[Blued and Painted]

Pig rich. Very Funny. My chevy buddies seem to think burning your eye's rich is better. I just nod my head agreeingly.

[77cruiser]

These the air cleaners you are referring to.

http://i514.photobucket.com/albums/t...m/P8050026.jpg

http://htsmall.ecklersfirebird.com/a...u/75-41652.jpg

http://cdn3.volusion.com/klmat.yytxn...jpg?1425797380

I did try this one but didn't have the bubble top to go on it & I had to space it up about 3/4 in. as I have the rear choke pulloff on my carb.
Didn't like it. It was down about 5-7 hp from the flat base.

[ta man]

Originally Posted by Blued and Painted

Pig rich. Very Funny. My chevy buddies seem to think burning your eye's rich is better. I just nod my head agreeingly.

Actually burning your eyes is more of a lean condition..

[Schurkey]

Originally Posted by ta man

Actually burning your eyes is more of a lean condition..

Rich OR lean, it's a MISFIRE condition.

[77cruiser]

Anybody tried these on a Qjet.

http://www.speedwaymotors.com/Sure-S...Inch,1601.html

These must be the same?

https://allstarperformance.com/produ...LL26094&add=no

[gtofreek]

Not tried one on a Q-jet, but they work good with Holly's.

[PontGuy]

Brings up a question, has anyone actually tested the factory drop bases and "bubble top" pieces that came on TA's against more conventional open-air elements or factory dual snorkel intakes? The TA intakes look like the ones in the links 77Cruiser posted. With the short filter used in these cars they seem mighty close to the top of the carb, but then they were engineered by Pontiac so maybe not so bad?

[1969GTO]

Speaking of factory set up's, any comment on the factory set up on a 69 GTO Judge with RAMAIR as far as the stock air filter and cover?

[Lee]

Link to a previous discussion where I tested some different air cleaner bases and elements: http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...=filter&page=2

[77cruiser]

Did you ever try it w/o an air cleaner?

[77cruiser]

You made 476 on the Dynojet. Did you ever have it on an engine dyno?

[ta man]

Originally Posted by Lee

Link to a previous discussion where I tested some different air cleaner bases and elements: http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...=filter&page=2

Interesting that at lower rpms,the flat base outperformed the drop base.When I was testing filters/no filters a few years ago.. The ideal setup immediately made more power out of the hole at the track.
I'm currently running a Spectre Cowl Air Cleaner with a 3.75 inch high filter..which works pretty good as far as bringing in cold fresh air.This air cleaner has a big drop to it but a nice dome top...but maybe it too is giving up a little?Next year I will experiment with my Moroso air pan which actually sits about 1/4 inch above the carb with a nice gentle radius...

[Lee]

Originally Posted by 77cruiser

You made 476 on the Dynojet. Did you ever have it on an engine dyno?

I eventually got that motor to 492 at the wheels. I never had THAT exact motor on an engine dyno. But, I had the previous motor (same heads, rockers, headers, exhaust, ignition,...) all the same but slightly different short block and a milder cam (4.060" x 4.100" on old motor, 4.125" x 4.000" on later shortblock), on both the chassis dyno and an engine dyno. That one made 426 at the wheels and 551 at the flywheel. Extrapolate what the flywheel HP may be, at your own risk :-)

I did test without the filter. The loss was typically 2 to 5hp. I later installed one of the AirAid semi-conical filters (14" at the bottom, but maybe 10" or so at the top, and about 4" high, which seemed to perform a tad better at the track than the conventional 4" tall K&N with a rounded top cover.

[77cruiser]

Originally Posted by Lee

I eventually got that motor to 492 at the wheels. I never had THAT exact motor on an engine dyno. But, I had the previous motor (same heads, rockers, headers, exhaust, ignition,...) all the same but slightly different short block and a milder cam (4.060" x 4.100" on old motor, 4.125" x 4.000" on later shortblock), on both the chassis dyno and an engine dyno. That one made 426 at the wheels and 551 at the flywheel. Extrapolate what the flywheel HP may be, at your own risk :-)

I did test without the filter. The loss was typically 2 to 5hp. I later installed one of the AirAid semi-conical filters (14" at the bottom, but maybe 10" or so at the top, and about 4" high, which seemed to perform a tad better at the track than the conventional 4" tall K&N with a rounded top cover.

Were these tests done with a Qjet?
I'm sure I have a calibration issue with my carb, just have to figure it out.

[Cliff R]

I can safely say at this point that I've done more back to back dyno and drag strip testing between Holley's and Q-jets than most who will read this.

On dual plane intakes I've never been outran by any square flange carb, Holley, Quick-Fuel, Demon, etc.

On single plane intakes we've had some very "spotty" results. Most if not all of them will REQUIRE a spacer to get the carb throttle plates up out of the plenum some for best power. The q-jets and Thermoquads can really take a back seat on a single plane intake without a spacer.

The most dramatic deviation I've seen was just over 100hp trying to run a Q-jet on a single plane intake with no spacer at all. That's for sure the extreme range, but most will be down 15-25hp if you don't use a spacer of some sort to get the huge secondary throttle plates up out of the plenum area.

Track testing verifies the dyno deviations, but ET and MPH are not as dramatically effected by the dyno differences as we are only talking about peak HP, not torque and average power.

For sure single plane intakes have ran slower in 60' times on every test I've done comparing them to a dual plane intake, but in most cases, if topped with at least a 1" spacer then will run more MPH.

Same thing with drag strip testing a single plane intake with and w/o a spacer. To date they have ALWAYS ran quicker ET and MPH with a spacer, and in some testing as quick as .2 and 2-3mph vs not using any spacer at all......Cliff

[Lee]

Originally Posted by 77cruiser

Were these tests done with a Qjet?
I'm sure I have a calibration issue with my carb, just have to figure it out.

Holley.

[77cruiser]

This is the spacer I'm using, .75 thick.

[77cruiser]

Originally Posted by Lee

Holley.

I was hoping you said Qjet.
With the adapter plus the gasket I was an inch above the intake.

[steve25]

That adapter is a nightmare for a any type of spread bore Carb!
I tested one out many Moons ago when I first got my flow bench .
The set up was a iron head ( small block Chevy ) ported to 250 cfm@28" , a early square bore single plane Manifold and a 750 Q-jet.

In short with the rate of taper that adapter has on the secondary side the motor would make the same level of power with square bore 600 cfm Carb from what findings showed.

And this is just in terms of dry air flow, I am sure a wet flow test would show a nightmare condition also at wide open throttle and a 600 cfm Carb could end up making more power depending on the size motor and its air flow demands!

[77cruiser]

Mine is blended into the intake a bit, don't know how much it helps.