How much for 71 Thermoquad?

Hysteric

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
2,757
Reaction score
2,563
I don't know, nor care, how it improved emissions. Improved emissions does not mean that performance was improved.


Nascar chasing improved emissions because of exactly that improved performance........If you don't burn it you don't use it.

At the 19.20 mark he discusses unburnt fuel and efficiency losses related to that.

He also taiks about combustion time loss. I.E. the fuel that's used before TDC is wasted power because it doesn't translate to crank downward pressure. Imagine how much power you lose when you run 50 degrees of initial timing........

For the umpteenth time
For the upteenth time go read what I posted you obviously don't or cant understand it. Notice the Nascar guy doesn't talk about carb settings and experts but science......They measure and quantify everything no buttometers involved......

Maybe you can explain to the Nascar guys that improved combustion is a waste of time......
 
Last edited:

Bewy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
3,338
Reaction score
2,093
Location
Australia
Nascar are not using TQ carbs.
For the umpteenth time from what you have posted, I have NOT read or seen any comparison info/test between a 1971 & 1972 & up TQ. You can post as many videos/links as you like, but until you produce some info, the question will continue you be asked.....
Talking about links.......
OEMs have to consider emissions in carb design. It could be more important than power & economy, especially in later years as emission controls tightened.
Tuner, your expert & I agree he is an expert, said this in post #29 of the link you posted earlier:
'Except in the case of OEM control, max power & min consumption are usually desired.'
 

Hysteric

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
2,757
Reaction score
2,563
Nascar are not using TQ carbs.
Irrelevant. The fact is they are chasing power through improved emissions........Guess you don't know what improved combustion means let alone hydrocarbon wastage. Know what a hydrocarbon is?

For the umpteenth time from what you have posted, I have NOT read or seen any comparison info/test between a 1971 & 1972 & up TQ
For the upteenth time I've explained the differences but you can't seem to grasp what they are. Unless you see it written in a magazine then it doesn't exist in your mind.

Maybe you could take your magic magazine pile to Nascar and show them how to make more power......

'Except in the case of OEM control, max power & min consumption are usually desired.'
So your argument now is Nascar are idiots and going slower because of improved emissions.......
 

Rat Bastid

Dunamis Metron
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
4,056
Location
22 The Avenue
Nascar are not using TQ carbs.
For the umpteenth time from what you have posted, I have NOT read or seen any comparison info/test between a 1971 & 1972 & up TQ. You can post as many videos/links as you like, but until you produce some info, the question will continue you be asked.....
Talking about links.......
OEMs have to consider emissions in carb design. It could be more important than power & economy, especially in later years as emission controls tightened.
Tuner, your expert & I agree he is an expert, said this in post #29 of the link you posted earlier:
'Except in the case of OEM control, max power & min consumption are usually desired.'

You realize you can’t win this don’t you? It never matters what the issue is, Hysteric is a goal post moving, ride on the shoulders of everyone else and never post anything in your own words, shifting standards for what an “expert“ is (of course, being the smartest guy on the WWW, he gets to determine who is and who isn’t an “expert” and what the definition of an “expert” is, as it has to fit his definition at the moment and then it changes), the King of the shuck and jive move internet gawd.

You won’t win. Doesn’t matter how right you are, Hysteric will change the narrative to try and win an argument.

It should be painfully obvious to the most dull thinker around here this guy is a clown show and he is the head roustabout.
 

Bewy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
3,338
Reaction score
2,093
Location
Australia
Hysteric,
You can dodge, weave, call me names, whatever you like. Until you provide some proof of your claim via tests/comparisons etc they mean nothing.
 

Bewy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
3,338
Reaction score
2,093
Location
Australia
Rat,
Actually I am winning. It really shows in post #78 how he twists words to suit his argument.
I suppose I could turn the tables, throw his nonsense back at him & ask him to supply Nascar with 1972 TQs because the superior emissions will win races for them.
Bottom line: unless Hysteric comes up with some sort of proof other than his opinion/statement, then I am winning. But not expecting anything after 80 posts...
 

Hysteric

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
2,757
Reaction score
2,563
Hysteric,
You can dodge, weave, call me names, whatever you like. Until you provide some proof of your claim via tests/comparisons etc they mean nothing.
I've explained it to you but you can't understand it simple. If you cannot grasp that improved emissions via improved combustion means increased performance and why NASCAR pursue it (thermal efficiency) then you have no idea how an Internal Combustion Engine works.

Thermal efficiency
 

Rat Bastid

Dunamis Metron
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
4,056
Location
22 The Avenue
Rat,
Actually I am winning. It really shows in post #78 how he twists words to suit his argument.
I suppose I could turn the tables, throw his nonsense back at him & ask him to supply Nascar with 1972 TQs because the superior emissions will win races for them.
Bottom line: unless Hysteric comes up with some sort of proof other than his opinion/statement, then I am winning. But not expecting anything after 80 posts...


You know you are. I know you are. Everyone with the IQ above a tossed salad know you are.

Its the guy who thinks he knows more than he does that doesn’t know how dumb he looks.
 

Rat Bastid

Dunamis Metron
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
4,056
Location
22 The Avenue
Still pulling harder on that booster I see........:rofl:

You know (actually you don‘t know) guys like Darin Morgan (who IS an expert) talks about doing things to pull harder on the booster. You are just too arrogant to understand it.

Thats who you are. I can deal with it. I watched this thread go to **** like every thread you post in.

Maybe step back, admit you ain’t that smart (you are a highly polished bullshitter for sure) and try and learn how a carburetor actually works.
 

Hysteric

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
2,757
Reaction score
2,563
You know (actually you don‘t know) guys like Darin Morgan (who IS an expert) talks about doing things to pull harder on the booster. You are just too arrogant to understand it.
Ever read a paper on discharge co-efficients of jets? Guess you didn't know jets stall either.........Do intake ports go into choke? Guess what so do the drillings in carbs.

Maybe step back, admit you ain’t that smart (you are a highly polished bullshitter for sure) and try and learn how a carburetor actually works.
Maybe go buy a book on carbs written by Walter B Larew titled "Carburetors and Carburetion" and read it. It's very thorough and goes through the physics by which they work and covers design and function. Maybe that's just too much science for you yeah......You know the **** you spout about at the bottom of every thread?

When you've finished reading that you get a copy of "Internal Combustion Engines and Air Polution" by Edward E Obert as he covers carb design as well..

**** he even covers Chrysler's change in combustion chamber design from 1966 and 1967 and how that lead to less Hydrocarbon wastage.

If you have a point to prove provide the science to back it up as pulling an opinion out of your arse to support any theory you came up with just doesn't cut in the real world.
 

Rat Bastid

Dunamis Metron
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
4,056
Location
22 The Avenue
Ever read a paper on discharge co-efficients of jets? Guess you didn't know jets stall either.........Do intake ports go into choke? Guess what so do the drillings in carbs.


Maybe go buy a book on carbs written by Walter B Larew titled "Carburetors and Carburetion" and read it. It's very thorough and goes through the physics by which they work and covers design and function. Maybe that's just too much science for you yeah......You know the **** you spout about at the bottom of every thread?

When you've finished reading that you get a copy of "Internal Combustion Engines and Air Polution" by Edward E Obert as he covers carb design as well..

**** he even covers Chrysler's change in combustion chamber design from 1966 and 1967 and how that lead to less Hydrocarbon wastage.

If you have a point to prove provide the science to back it up as pulling an opinion out of your arse to support any theory you came up with just doesn't cut in the real world.

Read them both. And Taylor’s books.

Think it through. You just aren’t that smart.
 

Hysteric

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
2,757
Reaction score
2,563
Read them both. And Taylor’s books.
Sure you have......That's why you quote them so often yeah Even worse would be to own them but not understand the content like the physics involved in their designs.

Think it through. You just aren’t that smart.
For some one who knows so much you sure cant provide any evidence to support what you know. Yep I'm wrong and you're sure of it but some how magically you can't provide A SINGLE shred of evidence for why or how.

Notice when I provide evidence to support anything I claim you're resigned to Red X's and lame reply's like You're not smart and meaningless waffle BUT YOU NEVER ADDRESS THE TOPIC DIRECTLY! You simply cannot discuss the topic at hand because you can't and are left to pathetic personal attacks because you are intellectually impotent.

Got any science you wanna discuss........Nah didn't think so.
 
Last edited:

Rat Bastid

Dunamis Metron
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
4,056
Location
22 The Avenue
Sure you have......That's why you quote them so often yeah Even worse would be to own them but not understand the content like the physics involved in their designs.


For some one who knows so much you sure cant provide any evidence to support what you know. Yep I'm wrong and you're sure of it but some how magically you can't provide A SINGLE shred of evidence for why or how.

Notice when I provide evidence to support anything I claim you're resigned to Red X's and lame reply's like You're not smart and meaningless waffle BUT YOU NEVER ADDRESS THE TOPIC DIRECTLY! You simply cannot discuss the topic at hand because you can't and are left to pathetic personal attacks because you are intellectually impotent.

Got any science you wanna discuss........Nah didn't think so.


Why would I quote the books? That means you can just repeat what someone else said.

That’s all you know. What you read in books. That’s why you never put anything into your own words. You can’t. You are a theory guy. You just regurgitate what others have said and/or done.

Suck on that booster.
 

Rat Bastid

Dunamis Metron
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
4,056
Location
22 The Avenue
Sure you have......That's why you quote them so often yeah Even worse would be to own them but not understand the content like the physics involved in their designs.


For some one who knows so much you sure cant provide any evidence to support what you know. Yep I'm wrong and you're sure of it but some how magically you can't provide A SINGLE shred of evidence for why or how.

Notice when I provide evidence to support anything I claim you're resigned to Red X's and lame reply's like You're not smart and meaningless waffle BUT YOU NEVER ADDRESS THE TOPIC DIRECTLY! You simply cannot discuss the topic at hand because you can't and are left to pathetic personal attacks because you are intellectually impotent.

Got any science you wanna discuss........Nah didn't think so.

There are no discussions with you, science or otherwise. You have no real world experience.

I get the science and physics in those books. It’s all worthless if you don‘t apply it. And you never do.
 

Hysteric

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
2,757
Reaction score
2,563
There are no discussions with you, science or otherwisee
Yeah I just provide all the evidence for my claims so you can ignore it instead of discussing it..........

Still waiting for you to put some up for your claimed theories. I can back up all mine.
 

CFD244

These pretzels are making me thirsty.
FABO Gold Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
2,572
Reaction score
3,169
Location
Northern Ontario, Canada
The funniest **** is they think they have all these people behind them eagerly awaiting to pat them on the back for their ignorance.
Whoops, I didn't mean to imply that. I just thought it was a funny comment.
 

Rat Bastid

Dunamis Metron
Joined
Nov 23, 2020
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
4,056
Location
22 The Avenue
Said the guy with the it went rich because it pulled harder on the booster guy.

Still no science I see just more waffle about me......


True science. Prove it wrong. You’re the smartest guy here. Explain in YOUR OWN WORDS how using overlap and exhaust tuning doesn’t pull on the booster harder.

Go…
 

Bewy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
3,338
Reaction score
2,093
Location
Australia
Hysteric getting back to your claim that the 1972 TQ provided 'superior metering' over the 1971 model. Do you have any evidence...or not? If not, stop wasting every ones time.
 
Top