Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Re: Thermoquad vs. Six Pack/Six Barrel. Which is best ? [Re: HYPER8oSoNic] #779592
08/21/10 10:33 PM
08/21/10 10:33 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,406
Kalispell Mt.
H
HotRodDave Offline
I Live Here
HotRodDave  Offline
I Live Here
H

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,406
Kalispell Mt.
The TQ will give more mpg because it mixes the fuel better in the very small triple venturi primaries, it will also be more responsive but a 500 inch BB with any 950-1000 carb should be very responsive. The one thing you can do with the TQ is bolt basically the exact same carb on a stock 273 and still have a very responsive motor, 6 pack, not so much.

I think air flow "up top" would be the same, but if I was forced to pick one I would guess the TQ with it's sewer pipe sized secondaries would flow more. Also it comes back to the manifold selection, a big single plane can bolt right on under the TQ and have a big plenum feeding all 8 cylinders from all 4bbls, the 6pack, well I don't know of any single plane for them, probably some odd balls out there but not many.


I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!



Re: Thermoquad vs. Six Pack/Six Barrel. Which is best ? [Re: HYPER8oSoNic] #779593
08/22/10 12:22 AM
08/22/10 12:22 AM
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,324
Western Pa
joewhite440 Offline
pro stock
joewhite440  Offline
pro stock

Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,324
Western Pa
I know the Thermoquad will get you better fuel mileage. I never messed with them two much for performance. I always ran Holleys on everything. I have a Six Pack on my 440. They run well but require more tuning. Why don't you like the big Holleys? Do they make a lot of internal parts, Jets etc for the TQ like the Holley?

Joe Sr

Re: Thermoquad vs. Six Pack/Six Barrel. Which is best ? [Re: HotRodDave] #779594
08/22/10 12:55 AM
08/22/10 12:55 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,714
Spokane Washington
ScottSmith_Harms Offline
Mr Wizzard
ScottSmith_Harms  Offline
Mr Wizzard

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,714
Spokane Washington
Hmmmmm

Re: Thermoquad vs. Six Pack/Six Barrel. Which is best ? [Re: ScottSmith_Harms] #779595
08/22/10 02:15 AM
08/22/10 02:15 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,714
Spokane Washington
ScottSmith_Harms Offline
Mr Wizzard
ScottSmith_Harms  Offline
Mr Wizzard

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,714
Spokane Washington
Which carb(s) is better will be determined by the particular engine combo it's used on, every engine has different fuel needs. Keep in mind that carb cfm ratings are based on demand, most won't flow thier maximum advertised cfm unless under idealic circumstances. most carburetors flow much less than advertised during normal use.

If you've ever had trouble figuring out what CFM carb your engine might need the formula below can be helpful:

Multiply your engine's CID by the RPM of the engine,
Divide the number by 3,456. Multiply the quotient by your engine's VE (volumetric efficiency). VE is a measure of how efficiently your engine pumps air. Generally a stock engine has a VE of .8, a race engine should be valued as .9, multiply this value by 1.35 for the minimum cubic feet per minute (CFM) rating that your engine can use. The CFM rating is used to classify carburetors, based upon how much air will flow into a WOT carburetor. The reason your results must be multiplied by 1.35 is that most carburetors work in pulses, and as a result intake will often be slightly above or below its average rate. The 1.35 modifier ensures that your carburetor can handle your engine at its maximum output. You want a carb that is equal to or greater than your final answer.

Example, my engine: 340 Stroked to 426 cubes, max rpm 5,700rpm.

426 x 5,700 = 2428200

2428200 div/ 3456 = 702.604 x .9 = 632.343

632.343 x 1.35 = 853.66 cfm

This tells me that when my engine is at full song at 5,700 rpm it could need as much as 853cfm of flow to keep up with it. In my case an unmodified 800 cfm TQ may fall a bit short, but a 1,000 cfm TQ should do the trick with a bit of room to spare.


Re: Thermoquad vs. Six Pack/Six Barrel. Which is best ? [Re: ScottSmith_Harms] #779596
08/22/10 02:45 AM
08/22/10 02:45 AM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 21,318
Manitoba, Canada
DaytonaTurbo Offline
Too Many Posts
DaytonaTurbo  Offline
Too Many Posts

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 21,318
Manitoba, Canada
The 6-pack is a proven performance intake for hot street/strip cars. The tq can be a good carb, however there's a shortage of good spreadbore intakes out there. If you want a dual plane intake, forget it. Unless you want to run a spreadbore adapter which is a known power robber. I love the idea of spread bore carbs, just dislike the lack of aftermarket support for them. Tuning the primaries on the thermoquad is very easy. With a properly dialed in choke and primaries my thermoquad made my 440 an excellent daily driver. However the secondaries were a pain to keep in tune. Any temperature fluxuation and I had to tinker with that air door again.

Re: Thermoquad vs. Six Pack/Six Barrel. Which is best ? [Re: DaytonaTurbo] #779597
08/22/10 03:21 AM
08/22/10 03:21 AM
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,250
Florida STAYcation
dIc dOc Deity ! Online penguin-006
The village idiot's idiot
dIc dOc Deity !  Online Penguin-006
The village idiot's idiot

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,250
Florida STAYcation
Quote:



Any temperature fluxuation and I had to tinker with that air door again.




DOOR tinkering ...do it once ..and do-it correct ...with the RIGHT tool !

6152399-DocsTQtool.jpg (363 downloads)
Re: Thermoquad vs. Six Pack/Six Barrel. Which is best ? [Re: dIc dOc Deity !] #779598
08/22/10 04:28 AM
08/22/10 04:28 AM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 21,318
Manitoba, Canada
DaytonaTurbo Offline
Too Many Posts
DaytonaTurbo  Offline
Too Many Posts

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 21,318
Manitoba, Canada
Quote:

Quote:



Any temperature fluxuation and I had to tinker with that air door again.




DOOR tinkering ...do it once ..and do-it correct ...with the RIGHT tool !




I never encountered a thermoquad that needed that tool. I know what it's for but I was always able to do it with a couple screwdrivers just fine.

Re: Thermoquad vs. Six Pack/Six Barrel. Which is best ? [Re: DaytonaTurbo] #779599
08/22/10 05:18 AM
08/22/10 05:18 AM
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,250
Florida STAYcation
dIc dOc Deity ! Online penguin-006
The village idiot's idiot
dIc dOc Deity !  Online Penguin-006
The village idiot's idiot

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,250
Florida STAYcation
...and doing it with the two-screwdrivers .. you [Edited by Moparts - Family Friendly Site - Keep it clean]-up the lock-screw ...plus if the spring snaps-back ... it can DISlodge or can break....

This tool here is soooooo much BESTer than the Miller part ...it makes the people's heads spin ...

Re: Thermoquad vs. Six Pack/Six Barrel. Which is best ? [Re: dIc dOc Deity !] #779600
08/22/10 05:52 AM
08/22/10 05:52 AM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 21,318
Manitoba, Canada
DaytonaTurbo Offline
Too Many Posts
DaytonaTurbo  Offline
Too Many Posts

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 21,318
Manitoba, Canada
I never had any issues. Get the lock screw at the right tension and the inner screw will stay put long enough to tune it, then tighten the lock screw. I'm sure the tool is handy, but a big flat screw driver of the correct size has always done me well.

Re: Thermoquad vs. Six Pack/Six Barrel. Which is best ? [Re: DaytonaTurbo] #779601
08/22/10 07:43 AM
08/22/10 07:43 AM
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,847
Oakdale CT
gdonovan Offline
I Live Here
gdonovan  Offline
I Live Here

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,847
Oakdale CT
Quote:

The 6-pack is a proven performance intake for hot street/strip cars.




Oh? Its a good looking setup hands down but there is a bit of hyperbole in your statment.

Its been shown time and time again the six-pack loses to a decent 4-bbl intake and carb. Back in the day there were no high cfm carbs which was the whole point of having 3 x 2bbls.

Today were flooded with a mutitude of 800-1000 cfm choices including the TQ which is still hanging in there.

Pity it is not in production anymore as the resin fuel bowls really do help in keeping the fuel from boiling out.

Quote:



The tq can be a good carb, however there's a shortage of good spreadbore intakes out there..






Turning your statment around I could argue there is a acute shortage of six-pack intakes!

Matter of fact there is what, two or three for each engine series? And 40 year old designs to boot. There is a number of spreadbore intakes, including newer designs from Mopar Performance.

Quote:

However the secondaries were a pain to keep in tune. Any temperature fluxuation and I had to tinker with that air door again.




Can't say I ever had that problem and I ran my GTX with an O2 sensor and K&N monitor (back in the 80's!) so it was easy to keep tabs on the fuel mixture and get it dialed in fast.

Re: Thermoquad vs. Six Pack/Six Barrel. Which is best ? [Re: gdonovan] #779602
08/22/10 11:00 AM
08/22/10 11:00 AM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,225
Charleston
S
sixpackgut Offline
Drag Week Mod Champion
sixpackgut  Offline
Drag Week Mod Champion
S

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,225
Charleston
Quote:

Quote:

The 6-pack is a proven performance intake for hot street/strip cars.




Oh? Its a good looking setup hands down but there is a bit of hyperbole in your statment

Its been shown time and time again the six-pack loses to a decent 4-bbl intake and carb. Back in the day there were no high cfm carbs which was the whole point of having 3 x 2bbls.

shown by who?


Gen 3 power 6.22@110, 9.85@135
Follow @g3hemiswap on instagram

performance only racing, CRT, ultimate converter, superior design concepts, ThumperCarbs
Re: Thermoquad vs. Six Pack/Six Barrel. Which is best ? [Re: sixpackgut] #779603
08/22/10 11:09 AM
08/22/10 11:09 AM
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,847
Oakdale CT
gdonovan Offline
I Live Here
gdonovan  Offline
I Live Here

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,847
Oakdale CT
Quote:



shown by who?




How about Mopar Muscle for staters?

http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/techa...akes/index.html

I can find several dyno intake shootouts showing the six-pack being bested by a 4-bbl, can you do the same?

Thought not.

Re: Thermoquad vs. Six Pack/Six Barrel. Which is best ? [Re: sixpackgut] #779604
08/22/10 11:11 AM
08/22/10 11:11 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,562
Brookeville, Md
Mr.Yuck Offline
Not enough dumb comments...yet
Mr.Yuck  Offline
Not enough dumb comments...yet

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,562
Brookeville, Md
bla bla bal, if the T-quad was/is so great somebody would re-pop it and make a mint. It's a good carb, I oved my T-quad 440, but a well tuned six-pack (and you have to tune any carb) will out run the T-quad. and they won't melt if you should have a good back fire or carb fire.

Re: Thermoquad vs. Six Pack/Six Barrel. Which is best ? [Re: Mr.Yuck] #779605
08/22/10 11:17 AM
08/22/10 11:17 AM
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,847
Oakdale CT
gdonovan Offline
I Live Here
gdonovan  Offline
I Live Here

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,847
Oakdale CT
Quote:

bla bla bal, if the T-quad was/is so great somebody would re-pop it and make a mint.






Tooling cost my man, tooling costs.

I'm sure Edelbrock looked into it since they have already turned out both AFB and AVS clones.

Quote:


It's a good carb, I oved my T-quad 440, but a well tuned six-pack (and you have to tune any carb) will out run the T-quad.





Prove it.

Hey the six pack looks great and if thats what floats your boat then go for it.


Re: Thermoquad vs. Six Pack/Six Barrel. Which is best ? [Re: Mr.Yuck] #779606
08/22/10 11:21 AM
08/22/10 11:21 AM
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,653
Near Reading PA USA
pinkduster Offline
master
pinkduster  Offline
master

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,653
Near Reading PA USA
I'd like to see some of the F.A.S.T. guys comment on this topic. What are some of those A12s running?

Re: Thermoquad vs. Six Pack/Six Barrel. Which is best ? [Re: sixpackgut] #779607
08/22/10 11:21 AM
08/22/10 11:21 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,103
Phila Pa
S
scatpacktom Offline
master
scatpacktom  Offline
master
S

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,103
Phila Pa
F1Scamp Just conducted a test. Seems his new thermoquad car can't run with his six pack car despite them having the same engine. So he swapped the six pack on to his 71 340 Duster and ran it at the track. The car picked up 3 mph over the TQ. Now there was a elevation differance of about 2000 ft but that doesn't equal 3 mph. Keep in mind the TQ intake is all tricked out and the Pack is stock.

Last edited by scatpacktom; 08/22/10 11:24 AM.
Re: Thermoquad vs. Six Pack/Six Barrel. Which is best ? [Re: gdonovan] #779608
08/22/10 11:24 AM
08/22/10 11:24 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,562
Brookeville, Md
Mr.Yuck Offline
Not enough dumb comments...yet
Mr.Yuck  Offline
Not enough dumb comments...yet

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,562
Brookeville, Md



Prove it.






1st I'll have to find somebody at the track that uses one....But I'd be happy to entertain the challenge. I'd even run a few runs w/ the 6-pack and swap intakes and carbs. Hey I like them, but I just don't think they work as well as a 6-pack or a good DP for that matter. And yes if all I cared about was et, I would have went w/ a Perf RPM and a 850-900 DP carb.

Re: Thermoquad vs. Six Pack/Six Barrel. Which is best ? [Re: scatpacktom] #779609
08/22/10 11:30 AM
08/22/10 11:30 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,714
Spokane Washington
ScottSmith_Harms Offline
Mr Wizzard
ScottSmith_Harms  Offline
Mr Wizzard

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,714
Spokane Washington
Quote:

F1Scamp Just conducted a test. Seems his new thermoquad car can't run with his six pack car. So he swapped the six pack on to his 71 340 Duster and ran it at the track. The car picked up 3 mph over the TQ. Now there was a elevation differance of about 2000 ft but that doesn't equal 3 mph. Keep in mind the TQ intake is all tricked out and the Pack is stock.




In general I would guess the same results but would also bet on a close race either way. That being said, I don't think the above comparison is really fair to either setup, to do a real scientific experiment you need to eliminate as many variables as possible to prove a hypothosis.

A dyno test (track test on a car being second choice due to other variables with the car, track and weather) done on the same day with both setups being 100% stock (carbs and intakes) being the only variables as a baseline, then start experimenting with one change at a time and rechecking the results, that's about the only way to really reach any real conclusions IMO. Comparing a modified setup to a stock setup isn't fair in either direction since some modifications may actually hurt performance.




Quote:

bla bla bal, if the T-quad was/is so great somebody would re-pop it and make a mint. It's a good carb, I oved my T-quad 440, but a well tuned six-pack (and you have to tune any carb) will out run the T-quad. and they won't melt if you should have a good back fire or carb fire.






You'd have to have one hell of an engine fire to melt a TQ body, I think allot of those "My TQ melted" stories are highly exaggerated, they are made of a heat resistant RIM injection molded copolymer, it's actually pretty hard to melt it short of using a blow torch on it.

Re: Thermoquad vs. Six Pack/Six Barrel. Which is best ? [Re: ScottSmith_Harms] #779610
08/22/10 11:53 AM
08/22/10 11:53 AM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,406
Kalispell Mt.
H
HotRodDave Offline
I Live Here
HotRodDave  Offline
I Live Here
H

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,406
Kalispell Mt.
So how many power valves do you have to replace on a six pack after a backfire?


I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!



Re: Thermoquad vs. Six Pack/Six Barrel. Which is best ? [Re: ScottSmith_Harms] #779611
08/22/10 12:04 PM
08/22/10 12:04 PM
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,847
Oakdale CT
gdonovan Offline
I Live Here
gdonovan  Offline
I Live Here

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 10,847
Oakdale CT
Quote:



In general I would guess the same results but would also bet on a close race either way.






Oh no doubt, a well tuned setup is in the 15-20 hp range.

Aside from the HP difference I also value simplicity, (fewer things to go wrong) and ease of tuning.

From those 3 standpoints alone 6-pack loses.

For looks its had to beat a six-pack or dual quad setup though

Quote:


That being said, I don't think the above comparison is really fair to either setup, to do a real scientific experiment you need to eliminate as many variables as possible to prove a hypothosis.





Which is also a good point, if I'm going to drop $1500-$2500 a induction setup I'd like some hardcore proof its faster than what I'm already running.

"Someones brother said" isn't going to cut it.

Page 2 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8






Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1