Mystery dual carbs

Bought 914 engine with 5 spd trans and supposedly Weber carbs. Advertised as a '75 1.8L. Case is from 1.8L but heads are 3 bolt 2.0L! Cooling tin is from 1.8L with new spark plug holes cut in cooling tins for 2.0L heads! Trans is older side shifter too. Actually bought for the carbs. They say Holley on the electric chokes but seller said they were Weber. There's no marks on them but they look like schematics of the Weber 40 DCNF carbs. Anyone have any insights on the carbs. Nice intake manifords for either 1.8L 4 bolt or 2.0L 3 bolt. No air cleaners. Carbs move freely just real dirty.

http://www.euronet.nl/~wilaben/40dcnf.jpg

I have 42 DCNF. I am pretty sure your carbs are not 40 DCNF.

Your carbs have square openings on top. I think the 40 DCNF has round openings.

What you got is a set of Holley/Weber progressives. We used them as singles on 1835 and such back in the late 70's and 80's.

THXS - found great manual at SAMBA archives on them

http://www.thesamba.com/vw/archives/manuals/holley_5200_carburetor.php

Holly /Weber used on Ford Pinto

Great score ! !

I had the Webers on my Fiat and the Holleys on my TR6, the Holley is much better. Slightly different, maybe more robust or something, but it was a MUCH better carb than the Weber by far. The best part about your set-up is that it appears to have been on the engine and used for a while, probably all dialed in already, all of the jetting and settings done right.

Here's the correct air cleaner for those:

http://www.thesamba.com/vw/classifieds/detail.php?id=871944

Yelp I can confirm that as a Pinto carb havin worked on a few of um. Hope you dont have the plastic power valve . It was junk even when it was new. They were good carbs when they had all metal parts in um . i hope you find a earler rebuild kit whit the metal power valve it will work better for you. and build better. The plastic one's were a pain..

Yup....I had one of those on a 2.3 litre '74 Pinto wagon. Ran if for over 175,000 miles and never touched the carb. Lets see a Weber do THAT!

If I remember correctly, Autolite sub'd a model 2500 for those sometimes, but the Holley was definitely the better carb.

I had a '73 Opel Manta I bought for $50 when I was a senior in high-school (1981). My senior auto-shop project for the semester was to make it run right. Day 1, I pulled the Weber carb, and put one on from a Pinto engine my buddy had sitting on a pallet (the 2300 had been replaced with a 289 Ford, but that's a story for another time).

Anyhow- I set the idle mixture, and the car ran like a champ. I spent the rest of the semester eating Dolly Madison powdered "Do-nettes", helping out guys with much harder projects, and sitting on the flat-black hood of the Opel. I got an "A" for the class.

Good times.

I knew a girl named Holly Carter, really. She drew a good, ahem, vacuum!

They look just like the carb that was on my Chevy Vega(the carb was ok, the rest sucked!)

'vac" Bwahahahahaha......

Funny how some innovative cars were really panned! Vega - for alloy silicon block (now near all cars have light weight alloy blocks) and for being small; early Pontiac Tempest - for rear transmission which gave great weight distribution and a flat floor; Corvair - for rear air cooled 6 cylinder; Tucker - for rear radial engine and steerable headlight; Edsel - for push button trans in center of steering wheel; etc. Yet rather boring 55-57 Chevy are still worshiped. Just shows not to be a leader or forerunner with new ideas.

Olds had a production run of approx. 600-700 air-bag equipped vehicles about 30 years ago. Production stopped. Some years later a few owners in head-on collisions were stunned that they walked away without severe injury; had no clue that their cars even had air-bags...

Wolf, The 1948 Tucker didn't have a radial engine, it was a flat horizontally opposed 6 cylinder Franklin helicopter engine converted from air cooled to water cooled.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/attachments/inboards/33048d1247027211-heres-great-design-idea-inboard-engine-48-tucker-engine.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/inboards/heres-great-design-idea-inboard-engine-28194.html&h=751&w=1001&sz=134&tbnid=n43HyKRZnVxgQM:&tbnh=112&tbnw=149&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtucker%2Bengine&zoom=1&q=tucker+engine&hl=en&usg=__zHXlsd3pCREnEjXcbPRq0DA-q6w=&sa=X&ei=Y6-DTbzlDIu-sAPj1ODuAQ&ved=0CC8Q9QEwBA

Love the six exhaust pipes.

Come to the San Diego Automotive Museum and see the actual Tucker flat six engine on display.

Valve actuation was hydraulic - no cam shaft! Unfortunately, the available oil foamed badly and caused valve train failure. If Tucker had today's oil availabel back then the idea would have worked!

The whole engine was mounted transverse, with the crank centerline in alignment with the rear axle centerline. EACH end of the crankshaft was hooked directly to a axle stub via a fluid drive - no transmission, just torque to get going!

This guy was waaaay ahead of the curve!

That engine was only found in the prototype. What went into "production" of 50 units was a military surplus helicopter engine. I'm not sure what they used for a transmission, but it was rear mounted with the engine on a tray and both could be removed in 15-20 minutes. Here's a picture of the engine, same as in the car Lane shot:

Looks like a normal front/rear crankshaft configuration to me....

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/attachments/inboards/33048d1247027211-heres-great-design-idea-inboard-engine-48-tucker-engine.jpg

The prototype had that hydraulic fluid distributor for the valve timing but, again, that was only on one car and they opted for the copter engine instead.

Lots more info here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Tucker_Sedan#Innovative_design_features