carbking

Members
  • Content Count

    2,897
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by carbking

  1. While most on this forum will initially be concerned with their older cars, the real loser will be air-cooled small engines. I have posted before the advantage of E-10 for my lawn and garden tractor. This is a fuel injected John Deere 20 HP. With E-10, it just isn't happy if the ambient is 85~90 or above and the sun is shinning. Thus "Honey, I will have to watch the ball game, the mower won't run"! It will run just fine at 100 (I don't, but the JD will) if undiluted gasoline is used. I have no idea what it will do on E-15. Maybe I will have to mow at night??? Or use one of my older carbureted JD's that I can modify. For those with 1932 and newer vehicles with downdraft carburetors, Carter carbs are an excellent choice because of the metering rod technology. Carry a set of rods in the glove box for gasoline, E-10, and E-15. The rods are quite easy to change on most models. And while I do not recommend doing this in practice; to prove the point of easy change, I once changed a set while the engine was running at idle. On the older vehicles with updraft carburetors, the ones that will give the most trouble will be those that were advertised in the day as "automatic". Most of the airvalve carbs fit this category because the airvalve spring is calibrated for a specific energy content, and there is little adjustment on the tension. Examples: Cadillac (Johnson), Packard airvalve (Detroit Lubricator), Marvel (other than early GMC), Schebler, Johnson, Rayfield, etc. The "plain tube" style (Stromberg, Zenith, etc.) can easily be tuned. Jon.
  2. (1) Compression test - if bad STOP and address the issue (2) Assuming compression was good - ignition test - points (if needed), set dwell, set timing (set dwell FIRST) (3) Since you have played with the mixture screws, try suggested initial setting - in until thumb tight, then out 2 1/2 turns. (4) Start, warm to operating temperature, then test vacuum at idle. Assuming you have the original carb, it is the least likely of everything to be the problem! Jon.
  3. A compression test might give some insight as to your compression ratio. Assuming your compression is decent, LOTS of HP can be made using the 7028244 carb. Acquire the book on modifying Q-Jets written by Cliff Ruggles. An 800 CFM would be better, but NOT because it is 800 total CFM. The primary side of the 750 is 150, while the primary side of the 800 is 200. GM found that the transition from primary to secondary was smoother with the 200 primary. Jon.
  4. Here is a picture of the bottom of the throttle body of a Compound Carburetion rear carb: http://www.thecarburetorshop.com/Buick_rear_TB.JPG Note the presence of idle mixture screws. The rear carb was not a "complete" carburetor. The rear carb has an idle circuit, and a main metering circuit. It does not have a choke circuit, a pump circuit, or a power circuit. The two existing circuits work exactly as they would in a complete carburetor. Stromberg suggests an idle mixture setting of approximately 1 turn on EACH of the two carbs. Note that the throttle plates are designed to completely close. Thus, ASSUMING that the carburetor is correctly adjusted, and the progressive linkage is correctly adjusted, NO FUEL would flow through the main circuit with the damper removed, UNTIL the progressive linkage was opened sufficiently far to allow the throttle blades to open. After the throttle blades started to open, fuel would flow proportionally to the air velocity through the main venturii. The damper assembly is in place, not to prevent overfueling, rather to prevent (or minimze) a significant hesitation because of an instantaneous lean condition if the rear (secondary) carburetor is opened before the engine RPM is sufficient to accept the additional AIR. If the damper is NOT present, fuel flow still would not start from the rear carb until such time as the progressive linkage actually opened the rear carb throttle blades. Jon.
  5. If the car is still together, run three 0-60 times and get an average. Once the modifications are done, do the same thing, and compare the results. You may be surprised. Jon.
  6. How and what one does often is a function of one's budget, AND the guy at the local speed shop that wants to help one with one's budget Street engines, and engines for trailered race-cars are two different items. The rest of this post is directed toward a street engine. Three external (read less expensive than internal) options are: (A) carburetion (maybe), (B) distributor, and (C) exhaust. Covering the distributor first - most of the US V-8's by 1972 had very little initial advance, and a distributor that cranked in the rest. Not a distributor guy, so will leave specs to those that are; but more initial advance (up to a point) is generally a good thing. Willis (NTX5467) covered the exhaust. As far as the carburetor/intake manifold: Lots of early 1970's Buick carbs were 800 CFM, and the Pontiac and Chevy dudes have been migrating them to Pontiacs and Chevvies for years. The fact that the WOT is 800 is nowhere near as important as the fact that the primary side is 200 versus 150 for the 750 CFM carbs. When Carter brought out the TQ in 1969 (race-only), and folks used them on performance street-cars, it was found that the transition from primary to secondary was MUCH smoother using the slightly larger primary. Buick figured that out in 1970, and Pontiac performance engines used larger primary carbs beginning in 1971. By 1976, virtually all of the Q-Jets were 800 (200/600). For street use in street RPM ranges, the aftermarket intakes will gain style points, AND LOSE LOW-END TORQUE! Your choice, style or torque. So, suggestions: (A) carburetor - determine if yours is a 750 or 800. If 750, acquire an 800 (Q-Jet or the Carter GM TQ). If you go with the Q-Jet, buy Cliff Ruggles book on the Q-Jet. (OPINION) NOTHING new will outperform either of these two on the street, and probably won't come close unless set up by a professional. (A-sub-a) manifold - stock Buick (B) distributor - talk to a distributor dude, nothing wrong with a modified (curve) GM original. (C) exhaust - 2 1/2 inch pipes, and good mufflers. Personally, I DETEST tube-headers on the street (really like to be able to listen to music). The above should be good for a healthy performance increase, and won't bust the budget. Have fun. Jon.
  7. Quote Valk "That's what my rear damper looks like - valves and counter weight removed. Told the damper was obsolete given today's modern fuel. " Modern fuel should have nothing to do with determining whether or not to use the damper. If an original set-up, with the "dumper" rear carb, and progressive linkage - use the damper. If the set-up has been converted to two "complete" carbs (the "dumper" carb is not complete), and straight linkage - the damper should not be used. Have NEVER experimented with the original set-up (dumper, progressive) without the damper, so GUESSING! I would expect, ASSUMING THE REAR CARB AND THE PROGRESSIVE LINKAGE ARE CORRECTLY ADJUSTED, that the system would run lean, not rich. Most newer, V-8 engines with multiple carbs had a lockout to prevent the secondary carbs from opening before a certain RPM, thus flooding the engine with air and creating a lean condition. Jon.
  8. I do not have a Buick Master Parts book, however: Carter listed 551s as a single carb for 1942 only for the series 40 and 50 Carter listed 549s as a single carb for 1942 only for the series 60, 70, and 90 Stromberg listed 7-66 as a single carb for 1942 only for the 40 series Stromberg listed 7-57 as a single carb for 1942 only for the 60, 70, and 90 series Jon.
  9. The sleeve is pressed into a "blind" hole, it cannot be driven out. The way to remove the sleeve is using a boring bar, with cuts of about 0.003 until the sleeve is paper-thin, and then it can be collapsed, and removed. THIS IS A MACHINE SHOP OPERATION! Where to locate one? Don't know. Still have hundreds of sleeves for other vehicles, but sold out of those for Buick. Jon.
  10. I guess there was no "autocorrect" in 1923. For those who do not normally deal with 'teens carburetors, the text describes a Stromberg type G air-valve carburetor, and refers to the cut-a-way in figure 8.The carburetor in the cut-a-way (figure 8), is a Stromberg type M (one can see the M-3 on the casting) which is a plain tube carburetor.This reference is in a U.S. Army training manual on ignition and carburetion printed in 1923. Jon
  11. Take a look at this reference: US Army textbook training EDIT: site doesn't permit emojis in the title. There should be a in the title. Jon.
  12. Not a front. Single carb from 1942 40 series. Jon.
  13. One never knows where one is going to find really good obscure material This listing is for an International Correspondence Schools Carburetor & Fuel Pump textbook. Written in 1940, it has virtually complete coverage of major carburetor specifications, rebuilding, and adjustments of U.S. automobile carburetors from 1932~1940. The only exception seems to be Johnson (maybe ICS figured Johnson a hopeless case??? ) Also missing is 1932 and 1933 Buick, although 1934 and newer Marvel are covered. There are chapters on Carter, Chandler-Groves, Detroit Lubricator, Marvel, Stromberg, Tillotson, and Zenith carburetors; Delco, Detroit Lubricator, and Sisson automatic chokes, fuel pumps, and applications and calibrations tables. By far the best information I have seen anywhere on Chandler-Groves, Detroit Lubricator, and Tillotson carburetors. Excellent information on the other makes. This is a paper-back book, 8 1/2 x 11 inches, 70 pages. The cover (paper) is rough, with missing paper and taped. The interior pages are excellent. The book has been re-stapled. Book is very well illustrated. One copy only. Price postpaid within the 48 contiguous United States - $65.00 VISA, MasterCard, bank or postal money orders accepted. 573-392-7378 (9-12, 1-4 Mon-Tues central time). Jon.
  14. Frank - those were only 2 examples. Parents had a 1982 Buick with 3 failures in 82k miles, and a Chevrolet Citation (don't remember the year) that had 2 before the Missouri salt and cinders rusted it out (long before 100k). There are others. Knock on wood, but 1996 Ranger with 115k so far has only had 2, and a 2014 Explorer at 40k hasn't had any. With the exception of the Buick & Citation of my parents, have no personal experience with makes other than Ford. Like I stated, if you like them fine; but my track record with electronics is lousy! Jon.
  15. Most of the better auto parts stores will have a clip assortment, and sell individual clips. EDIT: just looked at the picture. What you have circled is the throttle bracket, not a throttle clip; disregard comment about parts stores. For some reason, the bracket was not considered a part of a "rebuilt carburetor", and MANY are looking for them. Additionally, there were hundreds of different ones. You would need to supply the tag number of your carburetor. And just for the record, because only 1 out of every 4 or 5 carbs that originally had a bracket will still have one, often the bracket alone is as much or more than a carb with the bracket. Jon.
  16. Interesting thread, and the OP makes some good points about electronics. However: I seem to bring out the worst in anything electronic.😠 Joe made the comment about the government looking for 100k miles without failure. I have yet to experience 100k miles in ANY electronic ignitioned vehicle that had no electronic ignition failures. Two examples: (1) 1979 Ford van 440k miles on original engine - 13 electronic ignition failures. I carried TWO in the glove box! (2) 1979 Ford Mustang, special order, always garaged, never seen snow, seen rain once 65k original miles, now on third electronic ignition (total failures) On all newer personal vehicles with original electronics (includes immediate family and company) we AVERAGE a mean mileage to failure of about 30k miles with the electronics! I won't try to convince anyone to stay with points, but personally, Hollywood will be covered by glaciers (think of the cliche) before I personally convert points to electronics. Professionally: We get many calls daily of enthusiasts with "carburetor issues". Generally, these are idle or hesitation. If idle. our first question used to be "have you done a compression test?". Now our first question is "have you installed a p-conversion"? If the answer is yes, we suggest the upgrade to points and condenser as a "test". At least 50 per cent of those with "carburetor idle issues" and the pertronix call back to tell me points and condenser SOLVED the "carburetor issue". So if you wish to use it, go ahead, but if an older vehicle that originally had a generator, do yourself a favor and upgrade to an alternator when you do the p-con.
  17. Adapters are readily available, and have been for 40 years. Check with the better supply houses. Jon.
  18. The ONLY upgrade to the original carburetor for a mostly stock engine, might be a custom dual quad using an original Buick intake, and somewhat smaller original Carter carbs. (Opinion). Of course, you could always install one of the shiny new clones with the larger air intake, but to make it work correctly, you would need to replace the engine with a bowtie 350. Jon.
  19. Ed - see that you figured out the kit reference. 5632 - the manufacturers of carburetors did NOT publish the CFM of virtually ALL original equipment carburetors. There was no reason to do so. As far as CFM for aftermarket carburetors ???????? You might find this link interesting: http://www.thecarburetorshop.com/Carbshop_carbsizesandCFM.htm Possibly the most knowledgeable person who ever lived concerning CFM was Mark Twain. He once made the comment "figures don't lie, but liars figure"! As an example, one well-known company that did not have a 600 CFM carburetor simply renumbered one of their 625 CFM carburetors and called it a 600 CFM. As far as your Carter is concerned, when Carter was bought in about 1985, the new parent company ordered a lot of stuff to be discarded. Much of the data was discarded into my van to save. Included in this were the Carter flow tests. Yes, your carburetor was flow tested, but NOT for maximum capacity. Carter was interested in the A/F ratios at different values of vacuum, which is why the carburetors were flow tested. And, no offense meant to you, but your comment in your other thread about how you look and how you ski is spot on; but you will find it can be a double-edged sword when it comes to automobiles. How you look with a lot of shiny new components in the engine compartment which don't help the performance of the engine.....................can be a major turn-off to some. But there is an old cliche about beauty......................... Jon.
  20. Nice of Hemmings to advertise for me for free The last number on each line in the referenced link is our rebuilding kit number. I was unaware this list existed. Jon
  21. Is the plunger a ball? If so Grose-jet Jon.
  22. Classic's shop was closed for them by the gentleman with the long beard and the scythe. It will happen to us all. Jon
  23. Carbking is NOT strongly prejudiced against Marvel carbs, and I did not tell John to scrap it, nor did he mention to scrap it. My words were that I didn't want it at any price, even free. WHY??? I am currently several years past normal retirement age, and have more than 150,000 carburetors; I simply do not need more. But one issue to consider is that many enthusiasts of vehicles that used Marvels probably already have an original, and most will have two or three spares. There simply is not the market for the early brass carbs that existed 50 years ago. As far as Marvel carbs (any many other early carbs) are concerned: If one is building a numbers-matching original showcar or a museum piece; then the original carb is the way to go, regardless of its quality. For a "driver", there are better carbs, actually, MUCH better carbs, many of which can be acquired at a fraction of the cost to make an original functional. And there is always the enthusiast that enjoys trying to make the original work; I have no issue with that whatsoever, and manufacture rebuilding kits to help. But a few facts (not just my opinions): There were more than 600 manufacturers of carburetors in the USA alone. But of that group that were in business in the 'teens and 'twenties; only Carter, Holley, Stromberg, and Zenith still existed in the 1950's as suppliers for cars & trucks. The merged Marvel/Schebler brand, and Tillotson also still existed for small engine, as well as tractor and some industrial engines. Rochester started to produce carburetors in 1949. Why did the rest cease to exist? Much of the following is speculation on my part, not provable facts: Transportation and communication improved dramatically. In the case of Marvel (this is a fact) virtually ALL of their customers were headquartered within 50 miles of the Marvel factory in Flint, Michigan. Where was Buick's headquarters? Many of the early carbs were designed (and advertised) as "automatic" carburetors. Marvel and Schebler were two of the biggest using air valve springs, which fatigue over time. This type of carb never worked as well as the "plain tube" design used by companies such as Stromberg and Zenith. Lots of really unusual ideas were tried by some of the early carburetor companies. As an example, one well-known early carburetor manufacturer ran electricity to a heating element INSIDE THE CARBURETOR BOWL to preheat the fuel! Some ideas just didn't pan out. Of course timing can always be a factor when a company ceases to exist, example Stromberg USA died when their last major customer, G.M.C., stopped production of their own V-6 and started using corporate Chevrolet V-8's in 1975. But back to Marvel, and to give them their due respect: of all of the early manufacturers, Marvel was among the top 5 or so in customer service. Marvel issued excellent manuals, as well as service bulletins (few have probably seen the service bulletins, as they are quite rare today). Marvel also offered the mechanic an excellent tool set with specialized tools for working on Marvel carbs (and they ALL need work ) and Marvel offered a number of different cabinets of spare parts. Too bad the basic design was much less efficient than their competitors. But since I threw roses, some "stones" are also in order: while many of the early carburetor manufacturers totally ignored S.A.E. specification suggestions (Zenith immediately comes to mind), Marvel carried proprietary specifications to an art. The flange arrangement of most Marvels is such that no other make can easily be adapted. With a few exceptions, the only parts interchangeable from one Marvel to another are the body screws and fiber washers. For this reason, the only aftermarket company of which I am aware that made repair parts for Marvels back in the day was Standard Hygrade. But this probably hurt Marvel in the long run, as mechanics were forced to buy parts only from Marvel, and because of the lack of interchangeability, stock ridiculous amounts of spares. But from a design point of view, the spacer block/air valve of the Marvel simply cannot atomize the fuel as efficiently as carburetors with a venturi. Oh, and John, your carb is either a 1926~1928 Buick Master or a late 1927/8 GMC T-40 or T-50 using the Buick Master engine. Jon.
  24. Scroll to the bottom of the link: Brass float repair Jon.
  25. Looking to buy a tap made by Bay State (trying to complete a vintage tap & die set). Size needed is 1/4 x 32. Prefer 4 flute, but 3 flute would be acceptable. Prefer plug tap, but bottom tap would be acceptable. MUST say Bay State on the tap. I have plenty of 1/4 x 32 taps which are not Bay State to use. This one will probably never be used. Jon.