whats the difference between the edelbrock performer carb and the quadrajet carb?

 

The performer carb is better quality and will last you longer! Just my opinion tho'....I'm sure other people will disagree!!

------------------
1986 Trans AM
305 TPI
200,000+ miles (speedo/odometer non-funtional! Odometer reads 142,000)
4 Wheel Discs
9 bolt Borg Warner Rear (2.73's....oh joy) :P
Completely Stock
Soon to upgrade to a 350 converted from TPI to Carb, Edelbrock 750CFM Carb, Edelbrock Performer RPM Intake, Headman Shorty Headers, Some sort of ported heads (undecided), XE268 Cam, Moroso HEI ignition kit with external MSD Blaster II Coil and an MSD 6-AL Box!!
Current project: Keeping my 305 running until I get my income tax returns!

 

is one better than the other performance-wise? is the Q-jet more of a smog legal carb?


------------------
LONG LIVE THE MUSCLE CAR!!!!! MAY ITS REIGN NEVER END

1983Z28 350w/ edelbrock performer RPM power package with 64cc aluminum heads, flowtech shorty headers, 700R-4 with shift kit, 750cfm carb, edelbrock 3" exhaust systemm, ASCD SS hood, 16" IROC rims.

future mods:
completely done over suspension, black paint with flames, B&M shifter, dakota digital gauge package, procharger supercharger.

 

To be completely honest I have no idea what the performace difference is, if any! I'm just going on experience that I've had with my mom's car!! Q-jets, especially the computer Q-jets are unreliable and expensive! Cost my mom $500+ to get her computer Q-jet rebuilt!! It doesn't cost anywhere near that to rebuild a performer carb! Also, with the computer Q-jets you have a MAP sensor and an ECM to mess up on you!! And the feed back Q-jets "communicate" with the distributor which can cause even more probs!! But like I said earlier, some people run Q-jets and seem to have no problems so I'm sure they'll disagree with me! I just have a preference, as does everyone, and mine's not to EVER use a Q-jet!!

------------------
1986 Trans AM
305 TPI
200,000+ miles (speedo/odometer non-funtional! Odometer reads 142,000)
4 Wheel Discs
9 bolt Borg Warner Rear (2.73's....oh joy) :P
Completely Stock
Soon to upgrade to a 350 converted from TPI to Carb, Edelbrock 750CFM Carb, Edelbrock Performer RPM Intake, Headman Shorty Headers, Some sort of ported heads (undecided), XE268 Cam, Moroso HEI ignition kit with external MSD Blaster II Coil and an MSD 6-AL Box!!
Current project: Keeping my 305 running until I get my income tax returns!

 

the edlebrock is far far far far superior to a uhmm q-jet! and i stress that jet part(more like junk!) the q-jet can be tuned to run great and get decent milage!but, it absoluty will not out perform a holley or edlebrock! the perfered carb is any demon!(speed, race etc.) the ones i mentioned are just a newer design and falt out run good(most of the time, .. had my experinces!) but, they cant be beat for performance! i'd get either one of the 3 i mentioned they cant be beat on hp gains!

------------------
1989 firebird formula

Mods: converted from T.B.I. to a carburator 305 to a 350. Flowmater exhaust,hedman shortie hedders,202 160 (882) heads,.447/.447 lift 222@.050 duration speed pro 327/350hp cam 350 .40 over (356) edlebrock performer rpm intake and a 600 edlebrock manual choke (1405) Proform H.O. distributor slightly revised 700r-4

Future mods comp extreme energy roller cam, world products sportsman 2 heads, msd 6al ignition, billet distributor, blaster 2 coil and a 406 engine is in the works soon!!!!

 

Well...


First off, Im pretty sure the LG4 has No MAP sensor, Or maybe Im just Blind and retarded and have underestimated the complexity of the Computer control system on my car...


AS to weather The EDL AFB ripoffs are better than the Qjets, the jury is still out on that one For me. Im playing with it and finding out.

Ill Run the computer Qjet on my 305 Once i get it Put back Together, and I may try to Run it on My 350 when I get that Built. If that dosent work LIke I want it To, Then I will look at the aftermarket. I havent had this car very long So I dont really have any Definative results yet.

There is alot of performance potential In the Stock Parts that Most people Dont have the ability to Find. Its really easy to spend lots of Money and Go fast, Its also easy to spend lots of money and Be Slow.

It takes a little More to Go fast on a Budget and your own merits, and IMO, Alot more rewarding.



------------------
60 Ranchero - Project ( Money Hole )
85 Sport Coupe LG4 - Daily Driver

Just another Hot Rod kid, or thats what they all tell me.
Livin' the Stereotype

 

From what lve captured over the time l've been listening to the Q-Jet (QJ) vs other brand (OB) debate, here is what l've determined as objective facts.

QJ
Pro: Better gas mileage. Can be modified to be as good as or better than OB. Difficult, but possible. ~750CFM flow capability. Triple venturi design so it will work better w/ wilder cams. (This is because the signal is magnified 3 times, so it will usually always see a signal)

Con: No readily available aftermarket tuning parts for it (Jets, rods, etc). As noted above, especially the CC Models, can be very difficult to tune. Old design.

OB
Pro: Newer design. Easier to tune. Lots of tuning aids. (Jets, springs, etc) Better performance out of the box.

Con: Less gas mileage. Can be pickier about what setups they will work with.

Now, to answer the question of Performer vs Qjet. First are we talking about ending up w/ a computer controlled (CC) or non CC? If CC then as far as l know Qjet and one from Holley are the only ones you can use. lf non CC then unless you have an old Qjet you cant compare the stock Qjet w/ a Performer carb. Reason? There is no way that l know of to make a stock CC Qjet perform like a "normal" carb. (lm sure someone out there can do it, but it would involve a LOT of money) Therefore, you would either have to buy a nonCC carb anyway. The Qjet is at least 2x more expensive than a Performer. Even if you have an older non CC Qjet, l would seriously look at just putting the money on a Performer. To get the Qjet rebuilt correctly by a professional around here is $125. About 1/2 the cost of a Performer. (I tried rebuilding it myself, big mistake.) I have the Performer 1406 and am happy w/ it. Oh yeah, if you go w/ the Performer, you will have to get either a new intake, or a spacer plate. To go from Spreadbore to Squarebore. The carb will bolt to the holes, but due to the size difference of the primary butterflies, it hits on the wall. Any other intake should be fine, l would imagine.


lm sure lm forgetting some things, but thats about it.

Clayton

[This message has been edited by El Guapo (edited February 27, 2001).]

 

I just read the original post for the third time. Are you talking about the Edelbrock q-jet?

If so, then let me tell you they are excellant quality pieces. I have the 1901 on the '57, and the 1903 on my '84 full-size van w/350. None of the Edelbrock q-jets are CC, so they are not "emissions" replacements for our 3rd gens. But, they are emissions replacements for non-CC vehicles (such as my van, which just passed emissions testing this morning with nice low readings, thanks in part to a new cat).

As for them being "old design" vs. OB's, not really. Edelbrock bought the design rights from GM, then spent a bucket of money to get the design right. The basic operation remained the same, but tolerances were tightened and some trouble areas were fixed. True, you have to pull the air horn to re-jet the primaries, but power tuning is no harder than the Performer carbs and easier than the "H" brand. If you can't find tuning parts for a q-jet, you're not looking in the right place.

I can only talk to the Performer from seeing other people run them - no complaints, but certainly not as good a street carb as the q-jet.

As for CC q-jets costing $500 to have a shop rebuild, that's not out of line with non-CC carb rates for a shop doing all the work. Unreliable? I certainly haven't had problems with either CC carb I've had (and yes, Bort, they do have MAP sensors). I've heard people complain about them (especially on these boards), and have a co-worker who finally donated his '81 El Camino (Calif-model) because he couldn't get it to pass emissions consistently (probably needed a new cat), but other than that, I wouldn't be one to perpetuate the "unreliable" storyline.

------------------
82 Berlinetta, orig V-6 car, now w/86 LG4/TH700R. 2.93 limited slip. Cat-back from '91 GTA, Accel HEI SuperCoil. AMSOIL syn lubes bumper-to-bumper. Daily driver, work-in-progress (LG4 w/LB9 block, ZZ3 cam and intake, WP 305 heads ported & polished, Hooker headers & y-pipe, 3" Catco cat).
57 Bel Air, my 1st car. 0.030 over 396, Weiand Action+, Edelbrock 1901 Q-Jet, Jacobs Omnipack, 1-3/4" headers, TH400 w/TCI Sat Night Special conv & Trans-Scat shift kit, 3.08 10-bolt w/Powertrax, AMSOIL syn lubes bumper-to-bumper. Best 15.1 @ 5800' Bandimere. Daily driver while Camaro was being put together.

 

yes i am talking about the edelbrock ones. i saw them and the edelbrock performer carbs in the catalog and was wondering what the difference was. does one outperform the other? or is one more reliable? sorry to confuse anyone.


------------------
LONG LIVE THE MUSCLE CAR!!!!! MAY ITS REIGN NEVER END

1983Z28 350w/ edelbrock performer RPM power package with 64cc aluminum heads, flowtech shorty headers, 700R-4 with shift kit, 750cfm carb, edelbrock 3" exhaust systemm, ASCD SS hood, 16" IROC rims.

future mods:
completely done over suspension, black paint with flames, B&M shifter, dakota digital gauge package, procharger supercharger.

 

My comp. qjet is a thing of beauty. I has been the best carb I have ever had. I tried an edelbrock 600 and slowed down. But, my qjet was hand built by a trusted qjet specalist.

------------------
1983 Camaro Z28
Goodwrench 350ci V8, Edelbrock TES Headers, Flowmaster Catback, MSD 6al and Blaster 2 coil, Edelbrock Performer intake, (Edelbrock Performer 600cfm carb.)- went back to q-jet!!! T5, 373 rear, Eibach springs, Cervin Vega speakers, Rock. Fos. Sub, Pioneer CD,
email-chris4421@hotmail.com
-------------------------
"I used to be a Mustang Guy! I didn't know the power of the dark side!!"

 

Heres my 2 cents about the age old q-jet questions. first of all q-jets are great carbs so dont think im bashing on them, but unless you get someone to build one who really knows what their doing, they will run like crap. second of all the youngest of the f-body q-jets are like at least 11 years old, i think. And in all my personal experience you only get one or two good rebuilds on a q-jet before it starts to go south.
My personal experience is, if your having computer/carb trouble, just pull off the q-jet and slap on a square body edlebrock 600. i have done it on my car, freinds cars and recomend it to everyone. im not my any means a expert carb tuner by any means, i just think that is the most simple cost efective way to a good running car. some people will always tell you somthing different, and im not raggin on them im just telling you what worked best for me.
So just got the autoparts house and get a 200 dollar edle. 600 and a 15 dollar adapter plate, and slap that thing on.


well sorry i rambled on and on.
good luck
Ross

------------------
keep the stang's far behind u and the cops even farther

 

I will agree that q-jets can easily be damaged by careless rebuilds. Also the Edelbrock q-jets are not bang-for-buck pieces (almost twice the cost of a square-bore Performer).

But, they are still good carbs, and the typical flames are not warranted. Furthermore, adapters are not very efficient; so if you go with a squarebore carb, get a manifold to which it will fit without an adapter. Oh, well now you're only a couple of Jacksons away from the new Edelbrock q-jet, and a carb change is a lot easier than a carb/manifold change...

Back to your original question, Super, which was not properly answered: The Performer carb is a knock-off of the old Carter AFB, and has a square base (primaries same or close to same size as secondaires, like Holleys). The q-jet is a small-primary, large secondary, single fuel bowl carb originally designed by Rochester (see earlier post about what Edelbrock did to it), also known as a spreadbore. It was designed to provide good economy and driveability while providing sufficient wide-open-throttle flow to produce good power. Both have a secondary "air valve" system that limits the amount of flow into the secondaries when you floor it to prevent "bog" - on the q-jet, this is adjustable via a spiral spring/lock screw adjustment, whereas the Performer (if my info is correct) uses a weighted arm on the AV, which is not as easily adjusted. Both use a jet/metering rod arrangement for the primaries and secondaries rather than static flow jets & power valve setup (like Holley).

Did I mention Holley makes a spreadbore carb?

spit, I'll see your rambling and raise you chasing one rabbit...

 

thanks for clearing it up i was just wondering if it would be worth the extra cash to get one.



------------------
LONG LIVE THE MUSCLE CAR!!!!! MAY ITS REIGN NEVER END

1983Z28 350w/ edelbrock performer RPM power package with 64cc aluminum heads, flowtech shorty headers, 700R-4 with shift kit, 750cfm carb, edelbrock 3" exhaust systemm, ASCD SS hood, 16" IROC rims.

future mods:
completely done over suspension, black paint with flames, B&M shifter, dakota digital gauge package, procharger supercharger.

 

I've been awfully quiet on this list of late, but I just had to chime in a little.

Here's my '84 Trans Am, with computer controlled Quadrajet. I bought a few different metering rods and hangers, and after spending about $850 on the L69 motor, $150 on a torque converter, and another $600 on exhaust, I took it to the track. After about seven runs, I had chopped a quarter second out of the times simply by swapping rods and hangers.

This 305 still gets 21MPG on the highway, has 134,000 miles on the shortblock, goes closed loop and doesnt set trouble codes, and it ticks off a quarter mile blast at 14 seconds flat at over 100 MPH.

Not bad for a 17 year old, computer controlled Quadrajet, I'd say.

------------------
Daniel Burk
http://www.isthq.com/~dan/fcar.html
'84 Trans Am WS6/L69
KB SFC, Moser axles, Torsen Diff. PST suspension, Braided stainless brake lines, Koni struts, 11-inch rear disks,Spohn Adj. torque arm,
Ported 305 heads w/1.94"intake valves, Comp Cams XE262H, Griffen alum. radiator,
Turbine Technologies 2500 stall converter, underdrive pulleys, Crane Hi-6 & more.
1.05g skidpad verified.
New best E/T! 14.039 at 100.82 MPH in 41 degree air at Stanton, Michigan.

[This message has been edited by ws6transam (edited February 28, 2001).]

 

bort, the map sensor for the 305 is under the dash by the computer pleged into a blue clip.

 

Con: No readily available aftermarket tuning parts for it (Jets, rods, etc). As noted above, especially the CC Models, can be very difficult to tune. Old design.

There are primary and secondary metering rods available(jetchip) as well as new hangars for the secondaries. You can also adjust the A/V to open the secondaries quicker. I haven't had any problems w/my 84 CC qjet on a L69 engine.
Later,
Craig

------------------
84 Z28 305HO, 5spd, 220,000 miles, Edelbrock intake, Hedman headers, low restriction exh(w/cat), K&N air filter. Best 1/4 so far 14.649 at 94.77mph

 

not bad indeed!

 

My experieces with Quadra Jet. Bought my Trans Am, with in a week of having it had problems with the newly rebuilt carb (friend owned car before me and had it rebuilt the fall before when he put it away) had it rebuilt. Drove half of the summer and back to the same thing (won't idel guy who was rebuilding it said something about the jet needle or valve). Put on a Holly no problems. Friends experiences on other vehicles were very bad almost everyone who has one has it in the garage. Also I had the non computer controlled one when I bought the car and still there was problems and the oem one was taken off because of problems

 

I HAVE A BIT OF INSITE ON THIS TOPIC SINCE BUYING MY '86 SPORT COUPE BACK IN '95.MY CAR HAD THE OLD STYLE Q-JET (NON-CC) ON IT WHEN I GOT IT.IT GOT GOOD MILEAGE (ABOUT 26MPG HIGHWAY)BUT WAS DEAD ON THE BOTTOM END. IT KICKED PRETTY GOOD ONCE THE SECONDARIES OPENED AT SPEED THOUGH.DECIDED TO REBUILD IT USING SOME MANUALS AND A 30 DOLLAR REBUILD KIT.ABOUT THE SAME.LAST YEAR I PICKED UP A 1405 EDELBROCK PERFORMER AT A CAR SHOW AND INSTALLED IT (NEED ADAPTER FOR FACTORY INTAKE).IT DIDN'T EVEN SEEM LIKE THE SAME CAR .HAD THE THROTTLE RESPONSE I WAS LACKING AND LOTS OF TORK.HOO-HA.DID DROP SOME GAS MILEAGE THOUGH ,ABOUT 5 MPG.HOPE THIS HELPS.

 

come on now,
twice the money for a quadrajunk??
I think you know the answer to your own question and must be just trying to start a fight over who makes the best carb.

It should be obvious that they make different carb models (Holley makes many) for a good reason. Different ones perform best depending on the application.
All of the carbs work and are capable of doing their job of supplying the proper A/F ratio when correctly calibrated.
Is any carb calibrated perfectly for your application right out of the box? probably not. That pretty much tells you that the 'learning curve' for calibrating your carb will be a big factor in how it ends up performing for you.
So far all of the carbs mentioned here have their good points and bad points. If you have the right connections you can pay someone who knows what they are doing to calibrate either of those carbs for you. If you plan to do it yourself, then you may have better luck sticking with the simplist model.
If you're going to rely on it to perform out of the box, then you may as well roll some dice and hope for the best.

ODB



------------------
*I do custom performance mods on Edlebrock Performer carburetors (dualplane intake mods in the works),
White 1986 Irocz, 305 with iron #416 heads,
383 with aluminum TFS heads,
Edlebrock Performer-RPM intake and Performer #1407 carburetor, +110hp shot of crack, 700R-4 tranny, Vigilante 2400 lockup converter, 3.25:1 Ford 9" rear, Mcreary Road-Stars, SLP-stainless 1.75" shortie headers & Y-pipe, single 3" Borla exhaust, Linginfelter-TPI camshaft part number 74216 pulls 17" vacuum solid. Cam specs 213/219 @.050 114-LSA, sometimes advertised at 216/219 @.050 112-LSA .462/.470 lift @1.5:1 ratio. Using Harland Sharp 1.65:1 roller rockers. MSD-6AL, billet distributor, multi-retard, blaster-3 coil, and RPM switch. SouthSide machine subframe connectors, SSM lift-bars, Moroso 4" underdrive crank pulley.

N/A runs 10.9 @124,
Crack-runs 10.3 @135
haven't run at track since Oct-99
* vizit miy homepayge * http://www.geocities.com/trailerparkpage/