I finally found this thread: http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=407545&highlight=triple+quad&page=2 these pics are off it.
Funny this comes up. I remember seeing a picture in a Pontiac book about 25 years ago of a 421 with dual quads and a center 1 or 2 barrel. I don't know how old the book was then either, it could have been a 10 year old book at the time.
[QUOTE by 50stude p/u "I finally found this thread: these pics are off it" http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/s...le+quad&page=2 ---------- Groucho;4957898 - "Wow! That's borderline insanity" [/QUOTE] ------------------------- It's probably not nearly as 'insane' as it looks. A set-up like this, properly sorted out and with progressive throttle linkage could actually be fairly practical. At idle and low and medium speeds, the car could operate on the center 2-bbl and conventional 'long runner' dual-plane manifolding. This would give good drivability, good low-end torque and decent fuel mileage. But at wide open throttle, when the four additional carbs positioned directly over the intake ports came into play, you would effectively change to single-plane-type manifolding with very short runners and lots of venturi area - all great for top-end power! Sorting it all out, jetting, synchronizing the carbs and designing a workable progressive throttle linkage that would only bring the additional carbs in once the center carb was at or or near WOT would be quite a chore, but it could be done. I'll grant you though, it surely does look insane!!!! Mart3406 =======================
I have heard of that intake but never seen a pic before. Pontiac was ahead of everyone back then, wish I could've been there.
Ever seen the Pontiac Super Duty hood scoops? They're actually Ford heavy truck scoops, mounted on the p***enger side of the hood and faced backwards. Pontiac racers wanted them for their Catalinas, so Pontiac bought them from Ford, gave them a part number, and just like that, they were legal a Pontiac parts. They'd have done it with the carb, and not thought twice. -Brad