On 23 Oct 2005 14:31:58 -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org
>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
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?
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
See my ride at....
Feb 2004- http://220.127.116.11/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg
Feb 2004- http://18.104.22.168/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg
Jul 2005- http://22.214.171.124/albums/86810/d..._11_05_002.jpg
Jul 2005- http://126.96.36.199/albums/86810/E...ebuild_006.jpg