Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

Intakes, Induction & Carbs





Intakes:

Subject:  [gto2] Re: [gto] Need help with Intake part number
   Date:  Fri, 30 Jul 1999 22:05:35 +0000
   From:  Donald McKay

In regards to Dave Bisschop, I know him personally and he stands behind his work. He is now
back in BC. He was working for and with Pete McCarthy in California the last two years and in
the current Pontiac Enthusiast magazine, there is a write up on an engine he worked on and Pete
says in the last paragraph of the article that Dave knows as mush and maybe more about Pontiac
motors than Pete himself. His mailing address is #2 1653 Salton Road, Abottsford, BC. V2S 7P2
Phone/Fax (604) 859 2437 Mention me if you want: Don McKay Subject: [gto2] Re: Intake problem Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 21:09:36 PDT From: "Joshua Scholfield" Hey- That's exactly the problem I just had. I was trying to use the Edelbrock intake from
my '68 350 on a '74 455, and the edges of the EGR ports were showing above the manifold flange.
I went out and got an Edelbrock Pontiac EGR Manifold, but now I am having a hell of a time
finding an EGR block-off plate for the exit port in the manifold under the carb. My advice is
to try using a gasket set with metalized block offs for the later heads. I got Fel-Pro #1233
for mine - twice actually- I had to get the manifold milled to match the heads :-( This gasket
set has metal-mesh inserts that you can use to block off the EGR ports, and I'd think the old
style intake would clamp it in place well enough to stop most of the leak. Good luck. Josh the StreetRod God << From: George Bollinger Hey Gang, I'm having a problem getting my aluminum intake to seal. The engine is a 1974 400, Intake is
off a 428 68 model. Leaks around the exhaust on the heads. If I can't get it to seal I want to
sell it. >> Subject: Re: [GTO] 68 Intake gasket Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 22:17:58 -0500 From: "Gary Rickenbaugh" Chris, Use Felpro #1233 racing gasket. I used it with a 70 intake on a 73 -400 motor. It works
great. Hope this helps, Gary ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Bilich Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 9:44 PM Subject: [GTO] 68 Intake gasket << I'm mating a '68 GTO 400 4bbl intake to a stock '72 350 2-bbl motor (7H1 heads). Which
gasket should I use? I have the 350 2-bbl gaskets in hand and they look like they match the
intake exactly, except for the exhaust crossover on ONE side (the port in the intake is larger
than the one on the gasket). AutoZone says the 68 gaskets are a dealer part only. Please help
if you can! Chris >> Subject: [GTO] Tri-power on a 455 Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 06:53:30 -0700 From: Michael Petros Hey guys, I'm about to install a 455 into my '64 LeMans (suspension and disc brakes almost done. YEAH!)
It currently has a 4-bbl. that needs rebuilding. I'd really like to have a Tri-power on it,
though. Anyone out there ever put a Tri-power on a 455? Any particular problems or caveats? I'm
thinking that I'd need a '66 in order for it to fit. I already have a ported & polished '66
Tri-power manifold (got it cheap years ago), but wouldn't I have to port the heads to match?
Also, it seems almost impossible to find all of the 2-bbl. carbs without the manifold. I've
seen the center carbs available, but that's it. I have a feeling that I'll need to purchase a
complete set-up and just sell the manifold. Any thoughts? Mike '64 LeMans GTO clone '96 Firebird Subject: Re: [GTO] Tri-power on a 455 Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 10:03:12 -0500 From: Bill Horwath Mike... You might want to make a call to Ron's Pontiac Performance in Northern Illinois. Ron
specializes in 455 rebuilds and Tri-Power set-ups. He can be reached at: (708)-966-0998 Bill 66 GTO Subject: Re: [GTO] Tri-power on a 455 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 08:14:10 -0700 (MST) From: James or Ellen Thompson Mike, I'm currently running a '66 Tri-power on a '66 421 block that has been bored and stroked to
stock 455 specs. I'm using 5C heads from a '75 engine. I believe either a '65 or '66 Tri-power will work, but not a '64 or earlier. The '65 used a
different (smaller) center carb, however. You will have to use a special Fel-Pro intake
manifold gasket (I don't remember the number, offhand, but I can get it) to seal a hole on
either head right above the exhaust crossover. In the long run, it's probably a lot easier and
cheaper to buy a complete set-up and sell the manifold you have, since the outer carbs (with no
choke or idle circuits) are so hard to find separately and you really have to know what you're
looking for. Rochester made carbs for a whole bunch of different applications over the years. As far as performance goes, mine works great and you can't beat the sound and the look. I've
been out to the strip with my car a couple times since I got it running, but I haven't tackled
the issue of carb jetting yet. Jim Thompson (family motto: "three cars--eight carburetors") '65 GTO, 389 tri-power (my wife's daily driver) '66 GTO, 421 tri-power (my daily driver) '41 F**d coupe Subject: Re: [GTO] Tri-power on a 455 Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 10:25:17 CST From: "The Harper Valley P.T.A." << I'm currently running a '66 Tri-power on a '66 421 block that has been bored and stroked to
stock 455 specs. I'm using 5C heads from a '75 engine. Have to use a special Fel-Pro intake manifold gasket (I don't remember the number, offhand, but
I can get it) to seal a hole on either head right above the exhaust crossover. In the long run,
it's probably a lot easier >> 1971 #96 (400) heads have a desirable chamber size (96 cc) for a 455 and large valves
(2.11/1.77), and don't have the dummy crossover that was introduced in 1972. A set of these
would be able to bolt up to a '65-66 intake without the special gaskets. Brad Subject: [GTO] 4 bbl manifold Date: 10 Jun 00 23:14:18 PDT From: Scott Holten Hey gang, I'm wanting to start looking around the swap meets for a 4 bbl manifold for my '72 Luxury
LeMans. Can you give me advice as to which ones would work, as well as which ones would be the
best to get. I saw one guy at a swap meet that had several to choose from but he wanted 75.00
each. I figure that for that price that there is probably a much better aftermarket one to
choose from for just a few $$$ more. Any thoughts? Thanks, Scott Subject: Re: [GTO] 4 bbl manifold Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 04:21:29 EDT From: GoatmanPaulC Scott, look for a 1968-1972 Q-jet intake. The 67 would work also but I wouldn't recommend it
because of the heat passages that come up to the carb. The 1968-1971 Q-jet is about as good as
they come for a street car and you should be able to get one for $40-$50. There are a lot of
them out there. All 4 bbl engines [except special engines like RA IU] between these years have
this manifold. Goatman Subject: Re: [GTO] 4 bbl manifold Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 06:18:19 EDT From: Goats3 I agree, 68-72 stock 4 barrel manifolds are supposed to be one of the better manifolds.
Edelbrock Performer would be OK if you want the look of an aluminum manifold. A few pounds
lighter than stock, also. Kenny L Subject: Re: [GTO] 4 bbl manifold Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 07:45:22 -0500 From: Terry Nixon The '72 manifold would be the best because the crossover passages match your heads, assuming
you have '72 heads. However, they seem to be fairly rare, as I have never noticed one for sale.
With the Fel-Pro 1233 intake gasket set, you can get any other late-'60s manifold to fit, just
as Goatman said, and they're all just about the same. He's right about the '67, too. I just put
a '67 manifold on my car and it involved threaded plugs and a hacksaw... As Kenny says, the
Performer and factory Pontiac manifolds are supposedly quite equivalent in performance, since
Pontiac made good stock ones. You need a little throttle-cable adapter for a Performer,
available from Edelbrock. There was a change in factory throttle-cable brackets from '71 to '72,
so you need to check that. Terry Subject: [GTO] Throttle brackets and rears... Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:49:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Stephen Amadei Hey guys... I'm still fighting with the throttle cable on my little sister's '69 Firebird. She ordered
the one that fits the car, so it doesn't fall off the accelerator pedal all the time, but this
one doesn't like the post '71 throttle bracket on the (ick!) Chevy 350 (that some moron
installed before she got the car). I was curious if anyone has a bracket for a '68-'70 2-BBL,
either Chevy or Poncho bracket that I could buy or at least get scans of. The '69 cars have the
pinch style cable that has one screw holding the cable to the bracket. I really appreciate any help. In other slightly OT vein, I took delivery of my nitrous'd '88 Safari Saturday, and while it's
rougher than I initially thought, it definitely is quick... and stops on a dime. But as noted
by the seller, the rear needs some help. I haven't done too much rear work, but it's a 10 bolt
rear with 3.23 gears and a GM POSI, er, uh.. Safe-T-Track unit. The problem is a slight whine on deceleration, especially if you hold the car in first, and a
barely noticeable chatter going around turns. According the owner, he opened the rear a while
back and noted the retaining bolt had been sheared off, and he thinks the noise is the cross
pin walking around. He included another POSI unit, but it had 2.56 gears. Does anyone know if the 3.23 gears can be put on a unit that had 2.56s? Does what the previous owner sound plausible? What other problems could there be? How difficult
would it be for a backyard (me... actually, I'm a frontyard mechanic... my backyards only about
5 foot deep) mechanic to swap in the newer POSI unit? Thanx again in advance... ----Steve Stephen Amadei Dandy.net CTO Atlantic City, NJ Subject: Re: [GTO] Throttle brackets and rears... Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 07:43:43 -0500 From: Terry Nixon My first thought is that if you have a Chevy engine you may have been ahead to get a Camaro
throttle cable, but undoubtedly it wasn't apparent until you tried to put it on. The pictures
in the Pontiac parts book show the bracket design to be almost the same as a same-year A-body,
except there's a downshift cable attachment on it. In the absence of a downshift cable, you
could maybe use one from an A-body, which are available through the resto houses. That doesn't
help with attaching it to the engine, since Chevy and Pontiac use completely different methods
to bolt it up. Fortunately, the junkyards are full of Chevy throttle brackets. That's where I
do all my research. You may still have to get a Chevy cable, though. I think probably they
don't clamp to the bracket that way. Not that this necessarily applies to F-bodies, but I found that the '71-up square nylon
ear-type cable design (from a '74 Cutlass, actually) fits perfectly in the firewall hole of my
'69 Tempest when I changed to a later engine bracket, but I had to change the accelerator pedal
(also from the Cutlass) to match it. The list just gets longer, don't it? If the rear in your Safari is an 8.5, then the gears are not the same. The ratio breaks are
between 2.56 and 2.73. If it had only been 2.73, it would have been easy! EasiER Except I don't
think it would be a good idea to try it if you don't have the right tools and a good place to
work on it. Under the car is definitely NOT the place to set up a rear, especially if you
haven't done it before. Terry Subject: [GTO] 67 Tri-carb Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:55:14 -0400 From: "Haruk, Roman (JUS)" I am currently looking at a 67 Goat that has a Tri-carb set up. The question I have is. Has
anyone ever heard of a 67 with such a set up? I know the car in question as well as the owner
(we belong to the same GTO Club here in Ontario), so I am not worried that the car is not what
it seems. Just curious whether or not anyone has ever heard of this set up. Thanks. Roman Haruk Integrated Justice 55 York St., Toronto, ON (416) 326-1962 Subject: RE: [GTO] 67 tri-carb Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:15:20 -0400 From: "Collingwood, Mike" Never happened. Probably put on from a 66. When Pontiac whent to the 400 in 67 they
discontinued the Tri-power setup. But the Tri-power setup will bolt right up to most 400 blocks
if I remember correctly. m Subject: Re: [GTO] 67 tri-carb Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:15:57 -0500 From: "Phil Shaffer" Sure, I've heard of even 70's GTO's with tri-carb... Just don't assume that they're original to
the car. The death of the Tri-carbs was '66 and from what I've heard it was sort of early '66
so don't believe any stories of leftover pieces... Of course, since you're in Canada, if that's an original Canadian car wouldn't it have come
with a Chevy engine? Phil Subject: Re: [GTO] 67 tri-carb Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:38:41 EDT From: ARayman I personally know of three 67 GTO's that had Tripower on them upon receipt. All three were from different dealerships, and were add ons. On the one that I saw the invoice
for the work, the extra cost charged was something like $108 or thereabouts. It fell under the
dealer prep heading. Subject: Re: [GTO] 67 tri-carb Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:52:10 -0500 From: "Phil Shaffer" Now that sounds like a $108 option that's actually worth the money! :-) Phil Subject: Re: [GTO] 67 tri-carb Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:59:45 EDT From: Kuchila Tri-power was discontinued in June of 66 but it was possible to get the dealer to install
Tri-power on the 67. The 67 I've got came with a Tri-power set-up but its no longer with the
car(stolen). The theory was in the 60's if ya had the money anything was possible. kuchila Subject: Re: [GTO] 67 tri-carb Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:55:11 -0500 From: "Dirk Denzin" Never seen a '67 w/Tri-power, I used to own a '69 that had a Tri-power on it, Verdoro Green 4
speed, no console, pretty much a plain Jane. But boy the people that would just love it when I
open the hood or the end 2 carbs (not at the same time!!) Dirk Subject: Re: [GTO] 67 tri-carb Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:44:18 -0600 From: "Michael Moore" Phil: If it was a GTO imported into Canada it still had the American 389/400/455 under the hood. The
only exception to this is a rumor. During 1969 there was supposedly a shortage of Pontiac
engines so some 69s came out with a BB Chevy engines. In 25 years I've never seen one. IIRC the GTO wasn't made in Canada until 1970 when it replaced the GM Canada A body Beaumont.
Canadian built Pontiacs (except GTO) usually came with "corporate" Chevy engines with
Pontiac markings. Mike 65 GTO Subject: Re: [GTO] 67 tri-carb Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:17:54 EDT From: Corpkilr1 Roman, Although the Tri-power setup was officially killed by corp. GM at the end of 66, (except for
their baby...Ch##y, of course) one could request and get a dealer installed set as long as they
were available. There are a lot of 67's out there with trips on them. -corpkilr- Subject: Re: [GTO] 67 tri-carb Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 06:59:18 CST From: "The Harper Valley P.T.A." << Although the tri-power setup was officially killed by corp. G.M. at the end of 66, (except
for their baby...Ch##y, of course) one could request and get a dealer installed set as long as
they were available. There are a lot of 67's out there with trips on them. >> I wonder how many dealers requested extra Tri-power setups from Pontiac when the ban was
announced. Hindsight being 20/20 and all, it certainly would've been a smart move at the time... Brad Subject: Re: [GTO] 67 tri-carb Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:36:19 -0500 (CDT) From: alan fanning << I am currently looking at a 67 Goat that has a Tri-carb set up. The question I have is. Has
anyone ever heard of a 67 with such a set up? I know the car in question, as well as the owner
(we belong to the same GTO Club here in Ontario), so I am not worried that the car is not what
it seems. Just curious whether or not anyone has ever heard of this set up. >> No 67's came with the Tripower...none after mid year 66 in fact. Check the manifold number...
its probably a 66. ALF Subject: Re: [GTO] 67 tri-carb Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:36:24 EDT From: Kuchila Well Brad, I took my 67 to a dealer and had the Tri-power setup installed. About 250 bucks, in 1970 and he had a metal cabinet "Full" of them. Seems like some dealers had
that hind sight ya mentioned. later kuchila Subject: [GTO] Intake swap advise needed Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 18:38:15 -0600 From: Tim Whiting Hey guys, I know I've been talking about doing an intake swap on my Poncho 400 for a while
now, well today I started it! I got a correct '73 4bbl intake from the president of the local
GTO club and am using a Q-jet off of a 403 I have laying around. I've got the old 2-bbl manifold and carb off of the motor, and am waiting for gaskets to
arrive in the morning before I can put it back together. While I'm waiting, I've got a couple questions: What are the torque specs for the intake and water pump bolts? Should I separate the water passage from the rest of the intake? Are there any quick improvements I can do to this intake?(even though I don't have a Dremel...) Is there any special order this intake should be torqued on? (Water pump bolt first?) Anything else I missed? Tim Whiting Subject: Re: [GTO] Intake swap advise needed Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 01:00:14 EDT From: GoatmanPaulC << What are the torque specs for the intake and water pump bolts? >> Intake to head bolts are 40 lbs in increments of 10 lbs. Torque the timing cover to intake bolt
to 12 lbs. Torque this bolt FIRST after you have started all the intake bolts and ran them down
lightly against the intake. I have complete Pontiac torque specs at Torque specs. Start with the middle intake bolts going from one side to the other working your way out. After
all bolts are final torqued, let it sit for 1/2 hour or so and re-torque all bolts. Repeat this
until the bolts no longer turn at 40 lbs. I have had to re-torque them as many as 4 times
before they were fine. Different gaskets relax at different rates. << Should I separate the water passage from the rest of the intake? >> No. Thatís mainly done for racing purposes when port matching is critical. Unless you have plenty of time on your hands! << Are there any quick improvements I can do to this intake? (even though I don't have a
Dremel...) >> You could cut a notch about 1/2" long by 1/2" deep in the secondary divider plate in the plenum
(if it does not already have one there), this will balance both sides of the intake out. It
doesn't have to be perfect, just so there is an opening from one side to the other. << Is there any special order this intake should be torqued on? (Water pump bolt first?) >> Definitely first! << Anything else I missed? >> Make sure you use sealer (just a little bit) around the water passage ports and the timing
cover to intake seal. Also, make sure you use the correct intake gaskets on the correct sides!
If it looks good on the head, make sure it also looks good on the intake. Sure sucks when you
start it and you have an ex. leak on the passenger side crossover because you used the gasket
with the small hole instead of the large hole. Speaking from experience here! LOL! Goatman Subject: Re: [GTO] Intake swap advise needed Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 00:41:58 -0600 From: Tim Whiting <<< What are the torque specs for the intake and water pump bolts? >>> << Intake to head bolts are 40 lbs in increments of 10 lbs. Torque the timing cover to intake
bolt to 12 lbs. Torque this bolt FIRST after you have started all the intake bolts and ran them
down lightly against the intake. I have complete Pontiac torque specs at Torque specs. Start with the middle intake bolts going from one side to the other working your way out. After
all bolts are final torqued, let it sit for 1/2 hour or so and re-torque all bolts. Repeat this
until the bolts no longer turn at 40 lbs. I have had to re-torque them as many as 4 times
before they were fine. Different gaskets relax at different rates. >> Thanks! That page is good reading, it's definitely going to go on my links page! <<< Should I separate the water passage from the rest of the intake? >>> << No. Thatís mainly done for racing purposes when port matching is critical. Unless you have plenty of time on your hands! >> That's what I thought... <<< Are there any quick improvements I can do to this intake? (even though I don't have a
Dremel...) >>> << You could cut a notch about 1/2" long by 1/2" deep in the secondary divider plate in the
plenum (if it does not already have one there), this will balance both sides of the intake out.
It doesn't have to be perfect, just so there is an opening from one side to the other. >> Ummm, do you mean between the secondary bores? <<< Is there any special order this intake should be torqued on? (Water pump bolt first?) >>> << Definitely first! >> <<< Anything else I missed? >>> << Make sure you use sealer(just a little bit) around the water passage ports and the timing
cover to intake seal. Also, make sure you use the correct intake gaskets on the correct sides!
If it looks good on the head, make sure it also looks good on the intake. Sure sucks when you
start it and you have an ex. leak on the passenger side crossover because you used the gasket
with the small hole instead of the large hole. Speaking from experience here! LOL! >> I'll be sure to double check this, thanks! Tim Subject: Re: [GTO] Intake swap advise needed- Yes! Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 00:29:25 EDT From: GoatmanPaulC << Ummm, do you mean between the secondary bores? >> Exactly! Goatman Subject: [GTO] gas pedal linkage needed, help! Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 04:55:57 GMT From: "robert justesen" Howdy everybody, being the rocket scientist that I am, I accidentally broke my gas pedal
to throttle cable z shaped bar on my 69 GTO. Does anybody happen to have one for sale or trade? thanks.rob 69 gto conv Subject: Re: [GTO] gas pedal linkage needed, help! Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 22:10:58 PDT From: "Dennis M" Hey I broke that linkage once in my 69 conv. I tied a shoelace on it and continued to cruise
the rest of the night. Subject: [GTO] Tri Power Setup Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 10:36:26 EDT From: JagginRoun I recently purchased 66 GTO with Tri-power. I plan on rebuilding the carbs shortly and was
wondering if anyone had any information about setting them up once they're back on the car?
Adjusting the throttle linkage? Any hints or tips? Thanks a lot, Matt Dillon Subject: Re: [GTO] Tri Power Setup Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 07:56:19 -0700 (MST) From: James or Ellen Thompson The throttle linkage is very straightforward, just make sure the outer carbs come open fully at
the same time the center carb does. And be sure the outer carbs are linked together correctly
so they both fully close. I had one outer carb hang open slightly once, and the car would
barely run, since the outer carbs have no idle circuits. As far as jet sizes, etc. are
concerned, I haven't a clue. I would appreciate any info anyone on the list might have
regarding jet sizes for various engine sizes and uses. Jim Subject: [GTO] tri power?? Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 15:18:43 -0500 What does a 66? Tri-power intake/linkage and carbs?? go for?? Guy here has one, but it goes
with a 66 LeMans 389 Holley carb 2000 for carb and car. daryl68ragtop Subject: Re: [GTO] tri power?? Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 15:24:15 -0700 (MST) All rebuilt correctly with linkage, carbs, air cleaners, etc. probably $1000 to $1200. Used
could be considerably less, especially if the carbs, linkage or fuel lines were not right. I
paid $850 or so for a completely rebuilt '66 Tripower, missing only air cleaners, about five
years ago. Jim ('65 GTO and '66 GTO, both with Tripower) Subject: [GTO] 2BBL to 4BBL conversion Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:49:29 EDT All right I have been pondering this all summer. I have a 4BBL carb from a 67 454 it is a
quadra-jet. My car has a 2BBL setup on it right now. I am seriously thinking that since
http://www.partsamerica.com has 25% off right now I will get an Edelbrock performer manifold.
Now what other parts will I need to do this conversion???? THANKS Steve Rautio 69 LeMans convertible Subject: RE: [GTO] 2BBL to 4BBL conversion Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 14:23:14 -0400 You'll probably need just the peripherals like fuel line from pump, correct throttle brackets
/linkage, etc. But, one thing maybe to consider I think is if the stock 2bbl cam can handle
this. I once put a somewhat mild by comparison 4bbl on my orig. 2bbl rebuilt 307 Chevy (Oooh
sorry I said the 'c' word) P/U truck & it ran like a dog. Didn't go any faster at all - just
used more gas! I then put a rebuilt stock app 2bbl on & it runs just as good. I guess if I built it a at least a slightly modded engine it would've liked it, but it didn't
need the bigger carb at all. A friend also did this on his stock '74 350 Nova with somewhat
better results but nothing major. But, it did sound cool! Also, I recently found an old HPP mag which did a test between the stock Pontiac intake & the
Performer & the results at the track after 5 passes or something like that was that they both
performed exactly the same (due to runner design/velocity etc.). Just my 2c of novice experience here. Hope that helped. Comments welcome etc. etc. CB Subject: RE: [GTO] 2BBL to 4BBL conversion Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 14:56:36 -0400 Now this is an interesting problem. I don't usually reply anymore because I've heard
practically every GTO question there is since this list's creation. So, if a person were to have a low compression 400 with small valve heads (say '68 #14's, ~8:1
CR), and wanted to do the Edelbrock/4 barrel conversion, what would a better cam profile be
over stock? Wonder if just changing to 1.6:1 rockers would make a marked improvement in this
scenario. Someone might need to call Crane or Bruce *octane* Fulper. That reminds me... I wrote a fake High Performance Pontiac article several years ago and I
lost it. If anyone remembers it or still has it, I'd like to see it again. It went something
like: Dear HPP, My 1965 GTO has a strange oscillating feel to the brakes on every left turn. Any ideas? Bill in Madison Bruce Fulper responds: Bill, You left out some key information. I'm assuming that your engine has been rebuilt to stock
specifications, which I think is the key to your particular problem. From the factory the
compression ratio was a steep 10.75:1 which wasn't a problem back then, but nowadays gas just
sucks, and because you're so stupid, your car runs like crap. The noise you hear is called
"detonation". Can you say that slow? DET-OH-NASHUN. Bruce. .....and so on. Cheers, Pete '68 GTO HO Convertible '67 Firebird 400 '94 Dodge Stealth RT/TT 1894 Carl Gustav Swedish Mauser in 6.5x55 Subject: Re: [GTO] 2BBL to 4BBL conversion Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 18:24:57 EDT SO would you suggest I get a stock 4BBL Manifold and put an Edelbrock Performer cam kit in it
before the 4BBL???? Also, I got a buddy who would sell me heads off a 69 Pontiac 350 4BBL for
cheap... Thanks Steve Rautio 69 LeMans Convertible Subject: Re: [GTO] 2BBL to 4BBL conversion Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 00:55:01 EDT << But one thing maybe to consider I think is if the stock 2bbl cam can handle this. I once put
a somewhat mild by comparison 4bbl on my orig. 2bbl rebuilt 307 Chevy (Oooh sorry I said the
'c' word) P/U truck & it ran like a dog. Didn't go any faster at all - just used more gas! I
then put a rebuilt stock app. 2bbl on & it runs just as good. I guess if I built it a at least
a slightly modded engine it would've liked it, but it didn't need the bigger carb at all. A
friend also did this on his stock '74 350 Nova with somewhat better results but nothing major.
But it did sound cool! Also, I recently found an old HPP mag which did a test between the stock Pontiac intake & the
Performer & the results at the track after 5 passes or something like that was that they both
performed exactly the same (due to runner design/velocity etc.). >> Small block Chevy camming is quite a bit more conservative than Pontiacs. I have noticed a
great deal of performance gain by installing a 4 bbl Q-jet on my 72 LeMans with an all original
350 engine. The small valve heads will be fine. The Pontiac 2bbl cams still have something like
278/288 duration which would be a lot for a small Chevy. Forget the Chevy stuff when talking
about Pontiacs [not meant to sound angry]. Cubic inch for cubic inch, they just aren't the same.
Camming, valve size, head flow #'s, bore/stroke ratio's, rod/stroke ratios, reciprocating
weight, etc., etc., just are not comparable. It all makes a difference. Sorry for the lecture! Goatman Subject: Re: [GTO] 2BBL to 4BBL conversion Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 01:03:07 EDT << I guess if I built it a at least a slightly modded engine it would've liked it, but it
didn't need the bigger carb at all. A friend also did this on his stock '74 350 Nova with
somewhat better results but nothing major. But it did sound cool! Also, I recently found an old HPP mag which did a test between the stock Pontiac intake & the
Performer & the results at the track after 5 passes or something like that was that they both
performed exactly the same (due to runner design/velocity etc.). Just my 2c of novice experience here. Hope that helped. Comments welcome etc. etc. CB >> I agree on the performance gains of the Edelbrock manifold. There ARE none! If anything they
don't perform as well since you lose quite a few pounds by installing one. The Pontiac Q-jet
intake is an excellent intake and is hard to beat unless you are all out racing. If you have
the secondary air valves on the Q-jet adjusted properly, it will work just fine on the 350.
The only problem I can see is the Chevy Q-jet will have a different choke linkage set-up and
probably won't work with the stock choke coil; set-up. You will probably have to make another
rod for it. Also, DONíT block the heat crossover in the intake. It won't run better. It works
for racing applications, but not stock applications [before we get into a long drawn-out
discussion on how a buddy of someoneísí buddy gained .1 in the quarter mile by doing this on
his race car]. Goatman Subject: Re: [GTO] 2BBL to 4BBL conversion Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 01:13:28 EDT << So, if a person were to have a low compression 400 with small valve heads (say '68 #14's,
~8:1 CR), and wanted to do the Edelbrock/4 barrel conversion, what would a better cam profile
be over stock? Wonder if just changing to 1.6:1 rockers would make a marked improvement in
this scenario. >> Pete, a cam somewhere in the 204/214 - 208/218 @.050 duration would work good on a stock
engine. The cam that Edelbrock suggests for their Performer package is the 204/214 version which is a
generic grind. For average performance gains this works fine. There would be a very small gain
from 1.65:1 rockers on the stock cam but that gain would not be worth the expense in my
opinion [not to mention the added stress on the rocker studs, thus requiring 7/16 studs to be
trouble free]. With some head work and a more aggressive cam, there would be a larger gain.
Since stock Pontiac heads quit flowing at .400 lift and the stock cam is around .407 [Pontiac
engineers knew how their heads flow], going to .450 lift would gain you little to nothing. Goatman Subject: RE: [GTO] 2BBL to 4BBL conversion Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 07:32:56 -0400 Hey angry man! : ) Your lecture was quite interesting actually. I'll take a free professional information
from a reputable source any day! I had a feeling it was gonna be a very different scenario with
Pontiacs because of those very reasons. - I should've mentioned that before; that my
experience here was only with Chev.. oops, um, the 'other' guy. I just wasn't sure of myself
enough to mention that due to my lack of 'professional' status. And believe me, being the only Pontiac guy who spent years hanging out with the crowd that
never heard of (or cared to acknowledge) a non-Chevy vehicle has been quite the (sometimes
aggravating) challenge when trying to explain why things are just not done the same on a
Pontiac. No offense (well maybe!) to them, but they never knew (or cared) what the heck they
were talking about when trying to 'help' me tune/upgrade my Pontiac. CB '69 GTO '70 Chev, um, you know, C10 P/U Subject: [GTO] intakes and Rockers (was 2BBL to 4BBL conversion) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 13:56:19 -0500 << I agree on the performance gains of the Edelbrock manifold. There ARE none! If anything they
don't perform as well since you lose quite a few pounds by installing one. The Pontiac Q-jet
intake is an excellent intake and is hard to beat unless you are all out racing. If you have
the secondary air valves on >> So, basically if I have say a '67 4bbl intake bolted up to a 400 with 670 heads, with a RA IU
cam, there's really no reason to spend the cash to get a Performer or Performer RPM? I plan on
picking up that very engine in the next few days and I was going to put a Performer RPM on it,
but if that's the case, I'll just stick with the standard intake. Are there any years of intakes to stay away from? Also, someone (maybe Goatman) mentioned no benefit from 1.65 rockers, how about going with
roller rockers? Thanks, Phil Subject: Re: [GTO] 2BBL to 4BBL conversion Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 00:45:20 EDT << And believe me, being the only Pontiac guy who spent years hanging out with the crowd that
never heard of (or cared to acknowledge) a non-Chevy vehicle has been quite the (sometimes
aggravating) challenge when trying to explain why things are just not done the same on a
Pontiac. No offense (well maybe!) to them, but they never knew (or cared) what the heck they
were talking about when trying to 'help' me tune/upgrade my Pontiac. CB >> CB, Believe me, I know what your talking about. Being one of the few engine machinists in Tucson
thatís devoted to Pontiacs I hear a lot of sh*t about it. I just look straight in their eyes
and start describing in detail all the things Pontiac did that were far superior than their
"brand X" and they just give me this look of disbelief and can't come back with an argument
because they know I'm right. I love it! Then they might say something like "well your Pontiacs
blow up easy". Big Mistake! Thatís when I start in with the all the blown up small Chevys I've
seen compared to the few Poncho's. It just kills them, but I get a kick out of it. It's all in
good fun, I don't piss anyone off, I just smile as I describe. Us Pontiackers are a rare breed
that needs to stick together. Later! Goatman Subject: RE: [GTO] intakes and Rockers (was 2BBL to 4BBL conversion) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:02:18 CST << From: "Phil Shaffer" So, basically if I have say a '67 4bbl intake bolted up to a 400 with 670 heads, with a RA IU
cam, there's really no reason to spend the cash to get a Performer or Performer RPM? I plan on
picking up that very engine in the next few days and I was going to put a Performer RPM on it,
but if that's the case, I'll just stick with the standard intake. >> The Performer RPM is designed for a slightly higher powerband than the regular Performer. I
wouldn't switch from a stock intake to a Performer but if the rest of the engine justified it
I'd go with a Performer RPM... << Are there any years of intakes to stay away from? >> Factory-wise, all '75-79 intakes. << Also, someone (maybe Goatman) mentioned no benefit from 1.65 rockers, how about going with
roller rockers? >> Full rollers? Like the Harland Sharps I want? ;^) It certainly won't hurt but depending on the
rocker you might have to run thick or doubled valve cover gaskets, or dimple the valve cover. Brad Subject: RE: [GTO] intakes and Rockers (was 2BBL to 4BBL conversion) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 15:06:59 -0400 Phil: The standard exhaust manifolds also work a lot better than the tube type headers. I have
seen a lot of guys go through the trouble of installing headers only to take them off a year
later and put the old cast iron back on. mjc Subject: Re: [GTO] intakes and Rockers (was 2BBL to 4BBL conversion) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 16:01:53 -0400 <<< Are there any years of intakes to stay away from? >>> << Factory-wise, all '75-79 intakes. >> Why is this? Rick M. 66 GTO Tri-power/4spd 73 GP Model J http://www.goatsgarage.com/ Classic GTO Roadtests, "How To" Articles, Magazine Ads, GTO Games, GTO Wallpaper/Screensaver,
My Cars and More! Subject: Re: [GTO] intakes and Rockers (was 2BBL to 4BBL conversion) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 17:44:19 EDT <> The secondaries on those intakes are not opened all the way, for one thing. Also, you have EGR
passages to deal with Concerning Edelbrock Performers, someone stated that since they are
lighter, they won't perform as well as a stock cast intake. Someone want to explain this? Kenny L Subject: Re: [GTO] intakes and Rockers (was 2BBL to 4BBL conversion) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 18:05:34 EDT Yeah also I thought that Aluminum was a much better heat dissipater??? -Steve Rautio 69 LeMans convertible Subject: Re: [GTO] intakes and Rockers (was 2BBL to 4BBL conversion) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:51:57 EDT << Full rollers? Like the Harland Sharps I want? ;^) It certainly won't hur but depending on
the rocker you might have to run thick or doubled valve cover gaskets, or dimple the valve
cover. Brad >> My Harland-Sharp rollers fit under my stock 69 valve covers with regular gaskets. Also, one
should go with 7/16 studs and Poly-Locks when going to rollers, especially 1.65:1's. Goatman Subject: Re: [GTO] intakes and Rockers (was 2BBL to 4BBL conversion) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:57:30 EDT << The secondaries on those intakes are not opened all the way, for one thing. Also, you have
EGR passages to deal with. Concerning Edelbrock Performers, someone stated that since they are
lighter, they won't perform as well as a stock cast intake. Someone want to explain this? Kenny L >> Kenny, you misunderstood me. I said that the Performer will not run any faster than the stock
cast-iron intake. AND since it is lighter in weight, but does not gain anything, then it must
not work quite as well. It's not the fact that it is aluminum. Only the fact that losing weight
generally gains time in the 1/4 mile. That's all I meant. Goatman Subject: Re: [GTO] intakes and Rockers (was 2BBL to 4BBL conversion) Rockers Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:49:03 EDT << I agree on the performance gains of the Edelbrock manifold. There ARE none! If anything they
don't perform as well since you lose quite a few pounds by installing one. The Pontiac Q-jet
intake is an excellent intake and is hard to beat unless you are all out racing. If you have
the secondary air valves on... So, basically if I have say a '67 4bbl intake bolted up to a 400 with 670 heads, with a RA IU
cam, there's really no reason to spend the cash to get a Performer or Performer RPM? I plan on
picking up that very engine in the next few days and I was going to put a Performer RPM on it,
but if that's the case, I'll just stick with the standard intake. Are there any years of intakes to stay away from? Also, someone (maybe Goatman) mentioned no benefit from 1.65 rockers, how about going with
roller rockers? Thanks, Phil >> Phil, the Performer RPM will give slight gains with a big cam like that. Maybe a tenth or two in the 1/4. The 67 intake is not as preferred as the 68-71 intake because
of the exhaust passage under the carb, requiring the use of a thin steel gasket to keep the
carb from burning up. The 68-71 intakes do not have this. The later intakes were not as good
and starting somewhere around 73-74 they started using EGR valves. When I said no gains from
1.65:1 rockers, I meant on a stock engine with a small cam. There would be a benefit, just not
enough to justify the cost, in my opinion. Roller rockers always add power, if from nothing
else, from loss of friction. I'm sure Joey [hightorquemotorsports.com] High Torque
Motorsports could set you up with a good set. Your welcome Joey! Goatman Subject: Re: [GTO] intakes and Rockers (was 2BBL to 4BBL conversion) Rockers Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 07:57:13 -0500 << Phil, the Performer RPM will give slight gains with a big cam like that. Maybe a tenth or two in the 1/4. The 67 intake is not as preferred as the 68-71 intake because
of the exhaust passage under the carb, requiring the use >> OK, I think I'll go back to the RPM idea then. :-) Any idea if they'll fit under a '69
Firebird 400 hood? I've got one of the old performer intakes (P4B I think it is) on there now
and it works with a dropped air cleaner. << around 73-74 they started using EGR valves. When I said no gains from 1.65:1 rockers, I
meant on a stock engine with a small cam. There would be a benefit, just not enough to justify
the cost, in my opinion. Roller rockers always add power, if from nothing else, from loss of
friction. I'm sure Joey [hightorquemotorsports.com] could set you up with a good set. Your
welcome Joey! >> How difficult is it to switch to 7/16 studs? I'm guessing that the heads would have to be
drilled/tapped or would they? Is this something I can do with the heads bolted to the car or is
it a machine shop item. I'm not real concerned about 1.65, I think with 1.5 and that cam it'll
run good enough to move that 'bird around, but I would like to go with rollers. :-) Thanks, Phil Subject: Re: [GTO] intakes and Rockers (was 2BBL to 4BBL conversion) Rockers Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 08:05:08 CST << From: "Phil Shaffer" How difficult is it to switch to 7/16 studs? I'm guessing that the
heads would have to be drilled/tapped or would they? Is this something I can do with the heads
bolted to the car or is it a machine shop item. I'm not real concerned about 1.65, I think with
1.5 and that cam it'll run good enough to move that 'bird around, but I would like to go with
rollers. :-) >> IIRC, #670s came from the factory with screw-in studs so, it's simply a matter of removing the
originals and installing the new ones. Yes, you can do it with the heads on the engine. Brad Subject: Re: [GTO] intakes and Rockers (was 2BBL to 4BBL conversion) Rockers Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 08:13:12 -0500 << IIRC, #670s came from the factory with screw-in studs so, it's simply a matter of removing
the originals and installing the new ones. Yes, you can do it with the heads on the engine. >> Whooo-hoo, I can handle bolt-ons. :-) Thank ya! Phil Subject: Re: [GTO] intakes and Rockers (was 2BBL to 4BBL conversion) Rockers Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 08:44:23 CST << From: "Phil Shaffer" Whooo-hoo, I can handle bolt-ons. :-) Thank ya! >> Well, before you go dancing in the street. I think someone should at least confirm that the
#670s have screw-in studs. ;^) I'm sure someone here or on Poncho will know for sure. Brad Subject: RE: [GTO] intakes and Rockers (was 2BBL to 4BBL conversion) Rocker s Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:12:11 -0400 FWIW, I have the Comp Cams 1.52 roller tip style rockers on a typical redoneí street' built
400/350hp in my '69GTO & have no complaints. CB Subject: Re: [GTO] intakes and Rockers (was 2BBL to 4BBL conversion) Aluminum Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:59:36 EDT << Yeah also I thought that Aluminum was a much better heat dissipater??? -Steve Rautio 69 LeMans convertible >> It is. I was just misunderstood. What was that Eric Burden once said? I know, some of you
remember my singing so I won't go there! Right Mike? Goatman Subject: RE: [GTO] 2BBL to 4BBL conversion[350/4bbl heads] Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 08:46:52 -0400 << Steve, the cam kit would be a plus but not absolutely necessary. If the heads your buddy has
are off of an HO engine, then they should be #48's which are RAIII heads and are good heads and
worth a few bucks. SNAG THEM! If you use them on your engine[I take it the 69 LeMans w/69
block] then the cylinders should all ready have valve relief chamfers on the intake side of
them. You have to watch that you don't really go much over .450 lift though as the 2 valve
sizes[2.11/1.77] are .005 larger than the bore size of 3.875. So you can see what might happen
if you run too much lift or your cylinders don't have the chamfers. Goatman >> So, in reference to my last post/question, would you happen to know how they got away with
the .470's? Just curious here because I believe my Crane is a .480I/.490E on the lift. (At
least to the best of my recollection since my $@#_$*+$#&! ex landlord lost my damn camcard on
me). The Crane that I have does seem to run very nice up to 3000 so far, though it's just been
a 'feel' thing at this point - I haven't actually gotten it tested on a dyno or anything like
that yet. CB. Subject: Re: [GTO] 2BBL to 4BBL conversion[350/4bbl heads] Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:18:08 EDT << So, in reference to my last post/question, would you happen to know how they got away with
the .470's? Just curious here because I believe my Crane is a .480I/.490E on the lift. (At
least to the best of my recollection since my $@#_$*+$#&! ex landlord lost my damn camcard on
me). The Crane that I have does seem to run very nice up to 3000 so far, though it's just been
a 'feel' thing at this point - I haven't actually gotten it tested on a dyno or anything like
that yet. CB. >> CB, the 389, 400 and larger engines all had bores over 4 1/16 inch's and the larger valves did
not cause any interference problems. Only on 350's and 326's. The 389, 400, 421, 428, and 455's
all had valve relives cut into the block as well but it was for better breathing, not for
interference. The engines after 1973 or so, did not have the reliefís any more since most of
these engines had small valves and were no longer interested in performance. Goatman Subject: RE: [GTO] 2BBL to 4BBL conversion N/C Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 08:38:07 -0400 << Pete, a cam somewhere in the 204/214 - 208/218 @.050 duration would work good on a stock
engine. The cam that Edelbrock suggests for their Performer package is the 204/214 version
which is a generic grind. For average performance gains this works fine. There would be a very
small gain from 1.65:1 rockers on the stock cam but that gain would not be worth the expense in
my opinion[not to mention the added stress on the rocker studs, thus requiring 7/16 studs to be
trouble free]. With some head work and a more aggressive cam, there would be a larger gain.
Since stock Pontiac heads quit flowing at .400 lift and the stock cam is around .407[Pontiac
engineers knew how their heads flow], going to .450 lift would gain you little to nothing. Goatman >> Drat. I wish I knew that BEFORE buying that Crane. ...so I wonder why they'd go with the .470 lifts on the bigger engines? Just the same as you
mentioned, they probably knew just what they were doing for whatever reasons they had. CB Subject: Re: [GTO] 2BBL to 4BBL conversion N/C Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:12:06 EDT << Drat. I wish I knew that BEFORE buying that Crane. ...so I wonder why they'd go with the .470 lifts on the bigger engines? Just the same as you
mentioned, they probably knew just what they were doing for whatever reasons they had. CB >> CB, they went to .470 lift and higher on the RA II, RA IU, RA V, and the SD455 because those
heads had taller [except RA II] intake ports and flowed considerably better at higher lift than
the regular port heads. The crane cam will still help you out as it has more duration than
stock. The higher lift won't hurt you any, the heads just won't flow any more air from
.400-.470, thatís all. Goatman Subject: Re: [GTO] intakes and Rockers (was 2BBL to 4BBL conversion) Rockers Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:07:08 -0700 (PDT) << IIRC, #670s came from the factory with screw-in studs so it's simply a matter of removing
the originals and installing the new ones. Yes, you can do it with the heads on the engine. >> I thought '68 was the first year for the screw in stud. ===== Brad '68 Ram Air GTO Subject: Re: [GTO] intakes and Rockers (was 2BBL to 4BBL conversion) Rockers Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:28:02 EDT << How difficult is it to switch to 7/16 studs? I'm guessing that the heads would have to be
drilled/tapped or would they? Is this something I can do with the heads bolted to the car or is
it a machine shop item. I'm not real concerned about 1.65, I think with 1.5 and that cam it'll
run good enough to move that 'bird around, but I would like to go with rollers. :-) IIRC, #670s came from the factory with screw-in studs so it's simply a matter of removing the
originals and installing the new ones. Yes, you can do it with the heads on the engine. Brad >> Guess I should have read further before I replied. Yes 670 heads do have screw-in studs. Goatman Subject: Re: [GTO] intakes and Rockers (was 2BBL to 4BBL conversion) Rockers Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:26:50 EDT << OK, I think I'll go back to the RPM idea then. :-) Any idea if they'll fit under a '69
Firebird 400 hood? I've got one of the old performer intakes (P4B I think it is) on there now
and it works with a dropped air cleaner. >> I'm not sure if it will fit or not. I would think that it would, but if you are having
clearance problems with the P4B, it may not since it is taller. The RPM fits under the hood of
a 65 GTO just fine. << around 73-74 they started using EGR valves. When I said no gains from 1.65:1 rockers, I
meant on a stock engine with a small cam. There would be a benefit, just not enough to justify
the cost, in my opinion. Roller rockers always add power, if from nothing else, from loss of
friction. I'm sure Joey [< A HREF="http://www.hightorquemotorsports.com">hightorquemotorsports.com] could set you up with a good set. Your
welcome Joey! >> If you have screw in studs now, they are already tapped for 7/16 and you can just bolt them in.
If you have pressed-in studs, then you need to install 7/16-14 heli-coils which involves
drilling the hole slightly larger and tapping them for the heli-coil. The heads will have to be
off the block. Goatman Subject: Re: [GTO] intakes and Rockers (was 2BBL to 4BBL conversion) Rockers Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:49:54 -0500 Nope. Don't remember about '66 or earlier, but '67 had 'em. Terry Subject: Re: [GTO] intakes and Rockers (was 2BBL to 4BBL conversion) Rocker s Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:29:10 EDT << FWIW, I have the Comp Cams 1.52 roller tip style rockers on a typical redone 'street' built
400/350hp in my '69GTO & have no complaints. CB >> These work just fine also. Goatman Subject: [GTO] Nitrous for a 65 tri power? Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 11:50:31 CDT I have been toying with the idea of installing a small Nitrous system on my 65 GTO. It has a
389 Tri-power. Has any one out there gone through this? Where might I get this system? Thanks bill6t5gto Subject: Re: [GTO] Nitrous for a 65 tri power? Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:06:59 -0700 (MST) I have plates for a '66 Tripower I bought unused from a friend since I may try nitrous
eventually. NOS sells them along with a variety of different size systems. I just haven't
gotten up the money or the courage to buy the rest of the system yet. NOS has a website, but I
don't know the address offhand. This list has provided a lot of good info on the subject. Jim Subject: Re: [GTO] Nitrous for a 65 tri power? Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 06:24:20 -0500 (CDT) << I have been toying with the idea of installing a small Nitrous system on my 65 GTO. It has a
389 tri power. Has any one out there gone through this? Where might I get this system? >> Don't do it, Bill! You're fast enough already! ALF Subject: Re: [GTO] Nitrous for a 65 tri power? Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 10:03:33 CDT ALF, Donít you know you can never be fast enough... Ha ha ha. But, like I said Im just thinking
about it. A small system (75 to 125) and only to use on special occasions. Do you think this is
a bad Idea? Winter will be here before you know it and I am going to need a project. bill6t5gto P.S. or maybe front disc brakes project? Subject: Re: [GTO] Nitrous for a 65 tri power? Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 12:16:06 EDT << Don't do it, Bill! You're fast enough already! ALF >> ALF, You can never be "fast enough", EVER!!!!! Joey Subject: Re: [GTO] Nitrous for a 65 tri power? Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 12:15:16 EDT Bill, GO FOR IT, you can never go fast enough. The only problem is, I think your only option is
a direct port fogger system. But on the bright side they are the safest systems and most
reliable to use, even at low settings. Joey Subject: Re: [GTO] Nitrous for a 65 tri power? Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 12:19:25 EDT << Do you think this is a bad Idea? Winter will be here before you know it and I am going to
need a project. bill6t5gto P.S. or maybe front disc brakes project? >> Go for the NOS, it will be a serious eye opener on a TRI-POWER set up. And if you want to do a
brake set up, we will be carrying AEROSPACE COMPONENTS brakes, these kits are beautiful, billet
aluminum, and cost a small fraction more than a new factory setup. Let me know if your serious
about the NOS or the brakes. Joey Subject: Re: [GTO] Nitrous for a 65 tri power? Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 13:11:26 -0500 (CDT) << ALF, Donít you know you can never be fast enough... Ha ha ha. But like I said Im just thinking
about it. A small system (75 to 125) and only to use an special occasions. Do you think this is
a bad Idea? Winter will be here before you know it and I am going to need a project. bill6t5gto P.S. or maybe front disc brakes project? >> I understand the need for speed...but...I personally would do the disc brake conversion first
...because...No matter how fast it is, it still has to stop eventually! You could also sell me
your aluminum radiator and you could install a "stock" one???? ALF Subject: Re: [GTO] Nitrous for a 65 tri power? Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 13:32:07 CDT What is a direct port fogger system? Is this something that I would have to drill and tap into
my intake? Could you please explain further. bill6t5gto Subject: Re: [GTO] Nitrous for a 65 tri power? Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 16:08:48 EDT << What is a direct port fogger system? Is this something that I would have to drill and tap
into my intake? Could you please explain further. >> Yes, you need to drill and tap the intake. And nitrous is shot directly into each intake port,
thus reducing the chances of running a lean cylinder. Also HP rangers are available between
75 - 500+ HP on the same setup, so you can always get more if you need it. Plus I have never
seen it done on a TRI-POWER setup, which means it will be worth big points in the WOW LOOK AT
THAT department. But, you will have to drill holes in the intake, although this is not as big a
deal as you may think, since you can always weld up the holes and sand the welds so you will
never know the difference. That's if you can ever bring yourself to remove it, once it is
installed. Joey Subject: Re: [GTO] Nitrous for a 65 tri power? Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 16:11:03 EDT << What is a direct port fogger system? Is this something that I would have to drill and tap
into my intake? Could you please explain further. >> BTW: If you would like to see what a direct port setup looks like, go to my website and look in
the page named "Joey's Ride". And once there, click on the pics of the motor you will see it
pretty clearly. High Torque Motorsports <---click here Joey Subject: Re: [GTO] Nitrous for a 65 tri power? Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:34:32 EDT << ALF you can never be "fast enough", EVER!!!!! Joey >> Bet your Firebird even feels slow now Joey, doesn't it? Can never ever go too fast! Goatman Subject: Re: [GTO] Nitrous for a 65 tri power? Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:36:08 EDT << Bet your Firebird even feels slow now Joey, doesn't it? Can never ever go too fast! Goatman >> Actually it does. Seems like a LONG BORING ride after the first 100 ft. PONTIAC torque is never
boring off the line, but those 9 seconds take forever to pass on my way down the track. I guess
that's why I am going to run the bottle at the track this weekend......LOL HOPE SHE HOOKS!!!!! Joey Subject: Re: [GTO] Nitrous for a 65 tri power? WHY? I'll tell you why! Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:32:17 EDT << ALF, Donít you know you can never be fast enough... Ha ha ha. But like I said Iím just thinking
about it. A small system (75 to 125) and only to use on special occasions. Do you think this is
a bad Idea? Winter will be here before you know it and I am going to need a project. bill6t5gto P.S. or maybe front disc brakes project? >> Reasons not to use Nitrous! #1: You DON'T want to go faster! #2: You ALREADY have a "blown" 428 in your Goat! [although a little†nitrous here wouldn't
hurt either] #3: Your sick and tired of beautiful women telling you what a BADASS car†you have! #4: You WANT those turbo 4 bangers showing you who's BOSS! #5: You DON'T want to go faster! [figured this was worth repeating] Reasons TO use Nitrous! #1: You WANT to go faster! #2: You DON'T already have a "blown" 428 in your Goat! #3: You WANT beautiful women telling you what a BADASS car you have! #4: You WANT to show 'dem tubro 4 bangers who's da BOSS! #5: It makes a GREAT passing gear when you start to pass an 18 wheeler†on a 2 lane highway,
only to find 7 more cars in front of it! Believe†me, I speak from experience on this one, and
the "gold bricks" in my†brothers pants can PROVE it! #6: If you WANT to create "gold bricks" YOURSELF! #7: Cheapest Horse Power known to man! And last but not least #8: You WANT to give the environmentalists something else to BITCH†about!!!!!!! Oh, and did I say, YOU WANT TO GO FASTER! Goatman [created "gold bricks" many times myself on NITROUS!!!!] Carter Subject: Re: [GTO] Nitrous for a 65 tri power? WHY? I'll tell you why! Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:33:19 EDT << Oh, and did I say, YOU WANT TO GO FASTER! Goatman [created "gold bricks" many times myself on NITROUS!!!!] Carter >> I continually find myself saying DITTO to your entire emails. Once again Goatman you hit the
nail right on the head w/this message. Joey Subject: [GTO] 4BBL intake received Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 02:43:14 EDT Just got my 4BBL intake today!!!! I was wondering about the exhaust crossover.... isn't it bad
to have HOT exhaust flowing right through your intake? There I go thinking again -Steve Rautio 69 LeMans convertible Subject: Re: [GTO] 4BBL intake received Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:00:31 -0700 Steve, You are correct. The exhaust heat crossover should be blocked off. There is someone like
Warrior or Performance years that makes a kit to do this. Maybe Goatman or Joey knows. Oh Yeah!
Doh!! Joeys shop may have them. Gary T. 64 GTO Htp. 75 455 Grand Am Paradise Restored - Restoring GM Muscle http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/paradiserestored/ Subject: Re: [GTO] 4BBL intake received Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 05:38:00 EDT << Steve, You are correct. The exhaust heat crossover should be blocked off. >> It can be blocked if you live in a warmer climate, or only drive it in the Summer, where choke
operation isn't an issue. Subject: Re: [GTO] 4BBL intake received Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 20:03:09 EDT You think I could just weld.. or somehow attach something there to block it off?? Has anyone
installed a blockoff kit before?? What is involved in it and how much are they?? Steve "full of questions" Rautio 69 LeMans Convertible Subject: Re: [GTO] 4BBL intake received Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 19:19:35 CST << You think I could just weld.. or somehow attach something there to block it off?? Has anyone
installed a blockoff kit before?? What is involved in it and how much are they?? >> Steve, you live in Twin Cities, right? I don't know as I'd be so quick to block off the
crossover; if you remove the heat riser valve from the driver- side headpipe you'll always have
full flow from each exhaust manifold and very little exhaust will be crossing over anyway... Brad Subject: Re: [GTO] 4BBL intake received[not necessarily] Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 02:44:21 EDT << Just got my 4BBL intake today!!!! I was wondering about the exhaust crossover.... isn't it
bad to have HOT exhaust flowing right through your intake? There I go thinking again -Steve Rautio 69 LeMans convertible >> Steve, on a cammed out race car, blocking the crossover helps [usually good for about 1/10 of a
second. HOWEVER, doing this to a stock engine, especially in cold country, will usually hurt
performance. Your choke will take forever to open up and if you are running a Q-jet, it will
not start if you wire the choke open. Even here in the desert, we have problems getting a Q-jet
engine started without a choke. I have seen some cars that would absolutely NOT get out of
their own way with a blocked crossover. You shouldn't have it that bad with a Pontiac but you
probably won't notice enough of a gain [if you even notice anything] to warrant all the
problems you could have from doing it. I would rethink it if your engine is stock and not
running a Holley carb. Just my .02. Also, if you do decide to try it, Fel-Pro makes a high perf. intake gasket set [part # 1233]
that has changeable center pieces so you can run early or late intakes on early or late heads
and inserts to block it off also. If blocking it off causes you problems, you could also drill
a small hole in the solid center pieces. Also, the intake runner openings on these gaskets is
RA IU size, so they won't interfere with airflow. Goatman Subject: [GTO] 67 intake Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:04:34 EDT From: Jwroblesk Hi Gang, Any of you with 67's block off the passage under the carb? I'd like to block mine off but
not sure what to use. Maybe high temp silicone? Thanks, Joe Subject: Re: [GTO] 67 intake Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 06:39:17 -0500 (CDT) From: alan fanning << Hi Gang, Anyone have a 67 intake where they blocked the passage under the carb? I'd like to block mine but
not sure what to use. High temp silicone maybe? Thanks, Joe >> We blocked off mine by running a tap down the hole and then screwing in an allen screw of the
proper size (can't remember what size...sorry) lubricated with JB Weld I think. A year later...
no leaks that I can tell. We didn't want to just use epoxy or something because of the fear of it coming loose someday
and being sucked into a cylinder. ALF Subject: Re: [GTO] 67 intake Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 23:29:45 EDT From: CLOZEM Why do you want to block it? This is a great source of information. Thank you all for your
contributions. Scott 67 GTO Conv. Subject: Re: [GTO] 67 intake Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 02:57:52 EDT From: GoatmanPaulC << Why do you want to block it? This is a great source of information. Thank you all for your
contributions. Scott 67 GTO Conv. >> Scott, All that heat just cooks your carb and makes it more likely to vapor lock and warp the
base plate. They don't need all that heat there. The ex. crossover is fine but not ex. heat
.030 from the carb! These applications used a steel gasket along with a fiber one. Goatman Subject: Re: [GTO] 67 intake Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:03:46 EDT From: CLOZEM Goatman, Was the vacuum run there for cold weather reasons? Why did they add this in '67 and delete it
in '68? Thank you, Scott '67 GTO Conv. Subject: Re: [GTO] 67 intake Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 00:28:58 EDT From: GoatmanPaulC << Goatman, Was the vacuum run there for cold weather reasons? Why did they add this in '67 and delete it
in '68? Thank you, Scott '67 GTO Conv. >> 1967 was the last year for closed chamber heads. Closed chamber heads were not as good for
emissions as open chamber heads. My guess is that Pontiac anticipated having troubles passing
new Federal emission standards so they felt that if they added more heat to the bottom of the
carb, it would get better emissions. They realized that in 1968, with the introduction of the
open chamber heads [actually this happened in 67 with the rare 061 head] that they no longer
needed that heat there. They also no longer needed air pump passages like the closed chamber
heads had [except on California cars]. This is of course just what I think happened. I have no
proof of this. Goatman Subject: [GTO] 4BBL Runs Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 23:15:12 EDT From: MycoPhoric Well, I got my 4BBL intake on yesterday. I had to re-use my old intake gasket because I was
short of funds. It runs but I think I need to put out the cash for new intake gaskets because I
believe one side is leaking exhaust at the crossover. Also, I called around for a new valley
pan gasket with no luck. I called 4 part stores and got nothing... so I used blue RTV. How good
is an RTV gasket? Any tips on tuning a 76 Rochester 4BBL. Thanks!!!! Steve Rautio Jr. 69 LeMans Convertible Subject: Re: [GTO] 4BBL Runs Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 06:20:57 EDT From: Goats3 RTV should be OK. Most parts stores call the valley pan something else, but I don't exactly
remember what....... Kenny L Subject: Re: [GTO] 4BBL Runs Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:08:14 EDT From: GoatmanPaulC << RTV should be OK. Most parts stores call the valley pan something else, but I don't exactly
remember what....... Kenny L >> Push rod cover. Usually only NAPA carries them around here. Goatman Subject: Re: [GTO] 4BBL Runs Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:14:29 EDT From: MycoPhoric It is push rod cover.. I asked for that too.. Steve Rautio Subject: Re: [GTO] 4BBL Runs Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 09:05:08 EDT From: JagginRoun I was looking for the valley cover gasket a few weeks ago and the parts book listed it as a
push rod cover. Matt Dillon 66 convt. Induction: Subject: [GTO] bead blasting a ram air hood pan Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:54:08 EDT From: PGates6804 Hi List, Is it OK to bead blast a ram air hood pan off a 70 GTO. I was wondering if it would warp
it or mess it up in any way. Any suggestions greatly appreciated. Adam Subject: Re: [GTO] bead blasting a ram air hood pan Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:01:38 -0700 From: "Gary L. Travis" I do not recommend using silicon on any sheetmetal surfaces, but you can use either plastic
media or walnut shells for these surfaces without warpage. Some guys say you can use sand on
sheetmetal, but you have to be really careful. Gary T. 64 GTO Htp. 75 455 Grand Am Subject: Re: [GTO] bead blasting a ram air hood pan Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:11:33 CDT From: "bill odoherty" Would recommend either a poly abrasive or walnut shells as a blasting media. I believe that you
can purchase these at the Eastwood company. In either case try a small area first.

http://www.eastwoodcompany.com Bill Subject: Re: [GTO] bead blasting a ram air hood pan Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 12:47:40 GMT From: "Pete Judge" I have glass beaded my 70 Ram Air pans, both the upper and lower and it comes out really nice,
no problem with warpage, the metal is thicker than body panels and donít worry, glass bead
away,!!!! Pete 70 Orbit Judge Subject: [GTO] Throttle brackets and rears... Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 19:49:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Stephen Amadei Hey guys... I'm still fighting with the throttle cable on my little sister's '69 Firebird. She ordered the
one that fits the car, so it doesn't fall off the accelerator pedal all the time, but this one
doesn't like the post '71 throttle bracket on the (ick!) Chevy 350 (that some moron installed
before she got the car). I was curious if anyone has a bracket for a '68-'70 2BBL, either Chevy
or Poncho bracket that I could buy or at least get scans of. The '69 cars have the pinch style
cable that has one screw holding the cable to the bracket. I really appreciate any help. In other slightly OT vein, I took delivery of my nitrous'd '88 Safari Saturday, and while it's
rougher than I initially thought, it definitely is quick... and stops on a dime. But as noted
by the seller, the rear needs some help. I haven't done too much rear work, but it's a 10 bolt
rear with 3.23 gears and a GM POSI, er, uh.. Safe-T-Track unit. The problem is a slight whine on deceleration, especially if you hold the car in first, and a
barely noticeable chatter going around turns. According the owner, he opened the rear a while
back and noted the retaining bolt had been sheared off, and he thinks the noise is the cross
pin walking around. He included another POSI unit, but it had 2.56 gears. Does anyone know if
the 3.23 gears can be put on a unit that had 2.56s? Does what the previous owner sound
plausible? What other problems could there be? How difficult would it be for a backyard (me...
actually, I'm a frontyard mechanic... my backyards only about 5 foot deep) mechanic to swap in
the newer POSI unit? Thanx again in advance... ----Steve Stephen Amadei Dandy.net CTO Atlantic City, NJ Subject: Re: [GTO] Throttle brackets and rears... Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 07:43:43 -0500 From: Terry Nixon My first thought is that if you have a Chevy engine you may have been ahead to get a Camaro
throttle cable, but undoubtedly it wasn't apparent until you tried to put it on. The pictures
in the Pontiac parts book show the bracket design to be almost the same as a same-year A-body,
except there's a downshift cable attachment on it. In the absence of a downshift cable, you
could maybe use one from an A-body, which are available through the resto houses. That doesn't
help with attaching it to the engine, since Chevy and Pontiac use completely different methods
to bolt it up. Fortunately, the junkyards are full of Chevy throttle brackets. That's where I
do all my research. You may still have to get a Chevy cable, though. I think probably they
don't clamp to the bracket that way. Not that this necessarily applies to F-bodies, but I found that the '71-up square nylon
ear-type cable design (from a '74 Cutlass, actually) fits perfectly in the firewall hole of my
'69 Tempest when I changed to a later engine bracket, but I had to change the accelerator pedal
(also from the Cutlass) to match it. The list just gets longer, don't it? If the rear in your Safari is an 8.5, then the gears are not the same. The ratio breaks are
between 2.56 and 2.73. If it had only been 2.73, it would have been easy! EasiER Except I don't
think it would be a good idea to try it if you don't have the right tools and a good place to
work on it. Under the car is definitely NOT the place to set up a rear, especially if you
haven't done it before. Terry Subject: [GTO] Tri-Power with Ram Air Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 09:13:07 -0500 From: Fisher Todd-CTNK11 This may be a dumb question. For those of you running a Ram Air set up in a 65-66 GTO. What do
you do when it rains? Also does anyone have a hood scoop at a reasonable price? I'd like to try the set up myself. Thanks, Todd Fisher 66 GTO Convertible Subject: Re: [GTO] Tri-Power with Ram Air Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 07:48:41 -0700 (MST) From: James or Ellen Thompson I wondered the same thing when I converted my '66 Tripower to Ram Air. But, when it rains, the
carbs just get wet. There are two holes near the back of the repro fiberglass pan for drainage
purposes, but that's it. I did buy a spare hood scoop (an original one without the vents opened
up), to put in for extended rainy spells or long road trips, but I haven't used it yet. When I wash the car, I spray off the hood from the back side to avoid getting too much water
inside. I guess the later Ram Air set-ups had closeable intakes, but the early ones didn't. FYI,
I paid $70 for my spare scoop at the GTOAA Nats, after seeing several at higher prices. I used
a fiberglass repro Ram Air pan that needed a lot of tweaking before it would fit (I had to
elongate the carb holes). I'm wondering if the steel repros will fit better. Jim Subject: Re: [GTO] Tri-Power with Ram Air Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 10:17:42 -0500 From: "Dirk" I have a steel 4 barrel one, it needed minor filing to fit the carb (TB in my case). Otherwise
I am very happy with it. Dirk Subject: Re: [GTO] Tri-Power with Ram Air Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:59:55 CDT From: "bill odoherty" Although I donít drive mine in the rain (try not to). I just figured that if it did start
raining very hard I would just pull the pan off and run w/the regular bases. I did note that
after I cut mine out by the hood, there is some what of a channel there that would disperse it
from the pan. When I wash mine I just stick a couple of rags there. I bought my fiberglass pan
from a guy on Ebay for 60.00, steel ones were way to expensive. bill6t5GTO Subject: Re: [GTO] Tri-Power with Ram Air Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 22:27:46 EDT From: Fa627 Has anybody that added the 66 Ram Air notice an improvement in performance? I've been under the impression that the scoop openings were too small and actually hindered air
intake. I've been thinking about getting an open scoop to just lower under-hood temperature,
but not actually put in the tub. Also, did the cold air make enough difference to yield jet change? Lou 66 HT Subject: Re: [GTO] Tri-Power with Ram Air Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 21:36:15 -0700 (MST) From: James or Ellen Thompson I've had mine set up with the Ram Air pan since I fired up the car this spring. So I've never
made a comparison. Once I get everything else sorted out, I will make some comparison runs, by
putting in a closed scoop and taking off the pan. I've wondered myself if the openings aren't
too small to do any good. Jim Hand has reported improvements using outside air, but he gets it
via big ducts from the cowl intake area, which is a natural high pressure area. If I make any
comparison runs this fall, when the weather here in Tucson cools off a little, I'll report any
results I get. Jim Subject: Re: [GTO] Tri-Power with Ram Air Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:26:00 CDT From: "bill odoherty" Improvement in performance? All I know is that engines prefer cooler outside air than under the
hood hot air. So they can't be all that bad. Subject: Re: [GTO] Tri-Power with Ram Air Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:23:41 EDT From: Sanders66GTO Lou, I seem to remember Jim Wangers stating at a Nationals meet one time that the only GTO "Ram Air"
hood scoop that actually Rammed any air was the '71/72. Due to the location and low profile of
the 65, 66. 67...'70 hood scoops they basically didn't scoop squat. No jet change will be
necessary!!! If you could measure the pressure change at the carb(s) with an open non-71/72
scoop vs a closed one. You would most likely need a damn good meter to notice any significant
change. However, you will be able to hear the Tri-Power sing it's song better!!! Cruise'em if ya got'em, Bill '66 GTO Convertible (Dual Quads/4-spd) Subject: Re: [GTO] Tri-Power with Ram Air Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 19:34:22 EDT From: Ratripower << Has anybody that added the 66 Ram Air notice an improvement in performance? >> I've noticed a .10 difference running with it. But, the biggest difference I've seen when I
switched from paper filters to 3 K&N filters. .200 difference! Tim Subject: [GTO] Judge Hood Scoops Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:34:30 -0500 What is the proper color for the Ram Air Scoops of a 70 Judge? The car is white in this case
(code 10 or 11). A good friend of mine is painting a Judge for his cousin, who happens to be the original owner.
My friend has known the car since he was in grade school and remembers the scoops being body
color. I believe that they are supposed to be flat black, but realize that they probably came
both ways from the factory. Thanks, Avery 70 GTO Subject: Re: [GTO] Judge Hood Scoops Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:06:58 -0400 The scoops are supposed to be flat black. Don Subject: [GTO] 1970 455 HO? Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 22:36:02 EDT Was the 455 for 1970 designated as HO? Did it come with Ram Air and open hood scoops? Harry Subject: Re: [GTO] 1970 455 HO? Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 18:14:30 -0500 Went through this once before, Pontiac never called the 455 a 455HO in 70, I have a old book
from HO enterprises, they listed the '70 455 as a HO, I think others did so on their own, that
is why the confusion. I have never seen any Pontiac Literature listing the 455 in a GTO in '70
as a HO just 455, Anybody else seen otherwise? The '71 and '72 455HO was a different motor,
heads, intake, exhaust manifolds all different. Dirk The open scoop was the Ram Air option and it could come with or without the 455 in '70. Subject: Re: [GTO] 1970 455 HO? Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 20:40:48 -0700 The 370 horse 455 was in fact dubbed HO in 70. Like the 428's and 421's before it, the higher
rated was always an HO in true Pontiac tradition. BUT, it didnít come from the use in GTOís.
They got the HO (370) without exception. In 70 there was the standard (360)455 available in all
but the GTO. Small valve #15 heads, etc. The 370 horse "HO" was available as an option over the
standard 455 in all others. ď64" heads, 068 cam. Yes, itís a D-port, but so were the 326, 350,
389, 400, 421 and 428 HOís. High Output and Super Duty are synonymous with D-port engines in my
book. They are the real performers that put Pontiac in the drivers seat. The O-port engines
were the carry over to regain king of the hill status. Why not dub them HO and Super Duty. A
feared and respected name at the dragstrip. Rick Subject: Re: [GTO] 1970 455 HO? Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:44:37 -0500 Where have you seen the 70 455 called HO? I have seen some Original Pontiac literature and old
road tests and they never mention the HO. Dirk Subject: Re: [GTO] 1970 455 HO? Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:57:17 -0700 Dirk wrote: << Where have you seen the 70 455 called HO? I have seen some Original Pontiac literature and
old road tests and they never mention the HO. Dirk >> 70 factory order/option sheets. Like I said, not on the GTO, but the 455 "HO" (GTO engine) was
an option on the big body's. Rick Subject: Re: [GTO] 1970 455 HO? Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:25:46 EDT Dirk, Thanks for the info. After I posted this? I found PHS documentation for a 1970 455 and the
dealer invoice listed the engine as a 455HO. Here is the site:
http://members.aol.com/orbitorange/ Harry Subject: Re: [GTO] 1970 455 HO? Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:21:00 EDT I am looking at a copy of my factory invoice. My 70 L75 455 is listed as a 455 HO code number
344. It was listed at suggested retail price of $57.93. Subject: Re: [GTO] 1970 455 HO? Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:49:39 EDT << I am looking at a copy of my factory invoice. My 70 L75 455 is listed as a 455 HO code
number 344 It was listed at suggested retail price of $57.93. >> Those were the days! Goatman Subject: [GTO] Air cleaner Date: 3 Oct 00 14:10:40 PDT From: Scott Holten Are the '66 and '67 std. air cleaners the same? I know that the Rochester equipped cars had a
different air cleaner base, I just want to know if the chromed "cover/top" for a '66 is the
same as my '67. Scott (can never have too many spare parts...especially if the price is right) '67 GTO http://www.pontiac.tm/gto/members/1967scottholten/1967scottholten.html '72 Luxury LeMans 2dr http://luxurylemans.homepage.com '64 Ch*vy C20 http://www.wtp.net/69chevy/html/scotth_home.htm Subject: Re: [GTO] Air cleaner Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 21:34:57 EDT From: Bobgoat67 Scott, Yes, the top lids are the same for '66 and '67. The bases are different since the '66 used an
AFB carburetor and the '67 used a Quadrajet. The '67 is larger. bob Subject: Re: [GTO] Air cleaner Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 00:02:03 -0400 From: "Rob Wilson" I thought I recalled that the 67 air cleaner "lid" was a brushed finish. While the 66 had a chrome finish. I might be wrong but I thought that was the way it was. Rob Subject: Re: [GTO] Air cleaner Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 04:46:18 EDT From: Cf204cf << Are the '66 and '67 std. air cleaners the same? I know that the Rochester equipped cars had
a different air cleaner base. I just want to know if the chromed "cover/top" for a '66 is the
same as my '67. >> My best recall for the pancake lid style air cleaner was that only the base was changed, larger
hole for 67 for the Rochester Q-jet carb than the smaller hole size for Carter AFB carb in 66,
both had chrome lids with painted base. Subject: [GTO] Air cleaner- "pancake" Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 07:41:21 EDT From: ARayman Apart from the AFB base mentioned for the 1966 GTO, and the Rochester base for the 67 GTO. I
believe the 66 OHC sprint used the same top, with a Carter base that had a taller lip. Subject: [GTO] Cleaning a K&N Filter Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 09:17:52 -0400 From: Rick Mokris Does anyone have any suggestions for cleaning a K&N airfilter without buying their "racharge
kit"? What about spraying with Castrol degreaser and rinsing with water? Can you get them wet? Rick M. 66 GTO Tri-power/4spd 73 GP Model J Subject: Re: [GTO] Cleaning a K&N Filter Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 08:48:07 -0500 From: Mike Donahoe On our race cars we always clean with warm soap and water - re-oil with any good air filter Subject: RE: [GTO] Cleaning a K&N Filter Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 08:48:53 -0500 From: "Darren Pallen" Hi Rick. Castrol Super Clean or Simple Green work great. Spray the filter, let soak for about
three minutes, then rinse from the inside out with fresh clean water. If necessary, repeat the
process. Allow to air dry overnight and DO NOT used compressed air. We had a set on our sprint
car a few years ago and I blew a hole in the gauze by using an air compressor. And that was
being careful! Regards, Darren Pallen 1968 GTO 400 H.O. Convertible Subject: RE: [GTO] Cleaning a K&N Filter Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 08:53:45 CST From: "Maxwell Edison, majoring in medicine" << Does anyone have any suggestions for cleaning a K&N airfilter without buying their "racharge
kit"? What about spraying with Castrol degreaser and rinsing with water? Can you get them wet? Rick M. >> One thing I've always done with reusable air filters is to vacuum the outside prior to washing. Brad Subject: Re: [GTO] Cleaning a K&N Filter Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 06:12:10 -0500 (CDT) From: "Alan L. Fanning" << Does anyone have any suggestions for cleaning a K&N airfilter without buying their "racharge
kit"? What about spraying with Castrol degreaser and rinsing with water? Can you get them wet? >> Plain old dishwashing liquid detergent! Don't use any harsh chemical cleaners on it! I use
Ivory Liquid in the kitchen sink (DON'T tell my wife!) and it works fine. ALF Subject: [GTO] K&N vs. Paper Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 18:42:30 -0500 From: "Chris Bilich" How much will a K&N 14" element affect performance over a Fram paper element, for example.
Noticeably? $45 noticably? Just asking....shouldn't be thinking about air cleaners now anyways, when I gotta pull the
engine first! Chris Subject: Re: [GTO] K&N vs. Paper Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 21:57:26 EDT From: Rwchumley << How much will a K&N 14" element affect performance over a Fram paper element, for example.
Noticably? $45 noticably? Just asking....shouldn't be thinking about air cleaners now anyways, when I gotta pull the
engine first! Chris >> I took my '71 GTO Conv. over to a local chassis dyno this spring to check it out. It's a stock
400 engine (other than dist. curve) and my results may not be relevant for modified engines
needing additional CFM. I used a clean AC paper filter and a new K&N in the stock dual snorkel
housing, also tried flipping the lid. There wasn't any HP difference in the 3 configurations.
2 degree changes in the timing were noticeable however. Bob C. Subject: Re: [GTO] K&N vs. Paper Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 06:36:57 -0500 From: "Chris Bilich" Did you lose or gain timing? Just from the difference in filter? WOW! Chris Subject: Re: [GTO] K&N vs. Paper Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 22:06:49 EST From: GoatmanPaulC << How much will a K&N 14" element affect performance over a Fram paper element, for example.
Noticably? $45 noticably? Just asking....shouldn't be thinking about air cleaners now anyways, when I gotta pull the
engine first! Chris >> Chris, didn't you just get the engine in? What happened? Goatman Subject: Re: [GTO] K&N vs. Paper Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 21:20:53 -0600 From: "Chris Bilich" This is very true...spent a pretty penny or two. :) Over on the Poncho list, we've been having a discussion about my crappy 1/4 mile times, and
(apart from the compression test results I got today) we were 100% sold on a theory about ring
gaps that are too wide. The rings my machinist handed me had gaps ranging from .020 to over
.025"...not the .012 or so that the books said to gap them for a 4.191" bore. I'm consuming oil
at a pretty good pace, too....about 1 qt./1500 miles. Black smoke on startup, but not really at
other times. Compression test today yielded this (motor is intended to be 9.5:1): 1-196 3-172-175 5-170-180 7-175 2-190 (electrode covered in oil) 4-188 6-181 8-185 What's your word, Goatman? Chris Subject: Re: [GTO] K&N vs. Paper Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:12:43 EST From: R92Z28 Chris, I put two of them in my '92 Z-28. Cost almost 80 bucks. I was pretty skeptical. I drove
about 200 mi. to a swap meet and back the next day. I can't be specific about actual
performance, but: the car ran about 30 degrees cooler, 5th gear (which is really just an
overdrive) would pull hills (here in western PA we have BIG hills) that it wouldn't pull before,
and I got better gas mileage. Just my 2c worth. I actually put off buying them for two years. Didn't want to spend the $$. Raymon Note: If you want to know how my Z runs, ask The Chebs. Subject: Re: [GTO] K&N vs. Paper Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:26:26 -0600 From: Mike Donahoe K&N filters are one of the cases - you get what you pay for - for performance motors -
especially with the bucks we spend on our own toys - cheap insurance Subject: Re: [GTO] K&N vs. Paper Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:24:12 -0600 From: "Chris Bilich" I'll definitely put it on the Xmas list, then! Thanks! Chris Subject: Re: [GTO] K&N vs. Paper NC Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:24:33 -0500 From: "The Chebs" Not only does Ray's Z run fast, it's the cleanest damn car I've ever been in! I almost felt
like I had to take off my darn shoes! KWC Not that anyone asked me. Carbs and Accessories: Subject: [GTO] Let's talk carbs Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 08:25:14 -0400 From: "Ron Lawrence" I'm thinking I should probably pick myself up a new carb before the GTO is ready for the road
(whenever that will be). Right now, I'm running on old Ch**y Q-jet. Now, the problem is I don't
know much about my different choices, so I'm really looking for suggestions. I'm looking for something EASY to tune. I really don't want a carb that I have to take half the
thing apart to tune. Obviously, being original isn't a concern and gas mileage or price isn't
too much of a concern. I just want something that will bolt right on my performer intake, be
easy to tune and run well. I'm also looking for CFM suggestions. The setup: 70 GTO. 406, 4X heads. cam: .443/.465 214/224 @.050. As always, thanks in advance, Ron Subject: Re: [GTO] Let's talk carbs Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 08:38:28 -0400 From: "David L. Satterwhite" Ron, Consider the following. If price and originality are not the concerns. Rather; ease of installation, and maintenance
are, why not purchase an new Edelbrock replacement carb. Run 300-400 bucks, and once it is
tuned, will run well for a long time.... Just MY opinion David Subject: RE: [GTO] Let's talk carbs Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 08:52:52 -0400 From: "Ron Lawrence" From all I have heard regarding carbs so far, I was kind of thinking an Edelbrock. Are they
difficult to initially tune? When you say Edelbrock, I'm guessing you are not referring to the
Q-jet replacement, but the AFB style... right? Subject: Re: [GTO] Let's talk carbs Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 08:56:31 -0400 From: "David L. Satterwhite" <> No, I was speaking of the Q-jet replacement. David Subject: RE: [GTO] Let's talk carbs Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 09:08:36 -0400 From: "Ron Lawrence" I see. Does anybody have any comments on the other Edelbrock carbs. AKA, not the Q-jet ones? Subject: RE: [GTO] Let's talk carbs Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 08:00:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Brad Hill I'm running the #1411 750 cfm electric choke. I run it with the adapter so I still have the
stock intake. It runs great. Great throttle response, better mileage, no leaks. Installed in
only a few minutes. No complaints. ===== Brad '68 Ram Air GTO Subject: Re: [GTO] Let's talk carbs Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 13:48:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Don Brown Ron, I switched to the Edelbrock carb and am very happy that I did. You can change the metering
rods and/or springs with the carb still on the car. I got mine at AutoZone for just over
$200.00 and ordered the spring and metering rod kit for another $55.00. Don Subject: RE: [GTO] Let's talk carbs Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 20:59:59 -0500 From: "Bill" Ditto on the Edelbrock. I have one on a 400 CI. Runs great, easy to tune, and no fuel leaks. It's the AFB style, which
is correct for some PONTIACs. I have mine on a Edelbrock manifold that I painted Pontiac blue,
but I also have an AFB manifold for my 400 that the Edelbrock will bolt into. I may switch to
it sometime this year. It's so dependable and smooth, holly carbs are only a distant memory. Go For It! I think I paid $280 for mine, and it came with a street/strip kit that included
different metering rods. The Edelbrock can be easily re-jetted without taking it off the
manifold. bill 66 GTO ------------- Subject: [GTO] Need a good Carb linkage lubrication that gasoline wont break down Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 09:11:11 CDT From: "bill odoherty" Looking for a good Carb linkage lubrication that gasoline wont break down. On my tri power center carb has a tendency to stick. I use WD-40 on it and it works great but
after the car has warmed up and been driven for about 20 min. it starts to stick slowly and
gets progressively worse. I spray where the throttle shaft goes trough the carb and this
usually helps allot, but just doesnít last. Bill6t5GTO Subject: RE: [GTO] Need a good Carb linkage lubrication that gasoline wont break down Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 10:14:35 -0400 From: "Collingwood, Mike" Bill: I use white lithium grease on my tri-power linkage. You can buy a can at any parts store.
Last forever. Good on hinges, etc. Mike Subject: [GTO] '68 Throttle cable? Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 16:11:45 GMT From: "Joshua Scholfield" Hey everybody. Anyone have any suggestions on where to pick up a throttle cable for a '68
LeMans? In typical Murphy's Law style mine decided to fray in the past week or so, and jammed
at WOT at the exact moment that I realized my electrical system and distributor repairs were
probably successful. BTW- the sooner I can get that cable the better. I will have to drive my
wife's car to work until I can the LeMans running, since it is my daily driver. Josh the StreetRod God Subject: Re: [GTO] '68 Throttle cable? Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 12:26:49 EDT From: LemansSport469 Replacement throttle cables are available through Performance years Bruce Subject: Re: [GTO] '68 Throttle cable? Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 09:38:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Brad Hill Instead of going with an original replacement part from Ames or PY I opted for a Lokar cable
last year. With the air cleaner on you can't tell it's not factory, but it works better than
the factory cable. IIRC the cable housing is Teflon or Goretex lined so there's less drag on
the cable. I got mine from Summit, can't remember what it cost but it was an universal cable
that I had to trim a little. No big deal though. ===== Brad '68 Ram Air GTO Subject: Re: [GTO] '68 Throttle cable? Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 18:51:08 EDT From: LemansSport469 Question: How did you attach the Lokar to the firewall? And how about the restraint at the
carb? Did you use stock at carb? I have changed to a dominator and I have "lost" the attachment
to the carb... :-( Bruce Subject: Re: [GTO] '68 Throttle cable? Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 06:20:19 GMT From: "Joshua Scholfield" Whoops! I found the cable in my trusty Year One catalog, where it had been hiding in plain
sight the first time I tried to find it ;-) At any rate, I ordered it this afternoon, and so it
should be here in 3 days. That means it's gonna be a whole 3 days and 20 minutes until the next
thing breaks ;-) Thanks for all the input, though. Josh the StreetRod God Subject: Re: [GTO] '68 Throttle cable? Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 06:16:37 -0500 (CDT) From: alan fanning << Hey everybody. Anyone have any suggestions on where to pick up a throttle cable for a
'68 LeMans? In typical Murphy's Law style mine decided >> I started looking around because I know that the one for the 67 Goat is not available and it
looks to me like the throttle cables that Lokar sells would work. They are universal and in
black or stainless. ALF Subject: Re: [GTO] '68 Throttle cable? Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 08:40:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Brad Hill I just ran the Lokar through the factory piece in the firewall and it fit fine. At the carb I
used the Lokar part and drilled it oversize just slightly. A new cotter pin on the carb and I
was running. The adjustable end went to the pedal. Took out the slack and trimmed it. Put some
Lock Tite on the set screw and cranked it down. Year and a half later still no problems. Subject: Re: [GTO] '68 Throttle cable? Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 18:08:55 -0500 From: Terry Nixon Al, I just bought one for a '67 from Year One. They stabbed me on the shipping--an incredible
$12.75--but it was either that or pull a wire through the hole in the dash with my hand...I was
too lazy to look anywhere else. Terry Subject: [GTO] More carb questions... please! Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 08:01:44 -0400 From: "Ron Lawrence" A few more carb questions if I may: 1. I really think I'm going to pick up an Edelbrock AFB. What would work better, a 600 or 750
CFM? 2. Can somebody explain how an electronic choke works? I currently have a manual choke setup,
will an electronic one be hard to setup? 3. Does anybody see any installation problems going from a Q-jet to an Edelbrock AFB (car is a
70 GTO, intake is an Edelbrock Performer-non-EGR). My current setup: 73 406, 73 4X heads, performer intake, cam: 214/224, .443/.465, 4 tube
headers, duel exhaust with X pipe. The rest is stock. Any help would be greatly appreciated, Ron Subject: Re: [GTO] More carb questions... please! Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 07:30:32 -0500 From: Phil Shaffer << 1. I really think I'm going to pick up an Edelbrock AFB. What would work better, a 600 or
750 CFM? >> I've got a 600 electric choke Edelbrock (1406 if memory serves) on my 400 and it seems to do
everything the car needs. I'm not really an expert on that, but I think 750 might be a bit of
overkill. As a side note, I ended up buying mine at AutoZone, they were a couple of dollars
cheaper than the parts houses and I didn't have to pay shipping or wait... << 2. Can somebody explain how an electronic choke works? I currently have a manual choke
setup, will an electronic one be hard to setup? >> Give it an electric feed, adjust it like any other choke, forget it. I'd have to check when I
get home, but I don't think there's even a sensor you have to hook up. << 3. Does anybody see any installation problems going from a Q-jet to an Edelbrock AFB (car
is a 70 GTO, intake is an Edelbrock Performer-non-EGR). >> The worst problem I had was trying to mount it to a normal intake without the correct adapter
(ran like crap with a Holley open adapter). It's a straight bolt-up on a performer intake. Phil Subject: RE: [GTO] More carb questions... please! Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 08:39:24 -0400 From: "Ron Lawrence" Thanks Phil. The 1406 is actually the one I'm considering. My one concern about the 600 CFM
is: would if be enough to feed a 455 if I decide on a future engine swap? Would "over carbing"
actually hurt my performance on my 400 if I'd go with a 750... anticipating a 455 in a few
years? Subject: RE: [GTO] More carb questions... please! Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 06:59:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Brad Hill << Thanks Phil. The 1406 is actually the one I'm considering. My one concern about the 600
CFM is: would if be enough to feed a 455 if I decide on a future engine swap? Would "over
carbing" actually hurt my performance on my 400 if I'd go with a 750... anticipating a 455 in a
few years? >> Go with the 750! You won't regret it on the 400 trust me. And there is no way that a 600 will
feed a 455. Subject: RE: [GTO] More carb questions... please! Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:48:13 -0400 From: "Ron Lawrence" I would like to thank everybody for their valuable input. I just ordered the 1411 750 CFM. I
might be a bit more then I need for the 400... but I REALLY plan on a 455 swap in a year or
two... Thanks again, Ron Subject: RE: [GTO] More carb questions... please! Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 11:12:28 CST From: "The Harper Valley P.T.A." The formula for determining maximum carburetor CFM is: [(max. RPM * CID)/3456] * volumetric efficiency VE for stock engines seems to be around .85; you're probably a little bit higher. FWIW, I
computed CFM for a 6000 RPM 400 and .90 VE and came up with 625. Brad Subject: Re: [GTO] More carb questions... please! Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:53:54 -0500 From: Phil Shaffer << I would like to thank everybody for their valuable input. I just ordered the 1411 750 CFM. I
might be a bit more then I need for the 400... but I REALLY plan on a 455 swap in a year or
two... Thanks again, Ron >> Good, then when you get tired of seeing that 400 sitting around, give me a call and I'll get it
out of your way... I've got a '67 Tempest that would just love that engine. :-) Phil Subject: RE: [GTO] More carb questions... please! Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 13:57:15 -0400 From: "Ron Lawrence" You'll be the first guy I call Phil! By that time I'll be so happy with the 455 maybe I'll give
it up for a case of beer :-) Ron Subject: Re: [GTO] More carb questions... please! Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 14:31:01 EDT From: Goats3 I have a 600 cfm Holley on a warmed over 400, and it seems to do a fine job. I would think a
750 jetted properly would do no harm. Kenny L: Subject: [GTO] Air Injection Reactor (A.I.R.) Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 21:08:28 -0400 From: "The Chebs" Spent some time today reading the owners manual for the 67 currently parked in the garage,
and came across a paragraph on page 45 that talks about the Air Injection Reactor and how the
AIR pump filter should be serviced every 12000 miles. Now, I will grant you that if this is
going to be done simply on a mileage basis, I have about 15 years or so before I theoretically
need to perform this job. But, I also have no idea when it was last performed, or indeed if it
was ever performed. Is this a task I should be concerned about? What are best and worst case scenarios if I
don't perform this? I don't remember reading about this in any other source. Kurt 67 Conv Subject: Re: [GTO] Air Injection Reactor (A.I.R.) Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 21:14:04 EDT From: Bobgoat67 Kurt, The Air Injection Reactor (air pump) was only used on California delivered cars in 1967. It is
essentially an air pump that pumps air into the exhaust system to reduce NOx. First of all, does your car have the AIR system? If it doesn't, then that section of the owners
manual doesn't apply to you and you don't need to worry about anything. Bob Subject: [GTO] Throttle Cable Tech Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 09:39:13 -0500 From: "Chris Bilich" The Pioneer CA-8502 (HiLo, $13.00) accelerator cable makes a WONDERFUL replacement for a broken
or too short (as in my case) cable on '72 LeMansí and the like. And, it's on the shelf....don't
have to order it! When I swapped my in the Q-jet in place of the 2bbl, the bracket on the
manifold was just a hair too far forward, and when the engine torques from side to side, I'm
sure it got worse. This cable has the factory ends for the bracket and firewall, and is a FOOT longer. Simply
clip off crimped cable end (near the acc. pedal), slip-off the firewall connector, cut the
tubing to the appropriate length, slip the firewall connector back on, insert the cable, crimp
on an aluminum ferrule crimp-thing (hardware store, $0.49), trim cable, and tear @ss!! Chris Subject: [GTO] rebuild Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 23:36:46 -0400 From: "jharakal" Hello to all, Q-jet needs rebuild, Iím thinking of sending it to Perf-Yrs. Has any one on the
list tried their services? Any pros and cons? thanks......jbh Subject: [GTO] q-jet Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 06:19:03 -0400 From: "jharakal" Hello to all, this is a re-post asking about re-building a Q-jet off of 67 GTO, 400, auto. Iím
might send it to Performance Years, has anyone tried their service? Any pros an cons...?
Thank you ...jbh Subject: Re: [GTO] rebuild Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 00:34:07 EDT From: Vanmor YO, Check this months issue of HOT ROD. More than you wanted to know about Q-JETS. They are
really a good simple carb once you understand how they work. Check out this article. Vance 68 HT Subject: RE: [GTO] q-jet Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:42:50 -0400 From: "P. Cunningham" Do it yourself. They are no more complex then putting a good model together. Most quality carb
rebuild kits include step by step instructions. Word of advise on Q-Jets. Pay very careful
attention to the piston that the metering rods attach to. It tends to stick and cause problems.
Another area is the expansion plugs at the bottom of the metering jet wells. They tended to
leak. Also pay close attention to the Styrofoam float. GM blew it with the material it used for
these and they sometimes became saturated and did not work right. Unlike brass floats you can't
shake them to listen for gas sloshing inside. We used to have to weigh them. My experience has
been that most performance, flooding, leaking or fuel economy problems are rooted in those few
areas. Phil C. Subject: RE: [GTO] q-jet Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 13:53:06 PDT From: "Jim Ozolins" I am convinced, what is a good quality carb kit for the Q-jet? And where should I try to find
it? Recommend reading the current HOT ROD mag, as another lister suggested. Big article (big
for HOT ROD) on the Q-jet. Subject: Re: [GTO] q-jet Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 00:11:05 +0000 From: Rick Mokris << I bought a Borg Warner kit for my AFB from the local auto parts store. It seems okay. The print on the instruction sheet looks a little small, but maybe it my eyes.
The key to getting the correct kit is NOT ordering it by application, use the carburetor number
instead. >> I used a Borg Warner kit on the last Q-jet I rebuilt as well. I got it at Pep Boys....used the
carb number, not the application. IIRCC, it cost about $17. The float was another $8-10. The
biggest problem is reassembling the airhorn. It seems to require about 8 hands and a lot of
patience. The 73 Pontiac Shop Manual I have has about a dozen pages of detailed disassembly/
reassembly photos that I found invaluable. Rick M. 66 GTO Tri-power/4spd 73 GP Model J http://www.goatsgarage.com Classic GTO Roadtests, GTO Magazine Ads, GTO Games, GTO Wallpaper/Screenaver, My Cars and More! Subject: RE: [GTO] q-jet Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:45:58 -0400 From: "P. Cunningham" I bought a Borg Warner kit for my AFB from the local auto parts store. It seems okay. The print
on the instruction sheet looks a little small, but maybe it my eyes. The key to getting the
correct kit is NOT ordering it by application, use the carburetor number instead. If you don't
have the tag anymore, most Q-jets had the number stamped on the left side running vertically
near one of the rear bolts (sometimes is was only the last 5 numbers and you have to add "70"
to the beginning of it. Another manufacturer of kits that used to specialize in Quadrajet stuff
was TOMCO. I don't know if they are in business anymore. If they are, you should try to use
their stuff. It was good. Subject: Re: [GTO] q-jet Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 03:08:23 EDT From: GoatmanPaulC << The biggest problem is reassembling the airhorn. It seems to require about 8 hands and a lot
of patience. The 73 Pontiac Shop Manual I have has about a dozen pages of detailed disassembly
/reassembly photos that I found invaluable. >> Remove the screw holding the rear metering rods and pull the rods off and install them after
the air horn is on. Also, I install the choke rod after the air horn is on. I have a tiny screw
driver I bent the tip on to remove the dowel pin [from the inward out] holding the accelerator
pump arm on and removing these things makes it very easy to install the air horn. Goatman Subject: Re: [GTO] rebuild Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 03:02:19 -0400 From: "jharakal" I hope it looks and runs well, if so Iíll send them mine, keep us posted.....jbh << I'm still waiting for mine to come back from them. It should be very soon I hope. I'll let
everyone know how it looks. As for how it runs, it's gonna be a few weeks 'cause I gotta get it
towed to finish the exhaust. CB >> Subject: Re: [GTO] 1972 used valley pan Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 02:37:42 EDT From: GoatmanPaulC << I have one for a 1970 all hot tanked and painted up, if you reply by the morning and you are
going to the Tiger Run in Bend Oregon, I will bring it with me.... or send it to you. >> 72 needs a deeper sump than what the 70 has. It's for the EGR intake to fit. Unless he's running a non-egr intake. Goatman Subject: Re: [GTO] 1972 used valley pan Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 07:17:01 CST From: "The Harper Valley P.T.A." << 72 needs a deeper sump than what the 70 has. It's for the EGR intake to fit. Unless he's
running a non-egr intake. >> EGR wasn't introduced until 1973... Brad Subject: Re: [GTO] 1972 used valley pan Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 17:09:46 -0500 From: Terry Nixon It was '73 that had the first EGR. That's why '72 is a great manifold to have (I hate saying
this)--it's the only one that has the early divorced choke and the later small crossover hole
on both sides. Terry Subject: Re: [GTO] 1972 used valley pan Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 02:55:56 EDT From: GoatmanPaulC << It was '73 that had the first EGR. That's why '72 is a great manifold to have (I hate saying
this)--it's the only one that has the early divorced choke and the later small crossover hole
on both sides. Terry >> Sorry, my mistake. Thought it was 72. Goatman Subject: [GTO] signif of incorrect carb number? Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:13:08 PDT From: "Jim Ozolins" My 68 GTO with automatic trans has a Quadrajet with ALMOST the correct carb number on it. The
last digit is not right. According to my service manual it has the carb for the full-size
Pontiac. How different is this carb from the one I should have?? I understand that the Q-jet is
a very finely-tuned unit for each application. I do not have the actual numbers with me now, but all digits match the service manual code
except the last one. I think I have a "2" and need an "8". Appreciate all info. Jim Ozolins, 68 YS Coupe, Cameo Ivory. Subject: Re: [GTO] signif of incorrect carb number? Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:33:29 -0500 (CDT) From: edraden Jim, If you give me the two carb numbers, I can tell you what the differences are. I was recently
given an immense GM Delco carb book and it has all the part numbers for all of the components
and together with the "Rochester Carburetor" book you can determine what the jet and rod part
numbers mean in terms of size. I can probably do it even without the numbers, since it does
have application info too. Ed '68 GTO '62 GP Subject: RE: [GTO] signif of incorrect carb number? Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:21:46 CST From: "The Harper Valley P.T.A." The most likely differences are primary rods and jets, secondary rods, and the power piston
spring. I'll see if I can find some specific details tonight. Brad Subject: RE: [GTO] signif of incorrect carb number? Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:52:58 -0400 From: CharlesB Hey all, I read an article in the 7/88 issue of Muscle Car Review (along with a couple of other print
sources) which explain how to identify GM Rochester carbs, & 1 particular item pointed
throughout was that the even # for the last digit which would be 8 meant auto trans & that the
odd # 3 would stand for man trans apps., but it only mentioned those 2 #'s in particular. It
didn't mention anything about the last digit being anything other than 3 or 8 specifically.
Therefore, whenever I go to meets & see carbs that end in a 2 or whatever, I don't know what
it's supposed to mean to me. If the last # signifies anything other than the type of trans
(such as the car model/make in particular) then I don't remember that being pointed out
anywhere. Does anyone know if that's the case with the last digit? It would be good to know
while browsing the big places like Englishtown & Carlisle. P.S. I still have an orig. condition 7028263 if anyone needs it. As far as, I can tell, it's
never been messed with, & I've had it for about 12 years now just sitting in a box. It was on
an orig. 92k mile running car which I owned once. I took it off when I got rid of the car about
10 years ago (thanks to the old lady who reared me while sitting at a red light who kinked both
my 1/4's. Funny how there were absolutely no screeching sounds or skid marks whatsoever. And
they worry about the single male?) Then there's the lady who's driving an '82 blazer with a 4" lift who for whatever reason felt
she needed to come completely head-on style into my lane while making a right turn because she
must've felt the required turning radius was that comparable to a Freightliner, then there's
the idiot pool in general driving those damn blasted minivans & SUV's who are completely
oblivious to what's on the other 3 sides of them & can't judge side spacing to save there lives
(or mine it seems), then there's..... Oops - there I go on a tangent again. Whew. CB Subject: RE: [GTO] signif of incorrect carb number? Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:07:12 -0400 From: CharlesB I'm sure of the 3 & the 8 thing, but only till '74. (At least '72 - which is as high as I've
ever needed to look). I've read/heard that any carb that starts with a 1 is either '75 & up or
simply denotes 'service replacement'. I'm still not clear on that. But, if I need anything,
it's gonna be pre-'73 anyway. CB Subject: RE: [GTO] signif of incorrect carb number? Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:00:25 CST From: "The Harper Valley P.T.A." << I read an article in the 7/88 issue of Muscle Car Review (along with a couple of other print
sources) which explain how to identify GM Rochester carbs, & 1 particular item pointed
throughout was that the even # for the last digit which would be 8 meant auto trans & that the
odd # 3 would stand for man trans apps, but it only mentioned those 2 #'s in particular. It
didn't mention anything about the last digit being anything other than 3 or 8 specifically.
Therefore whenever I go to meets & see carbs that end in a 2 or whatever, I don't know what
it's supposed to mean to me. If the last # signifies anything other than the type of trans
(such as the car model/make in particular) then I don't remember that being pointed out
anywhere. Does anyone know if that's the case with the last digit? It >> *Most* of the time an odd last digit signifies a manual transmission-application and an even
digit an automatic. There are, however, exceptions. For example, my deceased '77 Blazer had a
17057229 Q-Jet and an automatic transmission. I was unaware that 3 is always manual and 8 is
always automatic. Brad Subject: RE: [GTO] signif of incorrect carb number? Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 08:26:12 -0700 (MST) From: James or Ellen Thompson << I'm sure of the 3 & the 8 thing, but only till '74. (At least '72 - which is as high as I've
ever needed to look). I've read/heard that any carb that starts with a 1 is either '75 & up or
simply denotes 'service replacement'. I'm still not clear on that. But if I need anything, it's
gonna be pre-'73 anyway. CB >> I just happen to be rebuilding a Quadrajet for my daughter's Firebird and I have all my books
out. According to McCarthy's book, these are the meanings of the various numbers: *first two numbers, 70, denote GM production series for Rochester products *third number is a time period code: 2=pre-1970, 3=pre-1970 with operational A.I.R., 4=1970-74,
5=1975-79 *4th digit signifies last digit of model year (e.g., 8=1968). Beginning in 1976, however, they
added a "1" to the front of the 7-digit code to make it an 8-digit code and make it possible to
distinguish those made in the first ten years from those made later. *fifth digit, 2=federal, 5=CA *6th and 7th digits = GM application codes by division. Pontiac's numbers were 60-79. Odd
numbers = manual, even numbers = automatic. In general, the higher the number, the more
performance-oriented the carb, except higher than 73 were usually smog or altitude applications. The book was written in 1989, so there may be more refined information out there, but in my
limited experience, it has proven correct. Jim Subject: [GTO] incorrect carburetor number Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:20:11 PDT From: "Jim Ozolins" OK, here is the real scoop: My present carb is a Q-jet 4MV, number 7028262 VC. My manual says for my application,(400 AT GTO), I need a 7028268. My question is this, how wrong is this carb? I really want an excuse to get the correct one.
For performance reasons only. And the present carb. is no doubt packed with gunk since it sat for a few years with fuel in it
(DOH!). thanks for the sage advice. Jim Ozolins Subject: RE: [GTO] incorrect carburetor number Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:29:45 CST From: "The Harper Valley P.T.A." << My present carb is a Q-jet 4MV, number 7028262 VC. My manual says for my application,(400 AT GTO), I need a 7028268. My question is this, how wrong is this carb? I really want an excuse to get the correct one.
For performance reasons only. >> According to my Delco documentation the airhorn, bowl casting, primary jets, and throttle body
assembly are different. Jets on the 268 are simply 1 size up (73 vs. 72). I really don't see
any strong reason why the 262 couldn't be set up to match a 268 in terms of factory performance. I'd like to know why the physical body of the carb (airhorn, bowl casting, throttle body) is
different, though. << And the present carb. is no doubt packed with gunk since it sat for a few years with fuel in
it (DOH!). >> Obviously it's completely worthless. You should send it to me. ;^) Brad Subject: Re: [GTO] incorrect carburetor number Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:45:57 -0500 From: Terry Nixon Brad, did you misread the columns in your book, maybe? I show the same jets at 73, but
different rods: 43 on a 262 and 42 on a 268. This is not a very big difference, and besides,
the odd-size rods are no longer available. The difference in float bowl part numbers and
whatnot can probably be attributed to specific metering-orifice sizing. I will say this also:
Jim, unless you're very lucky or prepared to pay well, you will NEVER see a carb with a number
as close as you have now. They're all just...gone. Terry Subject: Re: [GTO] incorrect carburetor number Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:37:03 -0500 From: "Ed Raden" Jim, Per my book, the 7028262 carb is "1968 Pontiac & Tempest V-8 400 & 428 Engines, Standard Auto
Trans". This is the correct carb for a YS code 400. The 7028268 carb is the "Hi Perf Auto Trans"
which is for an HO with automatic (YZ engine code) rather than the standard YS code engine. Per
the book the only differences are the primary metering rods, the float bowl assembly, the
throttle body assembly and the air horn assembly. I could not find any explanation as to how
these assembly parts are different. The assemblies appeared to be the base parts without any of
the other parts listed for that portion of the carb. The primary rods are 7031843 for the YS
engine code with an "A" diameter of .043" and 7031842 for the YZ engine code automatic (HO
400) carb with an "A" diameter of .042". The "A" diameter is the diameter of the straight part
of the rod above the taper. All rods have a .026" tip. They use the same secondary rods and
primary jets. On the stick carbs the WT code engine and the HO only differ by the primary metering rods and
throttle body assembly. The stick carbs use the same air horn assembly and float bowl assembly. I hope this helps. Ed Subject: Re: [GTO] incorrect carburetor number Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:13:11 CST From: "The Harper Valley P.T.A." << Brad, did you misread the columns in your book, maybe? I show the same jets at 73, but
different rods: 43 on a 262 and 42 on a 268. This is not a very big >> You're absolutely correct; I read the numbers and managed to transfer the size difference from
the rods to the jets. << specific metering-orifice sizing. I will say this also: Jim, unless you're very lucky or
prepared to pay well, you will NEVER see a carb with a number as close as you have now. They're
all just...gone. >> Agreed. The amount of money it would take to get a "correct" 268 would pay for a quality custom
rebuild of the 262 and still leave enough left over to take me and Terry out for pizza. ;^) Brad Subject: Re: [GTO] incorrect carburetor number Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:08:28 -0500 (CDT) From: alan fanning << Brad, did you misread the columns in your book, maybe? I show the same jets at 73, but
different rods: 43 on a 262 and 42 on a 268. This is not a very big difference, and besides,
the odd-size rods are no longer available. The difference in float bowl part numbers and
whatnot can probably be attributed to specific metering-orifice sizing. I will say this also:
Jim, unless you're very lucky or prepared to pay well, you will NEVER see a carb with a number
as close as you have now. They're all just...gone. >> Actually, a guy named Kevin Yash in Michigan had some a while ago...he advertises in The Legend
and Smokes, I can get his number if you're interested...I bought one...and it was exactly as
advertised....brand new 1968 HO Q-Jet still in the shrink wrap and box....a little pricey but
if you have to have it...you have to have it. ALF Subject: Re: [GTO] incorrect carburetor number Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:03:55 PDT From: "Jim Ozolins" Good, great, fantastic... if I rebuild the carb that I have on there now, I will be OK. I just
wanted to be sure that I didn't have a mismatch that would hinder performance. thanks for the info. Also: What's the best carb kit to buy??? Any war stories rebuilding the Q_Jet?? thanks Jim Subject: Re: [GTO] incorrect carburetor number Date: Tue Jun 27 16:06:22 2000 From: JAYBAKS As long as you have the book out.... Can you look up a 1970 YC 455 HO Feb. production with
Automatic and AC. I am also looking for a distributor # any help is appreciated. thanks, jay Subject: Re: [GTO] incorrect carburetor number Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 18:24:59 -0500 From: Terry Nixon YC should be a 7040268 (same as YA). Both codes appear together in many lists. No idea what
exact change was made to change the engine code. Distributor is 1112012. Terry Subject: Re: [GTO] incorrect carburetor number Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 22:46:10 -0500 From: "Ed Raden" I'm finding the YC as the auto 455, 360 hp engine code & WA as the manual 455, 360 hp engine
code. I also found the carbs to be 7040268 for the YC and 7040267 for the WA. The distributors
I found were 1111105 for the YC and 1112012 for the WA. FWIW... Ed Subject: [GTO] Q-Jet ID needed Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:51:56 EDT From: RAMAIR406 The 7 digit number on the side reads 7029261. Any help in decoding this is appreciated thanks -- scott Subject: Re: [GTO] Q-Jet ID needed Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 07:28:28 EDT From: GTOPAUL << The 7 digit number on the side reads 7029261. Any help in decoding this is appreciated
thanks -- scott >> 1969 Pontiac 250 cu OHC-6 w/auto and manual trans. Yes, it's a 4bbl. Paul Subject: Re: [GTO] Q-Jet ID needed Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:31:00 EDT From: GTOPAUL << 1969 Pontiac 250 cu OHC-6 w/auto and manual trans. Yes, it's a 4bbl. >> Whoops, meant to say with A/C and manual trans. Paul Subject: Re: [GTO] Q-Jet ID needed Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:45:06 EDT From: RAMAIR406 Carbs suppose to be a 750 cfm. That possible????? Subject: Re: [GTO] Q-Jet ID needed Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 10:09:00 EDT From: GTOPAUL << Carbs suppose to be a 750 cfm. That possible????? >> To the best of my knowledge that's the smallest Quadrajet offered. It was probably calibrated
leaner for the six cylinder. For those that might be interested I usually look the carbs up at http://www.blake.com/oemcarbs . Look under parts. He has them listed by manufacturer. Paul Subject: Re: [GTO] Q-Jet ID needed Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:05:27 EDT From: GoatmanPaulC << 1969 Pontiac 250 cu OHC-6 w/auto and manual trans. Yes, it's a 4bbl. Whoops, meant to say with A/C and manual trans. Paul >> I thought that maybe it came with a 4 speed in the trunk, you know, kinda like the RamAir pans
in the trunk of the 65 GTO's! HA! Goatman Subject: RE: [GTO] Q-jet ID needed Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 18:24:58 EDT From: RAMAIR406 Any chance of it being a 750 carb? Is it indeed rare? Worth anything? Subject: Re: [GTO] Q-jet ID needed Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 01:23:10 EDT From: GoatmanPaulC << Any chance of it being a 750 carb? Is it indeed rare? Worth anything? >> Actually there were quite a few of those 6's built with a 4 bbl. I have seen more 4 bbl ones
than 1 bbl. They came in Tempest's, LeMans, and Firebirds from about 67-69 [don't quote me].
Unfortunately, a great many of these engines went to the scrap yard as parts were hard to come
by for them. Goatman Subject: [GTO] carb question for brad olson Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 12:07:04 EDT From: RAMAIR406 Hey! Whatís up? Goatman says to talk to you about my Q-jet. From running the numbers I come up
with a Q-jet from a 69 OHC6 car. Any good?? Also, itís "suppose" to be a 750 and the guy says
Q-jets were only made 750 or higher?????? Well its got 72 jets, 428 primary rods and BE
secondary rods. Whatís all this mean and is it sufficient for a 406, 041 cam????? thanks-- scott oh and the carb numbers are 7029261 if you wanna double check it Subject: Re: [GTO] carb question for brad olson Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 12:29:04 EDT From: GTOPAUL << Hey! Whatís up? Goatman says to talk to you about my Q-jet. From running the numbers I come
up with a Q-jet from a 69 OHC6 car. Any good?? Also, itís "suppose" to be a 750 and the guy
says Q-jets were only made 750 or higher?????? Well its got 72 jets, 428 primary rods and BE
secondary rods. Whatís all this mean and is it sufficient for a 406, 041 cam????? thanks-- scott oh and the carb numbers are 7029261 if you wanna double check it >> Scott, I don't think this would work on your 400 with 041 cam. The primary metering rods
(42B's) and jets are pretty lean. You can always change the rods, jets, and metering spring but
that's not all that's required. The air bleeds in a quad are pretty much tailored for each
application. I bet yours are pretty small. You can send it off and have it custom built to make
it work but quads for 400's are all over the place. Just buy a $25 core and built it yourself.
It'll work much better than what you have. Paul Subject: [GTO] 70 Quadrajet choke pull-off Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 11:38:04 -0400 From: "David Campbell" Can somebody that has restored a 70 GTO tell me where they found a choke pull-off? I tried NAPA
and the one that they ordered for me did not match. I have the original 7040264 Quadrajet, the
previous owner put on a plastic pull-off without the second port going to the vacuum canister.
Was 1970 the only year that used an additional vacuum canister for the secondary delay? I have
seen other years use a spring delay for this. Performance Years and Ames do not have them, so I thought I would try the list. Thanks in
advance. Dave Campbell 70 GTO Convertible Subject: RE: [GTO] 70 Quadrajet choke pull-off Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 11:16:35 CST From: "The Harper Valley P.T.A." << Can somebody that has restored a 70 GTO tell me where they found a choke pull-off? I tried
NAPA and the one that they ordered for me did not match. I have the original 7040264 Quadrajet,
the previous owner put on >> According to my AC Delco documentation the original p/n for the front "vacuum break control
assembly" is 7026214. I didn't find any reference to a rear vacuum break. Try
http://www.partsvoice.com or your local GM dealers... Brad Subject: RE: [GTO] 70 Quadrajet choke pull-off Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:33:21 -0400 From: CharlesB What's a choke pull-off? And is the vacuum break assembly that 5 port unit that's on the right front of the intake? CB '69 YS Subject: RE: [GTO] 70 Quadrajet choke pull-off Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:39:59 CST From: "Maj. Frank Burns" << What's a choke pull-off? And is the vacuum break assembly that 5 port unit that's on the
right front of the intake? >> The choke pull-off is the same thing as the vacuum break assembly found at the front passenger
side of a Q-Jet. Some Q-Jets also have a vacuum break at the rear. When vacuum's applied the
linkage attached to the break is retracted and this usually affects something else - best to
observe each particular Q-Jet and see how the vacuum break affects the choke and secondary
linkages. The TVS (Thermal Vacuum Switch) is the multi-port thingy that fits into the intake. It operates
based on coolant temperature - it's primarily an emissions device. Brad Subject: [GTO] Carb part number Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 08:55:04 -0400 From: Richard H Winkles I have a question some of you experts may be able to answer for a friend of mine. He has a 1970
Ram Air III Trans Am 4-speed and his carb part number is 7040263. All of the literature I have
read says that RAIII manuals should have 7040273 (for sure if a GTO) but someone in the TA club
told him that 263 is correct for Birds. Which carb is correct for his application? He wants to make sure his car is correct and get the right carb if needed. Any input is appreciated. Dick Winkles 1970 RA IU GTO Subject: RE: [GTO] Carb part number Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 22:17:40 CST From: "Maj. Frank Burns" << mine. He has a 1970 Ram Air III Trans Am 4-speed and his carb part number is 7040263. All of
the literature I have read says that RAIII manuals should have 7040273 (for sure if a GTO) but
someone in the TA club told him that 263 is correct for birds. Which carb is correct for his
application? >> McCarthy's "55-79" book shows 263 for the 400/330 and 273 for the 400/345 (RA III) and 400/370
(RA IV). The same holds true for the GTO. My official AC Delco carburetor bulletins support
this. Brad Subject: [GTO] Carb ID for 7028212 Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 10:55:10 -0700 From: "Sebesta, Keith" Can Someone ID a carb number 7028212. Thanks, KeithS Subject: RE: [GTO] Carb ID for 7028212 Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:59:28 CST From: "Maj. Frank Burns" << Can Someone ID a carb number 7028212.>> 1968 Chevy 327/275 w/AT. Camaro/Nova for sure, not sure about other lines. Brad Subject: [GTO] Carb size for a 455 question Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 13:58:06 CDT From: "bill odoherty" Iím currently rebuilding a 455 /.30 over, light weight pistons, semi mild cam, and 87 cc E
heads. Do you guys think that a Holley 850 dbl. pumper is to much carb for this setup? Subject: Re: [GTO] Carb size for a 455 question Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 22:20:57 -0700 From: "jamesback" Bill, I'm running a 750 Holley on my 455. I'm very happy with the way it works, and think an 850
might be a bit much. I would like to try an 800 DP, as soon as I can find one, but I expect to
lose a little bit of bottom end power in doing so. I tried an 800 Q-Jet and didn't think it
made as much power as the 750. Mine is a std. 455, 6X-4 heads, 041 RA IV cam, Edelbrock
Performer intake, and 4 tube headers. I am very happy with the combination. It's in a 66 GTO,
M21, and 3.90 gears. Jim Subject: [GTO] '69 GTO Carb Adj. Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 22:06:13 -0400 From: "roman" Hey folks. I just had my carb rebuilt, re-installed it and it works fine. I need to know though,
what the timing should be set at and what the idle speed should be. Seems to be running a
little high and rough. Can anyone help? Roman '69 GTO Toronto, Canada Subject: Re: [GTO] '69 GTO Carb Adj. Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 08:52:44 -0700 From: rickgto << Hey folks. I just had my carb rebuilt, re-installed it and it works fine. I need to know
though, what the timing should be set at and what the idle speed should be. Seems to be running
a little high and rough. Can anyone help? Roman '69 GTO Toronto, Canada >> Need to know what you have first. Stock 400? Auto? Stick? Cam? Rick Subject: RE: [GTO] '69 GTO Carb Adj. Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 11:54:00 -0400 From: "roman" Ahh, sorry about that. I have a 400, auto, original cam Subject: Re: [GTO] '69 GTO Carb Adj. Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 12:33:07 -0700 From: rickgto 9 BTDC with vac.. to distributor off and plugged. Idle 650-700 in gear. Rick Subject: [GTO] Carb decipher Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 15:38:39 -0600 Okay, since everyone is good at this I have a Roch #7028276, which I decipher as 68 Pontiac AT.
Can anyone tell me what the cfm is? Thanks, Dan Subject: Re: [GTO] Carb decipher Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 18:54:05 -0400 CHILTON Sez: (I know they're wrong allot!) It's a 68 auto 400 RA FB only, no cfm given. NOW, and I'm surprised no one has mentioned it, Muscle Car Review November 2000 tested a 69 TA
RAIII to determine if Pontiac under rated it's HP, which they concluded was accurate. The
article claims that "Firebird carbs had a throttle limiter installed ...thereby lowering their
HP rating" Sounds like a rare carb, probably bring a bundle on E-BAY. Jim E. Subject: RE: [GTO] Carb decipher Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 20:11:58 CST << Okay, since everyone is good at this I have a Roch #7028276, which I decipher as 68 Pontiac
AT. Can anyone tell me what the cfm is? >> '68 Firebird 400/335 w/AT (RA I). This would be a 750 cfm Q-Jet as the 800 wasn't introduced
until 1971 (per Doug Roe). Brad Subject: Re: [GTO] Carb decipher Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 00:18:38 EDT << CHILTON Sez: (I know they're wrong allot!) It's a 68 auto 400 RA FB only, no cfm given. NOW, and I'm surprised no one has mentioned it, Muscle Car Review November 2000 tested a 69 TA
RAIII to determine if Pontiac under rated it's HP, which they concluded was accurate. The
article claims that "Firebird carbs had a throttle limiter installed ...thereby lowering their
HP rating" Sounds like a rare carb, probably bring a bundle on E-BAY. Jim E. >> Jim, the throttle limiter they speak of is only a little more bend in the linkage that opens
the secondaries. You can easily bend it so the throttle plates open all the way. I do this on
all the Q-jets I rebuild cause I've found several that don't open all the way up. Goatman Subject: Re: [GTO] Carb decipher Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:20:49 -0500 I can't see my Doug Roe Rochester book right this minute, but I believe he states that the
throttle-stopped Q-jets ran about 575 CFM. A normal one is supposed to be 750, and some (not
many) are 800. Terry Subject: [GTO] carb decipher Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 21:41:07 -0500 Is there a list on someoneís web page with all the codes for carbs??? Going to Jefferson to
look for a carb would like to know what I'm buying. There was a 68 Ram Air carb at Woodward
Tigers show brand new for 350.00. But I burnt up most of my money on gas on the dream cruise. Subject: Re: [GTO] carb decipher Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 19:46:21 PDT Check out http://www.wallaceracing.com they have a list of carb numbers on their website. Subject: Re: [GTO] carb decipher Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 00:32:10 EDT << Is there a list on someoneís web page with all the codes for carbs??? Going to Jefferson to
look for a carb would like to know what I'm buying. There was a 68 Ram Air carb at Woodward
Tigers show brand new for 350.00. But I burnt up most of my money on gas on the dream cruise. daryl68ragtop >> I have a list of GTO carb #'s at GTO Carburetors Carburetors on our website. Goatman G.O.A.T. OFFERINGS G.O.A.T. OFFERINGS Subject: [GTO] Quadrajet Carb Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:54:41 -0400 I am looking for some help with my Quadra jet 4bbl carb. I have a '69 GTO and have had the carb
re-built. What I am looking for, is the proper routing of the various vacuum hoses going to the
carb. In laymen's terms, I need to know which hose goes to what. The reason is, that I am not
sure that the hoses were properly routed from the beginning. Can anyone help? Roman '69 GTO By the way, it's a '69 400, auto trans. Subject: RE: [GTO] Quadrajet Carb Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 13:11:39 -0400 Hmmm.. I need the same thing myself if you come across anything handy for this. Gotta piece
mine back together too. BTW, nice car. CB '69 GTO 400/350 hp auto trans. Subject: RE: [GTO] Quadrajet Carb Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 19:27:00 -0400 So far, not too much luck. I am still searching and when I find it, I will let you know. Roman Subject: RE: [GTO] Quadrajet Carb Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 18:50:33 CST Roman, do you have a 1969 Service Manual? My experience has been that they can't be beat for
vacuum and wiring diagrams, and when people see it on your bookshelf they'll know you're not
just another Pontiac wannabe. ;^) Brad PS It's even more impressive if it's paired with the Fisher Body Service Manual. ;^) Subject: RE: [GTO] Quadrajet Carb Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 20:06:28 -0400 No, I don't have either of those. Any idea where I can get them? Subject: RE: [GTO] Quadrajet Carb Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 19:22:34 CST Most of the resto vendors carry reprints and Hemmings Motor News has an entire classification
devoted to literature (as well as the Pontiac parts sections). I have factory manuals for my
'78 T/A and '72 Blazer as well as Chilton and Haynes guides, and the factory books kick butt.
;^) I probably have $100+ invested in factory manuals and it's money that's been well-spent. Brad Subject: RE: [GTO] Quadrajet Carb Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 23:13:29 -0400 Well, I have an answer to the carb and vacuum hose question. Charles B, get back to me with the year of your car and I can help you with the hoses. roman Subject: RE: [GTO] Quadrajet Carb Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 06:25:06 -0500 (CDT) I've found that a couple of well placed grease stains add tons of authenticity to your Pontiac
mechanic reputation! ALF Subject: RE: [GTO] Quadrajet Carb vacuum line setup Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:51:11 -0400 '69 GTO 400/350 hp auto trans all factory parts. I also have the '69 Service Manual at home.
Brain just skipped a beat & I forgot. Too many computer related work thought in front of my
brain. But, if you have anything else handy it'll sure be appreciated. Thanks CB (Computer Boy) Subject: RE: [GTO] Quadrajet Carb vacuum line setup Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 08:55:25 -0400 I take it then that you have a Q-jet carb? Looking at the carb from the front (firewall is behind the carb) you will see 2 nipples on the
front of the carb. The one on the drivers side is connected to your transmission, the one on
the drivers side should be sealed off. There is a 3rd nipple underneath which is hooked into
the choke pull off. At the back, you should have something that looks like a "y". It is thicker that the other
nipples. The thicker side gets hooked into your brake cylinder ands the thinner one, which
branches off from the thicker tube, get s hooked to the advance on the distributor. I hope that you can understand the above, if not let me know and I'll try to clarify. Roman Subject: [GTO] Demon Carbs?? Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 20:51:13 -0500 Does anyone know or hear any good or bad about Demon carbs looking at a 750 for my 400 auto????
TIA daryl68ragtop Subject: RE: [GTO] Demon Carbs?? Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 22:02:51 -0500 A friend of mine installed a demon on his 69' GTO, 455 cu. he seems to like it. It was pretty
much a bolt-on. He tried Rochesterís and Holleys, but the Demon seems to be the best so far.
His 455 clocked in at 310 HP (at the wheels) on the dyno this week. bill 66 GTO Subject: Re: [GTO] Demon Carbs?? Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 21:58:40 EDT It will easily be the BEST carb you have ever run. It will improve idle, throttle response, and
top end power. Basically it will be better all around. I use to run the 1025 CFM Barry Grant
Gold Claw, which is basically the Demon w/out the cool curves. And let me tell you the only
thing even close is a professionally built carb, such as a Chuck Nytter, Carb Shop, Barry Grant,
ect,,,,, A stock Holley can't even begin to compare. The only thing is the price, for me the choice was
simple, it's the best I got it. But some people don't weigh performance as heavily as I do. If
it's w/in your budget, get it, it's money well spent. I believe Summit/Jegs carry them, wish I
did. Also, they are built much better than a Holley. The base is much thicker, good for those of us
who over tighten things. Those of you who have broken a Holley base plate by over tightening
know what I am talking about. Finally, I would strongly suggest getting the version w/removable venturis, this way you can
always step up the performance later for a minimal cost, versus needing a completely new carb. Basically my over all impression of them is good, and well worth the money. PS: It also has a very HIGH, "Ohhh look at that!" value on cruise night. Joey Subject: [GTO] PHR and Demon Carb Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:28:24 -0500 (CDT) From: "Alan L. Fanning" The latest issue of Popular Hot Rodding has a piece about a "new" Demon carb called the 850
Annular...not sure if I spelled annular right as its not right in front of me, but...the idea
is that it is a carb meant for large cubic inch, lower rpm motors. The article mentions the
502/502 crate motor of another GM division but I'm wondering if this carb isn't exactly what
the doctor ordered for a large displacement, low rpm motor like say a 455 Pontiac! Anyone else
see it? ALF Subject: Re: [GTO] PHR and Demon Carb Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:08:34 -0700 From: J Tatum << a "new" Demon carb called the 850 Annular... the idea is that it is a carb meant for large cubic inch, lower rpm motors. The article
mentions the 502/502 crate motor of another GM division but I'm wondering if this carb isn't
exactly what the doctor ordered for a large displacement, low rpm motor like say a 455 Pontiac!
Anyone else see it? ALF >> No, I did not see the article, but the annular discharge nozzle will give you better fuel
atomization at a lower cfm draw through the venturi. That is what I suspect they mean by large
displacement low rpm application. Still all in all, 850 CFM seems a bit much to me for street
use on a 455 CI engine that spends most of it's day at a routine rpm level. I would opt for the
750 CFM and possibly even smaller carb to retain fuel mileage and at least some performance
gain. Again, it depends upon the application and normal rpm of the motor in any given engine
application. CFM is CFM (cubic feet of airflow through the engine per minute). The higher the
rpm or the larger the engine the more CFM it will pump. One of the major sins of the street
rodder outside of over camming an engine is to over carburate one. Either solution leads to
poor throttle response, poor fuel mileage, and in general an engine that does not live up to
it's true potential in "off the line" reaction times. Jim Back to TECH Subjects

Back to the Site Map