Some here might find this Holley history interesting.

[Right hand drive]

[GTO Geoff]

And the Carter carb was an emissions carb also, #9625, an AFB not an AVS. It came with an elec choke & was emissions certified. Edel could have used the Carter Competition Series 625 AFB, #4759, but they didn't......
.
It as apples to apples as you can get.
Over to you...

[Right hand drive]

[Right hand drive]

[GTO Geoff]

RHD,
In your haste to honour your beloved Holley, your are ignoring common sense. If Hs are so good, why are so many people making 'better' ones?????????

Regarding the Edel test: you do not know, & neither do I, what spring was used in the 6619. It is easier to change the vac sec spring in a H than it is to change main jets.
If Edel wanted the H to fail, why bother to test it at all????? Just publish the AFB results.

It defies logic that Edel would not have tuned each carb for optimum performance by changing jets, met rods [ & vac sec spring ].
You obviously know nothing about AFBs [ maybe you should try one one day..... ]. The sec velocity valves came in different shapes, sat at different angles, & had different counterweights. Most unlikely this was NOT optimised for the test because it requires almost complete carb disassembly. Since the 9625 was an emissions carb, it is reasonable to assume it would have had a late opening VV, just like the black spring in the Holley. The AFB won the race because it was/is a better designed carb. It is as simple as that. Take some F****** time to see how ingenious the design is before criticising it. How it has two IABs to better atomise the fuel; how it has a crotch bleed to prevent it going lean when you lift off the throttle; how it has a secondary start up/low speed cct so that there is no sec bog; [ not a crude sec acc pump that is too rich at some throttle openings & too lean at others ]; how it has long floats for better fuel control; how it has a fuel baffle in each bowl to contain fuel surge; how it has brass inserts with a smooth surface in the boosters so that surface tension from friction is minimised for earlier & consistent fuel flow. Tired now, more tomorrow.

[bigblockmark]

I was disappointed Mark Cambell used the .018" wire example in the fuel circuit restrictor brass bushing as an example instead of just recommending making it a replaceable threaded one like is common today for more precise tuning ability. He also did not cover advantages of the idle restricter being in the lower position versus the later engineered upper position.

I was disappointed he never went much into 2 circuit 4500 dominators, which eliminate that tube that is a restriction in the main wells. 2 circuits have a very good reputation in many drag racing uses that eliminates the part throttle richness.

I was disappointed he never even mentioned transfer slot tuning with a threaded restrictor.

I am surprised that a Pro Stock team that had Dave Connley on it, would have carbs that were not optimized and already have threaded restricters in the idle circuits that would not require sticking a .018" wire in a several thousand dollar pair of carbs.

[gntkllr]

I wonder what makes a person with a strange and obvious contempt for a product, frequent the board of a forum that's in regard to the product... for the goal of... what... converting everyone? Don't run what you don't like, and I'll run what I prefer. To each their own.

Common sense and facts on a host of logical fallacies, would be to read through this forum (and the old forum) where troubleshooting and tuning success stories, most especially with the supposed "better" Holley carburetors of about the last three decades, returning to calibrations and components and settings to that of previous to the zero-knowledge takeover, are numerous... and which all, the gems in these forums, are a wealth of important information and shared knowledge.

Corporation E committed it's share of brainless and dirty deeds. Research, here and elsewhere.

Assumptions as to what others know or do not know, dismissing what's been witnessed and/or learned, experience... purpose?

Nothing is ever "reasonable to assume".

"Better designed carb" is a matter of opinion, and everybody's got one.

I enjoyed the video... some very good points... some others taken with a grain of salt...

Please, no more

[Right hand drive]

[GTO Geoff]

RHD,
[1] Just to clarify some matters. The Edel dyno test 6619 v AFB started at 2500 rpm. Your vac sec spring chart claims that the secs open at 2750 rpm. I have no idea at what rpm the sec AV tips in on the AFB, but may well be later because the AFB has small primaries, large secs [ 1 11/16" ], compared to 1 9/16" for all 4 Holley barrels. But it doesn't really matter because the AFB was ahead from the start, 2500 & up, & never bettered by the H. At 2500 rpm, the AFB was making about 284 f/lbs, the 6619 276 f/lbs. Why was E testing two carb brands? This is the best theory I can come up with: this was a brand new carb for Carter & they were confident it could beat H in all aspects. Testing at Uncle Joe's dyno probably wouldn't sway many people. But testing at one of the country's most prestigious aftermarket companies would make the test results very believable.
[2] The nonsense by Mark Chapman that IR systems are really a waste of time. Tell that to a Ferrari owner, who do much with less. I think MC forgot that some types of racing & driving, the car needs to start from idle or off idle, & may need to drop down to low rpms. Our Supercar cars here are 302 ci making about 650 hp @ 7200 rpm. They need to start from zero & get down to 30 mph through the corners at some tracks. They use IR induction.
[3] I have the SAE white paper that Chrys submitted to the SAE on the development of the 426 Hemi, in 1963. [ first raced in 1964 ]. During testing, on the race engine, single 4 bbl, dual 4bbl & FI [ IR system ] were tested. Remember this was 60 yrs ago, so the #s seem low compared to today. Single 4bbl made about 550, leveling off at 6800; dual 4 bbl made 600, leveling off at 6400; FI made 630 @ 6400 & was climbing steeply. Hilborn FI was used on the Summer brothers land speed record car. Hmmmm....
[4] Tests done by Edel on their cross ram 4bbl inline intake, results published in HRM, Feb 1966. Dual Hs v dual AFBs. Pull started at 3000, went to 6500. AFB were down 10 hp @ 3000, but caught up by 3500 & were mostly ahead to 6500. Not much in it, but definitely nonsense to say H's 'always make more HP'.
[5] The claim that slabbing t/shafts does nothing. The carb makers didn't get the message because all performance carbs, including H, Webers, Delorttos etc use them. That is additional cost. Why would the companies do that if there was no gain??
[6] Chapman's nonsense that H carbs always make more power than an AV carb. Larew has a dedicated chapter on AV carbs in his book. He states concerning the pressure drop across the AV: 'One of the objectives in the design of this carb was the capability of large airflows with small pressure drops in the carb'.
And:
'The drop over the valve varies from substantially zero to approx this value [ 14"of water ] in accordance with the degree to which the sec throttle is opened & in accordance with the speed of the engine, or in accordance with the value of the airflow through the barrel in pounds per second.'

[Right hand drive]