misrepresenting their HP carb flows, a HP 950 is really a
>830, a HP1000 is about a 870 if measured the same vac as a 47-- series.
>The industry standard for cfm ratings was 1.5"Hg vac for a 4 barrel.
>holley decided to follow the deciptive lead of it's competitors and use
>28"wc which is 2.06" hg.
>Holly has all their carbs listed with flow spects. They make no
>distinction between a HP type and a older 4781 type. Unless you
>actually flow a carb, with holley's listings, you can't tell what flow
>it may be since the listed flows of the 4 barrels are not made with the
>same test standard. Their all listed together by flow ratings. I'm just
>for the truth in advertising, if holley actually told the test vac for
>carbs it would be better, Esp if they use different test spects for
>different 4 brl carbs. It looks like Holley uses a 1.5"HG vacuum
>standard for the 47_ _ series carbs and for the HP series they use
>2.06"hg vacuum test standard. The result is a false comparison between
>the two carbs. I got tricked and many others will be also. Spread the
>word about this .
>
>The HP950 has a 1 3/4 base plate and a 1 3/8 venturi.
>A older 850 has a 1 3/4 base with a 1 9/16 venturi
>A HP830 has a 1 11/16 base and a 1 9/16 venturi
>
>http://www.thecarburetorshop.net/bigger2.html

From the article:
"Holley decided to rate their new line of "HP" carbs like their
competition does, with inflated CFM figures. They had to. Otherwise
no one would buy them because they are more expensive."

Seems to me that the author just said that all the companies have been
doing this and Holley finally got on the bandwagon. So why are you
slamming Holley, and not the others who are reported to have led the
way in a deception of the consumer? Seems if you bought another brand,
according to this article, you'd have to do your own flow tests to
determine how accurate it is.

I didn't see anything which said Holley made a bad carb, just not
exactly as advertised. A situation which seems to be fairly common in
the advertising world.

Even with this slam, there are plenty of users who are happy with what
they bought, and others who are not.

So, what has been gained by posting this information?
Spike
1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy
w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok;
Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich
gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound
audio-video...
See my ride at....
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/d..._11_05_002.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/E...ebuild_006.jpg

cd1048@aircanopy.net

I bought a Holley, not someone elses, why would I blame Barry Grant for
Holley lieing.
If you or anyone else uses a dyno program to build a motor and it
specifies the CFM for the carb for a set performance level and you buy
that cfm carb and it dosen't perform to the level you expect because
holley fudged the cfm numbers, you wasted the carb money because if you
want the performance you expected you have to buy a different carb.
Where's the integrity with companys anymore.

Ritz

cd1048@aircanopy.net wrote:
> I bought a Holley, not someone elses, why would I blame Barry Grant for
> Holley lieing.
> If you or anyone else uses a dyno program to build a motor and it
> specifies the CFM for the carb for a set performance level and you buy
> that cfm carb and it dosen't perform to the level you expect because
> holley fudged the cfm numbers, you wasted the carb money because if you
> want the performance you expected you have to buy a different carb.
> Where's the integrity with companys anymore.

For that type of application, you want to OVERengineer the carb and dial
back the jets so that you have some wiggle room down the line if you
make any mods that require more fuel.

I'm not making excuses for Holley, because they are clearly misleading
the consumer here, but if you're building out a motor, that's just
common sense to build in a little padding on something as crucial as the
carb.

Cheers,

cd1048@aircanopy.net

the program called for 900 cfm,, I bought a 950, it's REALLY a 830 cfm.
How much padding would you use?

cd1048@aircanopy.net

and lets say I required a 900 and bought a 950 but was really a 830?

my car
http://www.aircanopy.net/~jyromustang/jyrodisp.jpg

cprice@here.com

cd1048@aircanopy.net wrote:

> and lets say I required a 900 and bought a 950 but was really a 830?
>
> my car
> http://www.aircanopy.net/~jyromustang/jyrodisp.jpg
>

**** me thats one fugly car. Why not put Osama's head on the side with
a big bullseye on it?

cd1048@aircanopy.net

ya got to love the USA, we have the freedom to hate and fight to
protect it

Ritz

cd1048@aircanopy.net wrote:
> the program called for 900 cfm,, I bought a 950, it's REALLY a 830 cfm.
> How much padding would you use?

It's been ages since I hotrodded a carburated engine, but I used to go
20% higher. So given your numbers above, in the olden days I'd have
gone for 1100cfm or two smaller double pumpers. Fuel injection systems
have gotten so much better these days that I just don't find it worth
the hassle to use a carb anymore.

Good luck!

Cheers,

cd1048@aircanopy.net

a pair
http://www.aircanopy.net/~jyromustang/murillotrey.jpg