Rochester QuadraJet vs Edelbrock QJet

[ebry710]

My QuadraJet on my 350 is held together with wire and creatively engineered parts. I works but not great. I have always like the old QuadraJet because of its small primary and the distance of travel before the secondaries kick in.

So do I buy a new Edelbrock or find a rebuildable Rochester? Or is there another better option?

I went to the auto parts shop today and looked at the Edelbrock. It did not seem to be as well constructed as the Rochester.



HEI and air cleaner are coming. Once air cleaner is in she'll get a bath.

[68gmsee]

Uh, oh... time again...

fyi: you will find some people that hate the quadrajet and some that love it. I'm one of those that like it. I didn't say love it, because it's one of the most difficult ones to learn to work on. However, once they're tuned properly and everything working right, they are super carburetors.

[huero]

Edelbrock is a wanna-be quadrajet.

[slikside]

Very interested in this discussion as I am similarly affected. Don't hold back. Lets have it!!

[gary2232]

Q Jets are a great carb. But they are not easy to rebuild. Or should I say to rebuild properly it takes a experanced person. By far Q Jets are a better carb. But for the money and ease of tuning you can not go wrong with a 1406 edelbrock.

[ebry710]

The Edelbrock 1406 is a different design all together, but not clearly better?

I guess what I didn't expect is that a 40 year old design isn't that off the mark and a newer design hasn't dominated. Rebuilding can't be the only criteria for carburetor improvement.

[turp mcspray]

I believe Edelbrock owns Rochester. Or at least the stuff to cast the Q-jets. I would either send a core to Sean Murphy Induction, or purchase one out right from him. If you buy the new Q-jet, it is a generic carb, made to fit MANY applications. The Sean Murphy unit will be custom built to your application.

[69sixpackbee]

The 1400 series are Carter AFB's The 1900's are Q'jet M4M units. I have a 1910 800CFM and it is a very good carbie. Since I swapped to F.I. I can now see why I liked the small primaries! BP/Arco is loving my increased business to say the least.

['72customdeluxe]

Originally Posted by ebry710

The Edelbrock 1406 is a different design all together, but not clearly better?

I guess what I didn't expect is that a 40 year old design isn't that off the mark and a newer design hasn't dominated. Rebuilding can't be the only criteria for carburetor improvement.

the carter afb came out in 1957 I believe. it's a much simpler and more crude (inefficient) design

Originally Posted by gary2232

Q Jets are a great carb. But they are not easy to rebuild. Or should I say to rebuild properly it takes a experanced person. By far Q Jets are a better carb. But for the money and ease of tuning you can not go wrong with a 1406 edelbrock.

I had never opened a carb before and it took well under an hour for me. Quads are great. Not hard to swap jets, rods, hangars, or springs either

[69sixpackbee]

Originally Posted by '72customdeluxe

the carter afb came out in 1957 I believe. it's a much simpler and more crude (inefficient) design

You never saw a pair of Q'jets on a Max Wedge or a Hemi....they are'nt innefficient. And I have built and driven both

[red71cheyenne]

Seems to me the biggest problem is the bushings at the throttle plate. If you don't replace/reman those, even rebuilding the rochester is almost a waste of time. Or it was for me. I tried twice to rebuild it and it still ran like crap. Upgraded to EFI like Bee and haven't looked back. The rebuild on my Edelbrock seems to have gone much better and I'm still running it on my Blazer.

[larry may]

iLIKE BOTH OF THEM EQUally. I run Holley.

[6D8_C10]

I have used Edelbrock on a few vehicle over the years.
I had one on my 67 Camaro with a 383 stroker.
I pulled it out of the box and put it on.
It started right up and drove it for 5 years X 365 days winter and summer.

I just got one for my 68 truck with a 350.
Again I pulled out of the box, put it on and it started right up.
With that being said, that is what most people find.

Now, if you can tune a Q-jet, they are just as reliable.
They were stock on a lot of the Corvettes.
The Q-jet has small primaries with HUGE secondaries.
So, you will get better gas mileage until you hammer it.

My 2 cents.

[Davetopay]

I like the q-jet. It has better driveabilty/manners than most other carbs out there. Yes a proper rebuild can be a PITA. Especially when it comes to boring and rebushing the throttle shafts. There are good builders out there. I always hear good things about JET.

I love that my q-jet always starts easy, hot or cold, never stumbles, never floods, and even in my heavy-ass 4x4 gets 15mpg on the highway.

[ChevLoRay]

I had an Edelbrock 1405 on my 350 when I bought it. It ran rich....waaaaaay rich. Exhaust would make my eyes water. So, I bought an Edelbrock Performer intake and an Edelbrock 1901 Q-Jet, with divorced choke. Immediately, the biggest change was driveability. Much better response, better gas mileage and I had to add a heat shield to the starter solenoid because the Q-Jet ran much leaner and that makes for a hotter exhaust gas.

The weak link in Q-Jets is the plugs in the bottom of the float bowl. You have to turn the carb over and remove the throttle plate to access them. They will leak over time and cause fuel to flood into the intake manifold. That will make it flood more easily and cause poor mileage.

But, Edelbrock doesn't sell them anymore. Their website does have some listed, but they're going away. Edelbrock didn't make them, either. Rochester and Carter both were manufacturers in their heyday. Carter also made the AFB. Rochester made a 4GC, before the Q-Jet. Holley had a spread-bore that they sold to folks to replace their Q-Jets. Carter made a Thermo-Quad, which was similar to the Q-Jet, but had a phenolic body that seemed prone to warping and leaking. There are plenty of other carburetors out there, like Barry Grant, that may be appealing.

But, check out www.edelbrock.com and see what you find on the Q-Jet. I dont' think you'll find them listed, short of their sale of their excess inventory.

[silverstreak]

Carbs are like music, we each like different types for different reasons.

I currently have a 1405 Edelbrock on my daily driver. I can twist the key in any weather hot or cold and it will fire right up and has plenty of power. I was getting 14-15 mpg and now average around 16-17 since I did a tune up.

I have some experience with Quadrajets and also think they are great carbs as well. (except for the ones with the electronic mixture control solenoids) If it were mine, I would send it away to a "reputable" rebuilder, as some have mentioned earlier. It might be more expensive for a new Quadrajet, or have the old one reworked, but if you want to run the Edelbrock, you may need a different intake and will have to make a few other minor modifications as well.

['72customdeluxe]

Originally Posted by 69 1/2 Six Pack Bee

You never saw a pair of Q'jets on a Max Wedge or a Hemi....they are'nt innefficient. And I have built and driven both

So you got wonderful mileage with those setups? I'm talking about mixture quality and driveability. Air flow is another concern. An 800 quad will support alot of motor though
I had a 1406 on my blue truck and prefer the gm piece

[QKENUF4U]

as already said....
get a quadrajunk setup correctly and it works well

ive never had luck with them so im a CARTER AFB lover myself (now edelbrock) pretty much in all my cases ive been able to pull carb from box, bolt on, set fuel screws and drive anytime/anywhere with ease. always a twist of the key and fired right off 115* OR 30*.....

[69sixpackbee]

Originally Posted by '72customdeluxe

So you got wonderful mileage with those setups? I'm talking about mixture quality and drivability

You want mileage and drivability? Buy a Honda. The Q'jet on my 402 got 12MPG tops. The dual AFB's got 5-6....but then again they were idle at 1500 and WFO!
11-12.5:1 AFR idle....12.6:1 WOT not much wiggle room, eh? These were purpose-built vehicles and I gave less than a s**t about the use of fossil fuel thereof.
Afb's were on lots of cars...Chev, Mopar, B.O.P., Caddy. I guess they held their own
Both are good carbs and can be tuned equally well. I prefer Q' Jets over AFB's in this scenario but I run Holleys on my toys.

Tuning is the key but all other things need to be taken into consideration. There is more than just the fueling aspect to drivability, mileage and longevity

[ebry710]

Originally Posted by 69 1/2 Six Pack Bee

You want mileage and drivability? Buy a Honda.

I have a Honda, it is my wife's car. It is a great car, but it can't tow a trailer, pickup a pallet of rock or be in a car show.......and I didn't want one as a kid.

But my wife's carburetor isn't taking the cool out of her van, like my old Quadrajet.

['72customdeluxe]

Originally Posted by ebry710

I have a Honda, it is my wife's car. It is a great car, but it can't tow a trailer, pickup a pallet of rock or be in a car show.......and I didn't want one as a kid.

But my wife's carburetor isn't taking the cool out of her van, like my old Quadrajet.

no ****, mines a cruiser too. new vehicles are depressing

Originally Posted by 69 1/2 Six Pack Bee

You want mileage and drivability? Buy a Honda. The Q'jet on my 402 got 12MPG tops. The dual AFB's got 5-6....but then again they were idle at 1500 and WFO!
11-12.5:1 AFR idle....12.6:1 WOT not much wiggle room, eh? These were purpose-built vehicles and I gave less than a s**t about the use of fossil fuel thereof.
Afb's were on lots of cars...Chev, Mopar, B.O.P., Caddy. I guess they held their own
Both are good carbs and can be tuned equally well. I prefer Q' Jets over AFB's in this scenario but I run Holleys on my toys.

Tuning is the key but all other things need to be taken into consideration. There is more than just the fueling aspect to drivability, mileage and longevity

I averaged 14.5 mpg on my typical route with a gps verified odo last tank and it idles and runs glass smooth. Lots of wot fun time as I had just started driving it again for the first time in three weeks. My '05 5.3 gmc only gets maybe 16 doing the same thing. Pretty decent to me. What is there to be had with fueling beyond drivability, mileage and longevity? It will deliver what you jet it for at wot

[huero]

Originally Posted by ebry710

So do I buy a new Edelbrock or find a rebuildable Rochester? Or is there another better option?

Yes, it's called EFI.