Opinions on Holley Avenger 770cfm?

330dTA

330dTA

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2014
Messages
1,198
Reaction score
959
Location
Helsinki Finland
My engine builder is finishing up my 440, and it was time decide upon the carb. I reread the carb threads, but found zero input on this particular one.

The engine is a '68 block with a steel crank and stock 906 heads. It is supposed to be rebuilt to approximately the 440HP level: .030 over, light weight KB237KTM pistons to slightly above 1 to 9.0 compression, Edelbrock Performer Plus 2192 cam (204 int./214 exh. @0.50, range 0-5500rpm) for low-end torque, and Edelbrock Performer 2191 intake to complement. 440 source deep oil pan. A set of '70 HP manifolds will be put on it after the break-in run.
IMG_3072.JPG

My initial idea was to use a Edelbrock 1406, 600cfm, or a Thunder-series 18054, 650cfm for a good response. However, my engine builder commented on the former being "a gas thrifting thing", and the latter that he had no experience on that one. He recommended a Holley Avenger 770 cfm (#0-83770, aluminium body).

Opinions or experiences to be shared?
 
Holley Quick Fuel is on my wish list. To be purchased and installed later. For now the goal is to make the engine run smoothly after ten year hibernation.
 
My personal choice would be to use the 750 Holley dual feed dual pumper if going for performance with a Holley. The Eddy in the same size is also a good choice. I have never been a big fan of Holley carbs with the vacuum secondaries.

Dave
 
By way of comparison, the stock AVS carb used on the 440 HP, TNT or Magnum engines #4640 was rated at 800CFM for 1969. You are running less compression that the '69 motors, so you can get away with 700-750 CFM. The stock HP Engines in a C-Body were usually had pressed to get much over 10mpg with the AVS carb and 3.23 gearing. The Holley carb used on the 350 horse motors with vacuum secondaries was rated at 600 CFM. The Holley equipped cars had good throttle response "out of the hole" but the AVS would eat them alive at higher RPMs.

You choice of carbs has a lot to do with what you are looking for in terms of performance.

Dave
 
Last edited:
330dTA said:
My engine builder is finishing up my 440, and it was time decide upon the carb. I reread the carb threads, but found zero input on this particular one.

The engine is a '68 block with a steel crank and stock 906 heads. It is supposed to be rebuilt to approximately the 440HP level: .030 over, light weight KB237KTM pistons to slightly above 1 to 9.0 compression, Edelbrock Performer Plus 2192 cam (204 int./214 exh. @0.50, range 0-5500rpm) for low-end torque, and Edelbrock Performer 2191 intake to complement. 440 source deep oil pan. A set of '70 HP manifolds will be put on it after the break-in run.View attachment 208841
My initial idea was to use a Edelbrock 1406, 600cfm, or a Thunder-series 18054, 650cfm for a good response. However, my engine builder commented on the former being "a gas thrifting thing", and the latter that he had no experience on that one. He recommended a Holley Avenger 770 cfm (#0-83770, aluminium body).

Opinions or experiences to be shared?
Click to expand...

Also in the way of observation, if you installed a forged steel crank as part of the rebuild, be sure you have the correct harmonic balancer, It and the torque convertor are different than the units used with the cast steel cranks.

Dave
 
Is this a "price no object" project? If it is NOT, then the Edelbrocks are priced better than the Holleys typically are. Why not a Holley 3310 780cfm 4160? That used to be the "go to" HP carb for many motors. Should come with the better float bowls, electric choke, and dual inlets. IF you're hung up on having to get a Holley. VERY tuneable, if you know how to do it!

When I had my '70 Monaco 383-N, I had a college friend who had a '69 Super Bee 383, with the stock Holley. I never could get the same sharp off-idle response his Holley had with my OEM AVS, BUT I usually got 1 more mpg on the highway (3.23 gears) than he admitted to.

To me, the Avenger Holleys are a way to package many slight upgrades together in a 4160 series carb. I might recommend the '71 383HP Holley 750cfm carb. Last time I looked, it had all the "goodies" on it. Dual inlet race bowls, electric choke, etc., universalized, of sorts, still using the original '71 Super Bee 383 Holley part number. THIS carb is unique as it has the 1.56 primaries and 1.75 secondaries, compared to the normal 780 cfm Holley with 4x1.69 throttle bores.

I'd strongly recommend you go into Summit and check pricing BEFORE you make your final decision. Prices DO vary a bunch, especially between Holleys and Edelbrocks of similar sizes.

Just some thoughts,
CBODY67
 
I'm running a Edelbrock 1413 Performer Series on my '66 New Yorker and it is very responsive. And using a 1/2 spacer on the stock manifold even!
It's 800cfm and if is ok with a 350hp motor it should be ok with your built 440!

It was dropped on and only had to adjust the mixture and idle speed slightly and runs great.
 
I have an Eddy Performer 1411 (750 cfm) sitting on an Eddy Performer 440 intake for a very mildly-cammed TNT at 448 inches with headers and 2 1/2 inch custom exhaust (Flowmasters). After careful consideration, I'm going to the Street Demon 625 CFM [with black plastic "thermal" body] for several reasons.

(1) After a careful rebuild (I've done millions of T-Quads, Q-jets, double pumpers, etc) the 750 Eddy carb feels somewhat sluggish, especially at part-throttle. The Demon has teeeeny primaries which will eliminate that issue and probably improve mileage, although that's not my primary intention. Is 625 big enough? Well, for an engine that is unlikely to see over 5200 rpm, if you plug your numbers into this: CFM Calculator you'll see that all a street motor needs (especially in a heavy, slow revving, 3.23 geared car) is 573 cfm.

(2) The Demon is somewhat of a spread-bore design, as is the Eddy Performer 440 intake. I like that, and hate the adapters needed for the Eddy 1411 straightbore carb.

(3) The design of the Demon is totally new and modern, yet retains some of the good things of the AVS and the T-Quad, and even some Holley 4160 elements. The tuning of the secondary air valve is so simple and easy, it's a no brainer to find good response when you go WOT. I think it's the first new "hotrod" carb in something like 60+ years. A clean sheet effort. It can't leak, modern materials and manufacturing, yada. You can read about it yourself, of course. Plenty of Utoob vids of delighted users, too.

(4) It fits perfectly under my OEM dual snorkel with no choke or accel pump interference issues with this totally new design. It has certainly been "thought through" as an aftermarket item for OEM use. It is a very slick looking bit of engineering.

I haven't actually installed it yet....waiting for cooler weather for a complete Inline Tube/new fuel pump/new tank pickup installation.

Anyway, that's my take on a small carb for a large engine. We're not racing these boats. We're driving them.
 
Last edited:
And the Demon is $312 at Summmmittttt. I also bought the (quite expensive at 28 friggin dollars!) kickdown stud that's offered for the Demon, but I'm about 98% sure our OEM studs will work, so buyer beware.

And you'll love the "goggle" secondary blade (not blades plural, and not Google). It's ingenious for big secondary flow and to clear any divider in a dual plane manifold.
 
Last edited:
I am no C body /mopar V8 expert but when I bought my 69 FuryIII with a 440 I checked out the carb make and model. It was/is an Edelbrock 1406 carb. I thought very nice! I checked the specs on their site and was horrified to find it was a measly 600 cfm carb. Hell I thought a 350 had at least that and saw it in Hot Rod Magazine years ago,,
But digging deeper into the specs there I found a chart of the 1406 on a 440 ,stock I presume and when it became a restriction to flow. The 1406 at 600 cfm started to become a restriction starting at 6200 rpms and above on a stock 440. I was frankly relieved to find this as I never go that high. Also with the smaller carb you can tune it more precisely with their kit with metering rods and springs and jets. I am a cruiser not a drag racer with mine and am never over 6000 rpm's. I revel in low end torque not max cfm with this engine.
 
Back in the day, I always strongly preferred the Holley 4160 carburetors on the stock 1970 440 standard engines in terms of performance. Even though they are only 600 cfm, their low end response made the cars a joy to drive under nearly all driving conditions that I ever encountered. Although the standard 440 engines also had the 2.76 gears in the back, they felt much more responsive in normal driving than the AVS 4740s with the 750 cfm ratings especially at low speeds on the 440 HP engines in vehicles with the 3.23 rear end gears. The problem with the Holleys back then was they didn't last long before warping and then causing major problems. But the higher velocity charge going into the engines with the smaller primaries yielded higher torque at low speeds than the larger AVS carbs. Also, the off idle calibrations on the Holleys were superior to those of the AVS too delivering much better throttle response at low speeds for that reason too.

AVS carbs are certainly reliable and well designed from that standpoint, but their off idle and WOT performance from a stop was far less responsive than the Holleys in my experience. I see some of the new Edelbrock carbs (basically they are AVS carryovers) have a better off idle distribution revision recently released to deliver more atomized fuel at low speeds, so maybe those are worth trying out now. But most Edelbrock carburetors that I have used leave me unsatisfied overall.

The Street Demon updated version 625 cfm with the black body mentioned above sounds interesting and like a very good compromise to deliver the best overall performance, so let us know how it turns out when you actually get it installed and take it out for real world driving.

Generally, I will always choose the smaller cfm rating carburetors to the higher cfm versions that are intended to deliver maximum performance above 5000 rpm. I rarely drive my cars in that range, and the tradeoff everywhere else just isn't worth it. I will gladly let any modern 4 cylinder turbo vehicle blow the doors off of my 1970 Chrysler 300 anyway at full throttle, so why would I choose a higher cfm rating - I have nothing to prove in that driving range anymore?

But like I always say, your tastes may vary.
 
Holley Avenger is a carb that the engine builder suggested, after consulting another old school engine builder. I don't know about the latter, but the former is supposed to know what he's doing, and he is well aware that we are building a regular, smooth running engine (I specifically told him I want zero lopey idle) for a heavy car with 3.23 rear gears and a A727. And that we are supposed to be aiming at slight power raise, but emphasizing the low end torque. He's been telling me that with these pieces we'll get loads of torque, and reach something north of 400 hp. I doubt that latter claim.

It's a '68 engine with stock 906 heads, so who knows how much compression it has at the end of the day. Theoretical numbers are another thing altogether. Perhaps 1 to 9.0. Perhaps 1 to 9.5, if I'm lucky. Definitely not 1 to 10, in spite of the new pistons coming higher up. It all depends on the core shift of the combustion chambers. There is bound to be quite some.

My initial choice was Edelbrock Thunder AVS 650 cfm, but it was not available here over the counter, and I’ve been pushing this lately, as it’s taken four months already. I suppose they had the Holley at the shelf, accumulating dust. - I think I must be persistent here.

Thanks for the responses, and advice!
 
Last edited:
saforwardlook said:
Back in the day, I always strongly preferred the Holley 4160 carburetors on the stock 1970 440 standard engines in terms of performance. Even though they are only 600 cfm, their low end response made the cars a joy to drive under nearly all driving conditions that I ever encountered. Although the standard 440 engines also had the 2.76 gears in the back, they felt much more responsive in normal driving than the AVS 4740s with the 750 cfm ratings especially at low speeds on the 440 HP engines in vehicles with the 3.23 rear end gears. The problem with the Holleys back then was they didn't last long before warping and then causing major problems. But the higher velocity charge going into the engines with the smaller primaries yielded higher torque at low speeds than the larger AVS carbs. Also, the off idle calibrations on the Holleys were superior to those of the AVS too delivering much better throttle response at low speeds for that reason too.

AVS carbs are certainly reliable and well designed from that standpoint, but their off idle and WOT performance from a stop was far less responsive than the Holleys in my experience. I see some of the new Edelbrock carbs (basically they are AVS carryovers) have a better off idle distribution revision recently released to deliver more atomized fuel at low speeds, so maybe those are worth trying out now. But most Edelbrock carburetors that I have used leave me unsatisfied overall.

The Street Demon updated version 625 cfm with the black body mentioned above sounds interesting and like a very good compromise to deliver the best overall performance, so let us know how it turns out when you actually get it installed and take it out for real world driving.

Generally, I will always choose the smaller cfm rating carburetors to the higher cfm versions that are intended to deliver maximum performance above 5000 rpm. I rarely drive my cars in that range, and the tradeoff everywhere else just isn't worth it. I will gladly let any modern 4 cylinder turbo vehicle blow the doors off of my 1970 Chrysler 300 anyway at full throttle, so why would I choose a higher cfm rating - I have nothing to prove in that driving range anymore?

But like I always say, your tastes may vary.
Click to expand...

The other issues with the Holleys of that vintage besides the warping was the fact that the vacuum secondaries seldom worked right. This system used velocity vacuum with a diaphragm to open the secondaries. The placement of the port was such that the vacuum was often insufficient to overcome spring tension on the diaphragm and open the secondaries. There used to be lots of customer complaints that the secondaries would not open until the vehicle was going 100mph. The were some "fixes" involving weaker springs for the diaphragm and a manual conversion for the secondaries, neither worked very well. Warping and unreliable secondaries earned a lot of these carbs a premature trip to the junk pile.

Dave
 
Davea Lux said:
The other issues with the Holleys of that vintage besides the warping was the fact that the vacuum secondaries seldom worked right. This system used velocity vacuum with a diaphragm to open the secondaries. The placement of the port was such that the vacuum was often insufficient to overcome spring tension on the diaphragm and open the secondaries. There used to be lots of customer complaints that the secondaries would not open until the vehicle was going 100mph. The were some "fixes" involving weaker springs for the diaphragm and a manual conversion for the secondaries, neither worked very well. Warping and unreliable secondaries earned a lot of these carbs a premature trip to the junk pile.

Dave
Click to expand...

I should probably clarify that I am not advocating going back to an old refurbished Holley 4160 but a modern equivalent with the smaller cfm rating. The Holleys available these days are made well it seems, unlike the ones made for production in the 1969 - 1971 timeframe) though they seem to be more expensive these days than other less desirable (IMO at least) ones as mentioned. While the AVS and Edelbrock carburetors are sturdy and well made, I have never had one that really impressed me off the line under normal driving conditions, at part throttle or at WOT from a stop. And by comparison, I never had a Holley (when working correctly) that didn't do well under those conditions. But other options like the new Demon seem to be worth checking out too. I did fuss with a friend's Demon of an older design a few years ago now, but it was not impressive in any way to me, but I have not sampled one of the new ones that seem to have been rethought out.
 
Another vote for the quickfuel. I run the SS-830 electric choke, mechanical secondarys on my 505/512 stroker in my 66 newyorker. It was fantastic right out of the box. Street and track driven

 
MEV said:
Another vote for the quickfuel. I run the SS-830 electric choke, mechanical secondarys on my 505/512 stroker in my 66 newyorker. It was fantastic right out of the box. Street and track driven..



Click to expand...


12.80 @103 quite impressive!

What gear ratio and weight of the NY'er?
 
I'm excited to see how my Holley Quick Fuel 750 SS performs.

20180825_132844.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
On the road again after 21 years! 67 300 Drop top.
Replies
12
Views
2K
detmatt
detmatt
M
  • Locked
For Sale rebuilt '77 440
Replies
9
Views
3K
moper
M
B
383 build for my '65 Fury - Looking for opinions from those who have done it...
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
70bigblockdodge
70bigblockdodge
B
Replacement Carb Question/Opinions
2
Replies
22
Views
3K
commando1
commando1
Back
Top