carb question

Quadrajets were good carbs, just that almost all of them out there are worn
out or have been abused. I have seen a lot of them with overtightened
front bolts causing warping. Nitrophyl floats that were used also had a
tendency to suck up gas and not float anymore and throttle shafts got
loose after a couple hundred thousand miles. Properly set up and in good
condition they will out perform most others and deliver great gas mileage
and crisp throttle response due to the small primaries. The secondaries
were usually monsters but used an easily adjustable air valve and once
again were great if in good working order. Millions made in many
different sizes. I have rebuilt tons of them. I have only seen ONE used
on a Stude and it was a crude backyard conversion put on an engine that
already had one foot in the boneyard and the other on the proverbial
banana peel. But now that you mention it, maybe that will be my next
carburetor "experiment" now that I have the 340 Mopar AVS on my Daytona
dialed in. Trick will be to scour ebay etc. to find one in decent
shape...hmmm, the next Moultrie swap meet is in Feb. and there will be
tons of them there...
Studebaker George
 >> Stay informed about: carb question 

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 23:39:37 -0500, you wrote:

 >Quadrajets were good carbs, just that almost all of them out there are worn
 >out or have been abused.

I would LOVE to find a Quad to put on my Stude, would rejet it
in a HEARTBEAT..

stuck one on a F*** 352 truck one time, rejetted it, as per the
directions I got and was getting 17 MPG at 70 mph..

I bet I could get over 23 on a 289..
and it SO simple to rejet them..

--Shiva--<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: carb question 

As a matter of fact, I have a Stude so equipped sitting in the
driveway.

It is a '63 GT Hawk, 289 automatic, and a prior owner installed a
Rochester 4GC on the Stude manifold, probably the WCFB-style manifold.

It works OK, fuel mileage is unremarkable. If and when the carb dies,
I'll replace it with a 500 cfm Edelbrock AFB clone.

BTW, the 4GC is not a quadrajet; it looks a lot like the WCFB, and is
contemporary with that design. It would have been the stock 4 barrel
on McKinnon-equipped Studebakers had the factory released a 4 barrel
option.

Gord Richmond
 >> Stay informed about: carb question 

In 1957, Chevrolet used the Rochester 4GC on cars equipped with auto trans,
and the Carter WCFB on stick shift cars. Both flow about 385CFM.
The question came up because I found a completely restored (bowl recolored,
linkage replated) 4GC for $185.00. I would have to spend $150.00 to have my
WCFB done in the same manner, and would have to pay for shipping both ways..
I just thought purchasing the 4GC might be a viable alternative
Dexter
"Gordon Richmond" <richmond.RemoveThis@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:o3adr05bke26v721p48bm7hqq6opru7sbh@4ax.com...
 > As a matter of fact, I have a Stude so equipped sitting in the
 > driveway.
 >
 > It is a '63 GT Hawk, 289 automatic, and a prior owner installed a
 > Rochester 4GC on the Stude manifold, probably the WCFB-style manifold.
 >
 > It works OK, fuel mileage is unremarkable. If and when the carb dies,
 > I'll replace it with a 500 cfm Edelbrock AFB clone.
 >
 > BTW, the 4GC is not a quadrajet; it looks a lot like the WCFB, and is
 > contemporary with that design. It would have been the stock 4 barrel
 > on McKinnon-equipped Studebakers had the factory released a 4 barrel
 > option.
 >
 > Gord Richmond<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: carb question 

My first Stude Custom had a 68 327 Chevy engine with a 4GC carb on it.
This engine had 7000 miles on it. I soon replaced that carb with a 650
Holley and both the mileage and the performance went up.


"Dexter" <dwcars RemoveThis @bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:LSOtd.128455$jE2.11888@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
 > In 1957, Chevrolet used the Rochester 4GC on cars equipped with auto
 > trans,
 > and the Carter WCFB on stick shift cars. Both flow about 385CFM.
 > The question came up because I found a completely restored (bowl
 > recolored,
 > linkage replated) 4GC for $185.00. I would have to spend $150.00 to
 > have my
 > WCFB done in the same manner, and would have to pay for shipping both
 > ways..
 > I just thought purchasing the 4GC might be a viable alternative
 > Dexter
 > "Gordon Richmond" <richmond RemoveThis @telusplanet.net> wrote in message
 > news:o3adr05bke26v721p48bm7hqq6opru7sbh@4ax.com...
  >> As a matter of fact, I have a Stude so equipped sitting in the
  >> driveway.
  >>
  >> It is a '63 GT Hawk, 289 automatic, and a prior owner installed a
  >> Rochester 4GC on the Stude manifold, probably the WCFB-style
  >> manifold.
  >>
  >> It works OK, fuel mileage is unremarkable. If and when the carb dies,
  >> I'll replace it with a 500 cfm Edelbrock AFB clone.
  >>
  >> BTW, the 4GC is not a quadrajet; it looks a lot like the WCFB, and is
  >> contemporary with that design. It would have been the stock 4 barrel
  >> on McKinnon-equipped Studebakers had the factory released a 4 barrel
  >> option.
  >>
  >> Gord Richmond
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: carb question 

Well, I'm sure you could hang it on there, and get it to work. The one
on my Hawk works OK. Not having done the installation, I don't know if
there were any issues with the linkage or choke heat tube.

In your situation, I'd go with the WCFB myself. The 4GC would be only
a few dollars cheaper, and it would definitely be non-stock. If the
4GC was less than half the price of the WCFB, I'd consider it.

Gord Richmond
 >> Stay informed about: carb question 

Dexter & George,

I have used a Q-Jet on the 289 in my GT with mixed results. I
purchased an adapter that allows an AFB to be used on a Q-jet manifold
and inverted it so that a Q-jet would fit the Stude manifold. I
ordered an electric choke Q-jet set up for a small block Chevy from
Summitt. The engine would not idle below 1200 RPMs with the carb
adjusted as "out of the box" . I had to lean the idle mixtures two
turns to get the 289 to idle and then it ran fine with the engine warm.
The Q-jet seems more vacuum sensitive than the AFB. I didn't get the
carb dialed in as I would have liked as it was only on the car for 250
miles before I replaced it with the AFB. I had several long trips to
make in the Hawk and didn't want to mess around with an unknown.

The Q-jet seemed to yield about 1 MPG better fuel economy at interstate
speeds and had a very nice smooth transition off idle where as the my
AFB has a stumble at low RPM's. Of course there could be other factors
involved in the stumble. Also the Q-jet had nice crisp throttle
response when operating on the primaries. My "Seat of the Pants Dyno"
could feel no improvement at wide open throttle, in fact, the AFB seems
a bit stronger at WOT. With more time to dial in the Q-jet and perhaps
a jetting change, it would probably work fine. I didn't have a chance
to really check fuel consumption at other than interstate speeds. On
the basis of my limited test, I don't feel there is enough performance
advantage to justify the additional cost of the Q-jet. By the way, the
AFB was 625 CFM and has about 8,000 miles since new - so the camparison
is between two new or almost new carbs.

Jack
 >> Stay informed about: carb question