I understand the .533 isn't the best choice and prob will end up changing it down the road. As far as the engine specs, etc it was an older racer motor I had laying around thus the reasoning it is what it is, I'm just trying to make it work for the time being and see how much time I actually have to drive and enjoy the car when I get it done. (Have had the car 5 years now and plan on having it on the road 2 years ago but being a racer and life gets in the way at times as it does with most people). If I drive the car more than I expect I can than I may build something more street friendly. Just trying to make what I have at the moment work to atleast get it on the road again.

I guess I look at it differently.......
I feel if the car was more street friendly and more enjoyable to drive...... there’s a better chance you’ll actually drive it.

I’m probably just getting old, but trying to run a 10:1 360 and that 533 cam with closed exhaust on the street doesn’t sound like something I’d enjoy at all.

a friend that lives down the street from me has a 500cuin Oldsmobile; for real bad ass! the engine has a hydraulic roller with 100 degrees of overlap on the seat. I helped him get a street tune for this beast. when I started with it the engine would only pull 1"hg vacuum in gear (10.5:1 comp, locked out msd distributor/start retard, a lot of good stuff), about 3-4"hg in neutral at 1150rpm. the "dyno tune" may have been ok on the dyno but was useless on a driver. nevertheless, after a bunch of carb change stuff and ignition timing events we ended up with about 3-4"hg in gear (2.5 power valves neeeded) and 6-8"hg in neutral. now this is with 500 cubes, so how is 360 cubes going to handle 104 degrees of overlap, and 320 degrees of seat timing?


mopar doesn't design aftermarket cams. they just put a part number on somebody else's stuff. I believe the .533 cam is either a #5196 or #5197 comp cams lobe race hydraulic. comp states "the larger lobes (268-270-276@.050") were designed with large cubic inch motors in mind in a high rpm environment".

I say it won't work.

So, Edelbrock has finally brought 2 carbs to market with a single improvement to their otherwise outdated design. A 500 and a 650 with annular boosters. Hardly qualifies as 'much of what I said about them was not true'.

And, does that mean the addition of annular boosters on those models is enough of an improvement to obsolete the other current CarterBrocks for most street applications like the OP's?

Annular boosters are often a good thing for street applications. But that still doesn't put these little Edelbrocks on the same level as some of their competitors.

Besides, wouldn't most here recommend a 750 for the OPs application? If so, then the OP would have to settle for a non-annular design of CarterBrock. And I hope that the OP's application still matters to this discussion.

For the umpteenth time, it's not that the CarterBrock design is bad, it's just that there are better designed carburetors out there right now.

Street Demon is a great carb IMHO. I've been running a 650 on my hopped up 318 and 750 on my 383 and they both offered noticable gains in mid & top end power and overall driveability and economy - hard to beat that.

FYI I had previously had the stock '66 AFB on the 383 and a "DemonSizzled" Thermoquad on the 318.

Most here would recommend that 750 be a double pumper as well.

Neither of which I would recommend.

Having run a 600 and a 750 on the exact same 360 in daily driver use the 750 allowed me to go past 125 mph, whereas the 600 limited me to about 118. On a daily driver this is irrelevant. The 750 also got worse mileage by about 4 mpg, on a daily driver this is significant. Seat of the pants get up and go was essentially the same.

If I cared what most people did I'd drive a camaro

With a(what I would consider to be a more)correct cam for the application, I’d use a Holley 650DP.

Abandoned? Whew! Strong wording IMO I believe not true.
FWIW, the TQ was born a racing carb and it made its way into the daily drivers.
The advantage of the spreadbore carb of being a flexible for mileage and power were immediately seen and taken advantage of. GM has had the Quadrajet on there cars since when.... before Chrysler did. Seems more like catch up to me.

Abandon, replace, displace, supplant, supersede, catch-up..........whatever.

We both agree that Mopar stopped using the AVS platform in favor of the ThermoQuad because of the TQ's obvious advantages.

If you prefer to say that Mopar was playing catch-up with GM rather than saying that Mopar abandoned the AVS in favor of the TQ....well then fine. It's all just semantics.

No, it’s not. By far and wide.

I got a good chuckle out of this. Isn't ANY carburetor an outdated design?

Just like the engine and car that it is attached to?

And aren't the vast majority of self-tuning EFI systems throttle body? Another outdated design.

Many, many things we use every day are based on outdated designs. But it would not be practical (and might even be impossible) to avoid using anything with an outdated design in our daily life. But it would seem prudent to avoid the most outdated of the outdated designs available to us.

I run an 850 Demon on my 505.

It starts instantly, gets good mileage and performs well at the strip.

By the time a brand new car makes it to the showroom floor chances are the tech in it is likely outdated already.

But yes, you want to use the best tech feasible from a cost vs benefit stand point. That said, just because the TQ came after the AFB and AVS doesn't mean it's better. An example would be lean burn and the EFI used in the (1981?) Imperial both are arguably a step back from thir technological predecessors.

As a fan of Carter carbs that is currently running a TQ I'll throw in my $0.02. I'm in the process of swapping out my 1972 340 TQ (6139s) for an Edlebrock 1406 for a few reasons;

1. I'm having difficulty with start up and I'm hoping the electronic choke (better tech than the TQ) will resolve the issue.

2. It's on a mildly warmed up 318ci with a 340 cam, J heads and 9:1 compression. TQ tuning parts (rods, jets and springs) are more difficult to find and much more expensive when you do find them, while there are a ton of sources for Edlebrock strip kits. I actually bought mine off the shelf at a local parts store.

3. Eventually I want to upgrade to a Holley Sniper which requires a square bore intake. So really the Edlebrock, which I already have, will be temporary for the intake swap.

In the end the whole set-up belongs on a factory 340 car anyway. The coolness of a 340 clone under my hood has worn off and I'd rather have the better drive-ability of an EFI system.