Brother, Can You Spare a "Dime"?

[Danny Ashley]

Back in the late 80's when I had my 1974 GTO I considered the 2-bbl. because that body was a one engine combination for a 4-bbl. I obtained a manifold and carburetor and knowing that the late W.A.Lee worked on 2-bbl's, I sent it to him. He called me up and said they had tried it already and that the carb was too small and it would slow the car one and a half seconds. I had looked at Allen Peters at the time and made my decision off him but W.A. informed me that the '69 Chevy had a much larger venturi. He didn't want to do it because he felt I was wasting my time and sent it back. I really didn't think it would kill it that much so I decided to try it anyway.
It was in the fall and we had decent air but nothing like I had just ran at the Keystones where I was no.1 qualifier and ran 11.97 in L/SA which was really quick for that time. The car at that time with the 2 bbl. was P/SA and the index was an odd number for some reason of 13.54. My first pass was 13.53 followed by a 13.52. The car had no power. I had to almost floor it to do a burnout. I came back and installed the 4-bbl. set-up which is quick to do on a Pontiac and went right back up and went 12.22. I'll admit that the car could go quicker with maybe more gear, smaller headers, cam change, etc. but it didn't look worth the time and money to flogg it out especially when the 4bbl. was so good.
One last thought. Please don't base the 2bbl. combination off of Bill Rink's car. Bill is a good friend and carburetor customer and I can tell you that his engine is a "Top Shelf" Parson & Meyers piece as is everything else on the car. Definitely not a "Dime Rocket". Just a "Rocket" in it's day.

[Bruce Noland]

The 71-72 350 Chevrolet motor loses 82 HP when the Quadrajet is swapped for a 2 bbl. 2 bbl's are hoot and more reliable than some folks say. I think it still ran about .800 under the M/SA index.

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by Bruce Noland

The 71-72 350 Chevrolet motor loses 82 HP when the Quadrajet is swapped for a 2 bbl. 2 bbl's are hoot and more reliable than some folks say. I think it still ran about .800 under the M/SA index.

Thanks for that info, Bruce.
Did you change much else with the 2 bbl combo?

[Billy Nees]

Hey boys, no fighting! The premise of the thread from the start was to toss some "dime" combos out there that could run under the new indexes without breaking the bank. I believe that most if not all of the combos mentioned are capable of doing that. I also believe that , except for maybe Oldsmobile, we've covered all of the popular models with at least one combo. I doubt if ANY of these combos would be a threat to be #1 at Indy but (if we're lucky) a few of these deals will get built and raced. We also know that most of the time, a Buick guy isn't going to race a Pontiac and etc. We've done our best and now it's up to the "Dime Rocketeers".
BTW, there are still cars out there. They're just not growing on trees anymore.

[Mark Yacavone]

Hey, no big deal, Billy. Just jive talkin' here....


Now, I'm thinking that 2bbls keep coming up here...on V8s...How about the better V6 combos? Less engine parts to buy....In other words, cheaper.
It seems to me a smaller carb would go better on a smaller engine.

I'll just list a few.. If anybody's interested, we can work out the details.

77-78 Buick 231/ 130 hp .Still a great combo.

79 , dual jet @ 140 is okay too.

1979 Buick 3.0 (196) @ 115 hp

Various Malibu and Camaros with the 229 Chevy or even the 200 .Billy knows this one.

Here's an available one ; 1985 Monte Carlo 4.3, TBI . A Bob Shaw combo, since de-factored to less than the Caprice body ,which is competitive still. You could run a 2004R O/D with 6,14's if you wanted to..

We've got more...

[Billy Nees]

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone

Hey, no big deal, Billy. Just jive talkin' here....


Now, I'm thinking that 2bbls keep coming up here...on V8s...How about the better V6 combos? Less engine parts to buy....In other words, cheaper.
It seems to me a smaller carb would go better on a smaller engine.

I'll just list a few.. If anybody's interested, we can work out the details.

77-78 Buick 231/ 130 hp .Still a great combo.

79 , dual jet @ 140 is okay too.

1980 Buick 3.0 (196) @ 115 hp

Various Malibu and Camaros with the 229 Chevy or even the 200 .Billy knows this one.

Here's an available one ; 1985 Monte Carlo 4.3, TBI . A Bob Shaw combo, since de-factored to less than the Caprice body ,which is competitive still. You could run a 2004R O/D with 6,14's if you wanted to..

We've got more...

The main reason I lean toward 2V combos is it gets into less expensive, less crowded classes. When the restriction is on top of the motor (NHRA does occasionally check carbs) it can actually hurt the combo to enhance the heads and intake ($$$).

77-78 231 I like enough that I have one done in the garage waiting for a Monza or Sunbird. 78 must use a 1.09 venturi carb but NHRA has the 77 all "whored" up again and can use a big carb.

79 to me just doesn't look worth the 10 HP hit.

80 196, check out Monza 78-79 with this engine (blue light special!).

229 can still fly and can be reasonably done. The 200 is the brute here but can only make V and only in a Malibu at 2810 lbs ( big boned drivers need not apply!).

4.3 has #1 qualifier potential but it might push our budget.

My V6 catch of the day? 82 Pontiac Grand Prix 4V 252/170 the only car in the guide with this motor that's not a Buick and the specs are "different"!
In a Buick this has been factored and defactored over the years and it's still good and it has (in 84) a big Q-jet and a .411/.411 cam.
The Pontiac has a small Q-jet and a .357/.366 cam which sound like a bad thing but being a "different" combo than the Buick I believe that a well placed letter to NHRA would get this combo back some HP. The original factor was 165 HP and it was unfairly hit by a Buick which is a different combo. It seems only fair to put it back to at the most 165.
This one just screams "YAC" to me.

[Bruce Noland]

Mark,

We put the 2 bbl intake and carburetor on the motor at the end of a long dyno session and made a few pulls. Scott Welborn reworked the carburetor and it worked really well. We played with the jets and timing on the dyno and wrapped up the session. I ran it just like the Quadrajet set up for a few races and then put in a shorter duration cam which didn't help much. It picked up when I got ATI to build a converter for the 2bbl power range and by sticking a removable flanged pipe (neck-down) in the collector. My best time for the 2bbl combination was 12.27 @ 106mph in N/SA. That was somewhere around 1.05 under the old index. This 2 bbl combination should still run .700 under the new index. One thing I learned very quickly- the two barrel will turn the tires and at the worst possible time. It did not have enough power to plant the tires with the 4 bbl suspension set up. We had to move some things around.

[Jim Cassels]

Originally Posted by Billy Nees

The main reason I lean toward 2V combos is it gets into less expensive, less crowded classes. When the restriction is on top of the motor (NHRA does occasionally check carbs) it can actually hurt the combo to enhance the heads and intake ($$$).

77-78 231 I like enough that I have one done in the garage waiting for a Monza or Sunbird. 78 must use a 1.09 venturi carb but NHRA has the 77 all "whored" up again and can use a big carb.

79 to me just doesn't look worth the 10 HP hit.

80 196, check out Monza 78-79 with this engine (blue light special!).

229 can still fly and can be reasonably done. The 200 is the brute here but can only make V and only in a Malibu at 2810 lbs ( big boned drivers need not apply!).

4.3 has #1 qualifier potential but it might push our budget.

My V6 catch of the day? 82 Pontiac Grand Prix 4V 252/170 the only car in the guide with this motor that's not a Buick and the specs are "different"!
In a Buick this has been factored and defactored over the years and it's still good and it has (in 84) a big Q-jet and a .411/.411 cam.
The Pontiac has a small Q-jet and a .357/.366 cam which sound like a bad thing but being a "different" combo than the Buick I believe that a well placed letter to NHRA would get this combo back some HP. The original factor was 165 HP and it was unfairly hit by a Buick which is a different combo. It seems only fair to put it back to at the most 165.
This one just screams "YAC" to me.

Billy,
I wondered when you would get to the 252 4v. I have the motor pulled from a 82 Bonneville station wagon. it has been outside for about 5 yrs. but it is complete. Someone come get it before I find a body.
Jim

[Joe Toller]

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone

Hey, no big deal, Billy. Just jive talkin' here....


Now, I'm thinking that 2bbls keep coming up here...on V8s...How about the better V6 combos? Less engine parts to buy....In other words, cheaper.
It seems to me a smaller carb would go better on a smaller engine.

I'll just list a few.. If anybody's interested, we can work out the details.

77-78 Buick 231/ 130 hp .Still a great combo.

79 , dual jet @ 140 is okay too.

1979 Buick 3.0 (196) @ 115 hp

Various Malibu and Camaros with the 229 Chevy or even the 200 .Billy knows this one.

Here's an available one ; 1985 Monte Carlo 4.3, TBI . A Bob Shaw combo, since de-factored to less than the Caprice body ,which is competitive still. You could run a 2004R O/D with 6,14's if you wanted to..

We've got more...

If 79 is ok, then 80-81 231 too? Maybe in a boxy Century 4Dr sedan?

[Pat6868]

There's a 2 barrel Monza out there that runs relatively stout.