How much for 71 Thermoquad?

-
And you know this because........This is where you provide evidence for said claim.



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.


Dude, slow down. You just don’t get it. Again, what ASScar does isn’t the do all, be all, end all. In fact, it’s a piece of **** show on wheels that I quit watching in the late 1980’s.

Again, not ALL emissions/consumption/efficiency modifications overlap.

Why can’t you get that through your block head? You have tied them all together but they don’t always go that way.

Geesus. So arrogant you refuse to think for yourself.
 
Again, not ALL emissions/consumption/efficiency modifications overlap.
Never said they did you did. If you cannot understand that increases in thermal efficiency lead to performance gains then you don't understand how inefficient an internal combustion engine really is. It's not theory its scientific fact. Sorry maybe all your engines are not governed by the laws of physics.........

You have tied them all together but they don’t always go that way.

Again YOU make that claim not me. Got any other strawman arguments to make yourself appear intelligent without actually discussing what I actually said?

Geesus. So arrogant you refuse to think for yourself.

Please elaborate on what thinking for myself means?
 
Never said they did you did. If you cannot understand that increases in thermal efficiency lead to performance gains then you don't understand how inefficient an internal combustion engine really is. It's not theory its scientific fact. Sorry maybe all your engines are not governed by the laws of physics.........



Again YOU make that claim not me. Got any other strawman arguments to make yourself appear intelligent without actually discussing what I actually said?



Please elaborate on what thinking for myself means?

One at a time.

There is FAR a more wiggle room in your “thermal efficiency” claim than you will admit. You love to overlap several different areas and claim they are one and the same. They are not.

As an example, there are times (especially on higher than “orthodox” compression ratio pump gas engines) where you have to do otherwise that just jack the engine coolant temp through the roof. If you do something stupid like that, you MUST reduce the nominal compression ratio. That kills power.

Following your “thinking” is like taking a mushroom trip. You jump to and fro, blending and extracting details to try and make your “way” the scientific “authorized” way to do it. It’s just not true.

What you claim as hard and fast rules are mostly made up bullshit. It’s like you build lots of **** on paper but never get your hands dirty.

That’s a simple FACT of your nonsense that everything has to follow your “rules”. Real world experience says it doesn’t happen like that. Unless of course, you worship at the alter of ASScar where you are confined by a straight jacket, in a steel box with nothing more than bubble gum and a piece of bailing wire.

Just last year several ASScar crew chiefs and others were complaining of how idiotic it had become. It was no longer an exercise in learning and developing power. It was just a giant jack off to a retarded rule book.

So you can stop referencing ASScar and the final say in anything.

Notice your second point. I am discussing what YOU want, even though it’s pure BULLshit. Rather than sitting at your keyboard, mentally masturbating over how cool you are, why not go out and build something and document it? From your shitty design on paper, to machining, assembly, dyno testing and track results. Don’t post what someone else does. Post YOUR junk. Then you and I can discuss that. Until then, it’s the same old, same old with you. A bunch of bullshit you’ve never done.

Thinking for yourself starts when you can actually walk up to a machine and build something. Then thinking for yourself continues when you test all your pet theories and they fail and YOU have to unfuck it, regardless of what all the “experts” say.


Thats the beginning of thinking for yourself. You have a long way to go.
 
Hysteric,
Replying to your yes/no answer in post #120. Yes, you did say that. You also said in this thread that the 72 had 'superior metering', which you claim must make more power.
And my question, asked several times & still waiting for an answer: do have any info, test results, dyno numbers, whatever, that proves the 72 model makes more HP &/or better throttle response than the 71 model.

You are just digging a bigger hole...
 
One at a time.

There is FAR a more wiggle room in your “thermal efficiency” claim than you will admit. You love to overlap several different areas and claim they are one and the same. They are not.

As an example, there are times (especially on higher than “orthodox” compression ratio pump gas engines) where you have to do otherwise that just jack the engine coolant temp through the roof. If you do something stupid like that, you MUST reduce the nominal compression ratio. That kills power.

Following your “thinking” is like taking a mushroom trip. You jump to and fro, blending and extracting details to try and make your “way” the scientific “authorized” way to do it. It’s just not true.

What you claim as hard and fast rules are mostly made up bullshit. It’s like you build lots of **** on paper but never get your hands dirty.

That’s a simple FACT of your nonsense that everything has to follow your “rules”. Real world experience says it doesn’t happen like that. Unless of course, you worship at the alter of ASScar where you are confined by a straight jacket, in a steel box with nothing more than bubble gum and a piece of bailing wire.

Just last year several ASScar crew chiefs and others were complaining of how idiotic it had become. It was no longer an exercise in learning and developing power. It was just a giant jack off to a retarded rule book.

So you can stop referencing ASScar and the final say in anything.

Notice your second point. I am discussing what YOU want, even though it’s pure BULLshit. Rather than sitting at your keyboard, mentally masturbating over how cool you are, why not go out and build something and document it? From your shitty design on paper, to machining, assembly, dyno testing and track results. Don’t post what someone else does. Post YOUR junk. Then you and I can discuss that. Until then, it’s the same old, same old with you. A bunch of bullshit you’ve never done.

Thinking for yourself starts when you can actually walk up to a machine and build something. Then thinking for yourself continues when you test all your pet theories and they fail and YOU have to unfuck it, regardless of what all the “experts” say.


Thats the beginning of thinking for yourself. You have a long way to go.
Lots of waffle about nothing. Again you cannot provide anything whatso ever. NASCAR teams spends millions on R&D and Testing. You wanna pretend you know more than they do?

What's you're budget again........
 
eplying to your yes/no answer in post #120. Yes, you did say that.

Now. Does the inventor of the solid fuel metering system state quite clearly that his design improves the "Inefficient operation of the carburetor particularly at low speeds?

YES or NO. It's highlighted in RED


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.
 
Lots of waffle about nothing. Again you cannot provide anything whatso ever. NASCAR teams spends millions on R&D and Testing. You wanna pretend you know more than they do?

What's you're budget again........

Again, and this time I’m saying it slower so you can get it.

ASScar spends millions of dollars on stupid ****, because of stupid rules.

Think about that.
 
Hysteric.

Replying to post #131. 'Inefficient operation'.

Since they were likely not concerned with emissions in 1932, inefficient operation could refer to fuel economy &/or power. But it doesn't matter anyway because though similar to the 72 TQ, it is not the same. The TQ has the nozzle pressed into a sheath with clearance around it. An air bleed connects to this gap. The patent carb has none of this.
 
Replying to post #131. 'Inefficient operation'.

Nope. Irrelevant. Its quite clear he is talking about the Carburetor. Its in RED

vaporization and distribution are not efficiently accomplished.

generally inefficient operation of the carburetor, particularly at low speeds.

Answer the question.........YES or NO

That hole's getting deeper but its not for me.
 
Last edited:
Hysteric,
When comparing the 1930 design to the 72 TQ you are comparing similar designs. Similar does not mean the same. Buy a dictionary & look it up.
The TQ has a different number of air bleeds & in different locations. Anybody with half a brain can understand that that will change the carb characteristics.
You have supplied no evidence to support your claims & not expecting any after 135 posts. You just provide distractions.
 
I don't need to answer any question. You are the one making the claim. What YOU need to do is provide evidence of your claim. If it ever eventuates, we can put it the hole with you....
 
I don't need to answer any question. You are the one making the claim. What YOU need to do is provide evidence of your claim. If it ever eventuates, we can put it the hole with you....
The FACT that you tried to make out (Another lie) the designer was talking about "engine efficiency" when clearly he was talking about carb function says everything about you and how much you really know.

Answer the question........It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain reading this thread you won't answer the question correctly because it shows you to be stupid and a LIAR.

vaporization and distribution are not efficiently accomplished.


generally inefficient operation of the carburetor, particularly at low speeds.
 
Wow. It must be terrible to be as desperate as you are. Cannot support your claims, calling people liars. Must be a small world you live in. If I call you a liar, I stoop to your level.
The fact is & this is not a lie no matter how many times you want to claim it is: that the patent carb that YOU CHOSE as an example to support your claim has significant differences in design such that it CANNOT be directly compared to the 72 TQ because the differences are enough to alter the metering characteristics.
 
Wow. It must be terrible to be as desperate as you are. Cannot support your claims, calling people liars. Must be a small world you live in. If I call you a liar, I stoop to your level.
The fact is & this is not a lie no matter how many times you want to claim it is: that the patent carb that YOU CHOSE as an example to support your claim has significant differences in design such that it CANNOT be directly compared to the 72 TQ because the differences are enough to alter the metering characteristics.

Still refusing to answer the question I see.......The fact that you continue to refuse to answer it clearly shows I have caught you out. The longer this goes on the worse you look destroying any credibility you have left.

Cannot support your claims, calling people liars.

Remember way back in post 67# where YOU "claimed" that Shrinker had said that "He didn't know" and was "still learning" in post 5# from the emulsion thread?

Here is post 5#

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.

That clearly shows that you LIED! And thats not the only time you have been deliberately deceptive.

How's you're credibility looking now I wonder........
 
Last edited:
How about those 302 heads? :poke: Let me have the last word, please, please! I need it so bad. :drama:
 
How about those 302 heads? :poke: Let me have the last word, please, please! I need it so bad. :drama:
Are you say he didn't deliberately LIE on multiple occasions in an attempt to avoid looking stupid?

You mean my 302's that went 240's @ 550 lift?
 
Last edited:
I picked up two this summer at Carlisle, ended up with one nice one. All rebuilt with the original brass floats, after looking at the index numbers I might stay 70 with the AVS. We’ll see this spring how each works. I did see one that needed rebuilt for $800, I have $550 in the two but one is junk in the top cover.
 
Hysteric,
Post #141. I got Shrinker's post mixed up with another one so I apologise for that & to Shrinker.
Now back to your nonsense....
- I only answer questions that are relevant & yours are not.
- I have counted the number of people supporting you on this thread & I get....zero.
- You haven't caught anybody out
- my credibility is just fine. You are the person making claims of the benefit of the 72 TQ over the 71 model & we are all still waiting for some evidence other than your opinion. People are are not stupid & can see through YOUR deception by asking me to answer questions to deflect/distract from your failure to back up the claims you make.
 
Hysteric,
Post #141. I got Shrinker's post mixed up with another one so I apologise for that & to Shrinker.
Now back to your nonsense....
- I only answer questions that are relevant & yours are not.
- I have counted the number of people supporting you on this thread & I get....zero.
- You haven't caught anybody out
- my credibility is just fine. You are the person making claims of the benefit of the 72 TQ over the 71 model & we are all still waiting for some evidence other than your opinion. People are are not stupid & can see through YOUR deception by asking me to answer questions to deflect/distract from your failure to back up the claims you make.
I would like to see those articals you have for the guys changes
 
Ceedawg,
Are you referring to me? Not sure which articles you are referring too.
 
Answer the question.......Every time I ask you you come up with new and different reasons for why this and that but no answer to a simple yes and no question.

Back to the inventors claims:

vaporization and distribution are not efficiently accomplished.

generally inefficient operation of the carburetor, particularly at low speeds.

You said about those above line did you not?
inefficient operation could refer to fuel economy &/or power.

Could it? Only in your head like just like Shrinker not knowing and still learning........

Answer the question.......
 
-
Back
Top