Mounting a QJet to a square bore manifold. Might be over-thinking this a bit but I heard that some brands never work right.
Anybody got any recommendations?
Anybody got any recommendations?
So what brand adapter did you use? I'm not talking myself into the Qjet just need info on the best adapters...if it even matters.bronco1 said:I have been running a Q-jet on my 1984 F250 351 engine for 5 years now with out any problems.I get 18 MPG (Canadian gallon)on a long trip(over 200 miles)The truck has 3:73 rear gears,245 75/r16 tires,ZF 5-speed transmission,2 wheel drive.This is while running at 60-70 MPH.
Burl Swift said:Do you guys run your Q-Jet's "backwards"?
I've read multiple times that this is the hot ticket for a wheeling carb. I've been thinking about skipping the whole Truck Avenger setup for the Q-Jet one. That or the older Motorcraft 2100's, still haven't decided.
I just found the pictures, they're in the FOTY post.Oldyeller said:OX does, I've talked to him about it a little bit. I'm planning on doing it but I don't feel like fabbing up a throttle cable to do the job. That's really the only thing you've gotta do to run it backwards, bolts right up. OX Posted some pictures on here somewhere.
Burl Swift said:The new bracket wouldn't be that difficult to fab I wouldn't think. What I'm curious about is lag though. When I look at his setup I looks as though the slack in the cable would cause a bit of lag, or hesitation, from the moment you step on the pedal.
Or is this not a problem because the end is attached to a fixed point?
Now that you mention it, I had to use the thick 1/4 inch-ish carb gasket, since even that open adapter had my secondaries dragging a bit @ WOT.Oldyeller said:Open, The 4 hole doesn't let the secondaries open all the way
EDIT: Heres a link to Summit
It does feel a bit different, but runs the same offroad as far as I can tell. I think the difference is in where the gas pedal sits. I tried to emulate exactly where it was stock, but it seems WOT is farther away from the floor than it was. This probably happened as I wanted to make sure WOT happened @ the carb before the pedal hit the floor. It's not really a big deal, but since I have 4 broncs and the other 3 are stock in that regard, I notice the difference going from one to the other. I could probably adjust the cable and get it exactly where it was, but it's just not worth it. They do make that throttle cable with a black plastic sheathing, but I'm glad I ponied up the extra 10$ (or whatever it was) for the SS outer casing, probably helps with overall cable flex and response.Oldyeller said:You answered your own question, besides, the cable has tension on it from the return spring on the throttle arm, so even with that much cable, it would be tense enough that a small movement of the pedal would move the throttle arm, you wouldn't have any more lag than normal.
I'm gonna have to check mine, I didn't use that ultra thick gasket, I may be dragging a little at WOT, couldn't tell ya cuz I didn't check. Doesn't feel like it though.OX1 said:Now that you mention it, I had to use the thick 1/4 inch-ish carb gasket, since even that open adapter had my secondaries dragging a bit @ WOT.
I've heard that the open one isn't as good as the 4 hole. I'm thinking that with a little grinding the secondaries would open up just fine. I've already got the same adapter that you guys do. I bought it from Nappa a while back and didn't remember the exact numbers. I may get back around to fiddling with Qjets. It would be nice to hear secondaries open again. The reason I used the 2100 in the first place was that having power at wierd angles was more important to me than no power at those angles and kick ass performance on the flat. It seems everything is a compromise.Open, The 4 hole doesn't let the secondaries open all the way