UPDATED 6/9/22: Ever think one thing for the longest time and then realize it was BS?

[69hurstolds]

Being this was built near the end of the run for the GBodies It have just received the parts in the bins that where left. Or something may have been replaced before I received it.

Ok, before we go any further on this...."the parts bins that were left" postulation is NEVER accurate. Vendors produced production parts in 1988 as well, so how on Earth can they be using up all the parts in the parts bin in 1987? If your SPID has J41 on it, you got cast iron drums installed at the axle factory. 99.99999% chance of that. By then, the factories were much better at picking the right parts to put on the cars.

According to the now-retired GM parts manager at my local dealership, GMSPO has to have certain inventory of warranty parts available throughout and sometimes past the warranty period after the last factory car was produced for dealers to fix cars in warranty for that model year. Doesn't matter when the car was sold, only when the last one was built. This used to be about 10 years, but later whittled to about 5 years. IIRC, this was GM policy, and they had to provide a minimum amount of warranty parts to meet obligatory warranty service. This didn't include every single part for that time period, as some were even listed as non-serviceable, but many parts were still produced and available at GM dealerships after the model year ended.

GM used to contract vendors to continue making parts for their cars that made them in the first place. Nowadays, they give it to pretty much whoever is cheapest. For example, you could order a component and it was made in China for your G-body. Got a new GM part number, and it will fit and function...but it's Chinesium.

The parts at dealerships dry up eventually, moving to the "purchased a closing dealer's inventory" sales into ebay and auctions and the like in the secondary market. If you time it just right, you could have bought some pieces from dealers trying to move their dead stock as people started moving away from G-body stuff. I got about a dozen 307 dipstick tubes that way and some other sundry pieces/parts. I had to take advantage of that 60% off MSRP sale.

 

[ELCAM]

Back in the 90s when these cars were starting to be real common in the salvage yards. If I was looking for this size rear drums for anything that used them even 60s cars I always looked for the aluminum drums. Why use an inferior part?

 

[69hurstolds]

Oh, this one will likely turn the E-Quadrajet world on its ear.

What I thought was a faux pas, is actually a "thing". I just can't believe all these years, I never really paid that much attention to it.

I'm knee deep in E-jet rebuilding with Frankenstein parts from a Chevy, Olds VIN Y, and Olds VIN 9 carburetors to make one. I've also got some NOS carbs, and used carbs from 84 H/O and 85 442.

I'm at a complete loss that I bought into the hype, and never verified it for sure. But after really paying attention to this, I've learned a few things along the way.

As some may be aware, I've got a E-jet rebuild/refurbish thread going on, and my first 85 442 used carb I was going to use got fubar'd on the MC solenoid adjustment screw breaking off inside. So upon disassembly, I saw that the secondary tang on the air valves was there. The old adage that H/O and 442 carbs didn't have this tang was widespread, as I've been hearing about this for years. No surprise, the carb I was working on didn't have this tang either.

But then when it broke, I decided to take the OEM one off my 85 442. The carb had never been off the car before, but the lid had since I had to replace a bad MC solenoid many many years ago. I popped the lid, changed out the solenoid, then set the new MC solenoid to the 1.304" gage setting sent it. In and out in about 1/2 hour. Anyway, since I knew its history since the car was new, since I was the one that ordered it, I knew nothing else was monkeyed with.

Upon its disassembly, I found the tang on the secondary air valve. I thought this was "wrong" and proceeded to make it look like the other 442 carb. I "fixed" the issue. Or so I thought.

In the meantime, I managed to get a spare but good used 84 H/O throttle plate, an NOS Olds Y float bowl, an NOS Chevy Monte Carlo/Camaro air horn with a separate rich stop, and modify the few items on the air horn that the VIN 9 carburetor had that the Chevy air horn did not have. Basically get a darn near NEW carburetor built to VIN 9 specs. There were what I thought 4 differences that needed fixing, but in reality there was only 3. First, the VIN 9 is a 3 point adjust carb, so it required a different Idle Air Bleed valve, one with a letter on top. The Chevy was a 4 point, and didn't use a lettered IABV. No biggie, swap it out. Also, had to install a rear filtered choke air supply tube that the Chevy didn't use since they used electric choke, and a 0.047" main air bleed restrictors inside the air horn that the Chevy didn't even use at all. And finally, the tang removal on the secondary air valves to allow full travel.

So today I was finishing up assembling my Chevy/VIN Y/VIN 9 carburetor doing all the adjustments per the CSM, and the big book of GM tune-up specifications for the 17085554. Used the choke angle gage and the pin gages to set everything to specs according to the chart in the tune-up manual and the CSM.

And then I got to the primary pulloff. Again, never paying attention to this before, but when I went to set the primary pulloff, it set just fine. Got the .025" pin gage to just slide in between the secondary air valve link and link slot. So for the fun of it, I cycled the air valves by hand and found that the little counter-weight hit the link rod and stopped it just short. WTF? This didn't seem right. I honestly had never paid attention to this before. But this caught my eye and got me to wondering that I, along with others, have been duped.

Now, is it fixable? Of course. I first got an old link rod and figured I may could bend it up to clear. Not really. I mangled that pretty well. So what I did was to gently bend the counterweight tab down on the air flap link pivot to allow the valves to fully open to the stop, and yet not bind the linkage. And the weight is still there to ensure the air valves spring back closed without hanging up.

That got me wondering. So I went and looked at a used 17084554 carb in the shop, as well as the NOS 4554 carb. Hmmm. Tangs are intact. Hand cycling the air valves shows that the tang stops the counterweight just short of binding the link rod from the primary pulloff. I need to drag out one of my NOS 17085554 carbs and check that as well. I got a feeling it too, has a tang on it. I believe the hype balloon on this piece of folklore has been popped.

I even pulled the air cleaner on the 87 442 and the 17086009 has a tang on it, too.

Just another one of those things that make you scratch your head. TBH, I truly believe that all the E-jets had a tang on it just to keep it from binding up on the link rod. Not to hinder performance or keep things in check. I'm guessing at that point in the air valve opening, you're already maxed out on fuel and air.

84 NOS carb tang

My sort of NOS Frankenstein Chevy/VINY/VIN9 carb counterweight bend and tang cut.

 

[69hurstolds]

Ok, checked out one of the NOS 17085554 carbs. Guess what. TANG!

Ooops. Wrong one. Here it is. You can see it plain as day.

 

[84 W40]

The many E-carbs I've rebuilt over the years I never seen a counterweight bent like that interesting good catch. I looked at the four Chevy E-carbs that I have and none of them have that counterweight bent.

 

[oldsofb]

I think the mass remembering of an automotive fact incorrectly is called the "Mondello Effect"

Hutch

 

[69hurstolds]

The many E-carbs I've rebuilt over the years I never seen a counterweight bent like that interesting good catch. I looked at the four Chevy E-carbs that I have and none of them have that counterweight bent.

No, it wasn't that way to begin with, it was at the usual 90 degree bend with 1/2" sticking out. I bent it like that to clear the rod AFTER I had chopped off the tang. That ONE carburetor that already had the tang removed...I thought it was made that way, so I cut off the tang in the same place on the Chevy air horn. The counterweight was hitting the link rod and binding it up, so I bent it that way to clear the link rod binding so it would operate smooth. Regardless, the other VIN 9 carbs appear to be about 90% travel even with the tang. Learn something new all the time with these cars.

 

[John Canon]

I used to think that Tuna Noodle Casserole was pronounced Tuna Nuna Casserole.

I know better now.

Don't talk with your mowfull ...😉

 

[84 W40]

No, it wasn't that way to begin with, it was at the usual 90 degree bend with 1/2" sticking out. I bent it like that to clear the rod AFTER I had chopped off the tang. That ONE carburetor that already had the tang removed...I thought it was made that way, so I cut off the tang in the same place on the Chevy air horn. The counterweight was hitting the link rod and binding it up, so I bent it that way to clear the link rod binding so it would operate smooth. Regardless, the other VIN 9 carbs appear to be about 90% travel even with the tang. Learn something new all the time with these cars.

Now I have a better understanding of what you did, as long you have no binding you should be good.

 

[69hurstolds]

Now I have a better understanding of what you did, as long you have no binding you should be good.

No binding at all, and it functions normally. So it still operates smoothly. The main thing is, even without the tang, the fuel tubes aren't being blocked by the air valves. That was my main concern, and that has enough clearance. It's only like maybe 1/4" or so difference without the tang (and the secondary control rods come up just a hair higher- which I don't think make much if any difference at that point), but just enough for the weight to clank into the primary link rod right before it stops. So what you would think was stopping on the stop, was actually the counterweight stopping on the link rod. Thus, bending it slightly keeps the weight intact, yet provides the clearance needed that last little bit of travel.

Word to the wise: Don't cut your tang off, kids!