Does exhaust affect low end torque?

I should have saved the 2bbl and manifold when I, with extreme prejudice, hastily removed it off my engine and replaced it with 4bbl quadrajet. (which works fine once I get the rpms going). Should have kept it, anyone have one they want to get rid of?

 

That would be incorrect. Well, we would need to argue about which are sports and which are not.

But at this point are we really adding any value to the conversation.

 

Flip air cleaner lid on the 2 barrel. It's worth extra hp. .
With the right cam ,a 2000 converter , free flowing single exhaust and worked 2 barrel with .030 shaved off heads for about 8.75 you could have lots of tire roasting fun.

 

Forget about the double barrel and put a fuel injection carb on the quad intake i'd relay the spec's but i'm suffering with these sticky keys it takes me 10 min a line here

 

What the hells a 2 barrel?
Oh yeah, a Ford carb.

 

Finally, someone that makes sense. :laugh:

 

If it doesn't feel smooth and pick up quick in the low range its not calibrated where it needs to be, please do not feel like you made the wrong choice, if the gm engineering dept felt like a low rpm engine in a heavy car would benefit anything from a 2bl don't you think every Cadillac evermade would've had a 2bl?

 

dont get me wrong, my qjet throttle response is crisp, idle is smooth, off idle is seamless and when I push it down it really moves out. It wont however, break the tires loose from a dead stop. Ive got the timing perfect following the instructions on this board, compression is good, vacuum is good, dual exhaust, it has power just not enough off the line to break loose the tires. Doesnt really come on until Im going 15-20mph. All stock other than the carb and dual exhaust. As far as what GM does? My 72 caprice SBC 400 came with a 2bbl and that thing launched hard, it was awesome. Wish I could get that from my lesabre 350. Im sure marketing has something to do with it.

I remember carrying that manifold to the curb and saying to myself that the scrappers will be happy to find this 70lb chunk of metal. I did save the choke and carb linkages, blades etc.

 

Have you tried bringing the secondaries in sooner? How much timing advance and at what rpm? There isn't a doubt in my mind that it can be adjusted and tweaked to blow that right rear tire off, sorry ive just done it too many times.

 

or later? Could be the secondarys are opening too soon when engine speed can't handle it. Lock out your secondarys and see the torque you have. Those tiny front holes will make lots of torque.

 

Pull those giant rear tires off for some tiny 215-60-15 . You should burn them easy . Lol

 

or just wait till it rains. Then I can spin them but its not as fun.

 

Wow looks like I caught a biggun! Should I toss it back or keep it? Hmm.

As usual, you miss all points of this thread using one example of how well the stock 350-2 did in all other areas vs a much larger engine with a 4 barrel other than one, which is quarter mile testing. I guess when that's all that matters to you, then yeah sure. But that's not the point to all this, is it? You can try to hijack all you like, but I'm a stubborn old mule and you won't get away so lightly on this.

You wanted to compare apples to apples, and I gave an apples to oranges, and did very well with it. No response to the rest of the post I made because you cannot refute that part of it, of course.

You reckon he'll be using his big car for drag racing, or do you suppose he'll be cruising the streets looking for max low-mid range torque, like the thread title says?

Your distraction is effortlessly deflected once again 'homie'.


Gary

 

and

Again, we're not talking about racing engines here, are we?

It's pointless in your mind because you do not understand what is being said here, nor the point of the thread.

Nothing complex about this (well, maybe to you it is), it's simple math and science, as I said earlier.

 

Do you even have a car?

 

Again you try to derail by making a comparison that is way out of league.

A 472 or 500 CID engine needs more carb than any 2 barrel could give lol. We're talking about a 350 here, remember?

GM didn't make a 2 barrel carb big enough to feed that many cubes, and so used what they had available for all the other engines (the Qjet).

You're talking about a whole other monster here. Putting a large 2 barrel on a 350 is nothing like using a factory 2g on a 500 CID engine. Are you grasping for straws or what?


Gary

 

Do you even have a brain? Seriously?

 

You go on keep trying to reinvent the wheel and us guys with cars,compression,aftermarket cams,exhaust bigger than math suggest necessary ,and carbs twice as big as David Vizard says we need,..just keep on driving around the "math" guys

 

Yeah who needs a 500 CFM 2 barrel for low-mid range power when you have a 178 CFM primary Qjet 2 barrel just waiting to be unleashed?

 

lol. Who do you think invented all that stuff you bolt together?

This isn't a racing thread homie. Get your facts straight, your head out of your ass, then come back with something useful.