Karl,
I think you should consider a dualquad setup purely for dragracing if
performance is your main concern.
But... :o) I have however ran a Dualquad setup on the street after I had ran
with a Single plane Torker on my 'offtopic' '67 Newport w/440.
The dual-intake was an early '60s lowrise 413 marine manifold.
I had 2 brand new Carter 625 carb's installed straight out of the box. I used a
direct linkage throttle mechanism.
Because today's Carters have a secondairy airvalve, it's very hard to 'over
cfm' the engine (without valve modifications of course).
I could stomp gas and of I went without hessitation.
I did change some more things (rear end gears) on my car besides the intake
swap, but most performance gains can be found at high rpm's because of the
increased cfm you have. (provided we are talking 413 engines or bigger here)
Why did Chrysler used a dualquad back then?
I don't know much of carb history, but maybe there were no big cfm carbs back
then..??
I mean almost every carmaker used multiple carbsetup's on performance cars back
then...
Just my opinion and thoughts....
Herman Meiners
The Netherlands
1962 Chrysler NewYorker Wagon (413)
1964 Chrysler 300 (413)
1964 Chrysler Newport Limo (361)
1965 Chrysler 300 convertible (383)
1966 Dodge Charger (440)
1967 Chrysler Newport (383 now)
1971 Dodge Dart Dragracer (440)
karl peterson wrote:
> Other than the esthetics of how "neat" it looks, will a dual quad setup
> actually provide better street performance over a single 4bbl carb, all else
> being equal? I found a '59 Fury with a cammed 440 installed and a dual
> in-line quad setup along with it in the parts box. The owner said the
> single 4bbl was much quicker accelerating 0-60 than the 2 4's.
>
> If this is the case, why did Chrysler put dual quads on its hi performance
> cars in the first place? Any opinions or comments from those who have tried
> both?
>
> Karl
> <61 300G>
> <64 Fury>
> <59 Fury> (maybe)
> __________
|
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network