How much for 71 Thermoquad?

-
Bewy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Let me check my magazine pile and I'll get back to you shortly.......
 
Found them here are the quotes:

Bewy said:
The later 1972 fuel metered design made it easier to control emissions. The 1971 is actually a simpler design....than the later models. Schoolboy could work on them.
Click to expand...

And here:

Bewy said:
the solid fuel booster tip made for improved emissions.
Click to expand...

Its called burning more of the mixture..........You know improved combustion like the NASCAR guys are chasing. Who could have though burning more of the mixture would lead to more power through better thermal efficiency.
 
And this is from the Chry Master Technicians Service Conference Reference Book '72-1 on the 1972 TQ carb, 13 pages in total. P. 2:
"TQ metering calibration is leaner because mixture enrichment is not needed to compensate for fuel expansion power losses. As a result, exhaust emissions are reduced without seriously affecting engine performance...without seriously affecting engine performance....without seriously affecting engine performance.
 
Bewy said:
"TQ metering calibration is leaner because mixture enrichment is not needed to compensate for fuel expansion power losses.
Click to expand...
What causes fuel expansion power losses.........
 
So there it is in post #103. Direct from Chrys. In black & white. Performance IS affected, but not seriously.
I have known this for a long time because I have run both carbs on different engines. The earlier design feels snappier on the primaries & pulls harder on the secondaries. The difference/improvement of the 71 over the 72 design was so noticeable on the secondaries that for many years now I have soldered up the holes in the 72 sec discharge tubes & cut off the bullet end off to mimic the 71 design.
 
Bewy said:
So there it is in post #103. Direct from Chrys. In black & white. Performance IS affected, but not seriously.
I have known this for a long time because I have run both carbs on different engines. The earlier design feels snappier on the primaries & pulls harder on the secondaries. The difference/improvement of the 71 over the 72 design was so noticeable on the secondaries that for many years now I have soldered up the holes in the 72 sec discharge tubes & cut off the bullet end off to mimic the 71 design.
Click to expand...

Your sure about that?
 
I don't tell lies.
Dummy, go back to 1.40-1.45 in & he states performance is not seriously affected.
Anybody with an IQ over 10 can interpret that as meaning there WILL be some loss of performance....but not a serious amount.
 
Bewy said:
I don't tell lies.
Dummy, go back to 1.40-1.45 in & he states performance is not seriously affected.
Anybody with an IQ over 10 can interpret that as meaning there WILL be some loss of performance....but not a serious amount
Click to expand...
What are they discussing at 1.30?

What does the statement "AS A RESULT" elude to.......

I don't tell lies.
Click to expand...

Did you forget post 5# where you totally misrepresented what someone else said? SO much so that when I posted the original post you went quiet......
 
Last edited:
Here it is for all see for themselves. Paragraph 3 discusses fuel expansion due to heat. Paragraph 4 clearly states that BECAUSE of that power enrichment isn't needed to compensate for power loss expansion.

1669841804092.jpeg
 
Hysteric said:
The 72 design is far superior to the air bled version. The fuel delivery is more linear with a solid fuel carb versus the emulsion design that is a compromise at best.
Click to expand...

Remember this post back on page 2 that started all this? If the discharge from the booster is a continues stream then the fuel that is metered is more consistently distributed between cylinders making the AFR between closer. Studies have shown that AFR can vary between 11-1 to 17-1 in some case in the same engine so the more consistent the mixture the better cylinder to cylinder variation will be. If any one bothers to watch the NASCAR 101 presentation they will see that even they battle with AFR distribution.



1669843347178.jpeg
 
That should be sufficient to kill this thread.......
 
You can keep introducing red herrings & other distractions until the end of time.
As I posted back in post #103 which you conveniently ignore because it DESTROYS your argument, folks can read for themselves what YOU posted in post #111, from Chrysler:

Exhaust emissions are reduced WITHOURT SERIOUSLY AFFECTING ENGINE PERFORMANCE.
So even you with your tunnel vision should be able to work out that the Chrys statement means performance IS affected by the changes to the 72 TQ.
 
Post #113 is just a re-hash of an earlier comment from you with no proof, just your opinion.
The quote you provided in post #113 just explains how each version of the TQ pri works, no proof or even suggestion of either type being superior in throttle response or HP produced.
 
Bewy said:
You can keep
Click to expand...
I can keep beating you about the head with your own ignorance until you're too exhausted to continue or you realize no one will ever take you serious again.


Bewy said:
And this is from the Chry Master Technicians Service Conference Reference Book '72-1 on the 1972 TQ carb, 13 pages in total. P. 2:
"TQ metering calibration is leaner because mixture enrichment is not needed to compensate for fuel expansion power losses. As a result, exhaust emissions are reduced without seriously affecting engine performance...without seriously affecting engine performance....without seriously affecting engine performance.
Click to expand...
With you're own quote no less.........What causes fuel to expand again.......Do I need to provide evidence that heat creates fuel expansion too?

Notice post 113 from the text from the Chrysler "72-1 The 1972 Thermo-Quad Carburetor" document CLEARLY differentiates between the 71 and 72 designs. Not only does it differentiate designs but also confirms my point about linear delivery.

Ill post it again incase you missed it the first time:

1669849978347.png
 
Again here is what the original inventor stated back in 1930 about what his design accomplishes:

US1858615A - Carburetor - Google Patents
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.
Click to expand...

Even back then they understood that emulsion design was inefficient and caused the fuel to exit the booster in slugs instead of a nice consistent mixture.

Slug flow

1669859697006.png


So the question then becomes which cylinder gets the slug of fuel and which cylinder gets the slug of air? What if you don't mix the fuel with air in a well before it leaves the nozzle so the air bubbles don't have a chance to coalesce (Join together) to form slugs or other inconsistencies in flow but keep it solid until its delivered to the air stream? Hence the superior metering of the 72 over the 71 is just a function of design. No secret squirrel **** no magazine experts just plain old science.........
 
Last edited:
And you can keep side tracking, going around in circles, whatever you like, avoiding the issue. You have no evidence that the 72 design provides increased performance that can be felt or measured, & the Chrys Tech info corroborates that there is a loss of performance with the 72 design.
 
Hmm......I may just have to do this the hard way I guess one step at a painful time while your ego fights for survival with every post but I will eventually put it to the sword. Are you familiar with Socratic Irony? Let me acquaint you.

Was this my original statement:

Hysteric said:
The 72 design is far superior to the air bled version. The fuel delivery is more linear with a solid fuel carb versus the emulsion design that is a compromise at best.
Click to expand...

Please answer clearly YES or NO.
 
Boy this thread has stayed right on track. lol
 
So much theoretical BS. Talk to a "class" racer and they will tell you to use the 71 TQ because it makes more power. They know, since the margin of victory can be in the .001 of a second range. They try everything and use the best, because that is their game.
 
Last edited:
Hysteric said:
It's YOUR theory remember........
Click to expand...

It’s not a theory there sport. It’s a fact.

Now back you Bewy thrashing you throughly.


I will say it’s hilarious of you to postulate that every emissions gain is also a performance gain.

Nothing could be further from the truth in the real world, where your bogus **** has to add up. And it never does.

I’m out.
 
Rat Bastid said:
It’s not a theory there sport. It’s a fact.
Click to expand...
And you know this because........This is where you provide evidence for said claim.

I will say it’s hilarious of you to postulate that every emissions gain is also a performance gain.
Click to expand...

Nope. That's your postulation. Go ask the NASCAR guys why its important. Maybe they need you and Bewy to show them why they have no idea chasing thermal efficiency to go faster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top