I had a stock 1956 4V intake on the +060 over 312 dyno mule so I could sort out some Holley Teapot, Carter WCFB, and Rochester 4V carbs in preparation for the upcoming dual quad intake test.  The peak power numbers were so dismal I had to take a second look at the carbs to insure that the secondaries were opening up; the carbs were working just fine.  Final conclusion: the 1956 ECZ-A intake is obviously very restricted compared to the stock 1957 ECZ-B intake.  It’s no wonder that so many of those ’55 and ’56 Fords that had dual quads installed back in their day had a significant increase in performance.

 

Here are the peak HP numbers for three different intakes used on the dyno mule with a set of mildly ported 113 heads.  All these values are with the same carb just to keep all the intake comparisons on a level playing field.

 

– 240HP at 5100 rpm - ECZ-A Teapot, stock unported

– 276HP at 5200 rpm - ECZ-B Large flange, stock unported

– 311HP at 6000 rpm - Out of the box Mummert aluminum, stock unported

 

While the Teapot intakes are obviously good daily driver manfolds, the step up in performance in just changing to the ECZ-B intake is more than impressive.  Ford engineers were on top of their game in ’57.

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

This is what I call an excellent learning tool.

Thanks Ted

-Gary Burnette-

Looks like John beat the "B" pretty handily, 50 years later! Notice that nothing Edelbrock has done matches what he has done.

Frank/Rebop

Bristol, In ( by Elkhart) 

Did you use the same teapot carb on the ECZ-B manifold for this test? With an adapter?

"FREE SAMPLE"

For the comparison between the manifolds, I used a 750HP vacuum secondary Holley.  On the teapot intake, this required a tapered adapter for both the 600 and 750 carbs.  The Lincoln Teapot used the factory ½" phenolic 4 hole spacer.  The idea here is to make sure that the various intake manfolds that are being tested are the limiting factor and not the heads and/or carburetors in this type of test.  While I used the teapot manifold with a variety of small flanged carbs simply insuring that the carbs were suitable for the dual quad test, I used the 750 Holley to insure that the intakes were being fully utilized in regards to cfm requirements.  Had I tested all three intakes with the smaller carburetor, the differences between manifolds would not have been as obvious.  I trust that makes sense.

 

But as part of this particular dyno test, I did test the ECZ-A Teapot intake with three different carbs.  Here are the results.

 

238 HP – Lincoln Teapot

239 HP – Holley 600cfm vacuum secondaries

240 HP – Holley 750HP vacuum secondaries

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

Very interesting on the Lincoln teapot being able to hold its own against the other carbs.

I knew the Lincoln teapot was good as we would switch the Ford/Merc Holleys years ago fast if we were fortunate enough to find a wrecked Lincoln to grab the carb.That change sure enlightened the 55/56's with the "A" style manifolds.

I ran a Lincoln teapot on my car until I switched to the FAST fuel injection two years ago.

marv

So, make it simple for a country boy with an "A" manifold...

Holley 600cfm sounds like a fit for a stock 272 that gets driven mostly locally, every few days..., right?

Mark

"God Bless Texas"location: Houston,TX

It looks to me like the intake is the limiting component; You'll probably get about the same peak numbers with any 4v carb on the A manifold. Ted, how does the low end compare with the different carbs?


Lawrenceville, GA

Ted, Any chance that test could be duplicated on the B intake?


Frank/Rebop

Bristol, In ( by Elkhart) 

Ted, please, give us fair hp numbers with all tested at 5000 rpm. We all know 5100 rpm  and 6000 rpm are not the same. As at our dyno sessio we got about 10 to 13 hp more with every 100 rpm increase it sure makes difference.

 Seppo from Järvenpää, Finland
www.hollowheads.net (just click the hole in the head to proceed)