If you need help getting it tuned send me a PM or an email and I can give you the step by step on the process.

 

Thanks, but I don't do that kind of mechanical work myself -- I have "the kid" or my mechanic who can do it.

The kid has to put on my new valve covers, new coil, new plug wires, new visors, new mirrors .... he'll be a busy boy

 

Ok, so he put on new plug wires and a new coil then adjusted the timing. It ran 100% better after just that. It still has trouble starting but I'm thinking once the new carb is on, it should solve all issues.

I ran her for about an hour and she never came close to stalling. Wow.

 

I believe that Edelbrock's Performer carbs have the part number stamped onto the front of the carb, on the baseplate. You could find this number, look it up, and know exactly what carb you have.

If you've got the Edelbrock Quadrajet carb, then the 800 CFM rating isn't going to hurt anything, it functions differently than the AFB-style carb.

Anyway, looks like you've found the problem in the ignition. Huzzah!

BTW, "Cliff R" on that "other" board can set you up with a Quadrajet that will outperform the Edelbrock Performer carb in every aspect. From all I've heard, he's THE MAN.

 

Going to have to disagree with you there. I have been running Edelbrock carbs as my "carb of choice" for years and you must have the correct size. In fact for best results start with the “close� CFM carb and then fine tune with different metering rods and corresponding jets. By going as high as a 625 on a 289 makes it hard to tune and you never get all the RPMs to have the correct mix. The closer a carb is to the "correct size" the best performance you will get in the full range of RPMs. An 800CFM is such a large carb that it would be nearly impossible to get it tuned correctly on a 326. Think of it like this, manufactures love a one size fits all product because it makes manufacturing and marketing 10 times easier and less expensive so if an the extra 200 CFMs didn't mater than they would all be that big to reduce costs.

 

Well, that's how I know it's a new carb, 800 cfm, as the number is right on the front and the kid looked it up to let me know it was new. It's not a Quadrajet.

Monday afternoon he'll remove the old one and bolt on the new one.

Adjusting the timing (from 4 to 6) made a huge difference in how she ran. Last week the kid could not adjust the timing as he could not see the line and said things were backwards, but apparently he read online that Chevy engines are different than Mustang engines in that the numbers are backwards? (Just listened to his ramblings).

It didn't come close to stalling with all the changes, but starting is still a small issue and it's not the solenoid or starter, so has to be the carb.

I guess I'll know more Tuesday when I drive it around and test out the new carb.

If that doesn't fix it, I don't know what else to do ... there isn't much else that can be replaced

 

Actually, the stock Quadrajet for that 326 was rated at 750 CFM. I believe that many GM 6-cylinder engines came stock with that sized Quadrajet, also. You might do some reading on the theory of operation of the Quadrajet, its usable airflow is based on engine demand rather than the sizes of the bores.



Pammie: Yeah, 800 CFM is too big for an AFB-style carb on that engine. It should accelerate much better with a correctly-sized carburetor. I'm curious, how do you get that it's new from the part number? Is there also a date code stamped there?

BTW, your Pontiac engine is NOT a chevy.

 

She said it is not a quadrajet, or a "quadrapuke" as my brother (a Chevy guy) likes to call them because they are not a very well designed carb in HIS opinion, (I personally have no experience with them so I personally can not say). So with it not being a quadrajet, 800 cfm IS to much I would say this, some mite take offence with a comment like "You might do some reading on the theory of operation of the Quadrajet, its usable airflow is based on engine demand rather than the sizes of the bores." It sounds a little like a jab. Fortunately I am an easy going guy and didn't take offense.

 

You know it's not a Chevy, and I know that, but this is what he rambled on about so I felt it was worth quoting!! (Also curious if Mustang numbers for the timing are placed in a different sequence than Pontiac. He had a Fox body so is familiar with Mustangs).

As for how we knew it was new, he looked at the front for the 4 digit number then looked it up online, and it's one that is currently being sold. The car isn't garaged at home or I'd run out and get the number for you -- 1412? I'll take a pic on Monday as I need to document more of the project as it comes along.

I just hope this solves the starting issue.

 

You're right, it could be interpreted that way, but that's not how I meant it. I meant it more like "Hey, you should read up on this because it is interesting and you'll learn something new". I knew it would be new information for you because in your reply to me you had missed on the importance of my specification of "Quadrajet".

Anyway, sorry to have ruffled your feathers. I have a tendency to be overly brief when I post.

Also... Even though it's not a Quadrajet, it could still be fine with an 800 CFM carb.... It could have a ThermoQuad.