Aceshigh

I fail. LMAO

I completely missed the Myth part at the end of the sentence.

A72CUTLAS

Now this is the back and forth I remember the last time I mentioned carbs on this forum! As Danny stated earlier, I contacted him and have decided to stick with the Q. If it was good enough for Olds back then, it's good enough for me. Besides that, Dannys gonna do it right for my set-up. I'll definitely report back.

71 Cutlass

This post is nothing but total B.S. The quadrabog got its name from its performance and constant problems. It's also referred to as quadrajunk. No other carb has the nicknames so prominantly known, so it's obvious that waaay too many people,from experienced hotrodders etc. gave it this nickname. It is by far the MOST unreliable carb there is, this is proven b/c even Q-Jet lovers post this fact on the web, even if they claim they will still keep their Q-Jet and just go through the hassels. Yet somehow, against all logic, you claim to know how adept others are at tuning the Q-Jet carb...you've never even met them, you know nothing of their capabilities, yet you talk like you're looking over their shoulder while they work... Totally ridiculous. As for Chrysler changing over...sure, now that the muscle car era was over and cars are crappier, going slower with lower compression etc. Chrysler says, "might as well use the Q-Jet," no need for HP anymore, so you can forget the "Better power" nonesense, I've had both carbs and the Edelbrock is superior in the power catagory.
As someone posted earlier, looks like its an agree to disagree post.

captjim

http://72.22.90.30/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=675623#675623

Warhead

Agree to disagree does not go into a personal insult.

Your post is totally biased, inflamatory (!) and absurd.
.
I got good at rebuilding them they way they came from the factory, I am no expert, never claimed it. Not looking over anyones shoulder, I am a under your wing kinda guy, not an under your thumb kinda guy.

I don't even think like that.

I've had both also. I had a 750 competition series, and a pair of 500's. Had the Carter jet/ rod kits...for all of them. MY Q-jet just plain outran the AFB's, and used less fuel doing it. For me, easy choice. Both had decent manners.

Now maybe our chrondek's were bad???

I may disagree with the capn, sometimes (definitely about the Q-jets!), but he is still a class act. You seem to just rationalize your opinions with comments like "Chrysler says, "might as well use the Q-Jet," no need for HP anymore" like it's a fact you know from somewhere. Your logic evades me.

The Q-jet issues are:
single inlet/small bowl
well plugs
Heat retention
difficult primary power piston
Poor replacement selection...which has been addresed.

I still contend, that when someone has an issue with a Q-jet, it is usually because of maladjustment.
I'll still paypal anyone for their vintage /403 Q-jet core.
There was 1 Thermoquad that was said to outrun any quadrajet, it flowed 1000cfm. I never had one, never learned the thing. I can admit it.
Jim

captjim

If we all thought exactly the same all the time, this would be a dull place. LOL I respect Warheads experience and advice, we are on the same page most of the time, and when we aren't, we disagree respectfully.
I agree that most Q-jet issues are mis-adjustment/tuning. But, my contention has always been that Q-jets are MUCH harder to tune and adjust than a Holley. I also agree that on most daily drivers the 'jet is a better choice. I personally like tuning on engines. I have plenty of spare time and don't mind playing with jetting and pump shots, etc, it is part of the fun for me. I have advanced cams just to see what happens. But for the average guy who wants to jump in his ride and go, knowing that he is probably giving up a little performance for the sake of fuel economy and reliability, Q-jets are perfect. I will say that I have heard over and over that Holleys suck at part throttle, I disagree completely. My (now sold) 9 to 1 355 would break the tires loose at 15 miles per hour under part throttle with the 670 on it. The old saying goes;
Race cars have Holleys
street cars have Q-jets
show cars have E-brocks
It is a generalization, but to a large degree true.

joe_padavano

Of course, under those conditions, I suspect the choke on any carb would have been open.

Seriously, I've always found the Holley to be a great W.O.T. carb, but not as good with part throttle driveability. Of course, I'm biased, if you couldn't already tell.

joe_padavano

Right. From the same guys who are convinced that all Olds motors must be replaced by small block Chevy motors...

Also, I'm pretty sure that Chrysler used the Carter ThermoQuad in the 1970s, not the Qjet.

Warhead

Yes, Joe, you are correct.
I thought they had used it prior to 1980.
They did not go to the Quadrajet until 1985, and they left that for fuel injection starting in 1988. I do have an example of a Chrysler Q in my garage #17085409, circa 1985. Listed for Dodge 318/360 trucks.
It has been rebuilt, and is available if anyone is looking for one.

I stand corrected on that.

Jim
.

olds 307 and 403

Chrysler used the Thermo quad till 85. The Thermo quad and Q jet both got bad raps as performance carbs. You can not throw on a factory lean for emissions Q jet or Thermo quad and expect to lift the wheels on your 500ci high compression big cam motor. You need to enlarge internal passages or upping the jets and rods will not work like it should. There is a large primary Thermo quad capable of 1000 cfm. The Super Quad Thermo quad or Performer RPM Q jets are after market and will tune much easier for high performance. Also remember most have the secondary air doors with limited opening. Adjusting this basically can add a couple hundred cfm, in some cases.

71 Cutlass

Warhead...my post is absurd? You claim to have magical abilities to look over the shoulder of others while they tune their carbs... people thousands of miles away from you whom you've never met, and know why they can't tune a carb That's absurd #1. Absurd #2 is the link posted above, where you post several problems even you have with Q-Jets, yet you never posted those here. You conveniently leave the problems out you know you yourself have with Q-Jets, then call my post "biased." All this plus the wrong info you posted regarding Chrysler's use of Q-Jets. Sorry, but the absurd award goes to you.

Joe, for the record, I do not believe that Olds motors should be replaced with Chevys. Simply just wrong info.

Anybody ready for the agree to disagree, or ??

joe_padavano

OK, children, let's all chill. I've been as much an instigator in this thread as anyone, so let's please stop the name calling and just all agree to disagree. Thanks.

bccan

Will a dyno experience between 2 different carbs 10 minutes apart on the same engine be considered legit, or hearsay? Unfortunately one of them wasn't an AFB based piece but for sake of my firsthand experience related to this pissing contest, here it is, FWIW.

I went to BTR to do some dyno pulls & pick up my engine July 4 weekend. We had it set up w/ my Qjet off my 350 - it was a touch fat on the 350 as a crutch to help w/ "at the limit" compression ratio w/ moderate cam so I figured it should be just about right on the new engine. It was. For hahas, we threw a Holley 750 that Bill had & thought it should be "just about right" the way it was set up. It was.

Holley made about 4-6 peak horsepower & a couple ft/lbs more @ peak but not consistently throughout the pull. These #'s are within normal error range, or maybe a cool breeze found it's way into the carb during the 2 Holley pulls. Bottom line - 2 "just about right" carbs, neither specifically tuned to the combo but giving good A/F ratios performed for all practical purposes, the same.

I have never liked AFB's but respect them as a perfectly viable & easy to tune carb, always felt Holley solves all problems by dumping gas on them but is the best all out performer @ the expense of some part throttle efficiency, and always was able to get excellent response & performance from QJets. Because I drive my car 95% street I prefer the QJet for economy combined w/ performance & tunability, BUT, taking a 40 year old carb & expecting to throw it on a car & have it work like a new, "out of the box" Holley or Edelbrock (AFB) is ridiculous. It should be rebuilt & calibrated, & if appropriate (for a higher HP build) modified internally, primarily the idle circuit by someone who knows what they are doing, or if you are capable get Ruggle's or Roe's books & do them yourself. I had done stock rebuilds on Qjets since I was a kid. They aren't difficult. I have to say, the only Carb rebuild horror story I remember was w/ a Thermoquad. For generally less money than a new unit you will have a close starting point for a good calibration.

A friend & I are in the process of fine tuning the Qjets on the cars w/ my new toy -an AEM wideband gauge. There is a thread somewhere on one of the boards in regard to this. I can't see where I would do anything different whether I had an AFB, Holley, QJet, or for that matter a Predator! Tune your junk for your application & any of them will work. Use what you are comfortable tuning or what best fits your needs - pure peformance, daily driving, spirited cruising, street/strip, whatever.

Red car's QJet was good @ idle & WOT, but after my kid thought he noticed a drop in mpg, I felt it wasn't as responsive as normal - confirmed w/ WB, deduced & found that primary piston was sticky like mentioned above. This will get straightened out & this thing will run very well w/ max economy & good performance for a 9:1 350 - just what an 18 year old kid can use, maybe more - it smokes the tires on a passing gear downshift w/ a 3.08 posi/TH350. Blue car is getting 15 mpg around town, pretty good considering, but is fat @ idle(average about 13-13.5:1) and the transition circuit. Wideband shows nice lean cruise w/ just a little throttle but richens as Throttle is let up on. Mid range is bitchin' & I have barely even touched WOT. So economy will definitely improve w/ some tuning, even now I'll bet 20 mpg on the highway is probable since I would stay just above the transition where I'm seeing 15.5:1 mixtures. Not bad for 460 horsies & 3.90's w/ a slush box(OK, it does have OD). Track rental Friday & I'll see what the WB tells me for WOT #'s & see what kinda time slips turn up.

What I'm getting at w/ another of my long winded posts is that all these carbs are legit, that is why they still exist. Any big aftermarket for Autolite? Not exactly. At least in my examples here, the QJet proves itself a versatile carb that can give economy, responsiveness, & performance. I feel the Edelbrock is a similar performer, but I don't think it gets to quite the height in range(economy or performance) that the Qjet does, but is easier to get close to it. The Holley I think is the least efficient, not to say you can't have a nicely set up vac secondary model that will give decent economy, response will rarely be an issue (save for a little tuning) & top end performance is legendary & well deserved.

Bottom line - they all work if working properly & tuned for the application. In my experience (30 years) they can all do just about the same as the other, just each one might shine slightly brighter on one parameter or another but it's close.

Warhead

No, I said their issues can usually be fixed correctly. I only rebuild them stock, and attempt to repair issues. I've only shared here, problems I think others may encounter.
I never claimed to be Merlin.
Was I required by law to post these here? THAT IS ABSURD.
And a stretch.
Most people do not run into these issues.

Now you are so hell bent on proving a point, you turn it into something personal like "I claim to look over the shoulders"...I didn't say you can't tune...I think you did not try. But you do not have to, because there was something else out there for you to run. Good for you, you saved time...ours and yours.
Bad info on Chryslers...did you even know that info before I or Joe posted?
Save your bad breath.

I'm done with this.

71 Cutlass

1.You said you knew why people couldn't tune a Q-Jet...these are people you never met..that's claiming magical powers to "know and see all." Here are your EXACT words posted on page one of this thread,
"Those who called it a quadrabog, could not figure out how to adjust the secondary air valve." Sorry Merlin, but unless you've got magical powers, how else could you know these people don't know how to adjust the air valves?

2. No, you are not required by law to show the weak part of your argument even when you know it exists, but its disingenuous and "biased" not to disclose it, especially when you spout off how trouble free every Q-Jet you have is (all the while knowing it isn't true, and praying your post from another site isn't discovered).

3.Bad info on Chryslers...trouble with the internet is, anyone can say anything, no matter how totally incorrect it is. One can either take what someone posts at face value and believe they know what they are talking about, or spend the rest of their life checking everything that is posted. I simply believed your comment like you knew what you were talking about, obviously you didn't. Looks like someone will have to double check your info from now on.

Anyone ready to agree to disagree yet?

Final item, these comparisons are not 40 yr. old Q-Jets vs brand new Edelbrocks. My Edelbrock isn't close to new (has 70 thousand miles on it), and not all Q-Jets are 40 years old.

Aceshigh

Hell I can't even get my new 1407 Eddy to do that even after using it a week ago LOL
I even installed an electric choke thinking it would help it.

I need someone who knows more about carb tuning apparently.
I know it's not tuned perfectly , and starting is the only complicated part.

olds 307 and 403

The Quadrajet's refinement and fuel economy played a part in GM being number #1 for many years. Chrysler had that terrible lean burn and mostly junky 2bbl carbs. Ford's spreadbore 4bbl are junk, even to Ford guys. Their 2bbl's were just big gas hogs. Drive my car with the Q jet, Holley reman with 5 years and quite a few miles and on different motors and vehicles. Car starts and runs flawlessly. I had a 76 350 Q jet, car sat for years, ran near perfect. I have a chokless race Q jet carb than runs pretty decent for a half *** build. Bad float, junk needle(even new) and seat, worn acc pump and improperly adjusted secondaries are there main problems. Every Qjet I have owned the rear secondary door was set too lose as they were 2.XX gears in all them. 5 minutes and fixed, set as loose as possible without a bog. Also very limited air door opening for performance, a few minutes to fix and just need a caliper. My car with 3.42's, I can set the door a LOT looser and no bog, compared to when it had 2.56's. Just such a sophisticated carb, especially in cold weather and all around drive ability.

Warhead

To answer your post...
Do you know??? Does that bother you? Send me your old core, I will send you a money order for the postage.
I did NOT say trouble free-You did. FOCUS... I said "These things work fantastic, when adjusted right".
Some parts wear out, vacuum pods rupture or leak, and linkages do bind. That is something "entitled" people do not understand. Then "entitled" people will make a comment like you did.
If almost anyone has a problem, I am more than happy to help them out. Can you say that?
I put in the wrong decade with correct information. I stood corrected, I said that. I hope my mis-statement did not cause anyone harm, or loss of life, liberty or pursuit of their happiness....But... I was right.
Like I said before, you did not even know about it.
You will not even acknowledge that point.

I can agree to dis-agree with you. But you need to be honest here. If you did not want to mess with it, JUST SAY THAT.
Jim

71 Cutlass

Looks like the "all seeing" Merlin is back...thought he posted "Im done with this." Guess his ability to see into the future is weakening. Well anyway, first thing I'm going to do is double check all his info due to his past errors...just to be on the safe side, as everyone knows, bad info destroys good threads.

88 coupe

Sloppy code was cleaned up, in the following quotes, to make them easier to read.

Ad hominems worthy of the Alinsky school of debate.

An uncited reference to a baseless myth, to back up ones own belief in that myth, is a poor way to enhance ones credibility.


Your "bog" was never present in new GM or Edelbrock Q-Jets, but started (and increased) as the air valve spring weakened with age. Easy enough to eliminate by simply tightening its adjustment screw.

Unlike a Holley or an AFB/Edelbrock, there are only two choices .

1. A simple turn of a screw.
   
   
2. Replace it with a Holley or an AFB "clone" and spread the "word" that all Q-Jets are POS.

Easier and cheaper to recognize the "myth" for what it is, and turn the screw.

Norm

71 Cutlass

Looks like 88 believes in the magical powers of Merlin too. Sorry, but magic "Looking" is ridiculous just as your Alinsky reference was. You, like Warhead are clueless as to why others have thrown out their Q-Jets..."Oh it was just a turn of a screw that was needed" You have no idea what was needed, you weren't there. Foolish statements. Tell you what, you and Merlin get together and let us all know which teams will win the World Series and the Superbowl this year so we can make millions, then maybe someone may be convinced in your "all seeing" powers.
Step right up folks this man can tell you whether or not you run a manual or electric choke just by looking into your eyeballs. Not only that, but with just one touch of his finger to your nose, he can tell you whether or not you run dual exhaust. And of course don't forget to purchase his engine tonic, which, when poured into your gas tank will immediately give you 150 HP. OK, who will be first?
Thought The Magical Mystery Tour died out when the Beatles broke up.

joe_padavano

And you have no idea why people degraded the Qjets and made up names, yet you cite that as "proof" of your position. Apparently many of us need to take a course in Logic.

Look, I've asked nicely to stop the name calling and keep this on-topic. It appears that some folks cannot do that. I'll ask one more time.

71 Cutlass

I simply let the "proof" speak for itself..people chuck Q-Jets out, not all, but many, that's plenty logical. As for continuing the thread.. I stopped, others continued so I responded to their criticism.

joe_padavano

And of course, as you have criticized others here, you have complete knowledge as to why these people did what they did, do you not? "People" chuck Olds 455s and replace them with small block Chevies (as evidenced by the 1971 442 I saw this weekend) so apparently that's "proof" of something also...

The whole replace rather than repair phenomena is not proof of anything. How many people throw away their factory wire harness and install a $400 one-size-fits-none aftermarket harness rather than just repairing the few wires that are messed up? Is this a condemnation of the GM electrical system design? Or is it an indication that people are too lazy to learn how to fix what they have?

Responding to this post is fine. Name calling is not. Let's grow up. Intelligent people can disagree and discuss their positions without resorting to personal attacks. "Proof" of one's position should be based in verifiable facts. As you correctly point out in many posts above, without full knowledge of a particular situation, citing what someone else did is meaningless. I would suggest that you apply this standard of proof to yourself as well as others.

71 Cutlass

Joe,
I understand your point perfectly. Why people chose to throw out their Q-Jets is totally unknown...to anyone. That's my whole point. My point as you stated, was simply to show that no one knows why. Someone could have been a Q-Jet genius and worked on the carb for days, but finally tired of it and switched to another brand, or the Q-Jet could of bogged once and a person's response could have been to throw it out and not even bother to diagnose the problem. Nobody knows which it is. My posts merely were responses to those who claimed to know WHY someone called the Q-Jet a piece of junk or WHY they threw it out, without any knowledge of the circumstance. I never claimed to know WHY, b/c as I said, its impossible to know. I don't think I applied a double standard in logic here, b/c I never claimed to know why someone tossed their carb. It seems like you and I are the only ones willing to say it is impossible to know because we were not there.

joe_padavano

And I'll just let these two statements speak for themselves.

71 Cutlass

Never said I knew why. "Proof" merely points to the fact that there could be a reason why someone threw a carb out other than the reasons listed by those who did claim to know why. As I said you and I are the only ones to post that it is impossible to know why, no one else has.

Rickman48

I've been 'around the block' with both Holleys and Q-Jets for 40 years, and agree they both have their good and bad.
Biggest problem with both is worn throttle shafts, but some people like a hard pedal, which is mostly the cause.
I learned a trick years ago that helps considerably - both carbs:
Disconnect the vacuum advance @ the carb, and plug in a vacuum guage!
Adjust the idle screws to get the highest reading possible, turning clockwise, [in] at the end, not out.
Remove guage, plug in vacuum advance, adjust idle speed, and go!
Works on any adjustable carb, too!

joe_padavano

And since we don't know why these people replaced their Qjets with something else, the fact that they did really isn't "proof" of anything, is it? It may be "proof" of incomplete knowledge on the part of the owner. It may be "proof" that the original carb was damaged through no fault of the carb's design and was replaced with the most expedient replacement. It may be "proof" that people still believe myths about leaking well plugs, as they do about offset engines in Supremes. None of this "proves" that one carb is superior to the other, which frankly means it is not "proof" of the argument at all.

As I said previously, reasonable people can disagree and discuss it. I frankly don't care what carb you like to use, so all you need to do is "prove" to yourself that you made the right choice. As for me, I'd rather discuss technical issues and not abstract logic arguments, so I'm going to go back to that.

71 Cutlass

[quote=joe_padavano;209417] None of this "proves" that one carb is superior to the other, which frankly means it is not "proof" of the argument at all. quote]


My point all along...NO ONE KNOWS. Do I get extra points for mentioning it 3 times

As I've already posted several times before on this thread, "Anybody ready to agree to disagree?"

Warhead

As I did yours.
You have yet to stop, making new friends, I see. Busy day!We would ask people when doing work for them. People who had cars in the shop. We would ask people that were getting the heads done, or they would just come right out and say it. Put a ___ (fill in your choice) because they thought it would run better, get better mileage. Did not know how to fix it, Holleys are easier. Got that alot. Afterwards, they might run as good, maybe, not better, unless there was a malfunction/something else wrong with the original unit. Many of these same people called it a quadrabog.
I made reference to these people.
Not if you ask them...some give honest answers.
Good luck
Jim

71 Cutlass

Still, only Joe and I are willing to post NO ONE KNOWS. Sorry Merlin, but you have got to be kidding if you think anyone believes the little made up story above. "yea, I worked in a shop and everyone came in and told us they just threw out their Q-Jets for no reason." Sure whatever...and that's an "Honest" answer? Ridiculous to say the least.

Anyone willing to agree to disagree?

Warhead

You said that. Not me.
I can also see you did not work in a shop...ever.
Work ever?

It's fun to see you embellish things and step it up a notch too..

Have a good day.

71 Cutlass

Merlin--the story is fake and you're actually trying to correct my quote of a phoney story?

Final note: Joe P. and I have been posting on some of the same Olds sites for years. He has always used his name, mine is usually the same or a little different. He and I have virtually never disagreed. I have posted on this site that Joe is correct 99.999999% everytime he posts (check my posts for verification). I still believe that. He is one of the most knowledgable and eloquent individuals to ever participate in on line forums. Joe and I have reached a gentleman's agreement that ultimately NO ONE can know why someone chooses to change out a particular carb, or which carb may work best on any given application. So, just b/c NO ONE can know, doesn't mean that Joe is wrong. Technically, since the answer is up in the air, he could be right

Warhead

Go ahead change the words.
Many here, have worked in shops too, you obviously have not. So you do not know what guys talked about in them. If you did, you would drive a Chevy for sure. You may not get that. I stayed true with my Olds.
If you do actually work for a living, it's for mommy, NO, I got it... a Lawyer in training...
No.... a car salesman. Yes.
But you seem to change your favorite topic...Yourself.
Still, you have never answered 1 question posed to you.
You don't have to.

It has been an eye opening experience watching this thread.
Your experience is vast, your embellishments award winning, and your carburetor advice your best part. Really.

And I really am happy that your car runs better with the Carter on it.

As for me, I left this field of employment early on. I got a real job that is more consistent, and talking with you is so reassuring to me that I had made the right move all those years ago. I still dabble.
But I have NOTHING to prove to anyone. Just like helping them out.
Now go ahead and flame away.
You can have the last word.
I'm sure you will take it.
Jim
.P.S.
Agreed, and he is top shelf kind of guy, easy to like.

71 Cutlass

Merlin,
No one believes you or your phoney stories you come up with to try and win a debate. Sure, you were some top notch mechanic in a "Shop." Laughable. Was that before or after you put the Carter AFB on the Chrysler that used a thermoquad? Even in your made up stories you make mistakes. Your last post though claims you have a "Real" job now, I guess that's oppsed to the "Fake" ones you made up? You've made more mistakes in this thread than anyone and the magical mystery tour has been hilarious.
Everytime this thread had ended you brought it back to life...so again, your "last word' comment is nothing short of hypocritical. As far as employment goes, and education, you don't even touch me. Every post makes that clear to each reader.
Got the World Series and Superbowl winners for us all yet Merlin?

captjim

I usually stay out of this stuff, but will this time chime in. Jim (warhead) has a very solid reputation on this and other boards. He is good for practical advice that is usually backed up be real-world experience. If he made a mistake or two about years, etc (not saying he has) so what? You are not gaining any respect in this thread, just the opposite, IMHO.

71 Cutlass

If phoney stories, incorrect info etc. "gains" your respect, go ahead be a follower.

captjim

I'm not a "follower" of anyone and I take EVERYTHING I read on the internet with a grain and do independent research. I do know that he has helped a bunch of fellas, that's all.

71 Cutlass

That's actually very wise. It's one of the best pieces of advice I've ever read in a forum. I follow those same steps...good post.