Good theory.
I tried the factory "car" setup on my '48 Tudor for a short time back in the 60s...didn't like it. Went to a 715 CFM Holley from a Shelby GT350 on a B manifold and the car really "honked". Later on I installed an Edelbrock dual quad intake with two 550 CFM Holley 4160s on adapters with factory 427 progressive linkage. The carbs are mounted backward, with the front one being the primary so that the main operating throats are close to the middle of the manifold. The carbs have vacuum secondaries and are linked  427 style. It runs as good, maybe better (seat of the pants) than the 715 and looks cool. My engine is a 322 '57 Merc with a B7A-6250-C cam, 1/4" deflector pistons, ported G heads, Holley Rotovance, Hedman headers  and was balanced by Otie's Automotive. The car has a close ratio T-10 from a '63 Galaxie and a '59 Edsel 9" with a 3.89 Traction Loc diff. I have never checked the fuel mileage.




"FREE SAMPLE"

Both accelerator pumps working simultaneously would not be much of a problem as the pump shot or stroke can be manipulated to reduce the volume of fuel from each accelerator pump.

It’s difficult to second guess what the engineers were thinking fifty seven years after the fact.  J.D.’s setup is using progressive linkage so maybe he can give some feedback on how it works overall but I suspect it works well.  The initial problem which could prove to be insignificant is that in a progressive setup, the primary throttle bore is not centered on the intake.  This can have the cylinders farthest away from the carburetor providing a cruising air/fuel mixture that’s leaner than those cylinders that are closer.  Differences in runner length could be tuned into the carbs but that makes the carbs primary and secondary specific.

The cars, Ranchero’s and station wagons had the dual quad carbs facing forward while the Thunderbirds had the dual quad carbs facing rearward.  This also added another wrinkle into the linkage design.  For the Ford engineers, it may have been as simple as the final linkage design was simply more expedient to put into production versus a linkage that would have required some additional carburetor and/or carb linkage modifications to make the trigonometry work out.  When the progressive linkage for the dual quad 427’s was introduced, the carbs were primary and secondary specific with both the chokes and linkages being players in that decision.  For the dual quad Y’s, the same carburetors could be used in either position without much issue on the standard shift models.  The automatic transmission versions had a carburetor that included a dashpot which was the only difference on those carbs.

As with other innovations that were taking place during this time frame, multiple carburetion was still new to Ford and it was an ongoing evolving process.

Other thoughts are always welcome.

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

I saw the car in the car coral at Hershey. It was an extremely high quality restoration and was really beautiful to see in person. Had to be a really cool guy who ordered it, it was loaded. MIKE

Mike, still lovin his 57 t'bird after 53 years!

Paul, 
           There's a new one in this months issue on the Gray four door F code. 89 grand on ebay!




Frank/Rebop

Bristol, In ( by Elkhart) 

I think that article was in Hemming's Muscle Car magazine a couple years ago.  My E Code car was built in Long Beach, CA in March of 57, however it isn't very plain.  It is a Fairlane 500 2 door HT and has Fordomatic, Power Steering, Power Windows, T & C Radio, Tinted glass and back up lights.  I bought it in 2005 from the 2nd owner, he bought it in 1958 with 7K miles on it.   I drove to Apple Valley, CA to pick it up and trailered it home...smiling all the way. 

Paul J. - '57 E Code

To further what Charlie said, the writer of this article, and the one in this months issue needs to check facts BEFORE they print. But they don't. That's been a problem with this group of editors since they purchased the magazine from the original owners 4 or 5 years ago. I have given up trying to get them check their article's facts. The majority of those writers are scruby oriented and really don't know old Fords. The exception would be Tom Shaw of Muscle Car Review. 'We have, among us, several guys with enough knowledge of Y blocks to edit any of their articles correctly. Charlie, Ted, Charlie Brown, Hoosier Hurricane, and several others I've not mentioned come to mind. Hoosiers Off the site, he can't get his computer to cooperate.     
     
There were (approximately) 1200 of the F codes produced in '57. 198 were F code Birds and the remainder full size cars. I know of no one who has the exact breakdown of which models were e codes or F code cars.
     
 All of the '57's came with better heads (G's) than the 56's, EXCEPT the f code cars. These came with heads with larger combustion chambers to lower the static comp. ratio for the blower. The later ( truck) 471 heads are pretty much the same as the Blower heads but of course don't have the "Correct" lettering. Useless to a concours builder but fine for a reproduction. The 471 are all posted and use the same ports and valves as the F code heads. 

Frank/Rebop

Bristol, In ( by Elkhart) 

I enjoyed the Hemmings article, also, Seppo.  Thanks for posting the link.

A bad habit I have is doubting information in magazine articles and books when I find some of what is being shared is not accurate.  It makes me wonder about the validity of other information in the article that I haven't heard or seen before.

In this case, my understanding is that
- no '56 Fords came from the factory with the 2x4 power pack installed, it was a 'kit' ordered over-the-counter at the Ford parts department or a dealer ordered and installed option; 
- in the '57 model year, no 292s came equipped with four barrel carbs from the factory;  and 
- all '57 y-blocks (272s, 292s, or 312s with either a single four barrel carb, dual four barrel carbs, or a supercharger) came with the same camshaft UNLESS the optional 'race' version for the dual quad or supercharger engine was ordered.

I don't know whether the writer of the Hemming article is at fault for the above errors, or if the information from the '57 Ford Custom owner failed to be remembered accurately over time.

While the subsequent information was interesting pertaining to the production of 'E' code and 'F' code engine options, I find myself taking-it-with-a-grain-of-salt knowing the log of casting dates for 'E' intake manifolds that was accumulated on this Forum from our members.  I also read somewhere that at the end of the model year run, 'E' set-ups were offered on 'Birds at no additional cost as production of the '57 'Bird model extended into December of the '58 model year.  Too, the next to the last '57 'F' 'Bird was produced in December of 1957.  -I know the current owner.

While I like Hemming Motor News, this is not the first article I've read of theirs where information was not totally data or information accurate.     


NoShortcuts
a.k.a. Charlie Brown
near Syracuse, New York

Love that Custom. A D or E car would be fine with me. Had a Custom 300 back in the day. Started with a 292 4 barrel and ended up with a 300 HP 390 by the time I got married and had to sell it. Still looking for another one.

In the 50s,nobody was very  concerned about gas mileage.Gas prices around the country varied from the teens to mid 30s.That is probably the main reason Ford didn't go to the expense of building progressive linkage on these setups.Also most of the people that ran these cars had their foot in the gas much of the time and didn't think about gas mileage,only about beating that scruby next to him.

 

Paul,

Boonville,MO

Interesting. Isuppose on the highway with a steady foot on the throttle, fuelmileage wasn't too bad. But it would seem to me that city mileagehad to suffer with two accelerator pumps working together in stop andgo traffic. I have always wondered why Ford didn't use progressive linkage on this setup?

"FREE SAMPLE"