Trivia questions - just for fun.

"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> Irwin Corey wrote:
> > "Lhead" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> >>I'll post the answers soon.
> >>
> >>1. What was the first American car company to produce an overhead cam
> >>engine?
> >>
> >>2. What was the second?
> >>
> >>3. What American car holds the record for number of carburetors as
> >>delivered from the factory?
> >>
> >>Have fun.
> >>
> >
> >
> > 1. Pontiac LeMans
>
> Impossible- both the Duesenberg and the Willys OHC engines predated that
> by 40 and 5 years, respectively.


I was going with "existing" car companies of the modern
era, and if memory serves, Duesy never was so much a
full fledged American car "company" so much as they
were an "assembler" (i.e., they didn't do their own
coachwork). And no, I don't need to be reminded
that for years Fisher did GM bodies, Pininfarina and
Bertone did Fiats, Karmann Ghia did VWs, ... ;^)


> > 2. Ford Pinto
>
> See above.

See above


> > 3. TriPower GTO
>
> That's 3, but that's only a tie with the 440 and 340 "six-pack" Dodge
> and "six barrel" Plymouths. And I think Chevy had a tiple-deuce setup at
> some point too.

Pontiac did it a few years before Mopar, I also seem to
remember that Corvettes had a similar, albeit later, setup.

In article >,
Knifeblade_03 > wrote:

> Plymouth roadrunners had the "6-pack" set up,

6 Barrel.

> three two barrel carbs,

Available from Dodge, Chrysler and Plymouth

> synced to each other to open in stages as throttle compressed.

They [the outboard carburetors] open based upon the amount of
airflow passing thru the center carburetor.

> They
> were a bear to keep sync'ed,

No, not really.

> but when they were, they were awesome.

I'd rather have a Thermoquad.

"aarcuda69062" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Knifeblade_03 > wrote:
>
> > Plymouth roadrunners had the "6-pack" set up,
>
> 6 Barrel.
>
> > three two barrel carbs,
>
> Available from Dodge, Chrysler and Plymouth
>
> > synced to each other to open in stages as throttle compressed.
>
> They [the outboard carburetors] open based upon the amount of
> airflow passing thru the center carburetor.
>
> > They
> > were a bear to keep sync'ed,
>
> No, not really.
>
> > but when they were, they were awesome.
>
> I'd rather have a Thermoquad.


Thermoquads were plastic bodied crap that (among
many other problems) the well caps often fell off of,
that we used rectifier epoxy to glue back on, and a
poor mans excuse for a Rochester Quadrajet, even
if its so called intended design purpose was to lessen
radiant and convected heat absorption.

Knifeblade_03 wrote:

> Plymouth roadrunners had the "6-pack" set up, three two barrel carbs,
> synced to each other to open in stages as throttle compressed. They
> were a bear to keep sync'ed, but when they were, they were awesome.
>
>

Actually, they are pretty forgiving and reliable. In the Plymouth/Dodge
setup built by Holley the two outboard carbs were vacuum operated, so no
complicated synchronization linkage was used at all. There was a safety
linkage to make sure the outboard carbs would close when you lifted the
throttle, but that's it. Tuning the outboards for opening time and rate
was/is just as easy as tuning the secondaries on a vacuum-secondary
Holley 4-barrel.

Irwin Corey wrote:

> "aarcuda69062" > wrote in message

>>
>>I'd rather have a Thermoquad.
>
>
>
> Thermoquads were plastic bodied crap that (among
> many other problems) the well caps often fell off of,
> that we used rectifier epoxy to glue back on, and a
> poor mans excuse for a Rochester Quadrajet, even
> if its so called intended design purpose was to lessen
> radiant and convected heat absorption.

Sorry, gotta agree with aarcuda on this one. The Thermoquad was probably
the most advanced carburetor ever mass produced, and is COMPLETELY
relaible if you know how to service it without damaging it. I have one
on my daily-driven Plymouth, which has been there for *years* without so
much as an idle mixture adjustment. Even with the solvent-loaded monkey
whizz they sell as "gasoline" these days. The Quadrajet is also a fine
carb, but to call the TQ a "poor man's" QJ is just ridiculous. If
anything, its the other way around.

"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> Irwin Corey wrote:
>
> > "aarcuda69062" > wrote in message
>
> >>
> >>I'd rather have a Thermoquad.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thermoquads were plastic bodied crap that (among
> > many other problems) the well caps often fell off of,
> > that we used rectifier epoxy to glue back on, and a
> > poor mans excuse for a Rochester Quadrajet, even
> > if its so called intended design purpose was to lessen
> > radiant and convected heat absorption.
>
> Sorry, gotta agree with aarcuda on this one. The Thermoquad was probably
> the most advanced carburetor ever mass produced, and is COMPLETELY
> relaible if you know how to service it without damaging it. I have one
> on my daily-driven Plymouth, which has been there for *years* without so
> much as an idle mixture adjustment. Even with the solvent-loaded monkey
> whizz they sell as "gasoline" these days. The Quadrajet is also a fine
> carb, but to call the TQ a "poor man's" QJ is just ridiculous. If
> anything, its the other way around.


I could hardly disagree more vehemently, but I guess
that's what makes horse racing. And for a so called
"successful" design, it certainly wasn't copied a la the
Torqueflite, for instance. Btw, the Rochester Quadrajet
preceded, not followed, the Carter Thermoquad which
was nothing more than a "glorified" AVS which was itself
an update to the legendary and still renowned AFB. I
was always partial to the Holley 4 barrels myself though,
except for my dislike for their badly warping float bowl
mounts tendencies

Irwin Corey wrote:
> "Steve" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Irwin Corey wrote:
> >
> > > "aarcuda69062" > wrote in message
> >
> > >>
> > >>I'd rather have a Thermoquad.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thermoquads were plastic bodied crap that (among
> > > many other problems) the well caps often fell off of,
> > > that we used rectifier epoxy to glue back on, and a
> > > poor mans excuse for a Rochester Quadrajet, even
> > > if its so called intended design purpose was to lessen
> > > radiant and convected heat absorption.
> >
> > Sorry, gotta agree with aarcuda on this one. The Thermoquad was probably
> > the most advanced carburetor ever mass produced, and is COMPLETELY
> > relaible if you know how to service it without damaging it. I have one
> > on my daily-driven Plymouth, which has been there for *years* without so
> > much as an idle mixture adjustment. Even with the solvent-loaded monkey
> > whizz they sell as "gasoline" these days. The Quadrajet is also a fine
> > carb, but to call the TQ a "poor man's" QJ is just ridiculous. If
> > anything, its the other way around.
>
>
> I could hardly disagree more vehemently, but I guess
> that's what makes horse racing. And for a so called
> "successful" design, it certainly wasn't copied a la the
> Torqueflite, for instance. Btw, the Rochester Quadrajet
> preceded, not followed, the Carter Thermoquad which
> was nothing more than a "glorified" AVS which was itself
> an update to the legendary and still renowned AFB. I
> was always partial to the Holley 4 barrels myself though,
> except for my dislike for their badly warping float bowl
> mounts tendencies


Very interesting discussions. As usual, when discussing when something
"first appeared" can be hard to nail down. I should have qualified the
questions a little better to leave out racecars or race-only motors. I
know that the early fuelers used eight Strombergs, but that's hardly a
factory car or motor.

Also, does it qualify if it was a turn of the century car that they
only built 50 copies of? Subject to debate. That said, here are the
answers, sort of.

1. The 1920's Duesenberg J engines. Not only OHC, but DOHC and 4 valves
per cylinder to boot. I've read of the 1906 Scott and the 1898
Wilkinson that both had OHC as well, but I've never seen one nor heard
anything in depth about them.
2. The Crosley 4 cylinder engines.
3. The AC Cobra of 1965-1968 with the 427 engine could be ordered the 4
downdraft Webers. The Chevrolet Corvair of 1965 to 1969 with the 140HP
engine came with 4 single barrel Rochester carbs. So, I'm going to call
that a tie.

Feel free to offer corrections if you'd like. This was just for fun and
it's been fun reading the responses.

Irwin Corey wrote:

> "Steve" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Irwin Corey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"aarcuda69062" > wrote in message
>>
>>>>I'd rather have a Thermoquad.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Thermoquads were plastic bodied crap that (among
>>>many other problems) the well caps often fell off of,
>>>that we used rectifier epoxy to glue back on, and a
>>>poor mans excuse for a Rochester Quadrajet, even
>>>if its so called intended design purpose was to lessen
>>>radiant and convected heat absorption.
>>
>>Sorry, gotta agree with aarcuda on this one. The Thermoquad was probably
>>the most advanced carburetor ever mass produced, and is COMPLETELY
>>relaible if you know how to service it without damaging it. I have one
>>on my daily-driven Plymouth, which has been there for *years* without so
>>much as an idle mixture adjustment. Even with the solvent-loaded monkey
>>whizz they sell as "gasoline" these days. The Quadrajet is also a fine
>>carb, but to call the TQ a "poor man's" QJ is just ridiculous. If
>>anything, its the other way around.
>
>
>
> I could hardly disagree more vehemently, but I guess
> that's what makes horse racing. And for a so called
> "successful" design, it certainly wasn't copied a la the
> Torqueflite, for instance.

Here I agree- it was NOT a success. Too many ham-fisted knuckle-draggers
over torqued the bolts when they serviced them and wrecked the carbs by
flexing the phenolic body and making the jet wells pop off. AND it was
the last major new carburetor design before fuel injection, so it was
doomed to a short life in OEM applications anyway. Well, "short" being
about 15 years... But if you set one up and leave it alone, it will work
great for years. And it does a better job of what a carburetor should
do- mix air and fuel very precisely and uniformly over the entire power
and RPM matrix the engine sees, than almost any other carburetor. I get
better mileage with a TQ on my 318 than it did with a 2-barrel, simply
because the TQ primaries with the dual annular boosters are so darned
efficient. To its credit, the QJ is just about as good in that regard.

Granted, today I'd rather have a new-in-the-box Thunder Series (a
re-badged Carter AVS) than an old Thermoquad and that's what I run on my
other daily driver. For my money, THAT is the best carburetor still in
production short of a mega-buck Barry Grant. The AFB is tough as a
brick, but mixes air and fuel about like a brick too. I did like
Edelbrock's Quadrajet re-issue carb, but they had it over priced by
about $200 and it never had a chance to make it in the marketplace.

> Btw, the Rochester Quadrajet
> preceded, not followed, the Carter Thermoquad which
> was nothing more than a "glorified" AVS which was itself
> an update to the legendary and still renowned AFB.

No argument that the QJ came first. But it was and is a little more
primitive albeit more reliable under abusive treatment. As far as the TQ
being a glorified AVS- can't agree. The TQ doesn't share a single part
with the AVS, is a spread-bore design, 3-piece carburetor to the AVS's
near square-bore, 2-piece all metal design. Someone at Carter started
with a blank page when they designed the TQ. Even the way the metering
rods work is fundamentally different than the AVS, and also different
from the QJ. About the only feature it shares with the AVS (and the QJ)
is the secondary air door, but the TQ's air door is a complex shape that
actually becomes part of the air path when open rather than a flat plate
that just acts as a valve as it does in the AVS and QJ.

Lhead wrote:


> 1. The 1920's Duesenberg J engines. Not only OHC, but DOHC and 4 valves
> per cylinder to boot.

So what do I win? :-)

I had the privilege of seeing a non-supercharged model J Duesy that
arrived and departed a local car show under its own power last summer.
No trailer-queen, that one! I've seen SJs in museums and I know Jay Leno
has several he drives, but seeing a real Duesey *running* in the wild
was a new experience for me. The owner even fired it up for us to hear-
what an amazing sound. He told me he's driven it to the ACD show in
Auburn Indiana (about 1200 miles) 4 times in the last 30 years or so.
Cool stuff- they really DO NOT build 'em like that anymore. Not even close.

Steve wrote:
> Lhead wrote:
>
>
> > 1. The 1920's Duesenberg J engines. Not only OHC, but DOHC and 4 valves
> > per cylinder to boot.
>
> So what do I win? :-)
>
The honor of knowing. Better than all the material goods in life,
believe me. And, my heartfelt thanks for playing!

BTW, the first OHC that I know of built by any of the big three was the
1966 Pontiac Tempest that featured an OHC straight six. It was also the
first mass-poroduced American car with a timing belt.

> I had the privilege of seeing a non-supercharged model J Duesy that
> arrived and departed a local car show under its own power last summer.
> No trailer-queen, that one! I've seen SJs in museums and I know Jay Leno
> has several he drives, but seeing a real Duesey *running* in the wild
> was a new experience for me. The owner even fired it up for us to hear-
> what an amazing sound. He told me he's driven it to the ACD show in
> Auburn Indiana (about 1200 miles) 4 times in the last 30 years or so.
> Cool stuff- they really DO NOT build 'em like that anymore. Not even close.