How much for 71 Thermoquad?

Bewy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
3,338
Reaction score
2,093
Location
Australia
The info on the 1971 340 TQ in Shepard's Carter/Edel book is completely wrong. There is a pic on p. 10 & it is of a later 9000 series carb, & it is NOT a 71 model. Shepard claims the 71 has one large rear fuel vent. It doesn't. It has two at the rear, & the front vent uses a casting projection for the vent, not a steel tube.
 

Hysteric

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
2,757
Reaction score
2,563
Hysteric,
Post #45. There are two aspects to superior metering of these carbs, so one at a time.

[1] You are the one making the claim that 72 & up has superior metering. How/why? I do not know. I have read the same info you have which are just claims, never seen any testing or comparisons. What does superior mean? Better mileage, more power? Other?
[2] The 71 TQ uses the same dump tubes in the secondaries that the CSTQ used [ like a QJ ].
The 72 & later used dump tubes that have a rounded, closed of bullet shaped tip with a small hole in the end. There are a few holes along the length of the tubes that vary in size, position & number. Despite my best efforts, I have not been able to find how the size, position & number of these holes was arrived at. They vary depending on which engine the carb is used. Chry carefully calibrated these carbs for each engine. Obviously if the manifold is swapped or any other deviation from stock, all bets are off regarding accurate 'superior' metering....& the original, single outlet, design is likely to be better.
You know what you're right. Time to bow out of this one right here. :thumbsup:
 

Bewy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
3,338
Reaction score
2,093
Location
Australia
You have to be careful what 'experts' say also. When the TQs came out there was a good article on them in one of the magazines, I think it was PHR. John Bauman was the resident Chrys carb guru & was featured in the article that detailed mods for hot cams etc. [ I believed he passed way from cancer ] One of the mods is a pic still imprinted in my memory to this day: John holding up a TQ with four holes in each pri blade for bypass air; not small holes like 1/16", more like 1/8" from the pic.
Nozzle drip at idle would have been like a fountain....
 

Hysteric

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
2,757
Reaction score
2,563
I don't consider magazine writers experts. There is a large amount of scientific literature written about carburetors and carburetor design not to mention the investigation into the physics of 2 phase flow of liquids and air.

There was a thread a long time ago about emulsion when the innovate forum was still around with the contribution by 2 very knowledgeable guys both engine tuners and both quoted the scientific literature on the subject:

read-only-More in-depth e-hole discussion (with pictures!)
 

Oldiron440

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Messages
1,063
Reaction score
1,452
Location
North central Iowa
I still think about using a pair on a tunnel ram on one of my 440s...just for kicks and giggles. I think I'd want to tune on the dyno first.
 

Bewy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
3,338
Reaction score
2,093
Location
Australia
John Bauman was not a magazine writer. He was a specialist/engineer who worked for Chry.
His findings/info were published in a magazine. There is a difference. The same unwarranted criticism of Vizard from many people.
I have a huge collection of magazines & went through them & found the original article.
The article says: 'John Bauman is Chrysler's expert on carburetion. On Weekends you will find John at major meets helping racers. He is around the strip the rest of the week working with the Chry engineers, testing & developing the latest combinations.'

He offers these tips & info:
- he likes to see the carb entrance approx 1/2" below the floor of the scoop which prevents the air stream from disturbing the metering action.
- the solid fuel booster tip made for improved emissions. No mention of inproved metering.
- air valve dimple to body should be 0.850"
- sec WOT position of blades. Airflow decreases if you open the blades all the way & the distribution is wrong. 9-12* is generally optimum.
- 0.111" n/seats for high performance.


Another article I have on the original Comp Series TQ says this: With the sec baffle removed. hp jumped by 30 on a box type manifold. Engine is a Hemi.
 

Hysteric

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
2,757
Reaction score
2,563
Wow more magazine research and development. Where would science be without these guys............

the solid fuel booster tip made for improved emissions. No mention of inproved metering.

There's a hint. Gee I wonder how it does that...........I wonder what Improved emissions is.........Less wasted HC perhaps?
 

Hysteric

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
2,757
Reaction score
2,563
Here's the patent for the solid fuel metering triple stage booster design:

US1858615A - Carburetor - Google Patents


Here's what the designer states about the design all the way back in 1930 when the patent was applied for:

The fuel is conveyed from the restricted orifice in the jet member 28 through a cross bore 34 into a vertical bore 35 and from this bore the fuel flows through a cross bore 36 into thenozzle chamber and on up through the nozzle 27 through which it is discharged into the venturi 20. The fuel comes out of this nozzle with some velocity andis discharged into the most. rapidly moving portion of the air stream as it passes through the venturi 20.
The walls of this venturi serve as baflies to straighten out the flow; of the fuel. thereby preventing it from striking the walls of the air chamber or the conduit 8 until after it has been vaporized by additional air entering the venturis '19 and 7. I consider this an important feature of the invention, for tests have shown that when liquid fuel is per mitted to strike the outer wall of the mixing conduit, it is likely to be carried along in liquid form by the air stream in such a way that vaporization and distribution are not efficiently accomplished.
By the above arrangement, I am enabled to avoid the necessity for mixing air with the fuel in the fuel passageways and nozzles (That's Emulsion or Air Bleeding he's talking about my emphasis) which would cause the delivery of the fuel in slugs and generally inefficient operation of the carburetor, particularly at low speeds.

All this sort of stuff is covered in "Carburetors and Carburetion" by Walter B Larew published in 1967 by Chilton Book Company.
 

Bewy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
3,338
Reaction score
2,093
Location
Australia
Still having reading difficulties? The Bauman article was not 'magazine research'. It was research by Chrys employee & although I didn't mention it above 'Carter Performance Specialist' [ how he is described in the article ] Tom Hollman.
Their findings were published in a magazine. Get over it. And thank goodness for people like them who try different things, think outside the box & are happy to share the info, otherwise we still be riding horses.
 

Hysteric

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
2,757
Reaction score
2,563
Their findings were published in a magazine. Get over it. And thank goodness for people like them who try different things, think outside the box & are happy to share the info, otherwise we still be riding horses.
The original inventors findings were patented in 1930.........You do realize what year that is right?

Guess your magazines predate that. :rofl:
 

Bewy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
3,338
Reaction score
2,093
Location
Australia
The article supplied information to hot rodders/racers on to how to improve the performance of the TQ carb. Those providing the information were people with specialised knowledge of the TQ & the magazine was merely the 'vehicle' to provide said info. Today it would be done on You Tube...
The TQ was not around in 1930; so that might explain why there no magazine articles in 1930...
 

Hysteric

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
2,757
Reaction score
2,563
Everything you've posted was irrelevant. The original INVENTOR understood how his Invention worked and explained why in the original patent in 1930 which Carter then used in their design in 1972.............

No magazine experts were involved...........
 

Bewy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
3,338
Reaction score
2,093
Location
Australia
Well you got something right: there were no magazine experts involved. The people involved were carb experts, not paid or employed by the magazine.

You seem unable to accept, or comprehend, the FACT that the information presented by these experts was related to fine tuning, & measures to avoid degrading rather than improving performance. This info would be veeeery relevant to anybody trying to gain tuning info/knowledge on the TQ.
 

Hysteric

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
2,757
Reaction score
2,563
The FACT is this **** was invented in the 1930s and extensively written about in books....... Playing with something doesn't make you an expert. I've played with many vaginas in my time but that doesn't make me a gynecologist. Go back to your magazine pile.
 
Last edited:

Bewy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
3,338
Reaction score
2,093
Location
Australia
Nobody, certainly not me, is denying the triple booster design works...& works well. If playing with something doesn't make you an expert why did you provide the link in post #54 to your expert. Apparently your expert must be ok, others are not.
Maybe you should have stuck with vaginas....
 

Hysteric

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
2,757
Reaction score
2,563
Nobody, certainly not me, is denying the triple booster design works...& works well. If playing with something doesn't make you an expert why did you provide the link in post #54 to your expert. Apparently your expert must be ok, others are not.
Maybe you should have stuck with vaginas....
A real expert can explain to you how something actually works and point to the established science on the topic to provide a source and evidence for their knowledge. A self proclaimed expert just tells you he's an expert because he knows.........

My experts point to the science not to themselves for a better understand of how this stuff works. Their not my experts by the way just the most knowledgeable people I can find on a subject that were kind enough to share what took them decades to learn and figure out.
 

Bewy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
3,338
Reaction score
2,093
Location
Australia
These are terms your expert 'shrinker' said in the link in post #5:
- I don't really know
- still trying to learn
There might be more, I stopped after I read these.
What you are still not getting is that Bauman & Tollman have also...to use your words....been kind enough to share...
Sorry it does not fit your compartmentalised view of what constitutes an expert.
 

Hysteric

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
2,757
Reaction score
2,563
These are terms your expert 'shrinker' said in the link in post #5:
- I don't really know
- still trying to learn
Here is post 5#

#5
12-30-2007, 02:56 AM
shrinker
Registered User Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Adelaide South Australia
Posts: 2,394

There are lot of other factors going into this but what your doing is a good thing for people to see. Could you draw a main jet and draw the fuel level dropping in the bowl and draw the fuel level in the well as higher than the bowl because thats what happens. When there is the right amount of air bubbles in tiny form in the liquid fuel it makes the aerated/liquid less dense and that less dense liquid floats higher on the stuff with no bubbles in it.
Also fuel vapors come out the booster all the time before the liquid does. If you block the booster the engine runs lean.
The problem with e-bleeds is that the air keeps increasing and eventually you get to point where the amount of air is that much that it no longer is tiny bubbles in the well and it takes over and you get blobs of air. Well the engine doesn't run on an air blob.

No where in that post are the words you described. If anything it is a pretty good short concise description on how emulsion works and its downside.

There might be more, I stopped after I read these.
Sure you did.......

What you are still not getting
What I'm still not getting is an explanation of how it actually works and any literature to back it up from anyone you quote.........

Sorry it does not fit your compartmentalised view of what constitutes an expert.
Sorry you had to set the bar so low for yourself to what an expert could be......
 

Bewy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
3,338
Reaction score
2,093
Location
Australia
You are the one setting the bar 'so low' for an expert. Apparently Bauman & Tollman cannot be experts because their findings/ results were published in a....magazine. I regard Tuner, Shrinker as experts, never said otherwise, other than: even experts do not know everything.
You say: ' not getting an explanation of how it works..'.
What is it?
What I still await from you is info about what started this. YOU made the claim that the 72 & up TQs provided SUPERIOR METERING. Your exact words. I asked for some type of comparison/test results, any info, that shows an improvement at the rear wheels in hp, economy, throttle response over the 1971 design. Still waiting......
 

Hysteric

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
2,757
Reaction score
2,563
What I still await from you is info about what started this. YOU made the claim that the 72 & up TQs provided SUPERIOR METERING. Your exact words. I asked for some type of comparison/test results, any info, that shows an improvement at the rear wheels in hp, economy, throttle response over the 1971 design. Still waiting......
Did it improve emissions.........If so how?
 

Bewy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
3,338
Reaction score
2,093
Location
Australia
You tell us, we are all waiting.......
And which 'emissions'? HC, CO, CO2, NOX. All, some, others?
 

Hysteric

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
2,757
Reaction score
2,563
You tell us, we are all waiting.......
And which 'emissions'? HC, CO, CO2, NOX. All, some, others?
No one else is waiting.......They've all left a long time ago.

Your expert did say this didn't he?
the solid fuel booster tip made for improved emissions. No mention of inproved metering.
The rest of his recommendations are just carb settings........
 

Bewy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
3,338
Reaction score
2,093
Location
Australia
I will give you my opinion, & I have no proof, just like you it seems.

I doubt there would be any discernible difference in the operation of the primaries only between both types; no difference the butt-meter could feel or a dyno could measure & same fuel usage.
With primaries & secondaries operating, I believe the 71 model would make more measurable hp because of the design of the sec discharge tubes, which were copied from the Comp Series TQ.
 

Hysteric

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
2,757
Reaction score
2,563
I will give you my opinion, & I have no proof, just like you it seems.

I'm not interested in your opinion. The fact that your expert stated it improved emissions is evidence for my claim. The fact that I used your own expert to validate my point just exposes your ignorance on the subject.

Answer the question why and how did it improve emissions...........
 

Bewy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
3,338
Reaction score
2,093
Location
Australia
I don't know, nor care, how it improved emissions. Improved emissions does not mean that performance was improved.
For the umpteenth time..... provide evidence of your claim what superior metering did that was able to felt or measured. That is the question that needs to be answered.
 
Top