Author Topic: Increased Q-Jet Fuel Bowl Volume?  (Read 2658 times)

Offline Silver 7T8

  • Garage guy
  • **
  • Posts: 5
Increased Q-Jet Fuel Bowl Volume?
« on: January 24, 2017, 04:45:36 PM »
Any advantages to NOT installing the APT "Plastic-Cup" shown on page 12 Cliff's Book (1st Photo)?
If the "Cup" is left out the Fuel Volume would be increased - possible lowered fuel temperature.
Thoughts?

Offline Cliff Ruggles

  • Administrator
  • Qjet Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5435
Re: Increased Q-Jet Fuel Bowl Volume?
« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2017, 01:40:03 AM »
Increasing bowl volume has never been the cure for insufficient fuel delivery to the carburetor.

I've had several folks tell me over the years that leaving out that black plastic cup can cause fuel "slosh" issues hard braking and hard cornering, so it may be a good idea to leave it in place.

Even with that said, I use one of those carburetors on my own engine.  It makes over 550hp/600tq and pushes my car nearly into the 10's in full street trim on DOT's.  The carb has been FLAWLESS for decades, even very hard braking and cornering, bumpy roads and all sorts of driving conditions and the black plastic cup is NOT in place.  I also run 7.5 psi fuel pressure and large 8AN lines/fittings everywhere and a 140 gph electric pump......Cliff

Offline Silver 7T8

  • Garage guy
  • **
  • Posts: 5
Re: Increased Q-Jet Fuel Bowl Volume?
« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2017, 01:49:00 PM »
Cliff
I really appreciate YOUR Impute - Knowledge - Hard Work  :D

Offline Cliff Ruggles

  • Administrator
  • Qjet Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5435
Re: Increased Q-Jet Fuel Bowl Volume?
« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2017, 04:52:21 AM »
You are most welcome.

I'll also add this about my 1977 Pontiac q-jet carburetor.

We've had it on the dyno and drag strip countless times back to back testing it against just about everything out there.  In not one single instance has it been outrun by anything else, even custom built big CFM Holley or Holley style carburetors.

A quick story on that deal and it is a matter of public record in case anyone wants to verify it.

A few years back my engine and vehicle became part of a Popular Hot Rodding "Engine Masters" article(s).   The game was to dyno my engine and record all the numbers, then put the engine back in the car and head to the track to get some ET and MPH to back up the dyno results.

We were only supposed to be swapping cylinder heads as part of the testing, which we did.  After all the dyno numbers the representative from the magazine was milling about in the dyno room eye-balling some fancy Holley custom dyno tuned Holley carburetors and said, hey, why don't bolt one of these carbs on to see "how much power this engine really makes?"

I really wasn't keen on that deal initially as it had been a long day and a LOT of work had been done, but we went on with the testing anyhow.  It was also mentioned that we could get additional magazine coverage from the added work, etc.

Anyhow, we bolted on the big Holley carb and the engine made LESS power than the q-jet it replaced.  Not a lot less, but a few HP was no longer there.

A few days later we were at the track and I made scores of runs to back up the dyno numbers.  At the end of the testing we bolted on the big Holley carb and it ran SLOWER than the q-jet it replaced.  Not much slower, just a few hundreths of a second and a little less MPH verifying the previously recorded dyno numbers.

We did NOT get much coverage from that testing.  It became my first experience with this sort of thing and the magazines that cover them.  Basically, you are allowed to compete with aftermarket "high performance" parts, but not allowed to out-run them.  For absolutely sure IF the Holley had made more power on the dyno and/or ran faster at the track, there would have been considerable coverage on that deal.

This simply happens because Holley, BG, MSD, and other companies buy a LOT of advertising space in the magazines, so improvements when using their products will no doubt be promptly noted in any articles found in those publications.

It was my first lesson in the "propaganda" that surrounds these things.  Even so, we have went on to dyno and drag test just about every "high performance" part out there, and have continued to run equally as well if not better with many factory parts.  None of this gets much magazine coverage, but it is the truth when it comes to these things.....FWIW.....Cliff
« Last Edit: January 27, 2017, 01:59:30 AM by Cliff Ruggles »

Offline qjetsrule

  • Carb lover
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: Increased Q-Jet Fuel Bowl Volume?
« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2017, 11:21:09 PM »
I agree, it's sad that many good performing factory parts are disgarded for the "trick of the month", voodoo cams, thumper cams, dominator, and many other catch phrases can kill driveability, fuel mileage, and performance. What was the black bowl stuffer's purpose anyway?