![]() |
|
|
|
| Register now (free) or login to remove ads | |
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Tweet
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Holley 2300 vs Motorcraft 2100
I have a Motorcraft 2100 1.08 (~280cfm) on my stock 289. I was wondering if a Holley 2300 would be a better carb. I don't want a 4bbl right now. The 2100 is in decent shape, runs decent and has great throttle response.
As far as I know the inside of the motor is stock. It was rebuilt at some point. I only have headers and a Crane electronic ignition module on it. I was looking at a 350cfm 2300 to rebuild, and was wondering if it would be worth my time and effort. Register now (free) or login to remove ads |
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
I don't know if it would be a better carb as the FORD Series carburetors are so easy to tune.
The 2100's come in varying CFM's. Would the CFM chart help? |
|
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
I found the chart already. I know the 2100 is easy to tune and rebuild, done 3 already. I have never worked on a Holley 2300 and was wondering if any one has any experience with them.
This is the chart I found: Number = CFM .98 = 190 1.01 = 240 1.02 = 245 1.08 = 287 1.14 = 300 1.21 = 351 1.23 = 356 1.33 = 424 I have the 1.08 287cfm |
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
The advantage of the HOLLEY is that it will be as working on the front of a 4V. Infinite adjustment and service parts. Jets much easier to find. Power valves calibrated and marked. Accelerator pump adjustment. You can't beat a HOLLEY.
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
| Similar Threads for: "Holley 2300 vs Motorcraft 2100" | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Motorcraft 2100 carburetor | Steve-0321 | Engine | 22 | 07-05-2011 10:32 AM |
| Another Motorcraft 2100 question. | Steve-0321 | Hotrodding Basics | 32 | 05-26-2011 07:54 AM |
| Motorcraft carb help, same as Holley right? | mde | Engine | 1 | 04-29-2005 01:46 PM |
| Does anyone know the Motorcraft 2100 carb? | mde | Engine | 3 | 09-24-2004 11:30 AM |
| holley 2100 carb | Harlequin | Engine | 3 | 06-12-2002 07:53 AM |