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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Trivia questions - just for fun.
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Trivia questions - just for fun.
"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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Trivia questions - just for fun.
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Trivia questions - just for fun.
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Trivia questions - just for fun.
"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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Trivia questions - just for fun.
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Trivia questions - just for fun.
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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Trivia questions - just for fun.
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Trivia questions - just for fun.
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. |
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 |