Large Logo vs Small Logo Stromberg

[01aford]

What's the difference between the large Logo 97 Stromberg and the small logo???

[uncle max]

The small logo 97 was original equipment, starting mid '36.
The small logo 97 has a shelf 1/2 way up the accelerator pump chamber,
allowing the bowl to hold slightly less fuel.
The small logo bare casting weighs about 6 or 8 grams more than the large logo 97... Probably due to the shelf and/or denser casting.
All parts are interchangeable.

[01aford]

When did they stop the small logo and start the large?

[Barn Junk]

Originally Posted by uncle max

The small logo 97 was original equipment, starting mid '36.
The small logo 97 has a shelf 1/2 way up the accelerator pump chamber,
allowing the bowl to hold slightly less fuel.
The small logo bare casting weighs about 6 or 8 grams more than the large logo 97... Probably due to the shelf and/or denser casting.
All parts are interchangeable.

Max, Do you know if this has ever become a judging concern? The small 97s would also have come only with the oval vs the triangle base also, I believe. 81s also came with small and large logos.

[Bruce Lancaster]

There is an older discussion of this on here. I emphatically believed the same as Max, based partly on the evidence of the Ford PN prefix that is on small 97's, a tiny "67" above the 97, also repeated on side of top casting if it is original...this clearly marked the carb parts that were new for the 97 for the parts man, as both Ford and Stromberg ignored the conspicuous 97 mark that had nothing to do with their PN systems. Seemed entirely clear to me in fact. Then someone wrote in and pointed out that the picture in the early service bulletin info on the new car shows what sure looks like a big 97!! Dang...I've been poring over the bulletins for almost 50 years now and never noticed that.
The illustrations in the Ford overhaul manual, dating to 1938 in the bulletins, also seems to show a big 97.
Still, ALL small 97 carbs I have encountered (there are feral herds of them roaming my basement) have the cast in Ford prefix, and no big 97 I have seen shows that.
It is very clear that small 97's were Ford supplied...did they also supply the bigs at the same time, without Ford part number designation? Obviously everyone in the world noticed the 97 mark and ID'd the new stuff by that, but it never entered the Ford or Stromberg naming or numbering nomenclatures.
The bulletin pics from '36 and '38 sure seem to show bigs. So is there a story somehow researchable via Stromberg archives or such??

(81's also carry PN prefix on bowl, I think that is "52"...will have to look at some. Don't know if that is on all...the 81 designation was also ignored by Ford and Stromberg, who steadfastly stuck with their own (different) numbering schemes for everything.)

I would say for authenticity it is perfectly clear that the smalls are Ford...but now I have to admit that the D-base larges could well be just as authentic...??
I heard somewhere that the smalls have suddenly picked up a bit of catchet as they are clearly experienced carbs and not brand new ones...

[Bruce Lancaster]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Here's the older discussion...a Mr. Mitty (pocketa-pocketa...) noticed the smoking gun illustration I never focused on...

http://fordbarn.com/forum/showthread...light=small+97

So...what's the story??

[Carter]

My 36 Tudor had an arrow base large logo 97 on it. There was nothing on the car that appeared to have been changed, but who can say for certain after 75 years. The guy I bought it from had owned it for about 40 years and he never touched it.

[Don Rogers]

Here's the illustration from March 1936 Ford Service Bulletin. Is this "97" small or large??

[Joe AZ]

Originally Posted by Don Rogers

Here's the illustration from March 1936 Ford Service Bulletin. Is this "97" small or large??

Due to the scale compared to the rest of the body, it sure looks like a "large" to me.
Joe