Which carb ?
#1
Which carb ?
hey everyone, on my 69 350 block, im going to put an edelbrock performer rpm. i have had lots of people tell me that a 750 cfm carb will work out great with an olds engine that has a hotter cam with headers and the rpm intake, thats mine lol. but what i was wondering, is what carb would work out best, i was wanting to put a holley with mechanical choke, and secondarys, easiest to put in. so for this engine, which is better vaccum secondarys, or mechanical.
#6
Thanks!
- GoldOlds
#7
I would go with the 770. Mine is pretty mild, 9 to 1, 210/216 cam, and I am at 68/73 on the jets, which is 3 and 5 sizes over what it came with. Also needed to go to a 50cc pump. Read this if you care to,
http://www.oldspower.com/vb/showthread.php?t=34984
Not trying to bash or start an argument, but some have found that certain cam grinds work better in our Oldsmobiles. The Comp cams have low lift relative to duration, Engle, Crane, Lunati, Bullet, etc are the opposite, lots of lift. I also think that is too much cam for a 9.5 to 1 350. Just my opinion. Something like this http://www.holley.com/60801.asp might work better.
http://www.oldspower.com/vb/showthread.php?t=34984
Not trying to bash or start an argument, but some have found that certain cam grinds work better in our Oldsmobiles. The Comp cams have low lift relative to duration, Engle, Crane, Lunati, Bullet, etc are the opposite, lots of lift. I also think that is too much cam for a 9.5 to 1 350. Just my opinion. Something like this http://www.holley.com/60801.asp might work better.
#8
Quadrajet is fine carb! I'd also add have the jets and ports matched. A good carb man that does performance would have done that, little more bucks, but anything less is a waste.
#9
A 750 cfm carburetor for a street engine seems about right. I read an article on carburetion in the November issue of Popular Hot Rodding last year. They gave the following formula to determine cfm size of your carb:
cfm = CID x RPM x CF / 2 x 1,728
With CF being a correction factor given in a chart they provided in their article.
Looking at the article I imagine the CF for an engine with stock heads and a cam with 215 degrees of duration would be about 1.005. Of course, I never heard if this article was very acurate, but it is worth plugging the numbers in to see what you would come up with. I kept the magazine because I thought it was an informative article.
cfm = CID x RPM x CF / 2 x 1,728
With CF being a correction factor given in a chart they provided in their article.
Looking at the article I imagine the CF for an engine with stock heads and a cam with 215 degrees of duration would be about 1.005. Of course, I never heard if this article was very acurate, but it is worth plugging the numbers in to see what you would come up with. I kept the magazine because I thought it was an informative article.
#10
#11
Interesting, that no one at OP picked up on it. There are several on ROP who would have, had you posted it there.
From: http://www.oldspower.com/vb/showthread.php?t=34984
Originally Posted by captjim, on OP
.2 slower .......
Originally Posted by captjim, on OP
........ took FOREVER to warm up, crappy brakes ........
Originally Posted by captjim, on OP
........ using ported and manifold vacuum on the advance ........
Originally Posted by captjim, on OP
........ In fact, it is the primaries that are the issue ........
Norm
#12
Yeah, there is a problem with the engine. I have an 8.9 to 1 355 with a 3.42 gear in a 4000 lb wagon that runs 13.9 shifting at 4600. I am not going to get into it with you here, Norm. For those that don't know, Norm was tossed off of Oldspower for being argumentative and confrontational, taking things out of context, etc. So, he has a little problem with me. I am not going to get into an argument and muck up this nice site. Whoever wants to can read it and decide for themselves. I will state for certain that the carb caused the poor brake pedal. Holley carb on, great pedal, Q-jet on, crappy pedal, Holley back on, great brakes.
#13
That is odd that a carb could cause problems with your brakes. I suppose changin your carb affected your engine vacuum. I know I generally set my idle mixture screws to maximum vacuum or maximum idle.
#14
Yeah, it is a possibility. Do you have another reason why you would need to use so much jet/pump shot?
And it needs larger than normal jets to accomplish it. Why?
Since the Q-jet mixtures were not changed in the same manner as the Holley, it could easily be 2 tenths slower. Not because it was inferior, but because it was jetted too lean for that application.
Here it is, again.
It was a question, not an attack.
RE: The original question:
At this power level, there should be no difference in ¼ mile times/speeds between a Q-Jet and an equal size Holley.
The clear advantage the Q-Jet has over the Holley, or AFB, is in its efficiency at under 2500 RPM cruising speeds. At WOT, you should not see any difference.
Norm
Since the Q-jet mixtures were not changed in the same manner as the Holley, it could easily be 2 tenths slower. Not because it was inferior, but because it was jetted too lean for that application.
Originally Posted by 88 Coupe
How could a carb change be the cause?
RE: The original question:
At this power level, there should be no difference in ¼ mile times/speeds between a Q-Jet and an equal size Holley.
The clear advantage the Q-Jet has over the Holley, or AFB, is in its efficiency at under 2500 RPM cruising speeds. At WOT, you should not see any difference.
Norm
#15
Not to say that it's impossible for Comp to be wrong, but the same cam guide states that 9.0:1 compression is necessary for their .541/.544 lift, 240/246 @ .050 hyd flat tappet cam. If that REALLY is the case, 9.5:1 should be plenty of compression for the .485/.490, 224/230 @ .050 hyd flat tappet cam. Am I missing something? It's entirely possible that I am.
- GoldOlds
- GoldOlds
#16
#18
Not to say that it's impossible for Comp to be wrong, but the same cam guide states that 9.0:1 compression is necessary for their .541/.544 lift, 240/246 @ .050 hyd flat tappet cam. If that REALLY is the case, 9.5:1 should be plenty of compression for the .485/.490, 224/230 @ .050 hyd flat tappet cam. Am I missing something? It's entirely possible that I am.
- GoldOlds
- GoldOlds
#19
As I've quite recently joined the Olds camp from the world of Chevy, I sometimes assume that if a cam fits in a small block that automatically means it WON'T fit in a big block. Oops. I've gotta get used to the fact that Chevy rules don't always apply to Olds. . .
And yes, the knowledge tossed about on ROP is sometimes WAY over my head. I honestly don't understand things like why or how lobe overlap is a good (or bad) thing, the difference between hyd./mechanical/solid/roller cams, etc. . . or why you need a certain gear ratio/compression ratio for a certain cam, etc. Lots still to learn!
- GoldOlds
And yes, the knowledge tossed about on ROP is sometimes WAY over my head. I honestly don't understand things like why or how lobe overlap is a good (or bad) thing, the difference between hyd./mechanical/solid/roller cams, etc. . . or why you need a certain gear ratio/compression ratio for a certain cam, etc. Lots still to learn!
- GoldOlds
#20
In all honesty, I like ROP, but this site is much kinder and gentler, with a ton of smart fellas. Start a new thread, and ask about your cam choice, see what they have to say. Do a search, there is a ton of info out there. Also, just to confuse you more, a cam that works great in a 9.5 to 1 350 Chevy, won't work as well in a 350 Olds, and vice-versa.
#21
lol you guys are great. ok so my cam is 268 lift and a .455 duration for each valve. it was the best deal i could get. but i am wanting to drive this more than once a month lol. now before anyone gets into the brake subject, i have manual brakes lol. and being an original 69 block its got the number 5 heads, the performer rpm intake will go on, coupled with headers that run to a 3in. collector, and reduced to 2.5in exhaust all the way back. so back to the original question lol. i think i would rather go with a quadrajet, so will almost any one work, or do i need one from like 68-72 ? i dont mind buying one that was originally on a chevy, but will it work is the question ? im not familiar with the quadrajets, this is why im asking for your guys' help lol again. im sorry to say that i have only recently become interested in GM. so therefor no prior experience with Q-jets. thanks for the input
#23
good to know. thanks a lot. im glad i dont need to dish out like 300 for a fully refurbished q-jet off of a 69 442 or something. so anything that doesnt have all the plugins for the electronics is good. great thanks.
#24
Hey Norm....
What about swapping let's say....
an 87 monte ss Computer carb
onto an 87 442 vin 9..
?
Could you just reset the M/c solenoid and T.P.S. to the olds specs by adjusting the carb accordingly?
What about swapping let's say....
an 87 monte ss Computer carb
onto an 87 442 vin 9..
?
Could you just reset the M/c solenoid and T.P.S. to the olds specs by adjusting the carb accordingly?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
rustycragars
Transmission
3
December 25th, 2016 06:06 PM
thomaswatk
Cutlass
2
March 22nd, 2007 01:31 PM