When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
CarburetorsCarb discussion and questions. Upgrading your Third Gen's carburetor, swapping TBI to carburetor, or TPI to carburetor? Need LG4 or H.O. info? Post it here.
So.. I have to admit, I'm impressed about something.
I've been building only EFI builds since the 90s. Everything gets converted to EFI.
However, one of my Corvettes (1968) I was going to hold off on the EFI conversion until I swap engines, so for now I just replaced the fuel lines and installed a brand new Quadrajet. I'm really impressed with the cold start. Two full pumps of the accelerator pedal, and I crank and it catches and starts with less revolutions than my 2012 6.0 LS truck did form day one.
Kinda impressed. The only other car I have that cold starts as easily is my 1994 LT1 which starts in about 1/2 a revolution.
I've had it on the shelf in the shop for years from when I used to do boats, but it's from Mercruiser an OE for their 260hp 350". The marine carbs (other than lack of vac ports) are higher quality and have better shaft seals/bushings than the automotive carbs.
The Qjet is a good carb with a bad reputation given by people who dont understand it and take them off to make things "old school". Generally in favor of a untuned edelbrock
Quadrajets are good carbs. After getting my rebuilt professionally, just one, no more than two pumps on a cold start. I was contemplating a bolt on fuel injection system, but finally decided against it.
+1 to marine carbs being higher quality. Picked up a boat in similar configuration (Crusader 260hp, Qjet) and it hadn't run in two years. Breathed on the key and she purred to life, idles so smooth. Carbs in general are misunderstood. Not that I know a whole lot, but I know the difference between a properly tuned carb and one that's not when I crank on the key
Carb'ed cars...tuned decently start quick. Cold or hot. Evey carb'ed car I've had (Q-Jet or otherwise) started in about 1 compression stroke. About the same as the LT1 or an L31.
My parents have antique cars; brass era. Hand crank, turn the lights on with a match? That era. One of them has vibrator coils, one for each cylinder. They throw a virtual, continuous spark. When you shut the car off, one of the cylinders lands on TDC/firing, filled with gas/vapors from the carb and pumped with compression. You can come back hours later, flip the ignition switch to "BATT" and the appropriate vibrator coil will, "bzzz....Vrooom!" Well it doesn't really "Vrooom", but it does fire off, no cranking, no starter. Yep. Carbs fill the cylinders w/the right mix...they're ready to go! :thumbs:
Personally I think carburetors get a bad knock in general. Set up properly their performance can equal fuel injection in all metrics (!). Tuning of course is a different animal and those skill sets are slowly disappearing off the performance map.
The Q Jet is no exception. By most accounts, except for maybe the diminutive fuel bowl, they are excellent performers.
Keep it alive anesthes.
Set up properly their performance can equal fuel injection in all metrics (!).
Performance metrics, yes. Plus you get charge cooling from the suspended fuel so perhaps even superior performance in that regard. However, what about lean cruise and adapting to elevation? Tuning a carb always ends up being a compromise somewhere, e.g. you can only get so close to ideal in part of the air/fuel curve until you're affecting another part, and that's a fiddly thing that changes with every combo. The carburetor is a fixed logic circuit, it can't adapt itself to its environment, only respond to it.
Fair enough.
Admittedly, it was a little rough getting the big cammed Chevy across the continental divide on one summer tour.
Locally though, lean cruise was easily accomplished. Even across a thousand feet or so of elevation change, the carb did an excellent job in the MPG department.
That said, fiddly is the word. Idle mixture screws, HSAB's, IAB's, power valve and PVCR, pump shot shape and further into it, emulsion bleeds and the rest. It's not a laptop thing that's for sure.
And don't forget to bring rags to stuff into the carb while swapping out the little bits.
learning to rebuild, understand, and tune a quadrajet is in my list of things to do.
Start with a motocycle or snowmobile, slide carb. That is easy to understand, then transfer the fundamental principles over to a car's carb. They are the same fundamentals...car carbs just have more devices to meet (a lot) more criteria.
Strictly from a Performance perspective; with a proper tune for a particular situation, the Carburetor (lets say a DP 4150 with no Air-Horn) will be superior to a comparable EFI configuration.
The Carb will have a slight performance advantage, and also results in greater evaporative cooling.
The Venturi still reigns supreme!
I mean come' on! ...our Cylinder-Heads still use excellent Venturi technology for the Intake and exhaust bowls!
Strictly from a Performance perspective; with a proper tune for a particular situation, the Carburetor (lets say a DP 4150 with no Air-Horn) will be superior to a comparable EFI configuration.
It shows how well EFI Systems can do, when mimicking a Carbureted Configuration (Not using Port-Injection, and a 4BBL Design Throttle-Body).
Evaporative cooling is occurring through the Intake-Manifold and Runners, thanks to the Injectors discharging at the height of the Carb-Flange.
The down-side to that Article is that it does not provide us with any Metrics on either Tune.
Knowing even just the Intake-Manifold Vacuum and Wide-Band AFR at WOT, would have been very helpful.
I am 90% Positive that the Carb Tune could have been improved to beat-out the EFI Tune.
IDK why you think that. It makes no logical sense. If they both flow the same CFM, they should both have the right amount of fuel applied and make the same hp.
And that's what they did.
Did you read about the time that they spend tuning the carb? FYI, "Evaprorative" cooling happens regardless of where the fuel in introduced. Even inside the cylinder, which is why GDI is so popular among OEM's right now.
And don't misunderstand me; I LOVE carb'd engines. Like Anesthes said, a well tuned, good working carb is an excellent working device. But it can not manufacture power simply because it's titles is "Carburetor".
And don't misunderstand me; I LOVE carb'd engines. Like Anesthes said, a well tuned, good working carb is an excellent working device. But it can not manufacture power simply because it's titles is "Carburetor".
The best quote in the article "Carbs are not simple, just all the work has been done for you". Absolute truth. I see a LOT of older guys (older than us haha) get frustrated with EFI because they don't understand how to tune. Yet, they can toss a carb on a relatively mild motor and it just works out of the box, with maybe a few screws turned here and there.
For a stock antique car, the quadrajet is working quite well. But once I swap the 412 into that car, I want a little more control at my fingertips, plus having wideband feedback is very valuable to me.
I've lost interest in "max performance". It just gets to the point where, how much is enough? 800hp? 1300hp? How fast does one want to go into a ditch when the tires break loose?
The best quote in the article "Carbs are not simple, just all the work has been done for you". Absolute truth.
I totally agree.That was an excellent quote that really puts things into perspective.
Originally Posted by anesthes
I've lost interest in "max performance". It just gets to the point where, how much is enough? 800hp? 1300hp? How fast does one want to go into a ditch when the tires break loose?
It's nice to see that posted. I am in the same boat. Another 700hp car? Another 1000hp turbo LS? Another 1000 hp Hellcat build? Yawn. Times sure have changed. The point now, is fun, feel, sounds, experience. For me anyway. In today's world, I'll never have the "baddest ride in town", b/c my gay friend's Tesla will beat anything that I'll ever build.
Another 700hp car? Another 1000hp turbo LS? Another 1000 hp Hellcat build? Yawn. Times sure have changed.
Times haven't changed, you did lol. This has always been a hobby for some, and actual competitive racing for the majority and what you pointed out is exactly what it has always been about, chasing horsepower. The Tesla is no exception, and it is in the same boat as the high horsepower internal combustion engines. Meaning, we live in a world of speed limits, nobody expects to run way over 65-mph on the highway, or over 45-MPH on the city roads, without getting a ticket, losing their license, or having their car impounded. This isn't anything new, I'm sure people back in the 70's and 80's were obviously subjected to the same street rules (sarcasm, of course they were). So a Tesla Plaid running low nines at over 140-MPH from the factory means nothing for a daily driver when you can't really do those things outside of the authority of a monitored race track with NHRA rules. So with all of these MPH regulations on the street, especially now with cameras and they send tickets in the mail, what's the point of even having a four or five hundred horsepower car as a daily driver? It's all meant for the track, as well as enthusiasts who enjoy the tech in their own garage . If you're not a racer that actually races every weekend, whether quarter mile from a roll or dig, half mile, or one mile, then it's pointless to even build an engine. That's why people want horsepower, because that tenth of a second decides the winner or loser at the track, it was never meant for the street. I think youtube access ruined racing for the real racers, because street racing and fanboy bench racing was never really what the hobby was all about. This is just my two cents on the matter, so just take it like a grain of salt... but the reality is, horsepower wins races, and racing is a competitive hobby backed by big money, which is why racers get involved. They don't spend thousands for no reason. It was never meant for some shmuck to watch 1320video, buld a car because they were inspired by street racing, and then killing themselves and maybe even others. I still can't believe they even allow that stuff online knowing full well kids are influenced the wrong way, like the "3000- horsepower king of the street Viper", I mean seriously, that is a police captain's wet dream, just waiting to bust that guy when he gets the chance. Catch that dude on the street at 200-MPH and he is done, trust me. But they don't show that part. But hey, whatever, I'll end my 2022 rant right here lol...
Times haven't changed, you did lol. This has always been a hobby for some, and actual competitive racing for the majority and what you pointed out is exactly what it has always been about, chasing horsepower. The Tesla is no exception, and it is in the same boat as the high horsepower internal combustion engines. Meaning, we live in a world of speed limits, nobody expects to run way over 65-mph on the highway, or over 45-MPH on the city roads, without getting a ticket, losing their license, or having their car impounded. This isn't anything new, I'm sure people back in the 70's and 80's were obviously subjected to the same street rules (sarcasm, of course they were). So a Tesla Plaid running low nines at over 140-MPH from the factory means nothing for a daily driver when you can't really do those things outside of the authority of a monitored race track with NHRA rules. So with all of these MPH regulations on the street, especially now with cameras and they send tickets in the mail, what's the point of even having a four or five hundred horsepower car as a daily driver? It's all meant for the track, as well as enthusiasts who enjoy the tech in their own garage . If you're not a racer that actually races every weekend, whether quarter mile from a roll or dig, half mile, or one mile, then it's pointless to even build an engine. That's why people want horsepower, because that tenth of a second decides the winner or loser at the track, it was never meant for the street. I think youtube access ruined racing for the real racers, because street racing and fanboy bench racing was never really what the hobby was all about. This is just my two cents on the matter, so just take it like a grain of salt... but the reality is, horsepower wins races, and racing is a competitive hobby backed by big money, which is why racers get involved. They don't spend thousands for no reason. It was never meant for some shmuck to watch 1320video, buld a car because they were inspired by street racing, and then killing themselves and maybe even others. I still can't believe they even allow that stuff online knowing full well kids are influenced the wrong way, like the "3000- horsepower king of the street Viper", I mean seriously, that is a police captain's wet dream, just waiting to bust that guy when he gets the chance. Catch that dude on the street at 200-MPH and he is done, trust me. But they don't show that part. But hey, whatever, I'll end my 2022 rant right here lol...
- Rob
I can't race competitively. I'm not interested in even trying to climb through the required cage for the type of speeds and times these cars can produce now, and the costs to maintain all the SFI junk is insane. Guys at my local track run 9s and 8s like it's an average day. Maybe this summer I'll take the C4 up there and challenge myself to run a consistent ET with the 6 speed at a nice slow 12.0 lol.
Honestly, I just like taking my different cars to car shows and cruise nights, the beach, etc.
No, times have changed, in (at least) 3 ways;
1. When cars were, 150, 170, 200 hp (the '80's) increasing power made the cars better. A LOT better. 3000 lb cars with 170 or 200 hp is an under powered car. More power makes it do everything better w/little to no drawbacks. Now days, you got a 650hp C7 Corvette....does another 100 more hp make it better? More fun? You going to dominate the roads with that? No.
2. 450hp used to be nearly unattainable for a street car/driver, thus the "challenge". Combining that with ^that^ -that cars legitimately needed more power, any gains you could get were incredibly meaningful/helpful/appreciated. NOW, you "add another 100 hp" like it's nothing...and the useful result is not there. You made my own point above; where can you use 1k hp, anyway?? You can't, for the most part, so what's the point? Car's today don't NEED and don't benefit in a meaningful way, from even more power than they're already coming with. See, "1." where that didn't used to be the case...at all. But Joe is right; how fast do you need to slide into a ditch with the rear tires a-lit, anyway??
3. Electric cars makes the objective performance of a gas car irrelevant. Which leaves, "fun" as the only relevance for the gas car.
Originally Posted by Street Lethal
we live in a world of speed limits, nobody expects to run way over 65-mph on the highway, or over 45-MPH on the city roads, without getting a ticket, losing their license, or having their car impounded. This isn't anything new, I'm sure people back in the 70's and 80's were obviously subjected to the same street rules (sarcasm, of course they were). So a Tesla Plaid running low nines at over 140-MPH from the factory means nothing for a daily driver when you can't really do those things outside of the authority of a monitored race track with NHRA rules. So with all of these MPH regulations on the street, especially now with cameras and they send tickets in the mail, what's the point of even having a four or five hundred horsepower car as a daily driver?
You're making my point. Times have definitely changed. When I was a kid, we had cars that did 0-60 in 10, 12...even 15 seconds. Now, an Odyssey minivan does it in 6.5. So, when we had cars going 0-60 in 10 seconds....speed limits were similar then, and now. Could the car use more power? HELL yes. Could you put that power (what you could find/get back then) to good use -even on the street, at every stop sign? HELL yes. Even if "only" up to 60 mph. Is that true today? No. It's not. Adding power to a C7 Z06 does squat to the experience on the street....which is where we drive these things.
As far as "competition", who's doing that? Most of the people in real life (and on forums) do NOT compete in a structured environment. For those who do, the reality is no car is ever fast enough and there are always faster cars...so what's the goal? For ME (and this part HAS changed for me) it has become a 'relative" thing; how's me and my car doing, compared to other similar cars or cars that should beat me? That is where the fun is; driving a car down to it's LOWEST number and beating other similar cars. Hearing, "Wow, that's a fast....__________". I go to the track and run a number in my stock '92 'Vette....in the process I beat a C6 in the lane next to me. That is awesome. I'd rather do that than run 9's in a 1k hp car that I know, should run 8's. In fact, I've had more fun running high 13's in my C4, than I ever had running 12's in my C6. Times have changed. I've changed too, but the goals/needs/and challenge of hot rodding is way different today than it was prior to the '90's etc.
Last edited by Tom 400 CFI; 03-07-2022 at 11:05 AM.
I can only go on what we see, and what is known. We normally hit the track every weekend or so when the weather is good, whether to race, or to watch my buddies race, and we BBQ. Right now the rage is roll racing the quarter mile, and though I lost interest over the years just like you guys, this kind of racing brought me right back into it. Newer tech, high revving boosted engines, street oriented cars dominate, and its fun again. Prizes won, trophies won, bets made on the side, all in fantastic sportsmanship. On the way home, everyone obeys the speed limit because everything was already proven on the track where it counts. That's what its all about as far as I am concerned. Losing interest in that just means you've moved on from it, kinda like been there and done that, because younger generations feel differently, generations haven't had their fill of it as of yet. So nothing really has changed as far as racing, only that some of us grew out of it and got bored. Not to mention if you don't hang around guys and gals who enjoy the scene with you, its only a matter of time before you hang it up entirely. My thirdgen is parked in the garage, and a Tesla 3 forced me to mod my sixth gen. Took it to the track, got him off the line, he reeled me in rather quickly, put two to three cars on me, and that is how it stood all the way down. So to borrow a line from Godfather 3, just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in lol, and I'm loving it..
Oh and as far as quadrajets, I'm all for them. Was teasing my buddy who rolls in a Tesla, and I told him the same thing I tell other owners. With enforced speed limits, and with it taking me thirty seconds to fill my tank when empty, and him about an hour to charge his Tesla when empty, with me getting about 350 milles per tank on average, and him getting 250 (claimed) on a full charge, how exactly is the EV beneficial to someone who is always on the go like me lol? So yeah, quadrajets still have their place, even in an EV headed world.
Though ammonia is slowly but surely hitting the scene in terms of alternative fuels.
Drive on folks...
- Rob
Last edited by Street Lethal; 03-07-2022 at 01:19 PM.
Well? We can CLEARLY see....and we very well KNOW, that hotrodding/cars/power trains have, indeed, changed massively since we were kids. Seems self evident, to me.
Originally Posted by Street Lethal
With enforced speed limits, and with it taking me thirty seconds to fill my tank when empty, and him about an hour to charge his Tesla when empty, with me getting about 350 milles per tank on average, and him getting 250 (claimed) on a full charge, how exactly is the EV beneficial to someone who is always on the go like me lol?
So wait, earlier, you were saying people want more power regardless of where their at, because, competition (even though 99% of people here drive their car on the street)...but now you're saying q-jets have a place b/c Teslas are too fast for speed limits?? Man, I'm confused.
How is an EV beneficial to a guy like you? Do you commute? Is your commute <250 miles/day? Do you sleep and have electrical power at your house? That's one way EV's could be beneficial to a guy like you.
Last edited by Tom 400 CFI; 03-07-2022 at 02:16 PM.
IDK why you think that. It makes no logical sense. If they both flow the same CFM, they should both have the right amount of fuel applied and make the same hp.
And that's what they did.
Did you read about the time that they spend tuning the carb? FYI, "Evaprorative" cooling happens regardless of where the fuel in introduced. Even inside the cylinder, which is why GDI is so popular among OEM's right now.
It is far from being that simple.
I did not join this Forum for the purpose of debating
...I know that many people here enjoy debating, however I am here just to pass on information that I have learned.
The Wet-Flow numbers of a Carb Configuration (or the EFI in the Article) do not equate to the Dry-Flow numbers of a Port EFI Configuration.
Stoichiometry is not equivalent between a Carb and the EFI in the Article or Port EFI.
The Rate or Quality of Fuel Atomization between a low Fuel Pressure Carb and the higher Fuel Pressure EFI from the Article, play a factor.
The Barometric Pressure and Oxygen Density that is dependant on the Intake Air Temps is a factor.
The surface area in which Evaporative Cooling takes place in the Intake Manifold and Cylinder-Head Runners, is a factor.
Evaporative Cooling via a smaller surface area from Port EFI or even more so Direct-Port EFI results in warmer, less dense Oxygen and different stoichiometry with higher fuel pressure requirements for proper fuel atomization.
Actually I am going to stop here...
Because there is a lot more involved here, to compare the above information and much more.
Like i said, I am not looking to debate anything...
I just want to pass on Knowledge.
I do not need to prove anything to anyone.
If there are disagreements with what I have Posted...
I simply do not care.
Like I said, I am just looking to pass on information/ knowledge that I have experienced.
I did not join this Forum for the purpose of debating
...I know that many people here enjoy debating, however I am here just to pass on information that I have learned.
The Wet-Flow numbers of a Carb Configuration (or the EFI in the Article) do not equate to the Dry-Flow numbers of a Port EFI Configuration.
Stoichiometry is not equivalent between a Carb and the EFI in the Article or Port EFI.
The Rate or Quality of Fuel Atomization between a low Fuel Pressure Carb and the higher Fuel Pressure EFI from the Article, play a factor.
The Barometric Pressure and Oxygen Density that is dependant on the Intake Air Temps is a factor.
The surface area in which Evaporative Cooling takes place in the Intake Manifold and Cylinder-Head Runners, is a factor.
Evaporative Cooling via a smaller surface area from Port EFI or even more so Direct-Port EFI results in warmer, less dense Oxygen and different stoichiometry with higher fuel pressure requirements for proper fuel atomization.
Actually I am going to stop here...
Because there is a lot more involved here, to compare the above information and much more.
Like i said, I am not looking to debate anything...
I just want to pass on Knowledge.
I do not need to prove anything to anyone.
If there are disagreements with what I have Posted...
I simply do not care.
Like I said, I am just looking to pass on information/ knowledge that I have experienced.
There are far too many variables to make an apples to apples comparison to most electronic fuel injection systems and a Carb. The argument of "what's better" is a matter of opinion and ultimately what's the goals are.
I spent a couple decades playing with and tuning port EFI. I've written lots and lots of posts about uneven air distribution, cylinder trim offsets (on sequential EFI), etc.
I started getting into TBI units like the one in the article because they can deliver similar performance to a carb, while having the benefits of modern engine management (feedback!). Plus, it's nice having a single control panel to deal with turning fans on, logging data, operating wastegates or nitrous, etc. That's why for street vehicles I really like the Holley Sniper, especially for converting older cars to EFI. If I was building another race car I'd probably look at the Terminator EFI in the article as well.
I think the article he posted is probably a better comparison of carb VS EFI, but atomization of fuel is a tricky thing. Some carbs do it well with a tuned intake and spacer, some do it poorly. Some throttle body units do it well thanks to very high fuel pressure and good spray pattern, but then it's up to intake design to pull the fuel where needed. A fuel injection system will never behave exactly like a carb.
I've been saying for years I'm going to do an EFI swap on my speed boat, which still runs a Quadrajet but I've just not got around to it, and despite rebuilding the carb every couple years it starts, runs, breaks the speed limit on the lake, etc.
When I had put the rebuilt Quadrajet on my '68 Corvette to replace the big silly 750 doubple pumper someone put on there, I was kinda surprised because it ran so well out of the box, and I have not driven a Quadrajet powered car since probably the mid 90s. I was like wow, this actually runs kinda nice, and if I didn't have a brand new Sniper for it eventually I'd probably leave it this way.
Show us a dyno of same engine, EFI vs. carb. Same intake, same CFM throttle bores. Then explain why there is no meaningful peak hp diff and the EFI makes more low end tq.
There is no need for endless debating, or "novel" posts full of made-up opinion; put your cards on the table and prove it. Where's the dyno charts to back you ridiculous claim? "The Ford 300 inline 6 makes tons of low end torque!".....too, right?
I've been saying for years I'm going to do an EFI swap on my speed boat, which still runs a Quadrajet but I've just not got around to it, and despite rebuilding the carb every couple years it starts, runs, breaks the speed limit on the lake, etc.
My god, I remember that crap. I hated that, about boating in New England. Got a speeding ticket on Lake Quinsigamond, once. BFS.
I should have replaced my carbs with EFI to slow my boat down.
Show us a dyno of same engine, EFI vs. carb. Same intake, same CFM throttle bores. Then explain why there is no meaningful peak hp diff and the EFI makes more low end tq.
There is no need for endless debating, or "novel" posts full of made-up opinion; put your cards on the table and prove it. Where's the dyno charts to back you ridiculous claim? "The Ford 300 inline 6 makes tons of low end torque!".....too, right?
You'll probably never find such a comparison EFI tends to flow much higher CFM even on low horsepower units. The base sniper is 800 CFM and I think the base fi tech is 850. EFI is objectively better on an all around driving experience the ability to change with temperature, elevation and oxygen content in the air alone makes it a Superior solution. Direct injection EFI is by far the best most horsepower most torque and best control along with drivability that carburetors will never experience attempting to do the same thing.
... lol, it's 2022 and people are still debating about the pro's and con's of carbs and efi. Hope this doesn't turn into a 305 vs 350 debate soon lol. Always loved quadrajets, was so annoying over the years to hear how they were inferior, and this was usually embellished by Jim Bob who's uncle's cousins tri carbed big block ran three seconds in the standing mile. Quadrajets were excellent during their day, and they still are. Have not run the Sniper so I cannot comment on it, but I know about maybe four guys or so who do... and they absolutely love it. So Joe, you're in for a treat whenever you decide to install it, from what I can see of it anyways.
^I agree. Pretty crazy, the claims people make about carbs in 2022! :yesnod:
Originally Posted by midias
You'll probably never find such a comparison EFI tends to flow much higher CFM even on low horsepower units.
Wait...WHU....???? But makes less power? Saaaayyyy WHAT!?
Originally Posted by midias
Direct injection EFI is by far the best most horsepower most torque
Why is that?
Originally Posted by anesthes
That's in Massachusetts right? Speed limit on most inland waters is 45mph or lower in mass, new hampshire.
-- Joe
Yep....you got it. Worcester MA. 45 mph is SO lame. So lame! I used to run 80+ on the Concord River. I can't believe I never got arrested for that...THAT I can see the safety issues with. But Quinsig? Winnipesaukee? 45 mph?? Super lame. The ticket I got on Quinsig, I wasn't even "trying". Just cruising back to the ramp to end the day....60 in a 45. Ahhhhh, I don't miss that place.
Yep....you got it. Worcester MA. 45 mph is SO lame. So lame! I used to run 80+ on the Concord River. I can't believe I never got arrested for that...THAT I can see the safety issues with. But Quinsig? Winnipesaukee? 45 mph?? Super lame. The ticket I got on Quinsig, I wasn't even "trying". Just cruising back to the ramp to end the day....60 in a 45. Ahhhhh, I don't miss that place.
When I had the shop, we used to build really go fast boats. But between the economy crapping itself in 2008, and NH imposing the new 45mph speed limit on Winnipesaukee, suddenly nobody wanted 100mph boats.
I bought a investment property 7 years ago in NH on a very small lake. Speed limit is also 45mph, but it's actually impossible to go much faster than 25 without hitting another boat. So I just drink and float around all summer.
That's fun too...especially w/the right folks. I've given up on public lakes now days anyway. We're members at a private ski lake. Hydrostream is gone and I run buoys behind a Mastercraft these days. Still...I think a 45 limit is so dumb.
... lol, it's 2022 and people are still debating about the pro's and con's of carbs and efi. Hope this doesn't turn into a 305 vs 350 debate soon lol. Always loved quadrajets, was so annoying over the years to hear how they were inferior, and this was usually embellished by Jim Bob who's uncle's cousins tri carbed big block ran three seconds in the standing mile. Quadrajets were excellent during their day, and they still are. Have not run the Sniper so I cannot comment on it, but I know about maybe four guys or so who do... and they absolutely love it. So Joe, you're in for a treat whenever you decide to install it, from what I can see of it anyways.
- Rob
I've installed other peoples, but like everything else, my stuff always gets worked on last. The software is nice. For a daily driver, street car, hot rod it's a great system.
I've been going back and forth with the building department, in a few weeks I'm tearing down the shop and building a new building (40ft). Should be big enough to fix my toys and have a paint booth. So I won't be wrenching during the summer, but that's fine. Hopefully have the new shop all done by end of October.
I've been thinking of putting the 412" SBC in the '68 convertible, with the sniper, although it's probably a waste of a high HP motor in that car. I was going to buy another fbody (drag project) but I'm waiting for the economy to crash. The prices people are asking for right now are insane.
With that said, I'd bet the Quadrajet would probably run ok on the 412, but I don't have the first clue how to "tune one". What do you have to do to a Quadrajet to support 450-500hp? lol. Sniper is easier. Plus timing control, fans, etc.
I can tell you that I recorded this video below of a Sniper install on a friend's 9 second S10 (with nitrous), and this was literally one minute into the first start of it immediately after the install. Flawless. Power steering belt was a little loose, but damn it was just as impressive as it was responsive. By the way guys, I apologize about my Tesla rants, its not that I don't like them because I do, I'm just not ready to write off the ICE engine just yet. When you have an EV engine capable of 18,000 RPM with a gear ratio of 7.50, you can't really put all of its' credit into its' instant torque. Those two advantages are huge. If I could somehow get some 4.56's in my 6th gen running the 8-speed that it has, it would be just as equally as impressive off the hit, only problem of course is the cruise RPM on the highway. But I digress...
Direct injection is the best of the current Mass produced technology because injecting fuel directly into the cylinder at 2k psi allows for the best atomization, most precise air fuel control and allows you to be less conservative with your timing for more power because there's less chance of detonation. It is simply the best mass produced way to get fuel into a cylinder with current technology.
... lol, it's 2022 and people are still debating about the pro's and con's of carbs and efi. Hope this doesn't turn into a 305 vs 350 debate soon lol. Always loved quadrajets, was so annoying over the years to hear how they were inferior, and this was usually embellished by Jim Bob who's uncle's cousins tri carbed big block ran three seconds in the standing mile. Quadrajets were excellent during their day, and they still are. Have not run the Sniper so I cannot comment on it, but I know about maybe four guys or so who do... and they absolutely love it. So Joe, you're in for a treat whenever you decide to install it, from what I can see of it anyways.
- Rob
Pros and Cons...
Port EFI wins almost every single category!
Direct (Chamber) EFI would win for Fuel Economy.
(Well until the Intake Runners and Valves get clogged-up with Oil/ Carbon).
Carbs would sneak in the Win for all out/ Peak Power, for Normally Aspirated Engines.
And Mechanical Injection would win for all out/ Peak Power, for Forced Induction Engines.
I've installed other peoples, but like everything else, my stuff always gets worked on last. The software is nice. For a daily driver, street car, hot rod it's a great system.
I've been going back and forth with the building department, in a few weeks I'm tearing down the shop and building a new building (40ft). Should be big enough to fix my toys and have a paint booth. So I won't be wrenching during the summer, but that's fine. Hopefully have the new shop all done by end of October.
I've been thinking of putting the 412" SBC in the '68 convertible, with the sniper, although it's probably a waste of a high HP motor in that car. I was going to buy another fbody (drag project) but I'm waiting for the economy to crash. The prices people are asking for right now are insane.
With that said, I'd bet the Quadrajet would probably run ok on the 412, but I don't have the first clue how to "tune one". What do you have to do to a Quadrajet to support 450-500hp? lol. Sniper is easier. Plus timing control, fans, etc.
-- Joe
The Q-Jet I built for my 383 would easily handle over 500 hp.
The cfm is there for the quadrajet, some came from the factory w/850-cfm. So long as the fueling is there, over 500 horsepower shouldn't be a problem for one. As for tuning quadrajets, I have so many old articles, just say the word and I'll scan a few from these. Can't get myself to toss these magazines, so might as well do something beneficial with them...
Haha, I'm sure you can agree, it's not the value (if any) it's just the nostalgia behind them...
Wow time really flies. One of our earlier third gen hero's...
- Rob
It's interesting to look back in the magazines and reread the articles that were relevant when I got back into the hobby.
In 2000, 400 HP and a 12 second streeter were considered a big hammer. My heap hasn't changed all that much but the times sure have.
It's interesting to look back in the magazines and reread the articles that were relevant when I got back into the hobby.
In 2000, 400 HP and a 12 second streeter were considered a big hammer. My heap hasn't changed all that much but the times sure have.
This was a great point in time, as it was a return to some High-Performance fun!
Gen-1 SBCs with worked-over Vortec Cylinder-Heads were making an easy 450 - 500 Horsepower!
With the Corvette of the time making 300 - 350 HP...
Vortec 350s were a ton of fun (as HP had been lacking since the early 1970s).
02-10-2022, 11:11 AM
