L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

I and It look the same to me.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

travis wrote:
>
> Why did you make an awesome roar when the secondaries opened?
> *chuckle*

L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

I and It look the same to me.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

travis wrote:
>
> Why did you make an awesome roar when the secondaries opened?
> *chuckle*

DougW

L.W. (ßill) ------ III did pass the time by typing:
> I made an awesome roar when you opened the secondaries, trouble is
> you didn't go any faster, just made lots of noise.

That was the fuel being sucked into oblivion. :)

Properly tuned (and kept that way) it didn't do too bad.
Problem was it never stayed properly tuned.

DougW

L.W. (ßill) ------ III did pass the time by typing:
> I made an awesome roar when you opened the secondaries, trouble is
> you didn't go any faster, just made lots of noise.

That was the fuel being sucked into oblivion. :)

Properly tuned (and kept that way) it didn't do too bad.
Problem was it never stayed properly tuned.

DougW

L.W. (ßill) ------ III did pass the time by typing:
> I made an awesome roar when you opened the secondaries, trouble is
> you didn't go any faster, just made lots of noise.

That was the fuel being sucked into oblivion. :)

Properly tuned (and kept that way) it didn't do too bad.
Problem was it never stayed properly tuned.

c

"DougW" <post.replies@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:Achmb.30092$iq3.25773@okepread01...
> L.W. (ßill) ------ III did pass the time by typing:
> > Quadrajet? Not in my crowd. The sucker was a money maker, though,
> > made many house payments with it's goofy way the needle valve worked,
> > main jet location insured any contaminate block them, via the filter
> > bypass, to even goofier spring tensioned secondary baffle butterflies.
> > Instant out of gas sized float bowl. Even the Holley replacement is a
> > POS. That carburetor was just an attempt for lower emission, forcing the
> > operator run around on tiny tweenie primaries:
>
> Got to agree with Bill on this. My C-10 Chevy had the rochester
quadrasuck.
> The only thing it was good for is teaching me how to repair/rebuild carbs.
>
> Things went better after I figured out the charcoal canister was barfing
> into the carbs vac lines.
>
> --
> DougW
>

The quadrajets aren't bad when they work. the biggest drawback to them is
the well plugs found on the bottom of the carb. These things were pressed in
from the factory. These are notorious for leaking. The companies that make
carb kits put a little black sponge thing in the kit, which installed in the
cavity were these plugs are. All that did was soak the gas up, but it enough
leaked out , the vehicle would become flooded after sitting for a few hours.
The fix is to epoxy over these plugs. As far as Bill's comments on the
secondaries, he's right. The carbs were almost always set up too lean on the
secondaries, or the air valve was improperly adjusted. These can both be
combated by tuning, but any quadrajet is going to be at least 20 years old.

Although they are a bit more pricey, I would look at the Barry Grant Demon
carb. Your 304 would run great with the 525 CFM model sitting on top of that
performer intake. I've used a few of these carbs and they are the best thing
going IMO. You can read about them here:

http://www.barrygrant.com/demon/defa...eid=RoadDemon1

My opinion on the Edelbrock kit is that it is good, but they offer one
camshaft. Personally I would select the cam kit separately, but use it with
their manifold. Their cam is a bit bigger than I would recommend for a Jeep
because they spend a lot of their time idling along and running at
relatively low RPM as compared to, say a Javelin. I browsed through a few of
my favorite cam company's sites, and I feel the Crower 45239 would be more
suited for use in an off road vehicle. You can look at the specs here:

http://www.crower.com/misc/m_cat.shtml

Their cam has a bit less duration and a wider lobe separation, so you'll get
a wider powerband than the Edelbrock cam, but at a slightly lower RPM range.
In the end this will cost a bit more than the kit from Edelbrock, but you'll
be much happier with it in the long run.

Another note on the carb. A lot of people would say to use a bigger carb,
but your 304 at 5500 RPM only needs 411CFM of air at 85% volumetric
efficiency, which is a general figure for a factory engine with the usual
bolt ons.

When you get to headers, try to avoid using the shorty style if at all
possible. They do nothing for low RPM torque. Look for a set with 1-1/2 or,
at the most 1-5/8" primary tube diameter, and look for a tube length of
28-31". This will give you more torque than the shorties will. If you have
any questions about your cam, let me know.

Chris

c

"DougW" <post.replies@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:Achmb.30092$iq3.25773@okepread01...
> L.W. (ßill) ------ III did pass the time by typing:
> > Quadrajet? Not in my crowd. The sucker was a money maker, though,
> > made many house payments with it's goofy way the needle valve worked,
> > main jet location insured any contaminate block them, via the filter
> > bypass, to even goofier spring tensioned secondary baffle butterflies.
> > Instant out of gas sized float bowl. Even the Holley replacement is a
> > POS. That carburetor was just an attempt for lower emission, forcing the
> > operator run around on tiny tweenie primaries:
>
> Got to agree with Bill on this. My C-10 Chevy had the rochester
quadrasuck.
> The only thing it was good for is teaching me how to repair/rebuild carbs.
>
> Things went better after I figured out the charcoal canister was barfing
> into the carbs vac lines.
>
> --
> DougW
>

The quadrajets aren't bad when they work. the biggest drawback to them is
the well plugs found on the bottom of the carb. These things were pressed in
from the factory. These are notorious for leaking. The companies that make
carb kits put a little black sponge thing in the kit, which installed in the
cavity were these plugs are. All that did was soak the gas up, but it enough
leaked out , the vehicle would become flooded after sitting for a few hours.
The fix is to epoxy over these plugs. As far as Bill's comments on the
secondaries, he's right. The carbs were almost always set up too lean on the
secondaries, or the air valve was improperly adjusted. These can both be
combated by tuning, but any quadrajet is going to be at least 20 years old.

Although they are a bit more pricey, I would look at the Barry Grant Demon
carb. Your 304 would run great with the 525 CFM model sitting on top of that
performer intake. I've used a few of these carbs and they are the best thing
going IMO. You can read about them here:

http://www.barrygrant.com/demon/defa...eid=RoadDemon1

My opinion on the Edelbrock kit is that it is good, but they offer one
camshaft. Personally I would select the cam kit separately, but use it with
their manifold. Their cam is a bit bigger than I would recommend for a Jeep
because they spend a lot of their time idling along and running at
relatively low RPM as compared to, say a Javelin. I browsed through a few of
my favorite cam company's sites, and I feel the Crower 45239 would be more
suited for use in an off road vehicle. You can look at the specs here:

http://www.crower.com/misc/m_cat.shtml

Their cam has a bit less duration and a wider lobe separation, so you'll get
a wider powerband than the Edelbrock cam, but at a slightly lower RPM range.
In the end this will cost a bit more than the kit from Edelbrock, but you'll
be much happier with it in the long run.

Another note on the carb. A lot of people would say to use a bigger carb,
but your 304 at 5500 RPM only needs 411CFM of air at 85% volumetric
efficiency, which is a general figure for a factory engine with the usual
bolt ons.

When you get to headers, try to avoid using the shorty style if at all
possible. They do nothing for low RPM torque. Look for a set with 1-1/2 or,
at the most 1-5/8" primary tube diameter, and look for a tube length of
28-31". This will give you more torque than the shorties will. If you have
any questions about your cam, let me know.

Chris

c

"DougW" <post.replies@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:Achmb.30092$iq3.25773@okepread01...
> L.W. (ßill) ------ III did pass the time by typing:
> > Quadrajet? Not in my crowd. The sucker was a money maker, though,
> > made many house payments with it's goofy way the needle valve worked,
> > main jet location insured any contaminate block them, via the filter
> > bypass, to even goofier spring tensioned secondary baffle butterflies.
> > Instant out of gas sized float bowl. Even the Holley replacement is a
> > POS. That carburetor was just an attempt for lower emission, forcing the
> > operator run around on tiny tweenie primaries:
>
> Got to agree with Bill on this. My C-10 Chevy had the rochester
quadrasuck.
> The only thing it was good for is teaching me how to repair/rebuild carbs.
>
> Things went better after I figured out the charcoal canister was barfing
> into the carbs vac lines.
>
> --
> DougW
>

The quadrajets aren't bad when they work. the biggest drawback to them is
the well plugs found on the bottom of the carb. These things were pressed in
from the factory. These are notorious for leaking. The companies that make
carb kits put a little black sponge thing in the kit, which installed in the
cavity were these plugs are. All that did was soak the gas up, but it enough
leaked out , the vehicle would become flooded after sitting for a few hours.
The fix is to epoxy over these plugs. As far as Bill's comments on the
secondaries, he's right. The carbs were almost always set up too lean on the
secondaries, or the air valve was improperly adjusted. These can both be
combated by tuning, but any quadrajet is going to be at least 20 years old.

Although they are a bit more pricey, I would look at the Barry Grant Demon
carb. Your 304 would run great with the 525 CFM model sitting on top of that
performer intake. I've used a few of these carbs and they are the best thing
going IMO. You can read about them here:

http://www.barrygrant.com/demon/defa...eid=RoadDemon1

My opinion on the Edelbrock kit is that it is good, but they offer one
camshaft. Personally I would select the cam kit separately, but use it with
their manifold. Their cam is a bit bigger than I would recommend for a Jeep
because they spend a lot of their time idling along and running at
relatively low RPM as compared to, say a Javelin. I browsed through a few of
my favorite cam company's sites, and I feel the Crower 45239 would be more
suited for use in an off road vehicle. You can look at the specs here:

http://www.crower.com/misc/m_cat.shtml

Their cam has a bit less duration and a wider lobe separation, so you'll get
a wider powerband than the Edelbrock cam, but at a slightly lower RPM range.
In the end this will cost a bit more than the kit from Edelbrock, but you'll
be much happier with it in the long run.

Another note on the carb. A lot of people would say to use a bigger carb,
but your 304 at 5500 RPM only needs 411CFM of air at 85% volumetric
efficiency, which is a general figure for a factory engine with the usual
bolt ons.

When you get to headers, try to avoid using the shorty style if at all
possible. They do nothing for low RPM torque. Look for a set with 1-1/2 or,
at the most 1-5/8" primary tube diameter, and look for a tube length of
28-31". This will give you more torque than the shorties will. If you have
any questions about your cam, let me know.

Chris

Red Racer

I couldn't agree more. The problem is that at extreme angles I haven't found
a carb yet that will allow the engine to stay running other than a Q-Jet.
The center float arrangement is tough to beat. I had a Holley 1850 on it for
a while, but it didn't work out. We can talk about Holley DPs and the
Carter/Weber based carbs (Edelbrock Performer) all day if you want, but for
a situation where the carb will be tossed all over the place, the Q-Jet is a
winner. Performance wise however, they can be made to work, but something
else would be better.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:3F999A7E.4D27E240@***.net...
> Quadrajet? Not in my crowd. The sucker was a money maker, though,
> made many house payments with it's goofy way the needle valve worked,
> main jet location insured any contaminate block them, via the filter
> bypass, to even goofier spring tensioned secondary baffle butterflies.
> Instant out of gas sized float bowl. Even the Holley replacement is a
> POS. That carburetor was just an attempt for lower emission, forcing the
> operator run around on tiny tweenie primaries:
> http://www.carburetorfactory.com/expvw27.html
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Red Racer wrote:
> >
> > Travis,
> >
> > I have installed a number of these on small block Chevys, and they are
hard
> > to beat. You will love the way it runs after. However be careful, the
> > Edelbrock carb isn't the greatest choice for extreme off road use, or
for
> > that matter most off road use that involves any angles at higher
elevations.
> >
> > I would see if Edelbrock makes a ------bore manifold for the 304, and
run a
> > GM Quadrajet. Not my favorite carb either, but they work very well off
road.
> > RR

Red Racer

I couldn't agree more. The problem is that at extreme angles I haven't found
a carb yet that will allow the engine to stay running other than a Q-Jet.
The center float arrangement is tough to beat. I had a Holley 1850 on it for
a while, but it didn't work out. We can talk about Holley DPs and the
Carter/Weber based carbs (Edelbrock Performer) all day if you want, but for
a situation where the carb will be tossed all over the place, the Q-Jet is a
winner. Performance wise however, they can be made to work, but something
else would be better.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:3F999A7E.4D27E240@***.net...
> Quadrajet? Not in my crowd. The sucker was a money maker, though,
> made many house payments with it's goofy way the needle valve worked,
> main jet location insured any contaminate block them, via the filter
> bypass, to even goofier spring tensioned secondary baffle butterflies.
> Instant out of gas sized float bowl. Even the Holley replacement is a
> POS. That carburetor was just an attempt for lower emission, forcing the
> operator run around on tiny tweenie primaries:
> http://www.carburetorfactory.com/expvw27.html
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Red Racer wrote:
> >
> > Travis,
> >
> > I have installed a number of these on small block Chevys, and they are
hard
> > to beat. You will love the way it runs after. However be careful, the
> > Edelbrock carb isn't the greatest choice for extreme off road use, or
for
> > that matter most off road use that involves any angles at higher
elevations.
> >
> > I would see if Edelbrock makes a ------bore manifold for the 304, and
run a
> > GM Quadrajet. Not my favorite carb either, but they work very well off
road.
> > RR