Actually, the price of cars had gone down. My first car was about four
months pay. I just bought a new car for about four months pay, but got one
hell of a lot more car for it. Gas has gone down when I figure how many
gallons of gas I could buy for an hour's wage. Life is good.
You mention the oil bath air filters, but you forgot about those
canister-type oil filters (before the spin-ons)!
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
True- if you're talking pre-1955 or so. But I'm primarily talking 60s.
I still don't know what planet you're on. Solid lifters (except on
air-cooled VW junk) didn't need adjusting more than every 50k miles or
so. And my dad before me racked up a solid 25,000 miles per year back in
the 50s and 60s, just like I do today. And he kept cars for 5-10 years
each. That '63 Valiant was on the job every day until 72. Solid lifters
and all, never was a "blue smoker" of an oil burner. Of course we're
talking slant-6, not stovebolt Chevy in this case.
Which, God knows why, are back in vogue on German cars. What a wretched
Yep. Although as I've pointed out, I've had a 318 and a 383 last longer
than that slant-6. Pretty much all Chrysler engines from that era were
legends of longevity, and very much on a par with engines of today.
Better than the ones with rubber timing belts, IMO.
With all due humility, (and I am not a Chrysler man) every engine that I can
that was actually manufactured by Chrysler was virtually bulletproof.
Chevy made their turds, and Ford had some pretty sorry engines, but the REAL
Chrysler engines were spectacular.
Unless I have missed something along the road;>)
Yes, I think you are correct. It was the Mitsushitty engines that
really sucked; the only non-stellar Chrysler-made engines I can think of
are the more modern V-6 engines, some of which had sludging problems.
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
forever. Two terrible things about them, though; they were worse than Harley
motorcycles about leaking oil, and many of the carb designs were crap. Let's not
forget the ubiquitous ballast resistor (ok, so that's 3). Mopars biggest
things "around" the motor, up to and including the rest of the car.
Don't get me wrong, Chrysler muscle cars are some of the most impressive ever
It's just that I was "there" back in the 70s when most 60-70s Mopars were just
cars. The oil leaks, carb problems and rust were enough to make me want to avoid
for my personal cars. I take care of 6 1960s-70s Mopars for a local car
Rust isn't an issue as they are basically garage queens. It's still a chore
with the oil leaks and carb issues. The Holleys on the 6-Pack cars are the
(They are all FUN to drive, though! :) )
Umm... there was nothing special about Chrysler carburetors. They were
just Holleys and Carters like everyone else used also. In fact both GM
and Ford used most of the same models except the Carter Thermoquad, but
it was used by International Harvester.
3/4 of a million miles driven in 60s-70s Chryslers and I've NEVER had a
ballast resistor fail. I've no idea where the myth that the ballast
resistor is a particular problem got started.
most Chrysler products used Carter. They all used Holley carbs from time to
will find the occasional Quadrajet on a Ford, but this was an exception. The
common 4 barrell on Mopars was the AFB(?) and it was a very good unit. The TQs
leaky and temperamental, as were the 2 barrell carbs. Holleys are a PITA no
what they were used on IMHO.
No myth Steve, I've seen it for myself many times. You just got lucky. If I
nickel for every ballast resistor I replaced back then, I would be pretty well
used to carry one in the glove box of my car to help out stranded motorists. If
saw a Chrysler product broken down beside the road, most often it was due to the
Don't get me wrong Steve, I'm not saying this just to rag on Chrysler
of the manufacturers had their quirks. I always preferred Fords and dealt with
share of flaky chokes, hard starts on damp days, bent pushrods and cracked
manifolds. Now that these cars are collectible, folks tend to forget the faults
were common when they were in daily service.
And quite a few Holleys.
Neither of which is an improvement over Carter or Holley....
Overall, I'd say it was very close to 50/50 Holley and Carter.
And 80's Mopar copcars, too, after the TQ went out of production
50's thru about '68, after that it was the Carter AVS. Then around 70
or 71, it became mostly Holley 4-barrels (although the hi-po engines
kept the AVS), and then the Thermoquad after that.
And absolutely WONDERFUL when you take good care of them. IMO, it was
the most advanced carb ever made before fuel injection ended the carb
era. I've got a small stash of them, and currently run one on my 318
car. I get about 3 mpg better with it than any other carb I've used.
When I built the engine in my 440 car, I put an M-1 intake on it but now
I really wish I'd used a spread-bore intake so I could properly run a
TQ. Especially in the winter when this high vapor-pressure winter-blend
crap fuel tries to vapor-lock every time the outside temp gets over 60.
I could run an adaptor, but that is pretty third-rate.
The Holley 2-barrels were creeping crud, and so were the 1-barrel
Holleys that sometimes showed up on the slant-6 instead of the Carter
BBS. But most 2-barrel Mopars got the Carter BBD, and that was a
bulletproof little brick of a carb.
Holleys are a PITA no
Well, I happen to agree there. I'm a die-hard Carter guy. Holley and
Autolite *both* used rubber diaphragm accelerator pumps that were just
as likely to dump fuel all over the top of the intake manifold as they
were to squirt it inside the carb :-/ Gotta admit, the Quadrajet is a
nice piece too.
Oh, I agree there are always going to be quirks. To me that's 90% of the
appeal of owning an old car- they have character and class. I was hoping
you'd clarify what you thought the actual Mopar carb quirks were,
because I was going to offer my opinion on what might have caused what
you remember: on most 2-bbl small-block Mopars, the exhaust crossover
passage below the carb had a tendency to plug up pretty solid with
carbon over the course of about 5 years, particularly with a lot of
short-trip driving. Once the carb heat was effectively blocked, all
sorts of cold driveability problems cropped up. It doesn't seem to
happen if you put dual exhausts on the car, and my suspicion is the
slight imbalance in back-pressure is enough to keep the passage cleared
Hmmm. I never saw a Q-jet on a Mopar. That's a new one on me.
and replaced it with a TQ on GM cars. My experience with them, though was that
were leaky and tempermental. Vapor lock also comes to mind. Maybe I just didn't
how to fix them correctly. Wasn't there an issue with the fuel bowls warping or
something along that line.
My experience with the BBD wasn't as good. It's been many years, but I seem to
remember quite a bit of internal vacuum leaks and hot start issues. The Holley
may be tainting my view of other carbs used by Mopar, though.
AFB and AVS were,IMHO, the best carbs made in their day.
Gotta admit, the Quadrajet is a
All in all, carburetors were a pain in general. I just seem to have had more
with Holley and certain Carter units than most others.
would contain a few 4 letter words.
I was hoping
Mopars that I care for today, the Carters are very little trouble (all 4-bbl).
6-Pack cars (Holley) are a constant battle tweaking and stopping leaks.
As for oil leaks, I'll quote the fellow that owns them: "If a Mopar didn't
I'd think there was something wrong it".
I was as surprised as anyone, but when Carter stopped the TQ in about
84, Chrysler switched over to the Quadrajet since they only had
spread-bore 4-bbl manifolds still in production (and spread-bore carbs
work so well on the smallblock Mopar v8). They were used in the copcars
as well as trucks and Ramchargers that had 4-bbl carburetion. What *I*
haven't seen or known about until you mentioned it was that Ford ever
used the QJ.
I won't argue that the TQ is a difficult animal. It doesn't tolerate
rough handling, and it doesn't tolerate a lot of fuel additives. The
weakest link is the "X" section O-ring pair that seals each main jet in
the main body to the "well" in the throttle body when you bolt it all
together. They are basically a routine maintenance item because they
WILL harden and start leaking over time, which bypasses the primary
metering jets causing the carb to run richer and richer. But it DOES
actually resist vapor locking far better than other carbs- the whole
reason for the phenolic main body was to keep the fuel cooler. It
typically cuts the fuel temperature by 20-30 degrees F compared to an
aluminum carb on the same engine/manifold combo.
But *MY* daily ride *IS* a 1966 440-powered AVS-carb'd (Edelbrock repro,
actually) Mopar :-)
I've never owned a Mopar 6-pack or GM tri-power, and I probably never
will! A good large 4-bbl actually performs better unless the 6-pack
setup is perfectly tweaked... and they never stay tweaked.
They don't leak oil. They mark their territory.
I can actually get a vintage big-block Mopar to be completely dry if I'm
careful. And before you ask... NO, my current one isn't completely dry
:-p But its close, one small weep on the passenger-side valve cover.
The smallblocks, with those PITA manifold end-seals and the Chevy-style
3-piece oil pan gaskets are a different story. They went to a 1-piece
pan gasket on the 92-up "Magnum" smallblocks along with all-machined
gasket surfaces instead of rough casting surfaces, and that finally
fixed the leaks for good.
occasionally over the years. I believe it was used in police applications for a
time in ~1970.
I guess that was my original point. Today there is a certain amount of fun to
had, and pride to be taken, in the care and feeding of these carbs. Back when
cars were new(ish), these problems could be a real inconvenience for folks that
on them for daily transport.
But it DOES
I thought that was the case.
I certainly don't own them. Way to rich for my blood. I just live vicariously
through someone else's toys. I consider myself lucky and I've gained an
for Mopar in the last couple of years. The 6 Pack cars are: 69 Super Bee 440, 71
Cuda 360, and 71 Roadrunner 440. You might appreciate the other muli carb one in
bunch, it's a 63 Savoy Super Stock 426 Wedge. That car is downright scary.
And before you ask... NO, my current one isn't completely dry
Well, "If it didn't leak..."
I've often wondered why we fight our little battles with these old beasts.
supposed to have been scrapped years ago. We spend money, time, money and
to keep these cars alive. Is it love? sentiment? nostalgia? Naw, I think it's a
We had about 2 feet of snow here yesterday. Excuse me while I go fiddle with the
and dry the distributor cap on my Ford. Hmm, I think that accelerator pump is
Works of art, those early dual-quad long-rams with the carbs sitting way
out over the shock tower! The super-stocks were unbelievable, but just
a plain old dual-quad 413 in a Chrysler 300 is scary enough.
But truth be told, I spend the same or LESS actual money on the old car
than on my wife's modern one. More parts get replaced on the old car,
but 10 of those parts are cheaper than 1 sensor on the newer car.
Nevermind that the new car cost around 20k just to buy in the first
place. Some people would ask "what's your time worth," but since it
doubles as a hobby I can answer "my time's worth too much to waste it
playing golf when I could be spinning wrenches and having FUN." :-)
No snow here, but it was around 28 degrees this morning. The ol' 440
fired right up like any other day. Gotta love the electric chokes on
these new Carter/Edelbrocks :-)
Some people would ask "what's your time worth," but since it
I couldn't have said it better!!
I hope you noticed the tongue in my cheek as I wrote the last part of that
statement. I love old iron, no matter who made it. In addition to cars, here's
other way I have fun: www.lakeshorerailway.org How much is my time worth? I
pay $20 per year to do it!
I haven't actually had a car with a carb in some time, Fuel injection is a
thing. Here's a bit of an oddity that you might appreciate. My daily driver is a
Lincoln Mark VII. It's a 5.0 with Central Fuel Injection. The CFI unit actually
heated "choke" spring, fast idle cam and "choke" pulloff just like on the old
carb. It's just a fast idle system though, no choke plate.
I work with "kids" who've never even DRIVEN a carbureted car :-/ Fuel
injection is amazing to someone like me who grew up with carbs.... Until
something breaks ;-) No, I'm not a luddite who fears or dislikes it. Its
very reliable and easy to fix when something does go wrong... just tends
to be expensive. Mainly because there ARE no cheap parts in it like
there are in a carb.
The only EFI from that era that I'm really familiar with was on the
gone-and-not-missed Cadillac HT4100 (talk about "reputations taking a
hit!") that I used to care for and feed for my parents. It was a full-up
digital throttle-body EFI, though, all idle speeds controlled by
computer. I've looked at the EFI used on the 81-83 Imperial a little,
and it was pretty far ahead of its time too. It was actually a mass air
flow system, but it reached a little far ahead of the state of the art
and was regarded as a failure. Still a number of them out there running
around though- they sometimes show up at Mopar shows.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.