Rochester report

[shortbutslow]

For those of you wondering about carbs I finally installed my rebuilt Rochester in place of my Weber. Noticeable improvement in acceleration, power and idle - big difference. Maybe not fair to the Weber since I'm sure it could use a rebuild, but I can now understand the Rochester recommendations.

[kevkon]

Which model Weber? Any mods to the engine?

[shortbutslow]

Weber 34ICH. 2" exhaust and K&N filter

[kevkon]

Thanks, that's good to know.

[rejeep]

My series came new to me with a Rochester carb on it...

Despite what everybody has told me about the 2.25 petrol in a 109, I must admit it’s a lot peppier than I had anticipated..
I have no base to pass judgment, but It does idle great and have crisp throttle response..

[SeriesShorty]

I too was running the Weber 34 and it just always ran like a dog, bucked at take off, struggled to make over 35mph. Put on a Rochester and man what a peppy difference! Two thumbs up for the Rochester!

[printjunky]

I'm still unclear on where you'd find the most appropriate example of a Rochester for the Rover. Won't it take forever to find one on an early 50's Chevy pickup in a junkyard?

That's what I gleaned from reading Teri Ann's excellent Rochester pages. Twice. Though she does, at the same time imply plentiful-ish supplies of the buggers.

[Terrys]

I had a Webber on my 109 and it had wicked hesitation. Swapped it for another one off my sons 88 and all was good. I called and talked to Arthur about it. He said when they are good, they stay good, but as many turn out bad, with no success in getting them to run better. Hesitation is the bulk of all the complaints. I have an old Rochester on my '65 88 and that truck flys. There is a carb company I found on the net a long time ago, who had plenty of Rochesters and all the parts one could ever hope to need. I'll see if I can't find it again, and post it up.

[TriedStone]

I'm still unclear on where you'd find the most appropriate example of a Rochester for the Rover.

I think our host offer the webber option and not the rochester, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Here is someone who does:

http://www.britishpacific.com/BPSite/seriesLandRover/s_cat_pages/bp_series_cat16.pdf

[gambrinus]

If you run the Rochester, seriously look at the K&N air filter as well. They like to pull more air and the K&N gives a bit more flow than the oil bath. I've been running this set up on my 109 for the past 6yrs and haven't had any issues with the carb.

[shortbutslow]

I poked around and got mine off ebay or it may have been the HAMB in the parts classifieds. It was a good one - clean and still has the number tags on it. Came with a rebuild kit and was about $60 I think. I've also heard that they may still be available through Pep Boys, NAPA or places like that, since they were used into the 60's. There's a lot of info on the web if you do some searching. My Weber was okay, but did have hesitation, I couldn't get the idle right and it would cut out every now and then. I think a rebuild would help it alot, but just looking at the difference in the venturi's it seems logical that the Rochester would have an advantage just because it can get more oxygen into the mix.

[mongoswede]

What is the difference between the B and the BV? I see a lot of "B" rochesters listed on Ebay in the $160 range that look pretty clean.

[onecross]

mpg

what kind of mileage are yall getting with your Rochester carbs?

-Mat

[kevkon]

I'm not positive, but I believe Rochester used the B and BV to designate rich ( B) and lean (V). Also there is some variation on those single barrel carbs with venturi size, mounting hole spacing, and choke ( vacuum or manual)

[siiirhd88]

I was getting 11 mpg with a Rochester B.

Bob

what kind of mileage are yall getting with your Rochester carbs?

-Mat