Trivia questions - just for fun.

Steve wrote:
> 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.

Just fired up my "new" Stude engine last weekend, I bought a new 650CFM
"thunder series" carb, I have to say that even though the carb is
theoretically too big for the engine (would have cost me another couple
hundred bucks to get a 500 CFM) the throttle response is very very nice
indeed, and I haven't even done a lick of tuning on it - in fact I
don't even have a strip kit for it yet, unless you count a vintage one
for an AFB (but I think I will go ahead and buy an Edelbrock one so at
least the numbers make sense when looking at the manual.) All I did
was to set the idle and decrease the pump shot a little, and it pulls
like a freight train. (of course I swapped a tired engine for a good
engine that had an extra 25 horses or so to begin with, stuck in a
4-speed at the same time, and changed from a 3.31:1 to 3.73:1 rear, so
I guess it probably would have felt much nicer anyway even with the
same carb I was using before...)

I dunno why you're down on the AFB though, it's the same exact carb
except for the secondaries...

nate

On 22 Aug 2006 10:24:05 -0700, "Lhead" > wrote:

>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.

The corvair monza had 4 carbs I think.

Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On 22 Aug 2006 10:24:05 -0700, "Lhead" > wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> The corvair monza had 4 carbs I think.

See answers above. The monza had two on the standard 110 hp engine. The
Corsa had four on the standard 140 hp engine. I believe the monza could
have been ordered with the 140 hp as well as an option.

>
> I dunno why you're down on the AFB though, it's the same exact carb
> except for the secondaries...
>
> nate
>


I wouldn't say I'm "down" on it. Its great on a big engine that moves a
lot of air, but it doesn't adapt as well to smaller engines, or
transition onto secondaries as smoothly as the AVS even on big engines.

Steve wrote:
>
>>
>> I dunno why you're down on the AFB though, it's the same exact carb
>> except for the secondaries...
>>
>> nate
>>
>
>
> I wouldn't say I'm "down" on it. Its great on a big engine that moves a
> lot of air, but it doesn't adapt as well to smaller engines, or
> transition onto secondaries as smoothly as the AVS even on big engines.

It was factory equipment on the Stude 289 and worked fairly well; not
sure what you're calling a smaller engine...

The AVS does seem to transition better out of the box, but I have spent
no time tuning on it.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Truly an interesting discussion - I like how smoe folks got onto their
own discussion of a specific carburetor and its failings or
highlights...

Factory means (to me) that it is something you and I can go and order
or buy off the showroom floor. If it's a racecar only option, then it
wouldn't be factory.

Good questions LHead!!!



Lhead wrote:
> Ashton Crusher wrote:
> > On 22 Aug 2006 10:24:05 -0700, "Lhead" > wrote:
> >
> > >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.
> >
> > The corvair monza had 4 carbs I think.
>
> See answers above. The monza had two on the standard 110 hp engine. The
> Corsa had four on the standard 140 hp engine. I believe the monza could
> have been ordered with the 140 hp as well as an option.

Pontiac offered TriPower as early as 1957, and Oldsmobile offered it under
the J-2 name the same year. Chevy offered it in 1958 as an option on the
348 engine.
Roy
"Irwin Corey" > wrote in message
news:9H%Gg.2697$WK4.1544@fed1read06...
> "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.
>
>