FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: jholmes217 on May 05, 2017, 03:28:30 PM
-
Going through some more of my departed Dads stuff. Found a 1.19 venturi Autolite 4100. By doing some internet searching, seems these are somewhat rare. The numbers on the side are covered by a stamp xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, like maybe it was rebuilt. I'm thinking of keeping it for a possible small block build in the future. How are these compared to a Holley 1850? This one is complete and not frozen. Everything moves freely.
-
Jeff, what its worth questions should go in the Classifieds; see the forum rules. Thanks, Jay
-
Jeff, what its worth questions should go in the Classifieds; see the forum rules. Thanks, Jay
Took that part out Jay. Sorry.
-
Excellent find, sounds like your dad knew the stuff to set aside. The Ford number on that 1.19 4100 should be 5752425 under the XXXX's. That should give you a I.D. number for searches, in case yours can't be read. That's back when Ford was dabbling in the short lived "Boxcar" number system. It had a pretty specific application -1959 Mercury 383 with automatic. My opinion would be the desirability lies with 4100 fans who want the largest one made, rather than the few people doing a accurate restoration of a 1959 Mercury, but both are possible. There has been some discussion of the 5752425 on the old Fe Forum, here's one link, mostly talking about a similar era Holley, but down near the bottom of the post Hawkrod supplies the application info, which is sometimes not accurate on the internet.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/74182/thread/1301231031
I believe forum member Bob Sprowl did some flow testing of the 1.08 & 1.12 4100's and he found the 1.12 flows about 520 cfm, others have seen similar. I don't know if anyone has tested a 1.19, but I've seen estimates of around 560-580 cfm, so it would be a little smaller than a Holley List 1850 at 600cfm. The primary & secondary venturi and throttle bore size of the 1.19 are similar to the Holley List 1849, which is rated at 550 cfm. If you do an internet search you can probably find Bob's flow test data.
I have a 5752425 1.19 4100 and it doesn't have the XXXX's over the number, so I'd probably agree with your guess, I don't think that is a Ford feature.
Info I have in my notes on the 5752425:
Primary venturi 1.19"
Secondary venturi 1.25"
Throttle bore Primary & Secondary 1.555"
Primary Jets 57
Secondary Jets 66
Primary Booster assembly "2"
Secondary Booster assembly "6"
I don't remember if those specs were from my carb or somewhere else, if yours doesn't match I could check.
I've never used mine, I have another friend who has a 1.19 4100, who is also a big 4100 fan, and I believe he has used his with no issues.
-
Here is some info I ran across stating the 1.19 was used on Mercs in 58 and flowed 670cfm. I think it's accurate?
Pretty rare to find one, I would imagine.
http://mustangtek.com/4100/ford4100.html (http://mustangtek.com/4100/ford4100.html)
4100's are great carbs. Super easy to work on and perform well. I always liked being able to remove the airhorn and make running float adjustments.
-
The Mustangtek link does not provide any detail just a number that is not consistent with air flow ratings for other similar sized throttle bores and venturis.
Since they list the 1.12 at 600 CFM, I do not believe their stated 670 CFM for the 1.19.
-
MustangTek is a pretty good resource, but one thing many people miss is the warning explanations at the end of the sections and the warning symbols next to the individual entries. In the case of the Autolite 1.19 carb there is a warning triangle with exclamation, which tells us the posted information hasn't been confirmed. Since the physical size of the Venturi & throttle bores match the 550 cfm Holley, and are smaller than the 600 Holley, I think it's pretty safe to estimate that 670cfm is probably extremely optimistic. I also trust Hawkrod's application info in the post I linked, the 1959 model year fits more in line with the "boxcar" numbering system. I don't have an original edition Mercury Parts book from the '50's, so I don't have anything to confirm the application either. Many of these early performance parts remain a bit of a mystery. I'm just glad people had the foresight to save some of this stuff and people like Bob S. and Jay have put effort into testing them so we have some accurate data.
(https://s5.postimg.org/w9tbi51yv/IMG_6245.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/sq7dsbz8z/)how to take a screen shot (https://postimage.io/app.php)certificity.com (https://certificity.com)
(https://s5.postimg.org/4nqjxgilz/IMG_6244.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/9z5gi64oj/)temporary image hosting (https://postimage.io/)certificity.com (https://certificity.com)
-
MustangTek is a pretty good resource, but one thing many people miss is the warning explanations at the end of the sections and the warning symbols next to the individual entries. In the case of the Autolite 1.19 carb there is a warning triangle with exclamation, which tells us the posted information hasn't been confirmed. Since the physical size of the Venturi & throttle bores match the 550 cfm Holley, and are smaller than the 600 Holley, I think it's pretty safe to estimate that 670cfm is probably extremely optimistic. I also trust Hawkrod's application info in the post I linked, the 1959 model year fits more in line with the "boxcar" numbering system. I don't have an original edition Mercury Parts book from the '50's, so I don't have anything to confirm the application either. Many of these early performance parts remain a bit of a mystery. I'm just glad people had the foresight to save some of this stuff and people like Bob S. and Jay have put effort into testing them so we have some accurate data.
(https://s5.postimg.org/w9tbi51yv/IMG_6245.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/sq7dsbz8z/)how to take a screen shot (https://postimage.io/app.php)certificity.com (https://certificity.com)
(https://s5.postimg.org/4nqjxgilz/IMG_6244.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/9z5gi64oj/)temporary image hosting (https://postimage.io/)certificity.com (https://certificity.com)
Thanks for that. I should have read that a little closer, especially need to read the fine print. Your observation on throttle bore size makes complete sense. Reinforces what they say about not believing everything you see online.