Hello All. Wonder if someone can chime in on this one...and yep, used search function. However, maybe I just didn't find this, if so, sorry bout that. Quadrajets on top of a 6-71. Anyone done this successfully? Talked to a guy named Cliff Ruggles, he was pretty helpful. Mentioned 'just run it on the jets (no power piston), for a blower. Said he's built dual quad Q-Jet setups before, with 1969-up carbs, side-inlet style. I was hoping to use the early, 65/66 carbs (my car is a 65 Ford), but Cliff told me the bowls are way small, and several other details aren't too conducive to performance applications. My goal is no post 67 parts on this car. Read about a few other guys on here with non-Holley blower carbs (flamedabone and a guy named Ago), very informative. Loved Ago's boost reference plate. Neat stuff on here. Engine will be a blown 352 FE Ford. Not a full boogie race car. Just a 1960's period car that will happen to run a blower. No billet, no bling, just old stuff. I've only managed to collect one net pic, of a 6-71 with a lone Q-Jet- but no reference of boost referencing, carb model, etc. But it was an eye opener that one other human besides me even wants to do this. Ok then, thank you all for your time. You really have lots of good info, and talent, on this site. It's a great place to visit.
I'd like to do it too, but the float bowl is tiny.... Get some old AFBs and make them work. Or get some old Holleys and make them work. Both have been around since about 1957
The big question is 'why'? Unless you are just trying to be different there is no advantage. If a Q-jet has any particular possible benefit it's in the small primaries. But with a blower that tends to become a moot point.
Not really...last winter I put a wideband O2 sensor on my blower motor, and I was surprised at how bad a Holley is at controlling the mixture in normal driving. I also stuck one on my old truck with a Qjet equipped mild (not blown) 454, and was surprised at how well the Qjet works.
Cliff is probably the most knowledgable person still alive when it comes to Q-Jets. Listening to him will certainly be beneficial. There is lots of performance to be had with the Q-Jet, as long as one works with the later (post-1968) versions. The early versions have issues. The 1965 and 1966 especially have issues. SOME of the issues you will have to solve with machine work: (1) "umbrella" style fuel valve MUST be replaced with conventional type (2) internal dashpot will require sleeving (3) well plugs will require sealing And this still doesn't account for the placement of the float pin (changed in the post 1968 versions). The placement of the float pin in the early carbs limits the amount of fuel that can be forced into the tiny fuel bowl. If you want to use pre-1967 Rochester carbs, you would be better off using the old square-bore 4GC than the 1965 and 1966 Q-Jets. Jon.
Hello Jon- Thanks for your comments and input. I've seen you on this site quite a few times. You seem to be very knowledgeable as well. I'd have no problems listening to Cliff- I had emailed him a couple times, and he was very courteous and helpful. I'd like to ask- would you mind if I pick your brain a bit about this matter? If it is ok with you, would here on the HAMB be ok, or would it be better to email you? I'm away from home currently, email works for me, we have no long distance at the place I'm working at currently. Thank you again for your time and courtesy.
The advice is always free (some might tell you this is overpriced ). Telephone really works best for me. 573-392-7378 (9-4 Mon-Wed central time). Jon.
These went 10.49 on a 6-71/454 about 18 years ago. They worked extremely well on the street. Still have 'em & the carb adapter too.
Cliff is a sharp guy (so is carbking, for that matter..) and he is right, the Q-Jets could probably work fine, but their biggest downside is their uglyness. Q-Jets look right at home on a 76 Buick 4 door, but maybe not on an early hot rod. Carter and Edelbrock both make a better looking carb that will work well on a blower motor with no power valve or boost referencing issues. I have 2 750 Carters on mine and love them dearly. Either way, good luck and post lots of pics. -Abone.
I ran the stock power valves, enlarged seats, somewhat larger primaries & slash cut the secondary rods. They were more responsive than my 750 performers.
Hello, I can not speak about blowers and Q jets, but in the mid '70s to the early '80s when I was runing my front engine dragster in A/E rail I had a 350 warmed over and started out runing a "Holly" could never get the car to leave without a stumble some of Indianapolis best carb guys could not fix it, I got me a Q jet and the car left harder, ran faster and quicker then with the Holly. I still build my hot rods with Q jets, harder to find now days, but I still lov'um. Good luck with the car and Q jets.
Get cliff's Q-jet book. There aren't going to be very many folks that can tell a 66 q jet from a 69 . Don't be too hung up on that
I was doing an 18 week advanced tech school deal at the GM Training Center in Milwaukee in '67. The class needed a "victim" when we got to the Q-Jet part of the course so I volunteered my dad's '67 SS-396. The car had 12K on it and ran good... after we did the rebuild and reset everything to factory specs it ran GREAT and delivered 21+ MPG on the highway. Q-Jets can be very good.
They are very good carbs. They are sophisticated and have a lot of parts, every one of those parts is an opportunity to fine tune one aspect of the carb. Lots of folks don't understand that and buy a much simpler carb to understand. Getting parts for tuning like jets secondary rods and lift arms is hard now. There's about a bazillion different combos possible.
GREAT advice! Externally, they look pretty much the same. Internally, different as night from day! Jon.
Hello All- Wow! Thanks for all these responses. This is really great info. Ok, firstly- yep, got Cliff's book last year. Gone thru it a few times, probably will a few more. Also picked up SA's Carter/Ebrock book. Figure I'd better read stuff first. Squirrel/GregCon- yeah, part of it is to do something different. Guess I'm a bit of a hardhead at times. Might sound silly, but to me Holley is the 'red 69 Camaro' of the carb world. I know they work, and many love them...but I don't want to have them on my car. I have no probs with AFB's, that actually was my first choice, I've seen them in old b/w car mag pics from far back as 1959, on blowers. But for now, I'd still like to study/investigate Q-Jet. Also, where I live, if you even find decent AFB's, all of a sudden they are (supposedly) 'rare 409/Vette or Hemi carbs' and priced accordingly. Same stupidity that somehow a 360 FE is some sort of 'rare Cobra motor'. It's ridiculous. Must be all the rain up here affects their brains or something. A third choice was a 3x2 of Rochester 2GC. Contacted a few folks, and just got laughed at. It seems the words blower, Galaxie, and carbs just don't go together, or something. Kept getting told 'Galaxie is to fat and slow, stuff the FE into a Falcon or Mustang, the Galaxie will never be a race car'. Flamedabone- just curious, have you ever bothered to track the mpg of your setup? I have read that AFB's can be pretty decent on gas if set up right. And, you didn't boost reference them? Hmm....could you comment on how you keep them from going lean under boost? Jon/31 Vicky/Krooser/Paintcan54- Yeah, I realize your comment about not getting hung up on 65 vs 69 Q-Jet looks. I seem to be my own worst enemy sometimes, I've been trying very hard to stick to my thoughts of no post 67 parts. And thanks to Cliff's book, yeah, I learned that the insides can vary drastically between just a few years. And also, there are tons of tune possibilities with them too. I was kind of hoping to using that to my advantage. Cliff's own site gets into this aspect pretty well. Mohr Hp- Sir, you are KILLING me with your post!!! I thought perhaps I was the only one wacky enough to even think this. The pic was golden, now I have evidence! 10.49- holy cow, these are set on kill, I assume? I mean, they are even rich at low speed? Did you keep any details of your mods...did you home-make the adapter and linkage....eh...would these things even be for sale? This is where I get a little bit confused, hope you guys can bear with me. When Cliff mentioned about using no power piston, just 'straight off the jets'- would this setup be running rich all the time? Or is this just a way to avoid making a boost reference device? I'll try to tie this in, here- Many years ago I read about a Chevelle that Gary Dyer and crew helped a customer with (non Hamb-friendly 1970). It got featured in multiple magazines. 6-71, pair of AFB's, sbc. They tuned this thing to get approximately 18-20mpg freeway. Dunno if I should call this a mellow blower setup, 'cruiser blower', etc. If I remember correctly, it had a TH400, no OD. I've been thinking along similar lines- 5-8psi, absolute max, C6, maybe even keeping my 3.0:1 gears (depending on final tire choice). The prior owner had the 352 dynoed, it only makes about 235 hp! I get about 20-21 mpg steady state 60mph, not bad for an old boat. Guess in my head, it seems Q-Jets can sip fuel, until you nail them, from what I read in Cliff's book. If it's even possible, I'd like to retain that characteristic...sip it while off boost, then give it what it needs under boost. It already has Hooker headers from the past owner. Was figuring on just having the stock heads cleaned up, getting the cross bolt kit, some 7.0:1 blower pistons, and I talked to both Schneider and Howard's about a blower cam, it would have a 112-114 separation angle, I believe the duration was 260 or 268...or was it 280? It's been a long time. So...thoughts, comments, suggestions, criticisms, let the education commence. I have read about Mopar and Chevy guys getting 18-20mpg with blowers. Hopefully a Ford can too. Thanks again all your guys, for your time and courtesy. It is appreciated.
My mileage isn't very good...she gets about 12-14 on the highway. But, this is a 10 second street car at 10#s of boost and mileage isn't terribly importiant. She used to get 18 or so back when she had 6#s, but she was stuck in the 11s... As for air fuel ratio, I spent two saturdays at my friendly local chassis dyno shop to tune the new combination. The Carters have 99 jets in the rears and 96 in the primarys and are at 12.8 or so at WOT at full boost. Good luck,-Abone.
There were Q jets used on boosted applications from the factory. The source was routed externally instead of thru the carb body it self. Removing the power piston runs rich on low to mid range throttle not good on the street and a race only modification.
The biggest issue you will face trying to use the pre-1969 Q-Jets in a performance application (blower) AND streetable is fuel delivery into the bowl due to the placement of the float pin. The mechanical advantage of the float (buoyancy) is less than on the later Q-Jets. Many will tell you to use the "windowed" fuel valve seat (allows the fuel out of the seat quicker). This does NOT work with the early pin placement, as the slosh of the fuel through the window creates upward pressure on the float and causes the float to close early! The fuel delivery is best controlled by the use of different fuel orifices. Rochester made 0.120, 0.130, and 0.135. There are aftermarket 0.149 available. From experience, I can suggest the 0.149 is guaranteed to flood on the street. This valve is pretty much for race only. The 0.135 is generally good on the street, but will occasionally flood, depending on conditions. The 0.130 delivers the best compromise of maximum reliable fuel on the street. If you do your tuning properly, you should see good to excellent street fuel mileage; BUT, with the early pin placement, you MAY run the bowls out of fuel under boost conditions....definately not a good thing. The more mundane issues to be solved with the early Q-jets: (1) get rid of the "umbrella" fuel valve (there are kits available, or used to be, to do this). (2) if applicable (not all models have them) sleeve the internal dashpot. This is a machine shop operation. (3) fix the leaky well plugs. Omitting the primary rods can be done, even on the street, but it defeats the sophistication of the primary metering system and makes it work more like a Holley...in other words, just throw gas at it! Deleting the primary rods will cost you from 20~25 percent fuel economy under high vacuum (cruise) conditions. And in the FWIW category, my shop F100 with normally aspirated 390, 2x4 (AFB's, also with rods on the primarys), and 4-speed gets 22 on the highway at 70. And yes, the carbs have been somewhat modified. Whatever you choose, have fun with your project. Jon.
Bmax65 You don't need an OD to get good mileage just an engine that is tunned properly and geared accordingly. I would actually consider the AFBs if I was not going to run holleys. I may run a Q-jet on a naturaly aspirated car but that would be because that was all I had. They have just never been my favorite carb especially the earlier models for the reason already stated by the carb guys. I have never owned a camaro red or otherwise but I have run holleys for a very long time. If it is about looks and not performance then I suppose it doesn't really matter what you run. I do disagree with the fellas that think that the Galaxie is too big for a blower motor. One thing to remember is that the Galaxie was at one time the body of choice for the FX cars. When someone says you shouldn't do something that you know is what you should do a grin is your best defense. At least it has always worked for me. One other thing with the internet you don't have to buy a carb from your neighbor, the internet has made your neighborhood way bigger that it would have been in the '60s.
Like Abone, I've got AFB's on my 6/71. I can get 18mpg on the highway. I found that I could pick up Pontiac AFB's cheap. I still think of using 4jets now and then but I'm quite happy with the AFB's.
The beauty in the Q-jet was it's small primaries/ large secondaries, so no, they don't need to be rich at part throttle. My car was totally docile around town. I made the carb adapter on a bridgeport mill in A&P school, no cnc, strictly etch-a-sketch. Yes, I'd be willing to sell. just garage art now, I went BIG (1100 Dominators).
Hello Guys- WOW. Thanks again for all your comments, advice, etc. I really do appreciate this. It is very helpful. Mohr HP- got the pm. Will try to reach you this weekend. Yeah, I'd like to talk to you about this. Kerry- Neat Car- I've seen it while lurking on here. 18mpg, that's cool for a blown hot rod! Sweet engine, love early Hemis, and the AFB's look right on there. I love the v-belts and the vintage finishes too. Abone- yeah, you get worse mpg than Kerry, but you admit that 11's weren't fast enough!! Haha, but double digit mpg in a 10 second car??? Wow! Not bad, and I bet she's a load of fun too. If I could get 20mpg and my boat ran 13 flat, I'd be happy. Yeah, until it got taken apart, my 65 was my daily driver, every weather except for snow/ice....don't want some soccer mom SUV taking it out while she's on the cell phone in the snow. Porknbeaner- Well, it's not just about looks- I mean, I'm hoping this car will be a bit faster- don't know why it annoys me, but as long as I've been interested in cars, everyone is like 'if you throw a Holley on, and an sbc in, your car, it won't suck anymore'. I have zero doubt Holleys work, I just don't care for them, given a choice. And the comment about the 'red 69 camaro' was just a jab in that general direction. After reading Cliff Ruggles' book, the Q-Jet just started fascinating me. Yeah, they are sorta different looking than a Holley or AFB, but I kind of like that. Perhaps folks might walk up and go- 'what the heck??' I like that. And as far as comments about the Galaxie, yeah, I just grin or walk away. I'm used to it. Everyone has their faves. I'm actually a Nash guy at heart, before I kick the bucket, hope to own a nice vintage Nash someday. Jon- Wow! Thanks again for the in depth commentary! Yeah, Cliff's book mentions pin location, bowl capacity, etc. I agree with you, it would be horrible to run the bowl dry, especially with a blower! Umbrella valve and bowl plugs are mentioned in the book too....however, that 'internal dashpot' thing- wow, don't remember hearing that before. Hmmm. Do you do this procedure? Thank you also for your comments on the fuel valve seat sizes too...I'll take all the tips I can get. Not to discount Cliff's prior advice to me, I think maybe he mentioned not using the power piston for simplicity- he claims to run a car on the street like this. However, I am really listening to you, too- I don't want to lose that 20-25% efficiency/mpg you mention. So....do you have any thoughts on how to successfully boost reference these carbs? Would it be something similar to Ago's post, where he shows that special plate he made up, with the pipe down to the blower manifold? I have both Cliff's book, and the SA Design Carter/Edelbrock book- I know both carbs have slots in the bottom, and Ago even shows which slot he blocks off on the AFB.....is there a particular slot,or slots, to do this mod on a prospective Q-Jet?? I want to make sure I do this right the first time. And (again) I agree with you- I don't want to lose that % of mpg capability. Whatever thoughts and advice you might have on this, I'm all ears, Jon. I'm liking the idea of just sipping around town, then she opens up and fuels correctly when the boost comes on. Ok then, guess I better cut this novel off here for now. I do really want to thank you guys, your time and courtesy is really appreciated. Have a good and safe weekend.
The Jalopy Journal
