Welcome to V8Buick.com.
Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: 900 CFM Q jets

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Edmonton Alberta
    Posts
    13,480

    Default 900 CFM Q jets

    Just curious if anyone has been using these oversized Q jets? I am guessing they use 0.062" larger primary bores to get the CFM?

    http://www.smicarburetor.com/products/sfID1/28/sfID2/9/sfID3/43
    Last edited by sean Buick 76; 04-01-2012 at 12:33 PM.
    __________________________________________________ ________________________________________
    My book called Small Block Buick Performance covering the V6, 215, 300, 340, and Buick 350 engines will be released soon.

    http://www.v8buick.com/forumdisplay....rformance-Book
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________________________
    1970 Buick Skylark 350 street/strip with 6 point cage: Custom tube headers feed Twin T3/T4 Turbochargers, Holley 650, sheet metal single plane intake, heavily ported iron heads with oversized valves, mild Poston 114 camshaft (2800-6000 RPM), Diamond forged pistons on Hershe forged rods, balanced, ARP everywhere, dual 3" exhaust, Paddle shifted 4L80E 4 speed overdrive, Moser 12 bolt with 3.42 gear.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Waring, Tx
    Posts
    5,832

    Default Re: 900 CFM Q jets

    Well, what they do is cut out the outer primary booster ring, trim and smooth it out. And remove the primary flap. that allows more air flow through the carb. I wasn't sure it was that much additional flow.

    Thing is, you really need a large enough cfm need to want to do these mods to a carb. For a big cube engine, with good mods, this could be fun. I might have to get my grinder out and give this a try. I got a few thirsty BBB's.
    Mark
    72 Skylark "GSX" Convertible 462, SP 400, 4:10
    72 "GSX" 464, TH 400, 3:42 10.71@126, street tires and mufflers
    Buick Quadrajet builder
    Join "quadrajet power " on Facebook
    mark@texasextremeracing.com

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,613

    Default Re: 900 CFM Q jets

    I have an old magazine article that shows how to make a qjet flow 980cfm. It has the increase of cfm for each mod but there is alot of work involved.
    Ray

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Edmonton Alberta
    Posts
    13,480

    Default Re: 900 CFM Q jets

    Quote Originally Posted by RG67BEAST View Post
    I have an old magazine article that shows how to make a qjet flow 980cfm. It has the increase of cfm for each mod but there is alot of work involved.
    Ray
    Can you please scan and post the article or tell me what article to buy?
    __________________________________________________ ________________________________________
    My book called Small Block Buick Performance covering the V6, 215, 300, 340, and Buick 350 engines will be released soon.

    http://www.v8buick.com/forumdisplay....rformance-Book
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________________________
    1970 Buick Skylark 350 street/strip with 6 point cage: Custom tube headers feed Twin T3/T4 Turbochargers, Holley 650, sheet metal single plane intake, heavily ported iron heads with oversized valves, mild Poston 114 camshaft (2800-6000 RPM), Diamond forged pistons on Hershe forged rods, balanced, ARP everywhere, dual 3" exhaust, Paddle shifted 4L80E 4 speed overdrive, Moser 12 bolt with 3.42 gear.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Mount Vernon, Ohio
    Posts
    481

    Default Re: 900 CFM Q jets

    The carburetors must also be completely recalibrated when the outer booster rings are removed. This is the part of the deal where experience, dyno and track testing comes in. I haven't had a single unit sent here to date that was even close for calibration after the rings were cut out of it, and most were from shops specializing in building them!

    The outer rings in the q-jet are the single most important reason they work so well. They increase signal to the main system, and make the carburetor very sensitive to throttle angle, engine load, and vacuum changes. When the rings are removed, the q-jet becomes no better, if as good as a Holley spread bore carburetor in primary efficiency. At this point, the only advantage you have with one is the basic design of the unit, few places to leak fuel below the fuel level, and a center hung float with the jets on the bottom of the carburetor.

    I do NOT recomend this modification for 99.9 percent of the applications it's done for. We have completely untouched stock 750cfm castings powering Super Stock cars into the 9's.....and we still see folks hacking the rings out of the late model large cfm q-jets to use it on a 350 engine with 8 to 1 compression and a Summit 204/214/112 camshaft.....WTF are they thinking there?

    I wouldn't even consider this modification, unless your engine is at least 455 cid, and making over 600hp. At the track on my engine, we saw apprx .02 seconds and less than .30mph improvement using one over my stock casting (1977 Pontiac large cfm model). That tiny difference could have been the fuel curve as much as anything else, the added cfm brought nothing to the table for my engine making over 550hp/600ft lbs torque.......Cliff

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Waring, Tx
    Posts
    5,832

    Default Re: 900 CFM Q jets

    Good point Cliff. I'll put my saw up.

    When we engine dyno'd the 464, we gain 4 hp going from the 800 cfm qjet I built to a 950cfm Holley. I think it was 520hp at the time.
    Mark
    72 Skylark "GSX" Convertible 462, SP 400, 4:10
    72 "GSX" 464, TH 400, 3:42 10.71@126, street tires and mufflers
    Buick Quadrajet builder
    Join "quadrajet power " on Facebook
    mark@texasextremeracing.com

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    164

    Default Re: 900 CFM Q jets

    Did the pontiac carbs that were cast without the booster have driveable difficulties? Were they rated at that high cfm number 900? Why was pontiac the only one to do this?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Mount Vernon, Ohio
    Posts
    481

    Default Re: 900 CFM Q jets

    "Did the pontiac carbs that were cast without the booster have driveable difficulties? Were they rated at that high cfm number 900? Why was pontiac the only one to do this?"


    Very good question. I'll try to keep the answer brief and not write a book here.


    In 1971 Pontiac decided to put big flowing "round port" heads on the 455 engines, even though the EPA was stomping all over "high performance" engines, and requiring much tigher emissions. The compression ratios were lowered considerbly for all engines in 1971, and the big heads on the 455 was Pontiac's answer to building a strong running "musclecar when things put in place at that time were against doing so.


    To help feed the big 455 "HO" engines, Rochester produced "HO" carburetors. They were special castings lacking the outer booster rings, and even more important, redesigning/relocating the boosters which placed the bottom of the rings much lower in the casting. These new "HO" carburetors were still the smaller castings, but flowed 827cfm not having the extra rings in them.


    The engineers quickly found that by removing the rings, they also killed the signal to the jets. This loss of sensitivity made these carbs much less efficient on the primary side. They were difficult to get thru emission testing, and dropped after a one year model run.

    They came back in 1973 with a larger bore model using the rings, pretty much the same as the 71-74 Buick 455 carbs used at that time, but the Pontiac units had a hot air choke set-up instead of divorced.

    These "Super Duty" q-jets made in 73 and 74 were basically equal in potential to the 71-74 Buick units. The rare 1971 HO castings have a very slight advantage in total airflow, but they do not work as well off idle/low rpm's as other models.

    I've drag raced the Super Duty carbs, 71-74 Buick carbs, and the HO carbs back to back at one time or another against my 1977 Pontiac carburetor (larger casting).

    They offer next to NOTHING in terms of ET or MPH compared to the 1977 unit. This testing was done on my old engine making 514hp/587 torque, and pushing my car to 11.50's at 118mph.

    On the street, they single booster "HO" carburetors offer some advantage in "spirited" primary side only driving, but do NOT drive as well right off idle/low throttle angle/low vehicle speeds (they are not as efficient and use more fuel). They also require a much different calibration to even work well at all. The factory had them pretty lean to get thru emissions, they work much better with a slight jet/metering rod change......Cliff

    PS: I would add here that NHRA thinks they work a lot better, and has outlawed them for use on anything other than a 1971 Pontiac vehicle and racing it as an 455 "HO" or 400 4-speed entry.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    164

    Thumbs up Re: 900 CFM Q jets

    Thanks cliff, can't get enough q-jet info, pontiac was pretty slick back then. Ya gotta hand it to them for trying.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Mount Vernon, Ohio
    Posts
    481

    Default Re: 900 CFM Q jets

    Thanks. Some of the info we put up on the websites is not so well recieved. Especially the dyno runs we made a few years ago testing the new (at that time) KRE heads. Those runs ended up in HPP and Popular Hot Roddings Engine Masters edition.

    Late in the testing, they asked us to include a 4781-2 Holley 850 DP carb, to "see how much power the engine would really make"?..........It LOST a couple of HP back to back against the 1977 Pontiac Q-jet.

    A few days later, we re-installed the engine, did a private track rental, and ran the car all day long to see how the new heads worked? Late in the day, we installed the big Holley carb, and the car slowed down .02 seconds and .30MPH. You don't see much in print about that part of the testing, wonder why?........Cliff

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,613

    Default Re: 900 CFM Q jets

    Quote Originally Posted by sean Buick 76 View Post
    Can you please scan and post the article or tell me what article to buy?
    It's a very old mag.. I'll try to find it this weekend.
    Ray

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    110

    Default Re: 900 CFM Q jets

    I'm running a 750 CFM -- am wondering if that old article states how much more flow on the primary side with just the choke flap removed..

    Seems to run pretty good without it, once warmed up... lol...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    637

    Default Re: 900 CFM Q jets

    Quote Originally Posted by Cliff R View Post
    Thanks. Some of the info we put up on the websites is not so well recieved. Especially the dyno runs we made a few years ago testing the new (at that time) KRE heads. Those runs ended up in HPP and Popular Hot Roddings Engine Masters edition.

    Late in the testing, they asked us to include a 4781-2 Holley 850 DP carb, to "see how much power the engine would really make"?..........It LOST a couple of HP back to back against the 1977 Pontiac Q-jet.

    A few days later, we re-installed the engine, did a private track rental, and ran the car all day long to see how the new heads worked? Late in the day, we installed the big Holley carb, and the car slowed down .02 seconds and .30MPH. You don't see much in print about that part of the testing, wonder why?........Cliff
    Cliff,

    Same thing happened a long long long time ago with a well known Buick at a major carburetor manufacture's dyno facility. The manufacture's newest kick-a$$ carburetor couldn't match the Q-Jet numbers down in the RPM band where it counted. The magazine article did not mention that.......

    The article only posted the lower numbers for the newer kick-a$$ carburetor......

    Tommy
    Tommy Mitomi

    71 Riv (mothballed)
    72 Riv (mothballed)

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Mount Vernon, Ohio
    Posts
    481

    Default Re: 900 CFM Q jets

    It was my first lesson to the "politics" and propoganda associated with aftermarket parts.

    Sure, if the big Holley would have made more power, there would have been something said about Cliff's carb doing well, BUT the big Holley did better.

    Basically, you are allowed to run against them, but not allowed to win, as nothing will be put in print about it.

    I repeated this test a few years later against a well prepared Holley HP 950, and no one got to hear about that either!......Cliff

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Edmonton Alberta
    Posts
    13,480

    Default Re: 900 CFM Q jets

    Quote Originally Posted by Cliff R View Post
    It was my first lesson to the "politics" and propoganda associated with aftermarket parts.

    Sure, if the big Holley would have made more power, there would have been something said about Cliff's carb doing well, BUT the big Holley did better.

    Basically, you are allowed to run against them, but not allowed to win, as nothing will be put in print about it.

    I repeated this test a few years later against a well prepared Holley HP 950, and no one got to hear about that either!......Cliff
    Well my upcoming book will tell readers about the Q jets vs Holleys... I also have some articles coming out in Canadian Hot Rod Magazine which also talk about this topic... I will get you a copy of the Mag when it prints, you might enjoy the article.
    __________________________________________________ ________________________________________
    My book called Small Block Buick Performance covering the V6, 215, 300, 340, and Buick 350 engines will be released soon.

    http://www.v8buick.com/forumdisplay....rformance-Book
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________________________
    1970 Buick Skylark 350 street/strip with 6 point cage: Custom tube headers feed Twin T3/T4 Turbochargers, Holley 650, sheet metal single plane intake, heavily ported iron heads with oversized valves, mild Poston 114 camshaft (2800-6000 RPM), Diamond forged pistons on Hershe forged rods, balanced, ARP everywhere, dual 3" exhaust, Paddle shifted 4L80E 4 speed overdrive, Moser 12 bolt with 3.42 gear.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Central New York
    Posts
    1,839

    Default Re: 900 CFM Q jets

    Cliff,

    Is there anything that can be done to a qjet that would significantly lower ET's other than to make sure it is properly jetted, not worn out, and properly adjusted? I have never read anywhere where there is any one modification, or combination of mods, that result in a panacea of increased power on any particular Qjet. For example, on a typical 11 or 12 second 1972 GS, if an NOS Qjet existed and was installed, jetted properly, and had the secondaries adjusted for the conditions at the track, is there anything that can be done to it to significantly lower ETs? I am aware that as engines become more radical and make 550++ HP, idle circuits have to be recalibrated to accommodate larger cams, and the small bowl becomes a concern. It seems to me that we need to spend a lot of time in many cases making the carb "new" again and getting the jetting and adjustments right, but tricks like removing boosters for more power or even enlarging the baseplates make no real difference.
    Bob

    '72 GS350 convertible, 455, "TORQUED" 11.37 @117, 1.57
    '70 GSX Tribute 9.51 @140+, 1.33, 3650 lbs race weight, factory iron block, 1 carb, full exhaust, no power adders
    '87 GN 59K original owner

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyXRjiO-oFE

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Mount Vernon, Ohio
    Posts
    481

    Default Re: 900 CFM Q jets

    It doesn't matter what carburetor you are using, the same rules apply. It MUST be completely/correctly rebuilt, and tuned for the application. The more knowledge/experience that you have on the carb that you are working with, the easily and quicker this process will be.

    Any carburetor chosen, MUST be kept full on hard runs. The size of the fuel bowl is NOT an issue with a Q-jet. It only has one needle/seat assembly, so all the fuel to feed the engine comes in thru one hole, not two, like most other carburetors, AFB, AVS, Thermoquad, Holley, etc.

    Of the carbs listed, the TQ and Q-jet are the easiest to tune for transition onto the secondaries. The AVS is OK, but I hate the design (square flange). The spring loaded air door deal makes these carburetors very flexible, and they can be quickly dialed in for nearly any engine/drivetrain/vehicle combination.

    The big advantage of the Q-jet over the other models, is that all tuning at the track can be done in seconds, by changing pull-off opening rate, metering rods, and secondary air flap tension. I would mention here that some models have several places for fuel to escape rear of the front vent on hard launches. If you can't tune the secondaries to get rid of a stumble/bog/hesitation, etc, it's most likely tossing some fuel out the top of the carb, and your tuning efforts will NOT remedy the problem.

    In any case, as it relates to the topic, it really doesn't matter what carb you choose to run, any/all of them will need dialed in exactly for what you are doing, and once you find the ideal settings, there will be very little, if any performance difference between any of them......at least from what I've seen here.

    Case in point. A few years ago we took 8 carburetors to a private track rental, and ran them all day long on two different vehicles. One 12.20 car, and my mid 11 second car.

    We had 5 q-jets, a Holley 4781-2 850 DP, custom Holley HP950 style carb, and an out of the box Edelbrock "Thunder Series" 800 AVS.

    For most runs on either vehicle, the spread in ET and MPH was only a few hundreths between any of the carbs tested, except for the AVS. Since it was "out of the box" and we carried no tuning parts for it, it was the slowest of the bunch. Still not much less than a tenth and 2mph off the others, but still slower on both vehicles.

    All of the other carbs, from the big 850DP down to the 5 q-jets, which were all custom tuned, there was very, very little difference in ET or MPH on either car with any of them......Cliff

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Oakland Gardens, N.Y.
    Posts
    21,410

    Default Re: 900 CFM Q jets

    Happy Birthday Cliff Not sure if you saw your birthday thread, http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.ph...rthday-Cliff-R
    Larry
    1998 "Fully Optioned" SC3800 Riviera
    70 GS 455 Stage1, TSP 470, 602 HP@ 5900, 589 TQ @ 4900
    TA Hyd Roller Cam, 230*/238*, 112, .544"/.577" lift, 4-7 swap
    MSD Digital 6+, Ignitionman Distributor w/MSD trigger
    1967 BT Switchpitch ST-400, Gear Vendors OD
    with TSP 3200/1800 converter
    AED 1000 HO Carb, 800 CFM 7042240 Quadrajet
    8.5 10 bolt, 3.73's
    11.67 @ 115.49 MPH
    Larrymta@verizon.net, GSCA #291
    BPG # 1063
    N.E. GS/GN Club Assistant Director

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    6,163

    Default Re: 900 CFM Q jets

    Quote Originally Posted by carmantx View Post
    Good point Cliff. I'll put my saw up.

    When we engine dyno'd the 464, we gain 4 hp going from the 800 cfm qjet I built to a 950cfm Holley. I think it was 520hp at the time.
    Not bad, what's that like $200 per horsepower? LOL
    "Sometimes the place to be is right where you are"

    Ken Mild
    Proud member of The Stepchild Nation
    69 GS400; 462ci; 430hp, 530lb.ft.
    12.90 @108.45mph - Open diff. / 3.08 / BFG T/A's
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JjGIo3V40E

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Edmonton Alberta
    Posts
    13,480

    Default Re: 900 CFM Q jets

    Just got an e-mail from Sean Murphy.... They are removing the booster rings as Cliff suggested, not something I would be eager to try even with a fuel hungry BBB.
    __________________________________________________ ________________________________________
    My book called Small Block Buick Performance covering the V6, 215, 300, 340, and Buick 350 engines will be released soon.

    http://www.v8buick.com/forumdisplay....rformance-Book
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________________________
    1970 Buick Skylark 350 street/strip with 6 point cage: Custom tube headers feed Twin T3/T4 Turbochargers, Holley 650, sheet metal single plane intake, heavily ported iron heads with oversized valves, mild Poston 114 camshaft (2800-6000 RPM), Diamond forged pistons on Hershe forged rods, balanced, ARP everywhere, dual 3" exhaust, Paddle shifted 4L80E 4 speed overdrive, Moser 12 bolt with 3.42 gear.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    110

    Default Re: 900 CFM Q jets

    Quote Originally Posted by 6WildCat5 View Post
    I'm running a 750 CFM -- am wondering if that old article states how much more flow on the primary side with just the choke flap removed..

    Seems to run pretty good without it, once warmed up... lol...

    Out of curiosity -- I googled it -- Found in a post on another forum the author claimed that just by removing the primary choke flap assembly from the carb. It goes from 750 up to approx. 790 cfm... good enough answer for me... Don't know if it really makes that big of a difference in the big scheme of things, is correct or need to jet up one for it... But in theory it makes sense... A restriction is a restriction..

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Phoenix, Az
    Posts
    1,447

    Default Re: 900 CFM Q jets

    Yeah, I know it's an old thread, but I'm digging it up anyhow.

    So approximately 750-790 by removing the choke plate and shaft. Perhaps bump that up from 790 to 800 by filing down the throttle blade screws
    and thining the shaft?

    Anybody know how to effectively and SAFELY take downt the screws and thin the shaft. Seems straight forward, but I can see that biting you in the ass if
    you take them down too much and the throttle blades fall down your intake at WOT. Loctite should do it or does gasoline deteriorate it?

    Not that my car warrents it. Just curious.

    Well, I may remove the choke plate. Who needs a choke AZ?
    Aubrey Anthony
    69' GS 400 Stage 1
    60' Invicta Wagon
    59' Ford F250

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Edmonton Alberta
    Posts
    13,480

    Default Re: 900 CFM Q jets

    I just bought a Edlebrock RPM Q jet that is 850 CFM and the 73 Vette HAULS!!!! We have it on a 454 with AFR heads and the car is a monster!!!

    He gets 17 MPG compared to the 12 MPG with a new out of the box edelbrock square bore..... Idle is better, part throttle is better, and WOT is WAY better.

    Now we just need to get the nitrous worked out and the car will be killer fast.....
    __________________________________________________ ________________________________________
    My book called Small Block Buick Performance covering the V6, 215, 300, 340, and Buick 350 engines will be released soon.

    http://www.v8buick.com/forumdisplay....rformance-Book
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________________________
    1970 Buick Skylark 350 street/strip with 6 point cage: Custom tube headers feed Twin T3/T4 Turbochargers, Holley 650, sheet metal single plane intake, heavily ported iron heads with oversized valves, mild Poston 114 camshaft (2800-6000 RPM), Diamond forged pistons on Hershe forged rods, balanced, ARP everywhere, dual 3" exhaust, Paddle shifted 4L80E 4 speed overdrive, Moser 12 bolt with 3.42 gear.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. 800 CFM Q-jets
    By StratoBlue72 in forum Parts for sale
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-21-2011, 07:08 PM
  2. 1972 Buick Skylark $900 Project Muscle Car 350 V8 Automatic - $900
    By ubushaus in forum Cars and Parts For Sale Leads
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-05-2008, 01:46 PM
  3. What jets should I use on my 500 cfm carb.
    By CanadianBird in forum Small Block Tech
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-02-2006, 02:02 AM
  4. 500 cfm vs. 750 cfm carb???
    By sharkmonkey in forum Small Block Tech
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-11-2003, 10:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to top