The Ford Barn

pooch · 07-23-2017, 03:25 AM

I have some of each, but am running a big number 97 because these seem to be the most desirable.

What is better on these 97/s over the 94?

Kerk · 07-23-2017, 06:09 AM

Have both but usually use 97''s Just what seems to work for me. Just got a 97 & a 48 back from Uncle Max that he worked his magic on, kerk

weemark · 07-23-2017, 06:13 AM

i have both and they both work well, I dont think one is any better than the other.

JWL · 07-23-2017, 07:51 AM

Actually the 94 has a slight edge in efficiency.

drolston · 07-23-2017, 09:17 AM

I prefer the 97 because it does not have the vulnerable power valve problem, and I can take the top of the carb off to set the float level, versus the 94 where the float is mounted to the top piece and setting the float is a pain. And that external linkage to the accelerator pump just looks so cool!

Fred A · 07-23-2017, 01:17 PM

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

On my model A/b engines, single 94 or 92 has worked well with currently available fuel disadvantages, with a bit of delay on the enrichment such as a 5.5, which gets rid of the wet plug symptom. The pulses from the banger seems to fool the power valve. On my 59A, the family of Chandler Groves carbs, again in single use, the 6.5 power valve worked OK, but not well observed. I also Model B, ran two 81 Strombergs just as the came off of the 60. Never got rid of the rid of the flat spot that should have been an accelerator pump thing, but again, never got there. Because of the very low price, later Holley/Ford 94s can be a good place to start while Strombergs are mired in that "cool" thing that makes them a different kind of issue. Good Luck: Fred A

07-23-2017, 03:25 AM	#1
pooch Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: South Coast NSW Australia Posts: 2,596	97 vs 94 carbs I have some of each, but am running a big number 97 because these seem to be the most desirable. What is better on these 97/s over the 94?

07-23-2017, 06:09 AM	#2
Kerk Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 642	Re: 97 vs 94 carbs Have both but usually use 97''s Just what seems to work for me. Just got a 97 & a 48 back from Uncle Max that he worked his magic on, kerk

07-23-2017, 06:13 AM	#3
weemark Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: uk Posts: 367	Re: 97 vs 94 carbs i have both and they both work well, I dont think one is any better than the other.

07-23-2017, 07:51 AM	#4
JWL Member Emeritus Join Date: May 2010 Location: Fitzgerald, Georgia Posts: 2,204	Re: 97 vs 94 carbs Actually the 94 has a slight edge in efficiency.

07-23-2017, 09:17 AM	#5
drolston Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Williamsburg, VA Posts: 1,627	Re: 97 vs 94 carbs I prefer the 97 because it does not have the vulnerable power valve problem, and I can take the top of the carb off to set the float level, versus the 94 where the float is mounted to the top piece and setting the float is a pain. And that external linkage to the accelerator pump just looks so cool!

07-23-2017, 01:17 PM	#6
Fred A Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Encino California, near Burbank Posts: 935	Re: 97 vs 94 carbs Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements) On my model A/b engines, single 94 or 92 has worked well with currently available fuel disadvantages, with a bit of delay on the enrichment such as a 5.5, which gets rid of the wet plug symptom. The pulses from the banger seems to fool the power valve. On my 59A, the family of Chandler Groves carbs, again in single use, the 6.5 power valve worked OK, but not well observed. I also Model B, ran two 81 Strombergs just as the came off of the 60. Never got rid of the rid of the flat spot that should have been an accelerator pump thing, but again, never got there. Because of the very low price, later Holley/Ford 94s can be a good place to start while Strombergs are mired in that "cool" thing that makes them a different kind of issue. Good Luck: Fred A