If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Trivia questions - just for fun.
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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Trivia questions - just for fun.
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Trivia questions - just for fun.
> > 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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Trivia questions - just for fun.
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Trivia questions - just for fun.
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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Trivia questions - just for fun.
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. > > |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Frequently Asked Questions - FAQ | Pete[_1_] | Alfa Romeo | 0 | August 14th 06 04:42 PM |
FAQ - frequently asked questions - FAQ | Pete[_1_] | Alfa Romeo | 0 | July 14th 06 09:19 PM |
1994 Jeep Cherokee 4WD Automatic Transmission questions | brookman1973 | Jeep | 11 | February 13th 05 06:42 PM |
Questions, questions, questions | Vernon Balbert | BMW | 15 | January 16th 05 03:01 AM |
Where to get Official Speed Limit Info | [email protected] | Driving | 40 | January 3rd 05 07:10 AM |