Here’s the deal, I admit dishing out a little more than tough love and taking a couple pop-shots at you trying to drive a point home. Waiting 3-hours past a scheduled deposition time and getting grilled for 3.5-hours afterwards will tend to aggravate the best of folks – it’s just this post put me a little over the edge. That still doesn’t excuse the behavior, so in a gesture of good faith, I’m not going to take exception to or argue your Ad hominem fallacy comment. I’ll defer to those reading the post to look that up if they don’t already know what that means and let them make their own determination on whether that comment actually applies or not – if they care at all, lol.

I think my posts confirm that I totally agree that the G-body frames are weak and flimsy. I even said that anything and everything you can do to them is beneficial and mentioned an anti-roll bar. Here’s a link to a video of a high powered turbo engine in a Monte Carlo that shows how much frame and body twist one can experience before, then after an anti-roll bar. This guy would have been insane if he kept trying to run that car without one. Note the rear window did not burst nor did it rip off the rear lower control arm in the before run. However, there’s no way to know whether or not he had reinforced the upper and lower control arm mounts, but in this case it would definitely be warranted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMqhkNBuPX0

There’s nothing you said concerning the frames at the first of your latest post that I disagree with. It appears that the Regals and GNs are more problematic, probably due to the lack of the #5 body bushings and them intentionally leaving out some of the lower bushing. It also appears that you would agree. I snapped a bit because it seems you find a way to interject worst case frame scenarios in a lot of your replies to posts. It does bother me as I’m afraid folks new to Montes that don’t know any better could read them and actually believe they’ll rip off a control arm mount or blow out a rear window if they exceed 400 HP. I’m not going to say those things can’t happen to a Monte Carlo at that power level but it’s probably greater than 1,000 times more likely you’ll destroy the stock transmission and/or rear end at the 400HP mark. However, I understand you feel it’s problematic due to your experience and will do my best to be tolerant of future post - you have the right to voice your opinion whether anyone thinks it’s warranted, or even relevant.

Next, you can call it nit-picking all you want but a bigger accelerator pump doesn’t necessarily mean it provides a bigger “squirt” or shot of fuel. I'm not assuming you're wrong, I'm telling you with 100% certainty that “bigger accel pump = bigger shots” is an incorrect statement. There can be no argument there and by you sticking to that statement after me clarify why it is wrong makes me continue to believe you have no experience tuning a double pumper carb or at least the appropriate knowledge level to tune it accurately. The chart below shows the differences in rise of lift on the varying accelerate pump cams. That and the size of the squirters determines the amount of fuel the engine sees from the accel pump.




Look,,, most all carbs have an accelerator pump, including the Q-jet. It’s required for the Q-jet primaries for the SAME reason it is on a Holley – it can’t meter the proper amount of fuel for fast throttle openings either. While the accel pump function is primarily there for adding fuel for fast throttle opening, no matter how slowly you press the gas pedal it does provide an additional amount of fuel. However, that is more or less figured into the grand scheme of things regarding the fuel curve – on both the Q-jet and Holley. That’s not problematic for the Q-jet and it isn’t problematic for the Holley either. If you think about it, the Holley double pumper is kinda like having two sets of primary barrels for the front and rear of the carb. A double pumper is not forcing any more un-needed fuel through the carb than the Q-jet’s primaries do – if properly tuned.

You really need to quit quoting that author as point of fact if you don’t know for yourself whether his statements are correct or not. His statement of “double pumper MAKES the engine take fuel” is not accurate. It’s not nit-picking as I half-way understand the point he’s trying to make, but one should tune the pump shot so it provides the engine what it wants. If you do,, there is very little if any wasted fuel. If you really want to know how a Holley works I’d suggest buying one of the books written by Mike Ulrich or David Vizard or searching the internet for anything carb related written by one of them.

I did believe you made the comment about the 60’s design based on the “proof” that a superior designed carb like the 4010 failed. I get what you’re saying and agree many buy the Holley due to its popularity but there is a reason it is more popular than the Q-jets. If a Q-jet was easier to tune and able to make more power than the Holley, I can guarantee you, the Q-jet would be more popular. You would also see them on high-dollar engine builds from the big name engine builders. However, that doesn’t mean they’re junk or there is no place for anyone using a Q-jet as TooSlow seems to feel.

As I said earlier, there is a time and a place for everything. I’m a big fan of the Q-jet, in particular the CCC – it is an EXTREMELY efficient design. Due to the monitoring involved I do consider it to be an EXCELLENT carb and if it’s in proper working order, you will see a drop in gas mileage if you go with any other carb. If tuned properly (not always easy to do) there will also be very little if any overall performance gain by going to another carb on anything making 400HP or less. However, the Holley DP, especially those with the annular discharge boosters is a fine carb in its own right and doesn’t deserve the trashing it gets from the Q-jet fanatics any more than the trashing the CCC gets from the Holley fanatics.

We might be able to agree to disagree on the level of performance needed before frame enhancements are required to prevent catastrophic results, but we're not going to get there on the pump shot and fuel forcing thing. Unless you come back with something absurd, I've said about all I can say and refuse to be a part in adding unneeded drama to this board.

I hate to speak for MrEngineer, but I doubt he'll reply since this type thread is why he said he doesn't post much anymore. However, I can relate to how he feels – it is frustrating. However, everyone has a right to express their opinion. I just wish everyone would indicate it as an opinion instead of representing it as a matter of fact.

Buick asked earlier why I wasn’t bashing you about calling the quad junk. Maybe because it’s easier for me to accept what you’re saying as an opinion??? Maybe it’s because I know how hard it is for me to get a quad, especially a CCC, working right on something making any kind of power and can relate to why you would say they are junk?? However, none of that changes that they are an excellent carb for stock and near stock engines, which represents a large percentage on this board. That’s OK by me since not every can or even wants to go fast.

Not that you need my approval (lol), but if you never change your mind that they’re junk, that’s OK too. If Buick continues “saying” the same things over and over that apparently bothers me, that’s OK too. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. I might be a little on the crazy side but I’m not going to beat my head against a brick wall. Hopeful enough information has been provided that those reading this can distinguish between an opinion and an unsubstantiated statement.

I'd love to know more about the dyno results from the Holley vs the Qjet you’ve based your opinion on. Depending on the amount of variance in power there may have been something wrong with the quad or if it was a radical combination and only the jets and/or rods were changed, that could account for variances – which typically presents a peaky and erratic power curve.

It's all good BadSS. I don't expect everyone to want to go fast. But I do expect everyone that wants a bit more performance out of whatever they have to actually use their brain. I.E., if you're going to add an intake, why not go with the best
you can get? Why spend the money twice to make your 305 run a LOT better, when you can buy an intake/carb thats made for a 350, if you plan on building one later? I don't like to waste money.
Sure, a Qjet is great on a stock 305- *IF* you dont ever plan on going faster.

As for the dyno- I know it wasn't a great example of carbs. We just threw Qjet on an engine that was built for a corvette. Had a Holley 750dp, then we tried a 650 Qjet. Everything else being the same, it lost power with the Qjet. That was a year
ago or so. We did it just to see what would happen. Of all my hotrod buddies, not a single one of them run anything but a Holley. And they all go faster than 12s. I'd dare say if I went to Frankie Taylor's shop (the world's fastest promod) down
the road and asked him about his street racing days with the cars he went to high school in, I'd bet not one of them was a Qjet. But I'll just ask his crew chief brother tomorrow, since I work for him. Notice how I pointed out the cars they both DROVE
every day to school? That would make them STREET cars.

Funny, when this post was started by II duece it was such a simple question, will this fit. Didn't take long before it boiled over into the carb wars. Partly because the OP didn't give details initially of his engine combo, and also the "replacing that Q-jet junk" nerve took a hit.
I wasn't going to reply to this post, just sit back and let it follow it's course, but being a Qjet proponent just had to say something.

Having no experience with the latest and greatest Holley or other street or race carbs available i can't argue for how much better they are in an engine capable of producing 1.5 hp per ci. For me the 3310 on my 302 back in the very early 70s, along with the two three barrels of those days, that's what we had to play with. Yes the Chevy race engines from the mid 60s until about 72 came with a Holley, but everything GM from a Ram Air to 442 had a Qjet, with the exception of the Holley tri power 440, Chrysler were Carters, even the Hemi had a AVS. Once we hit 1973 the feds pretty much eliminated all high performance carbed cars, it was rare to see a Holley, and of course most everything GM became electronic Qjet until FI became the norm we deal with today. Jump forward to today and despite being a 40 year old design the 80s Qjet is a great street carb when properly tuned for it's application. It's when we lose site of what a street carbed engine is that the bashing starts. For someone with a stock to hot SBC build it will work fine, not some much for the CCC but the non CCC 800 cfm carbs used on the trucks can be made to perform very well on 500 hp and more. And deliver very good economy, when properly setup can be very reliable, and it's street manners very good. I'm not saying every reasonable sane engine build should be a Qjet, far from it, just there is no reason to spend 500 bucks on a carb if your 350 makes a measly 450 hp. But I do say don't trash the Qjet because it's cool to say, "I got a Holley carb on there".

Very few people understand how a carb works, fewer are good at tuning them. Today with the ability to put a wide band O2 gauge on the car tuning is much easier. I would have killed for one back in the 70s, tried to buy a tailpipe hangup CO meter back then to get an idea what the carb was doing. It became seat of the pants was how you tuned. And who really cared if Sunoco 260 was 38 cents per gallon, and you put 40 bucks worth in that week.

Fast forwarding to now both cars i tune have Innovate wide band O2s, neither are fast and both are just street cars, both are Qjets I built. Tom's 67 350 Camaro made 385 at the wheels, a Bowtie Overdrive 200R, runs 12.20s. The 427 SBC in the 86SS made 428 rwhp, runs out of breath at 5900, this because of a small cam and restrictive exhaust, 12 teens at 115. Neither car is what some would call fast. But both are very reliable, a recent 200 mile around trip on the 86 with the A/C cranking netted 21 mpg, 4.11s and a T56. Would either benefit with a Holley swap, possibly, but both carbs were $15 at the swap meets, $50 of parts and both are tuned for the engine build.

I wouldn't bash someone for their carb choice, it's about what you want the final combo to do, and as always you're pocketbook. Yesterday was at the Chevy Show at Maple Grove, as usual there is the outrageous hp cars, twin turbo, blowers/carbs sticking out of the hood. My question I always want to ask them is how many miles do you put on that car a year, my guess is most hardly get driven, and most never run down the 1/4 mile in 10 secs or faster. But they will tell you it made 800 rwhp that they have never had to use. So when we play the hp game for a street car for me it what do you expect the car to do. So far this month I put 400 miles on my car, haven't had the opportunity to run it through 4 gears to see what the seat of the pants feels like right now, living in the asphalt jungle here makes that very difficult. So building a set of working headers, a bigger stick, to up the ante a 100 hp doesn't make sense, be happy with a slow car that my wife can drive and gets 17+ mpg.

While we beat this up why not dump the carbs all together and just install one of the new, evolving rapidly, TBI injections that are available, self learning, no fuel to dump all over the intake when the bowls are removed, programmable to supply the demand of most "street "engine making even high hp. Why is there still a discussion about which carb is best for a high hp build?

Just two small points to address yet.
When you run a trans requiring a TV cable, 200R/700R the Qjet is the king for proper, easy alignment of the cable. Have seen numerous bolt on kits for various carbs to create the correct activation of the TV. A Qjet that came on a TV car is spot on, just hook the cable and adjust it. There is info straight from GM that describes that geometry. I would guess most aftermarkert carb installs are a hit or miss on the correct TV operation. But on the other hand racecars don't run either trans, you need a 400 if it's a race car, sarcasm.

That flimsy chassis/body, going to rip the car apart, under engineered, not good to throw mega hp at it, what ever. It is what it is, a reduced in size and weight A body, deal with it. Does the frame react like a wet noodle when it sits there all by itself on the floor, yep! By reinforcing stress points, adding additional bracing, upgrading suspension parts it will do fine for all but the extreme. That when it's time to put a cage in it and tie everything together to make a rigid almost one piece unit. When these cars were built it was so everyone, including grandma, could get to the grocery store safely, not so she could run 9s in the quarter mile. Deal with, build to suit you hp needs. A 100 passes on my 86, 162K on the odometer, ain't seen no stinkin cracks yet, but there has been many braces/reinforcements added. The newest G body available is now 30 years old, most have seen hard times, keeping an eye on any vehicle 30 years old requires inspecting parts, especially if you beat on the car occasionally.

As stated wasn't going to reply but just hate to hear any carb bashed just because of it's name. Application, application, application, kinda like real estate, location, location, location.
Bob

When I first purchased the monte 5.0 ltr ccc it ran decent but was always missing some performance. I swapped out the q jet for edelbrock600, went vac on dist. The car ran so much better more crisp. That made me want more power in went a mild 355 ditched the edelbrock for a smi q jet. The combo was fun to drive and I needed even more a friend offerd up cash it was gone. In went the big boy 421ci a new smi 800cfm combo had tons of tq but was lacking up top. The q jet went back to smi for some mods back on still not up to par. Crisp off idle but was unreliable, somtimes floored it would run like a champ other times not so much. So I finally decided I'm not sending back to California again. Time for a big change that's why I asked the question about my factory air box aka cleaner on the holley. I like the factory look sbc mostly black engine compartment. Not sure why all the weird q jet questions were asked why am I changing etc 10,000000 rpm engine. Really! So any way the holley ultra double pumper changed the monte into a beast out of the box. Floats were dead on four corner idle dead on. Bracket was needed for the tv cable but was an easy fix. Shift points are right and tight. Thanks to all who's posts were helpful.

That's why i recommended the Holley. Might even try upgrading it with the proform main body. then you can get better jet plates and a base plate. Thats how i got my 950 HP.

Not to be a jackass, but is pretty clear most of the people here arguing against Qjets seem not to know how to open one up and work on them. The op stating his SMI Qjet was unreliable, no offense but its pretty vague. When the choke is on, it locks the seconderies out, so a choke problem can cause lockout problems. Also overtorquing a Qjet can cause the airflaps to hang up, especially if you use the wrong mounting gasket. Every carb, from Qjets to Holleys will need final tuning on the running engine, no carb is run perfect out of the box. As Doug Roe once said, there is nothing to fear from working on a e4me than fear itself.

As I said before, my car runs crisp with CCC installed, feels no different from efi. But both Qjets and the CCC require some homework which seems many are unwilling to learn. Only times I had problems with my CCC system was because another system was throwing it off. One time it was a intake manifold gasket leak, last time it was a brake booster leak. Fix those issues and the CCC went right back to operating like it should without touching it Basically the CCC will only run right when the engine is running right. Many times, when removing the ccc makes a engine run better, its often due because the engine has a underlying problem that non stock carbs are less sensitive to, though its still not great to have masked underlying problems like vac leaks, blowby, cylinder misfires, streched timing chains, etc.

To dispel some of Tooslow misinformation regarding Qjets and the CCC. First the E4ME casting can flow 750 cfm, the factory tuned it down to 590 but anybody can retune it up to 750. Second, e4me are not locked to only be able to feed up to 305 cid, they can easily feed up to 454 cid, again if the tuner knows how to work Qjets. Third, the CCC can support up to 450 HP, more than a stock g body can safely handle without reinforcing. This was proved by the ZZ4 350 engine package for 3rd gen F bodies that were fed by a CCC Qet. Fourth, the CCC does not control the fuel mixture from 55 degree throttle opening to full WOT, here the e4me behaves just as a plain carburetor for max WOT power. The ecm only control the fuel mixture from idle though part throttle. Fifth, not all Qjets are the same, they are very application specific carbs, and were setup differently for each car model and engine option with thousands of R&D hours behind each setup, no way the aftermarket can match even spending a fraction of that time of money on every model and option like that. Some like the L69 Qjets were setup for more performance than LG4 carbs. So there are many different factory performance levels of Qjets. Sixth, Tooslow's beloved Holley also used to make computer controlled carburetors too, the ultimate betrayal I know, lol. Also find it strange that BadSS had to haggle me over minor grammar disagreements yet is fine with Tooslow spreading full on misinformation, where is he to mini mod and protect this forum then? Maybe selective enforcement, personnel bias, or unfamiliarity with the innerworkings of Qjets himself so he cannot not detect his pal's misinformation?

Bragging about the number of cars one has worked on is only a sign of quantity, not quality. And I have met many professionals who were anything but experts. Had professional mechanics that did very poor work, like stripping all of my wheel studs and jerry rigging repairs. Had professional roofer who was in the business for 35 years fail to install flashing in the valleys of my roof, etc. Once had to stop a nurse from further breaking my grandmother's already broken arm in a hospital because she did not know how to use gurney belt buckles. A professional who is also a expert are few and far between in most fields. Even experts are not always right.

One has to take charts with some grain of salt. Learned in my logic class that charts and statistics can easily be fudged with to display a desired outcome rather than the truth.

I was kinda expecting you to say something I thought was absurd. But, wow - unbelievable. Talk about ad hominem fallacies and unrelated anecdotal innuendos. I never once challenged your knowledge of Q-jets and made no assumptions on what you know or don’t know about anything you DIDN’T say/post. So, it seems if you say nothing, you know nothing, then when you say something, you're braggadocios and your quality of work is suspect. LOL

I think at this point I should just let it go. Most following this thread are probably doing so for entertainment value anyway and I just don’t have enough time to play.

I'm with you, BadSS. I have a car to build. Something quite a bit faster than Buick Runner's.

Just relax, not everyone is here to pin our self-worth on how fast our cars go.

I'm just glad we finally saw the dyno "Proof" that Q-jets were junk and Holley's always make more power, since one built engine performed worse with a smaller carb...

From ratbuddy: "Just relax, not everyone is here to pin our self-worth on how fast our cars go."- We know *YOU* sure don't. What's it like having a 14-second car?

Hunter, why don't you actually *GO* to a dyno and see for yourself? Oh wait, then maybe you'd learn about fast cars. So don't do that. Better to keep with the
slow stuff. Tell us more in the shout box about the rest of your just-above-stock parts.

I read some time back. They had made a carb shootout. Using a 454bbc as the test mule. I remember a qjet being tested and a holley.
and IIRC there was 30hp or so difference in the tests. But the qjet was not stock.

Found the results it was in a super Chevy magazine. The motor was a 496bbc
Holley made 572/587
demon made 562/590
Qjet made 562/582

I make no claims about being fast, but I make no claims about one item being worthless because I tried it once on a bad application.
Read my stance, there's a time and place for everything, and there's very little that is written in stone on a car. I built my car for cheap and for fun, and that's how I keep it. I'm an engineer by trade, and I've done enough testing to know that one test doesn't mean much of anything, especially not enough to tout the number as living breathing proof that an entire class of mechanical devices are junk. And that goes both directions, Holley and Qjet.