QJet on Edelbrock 2692 Performer Intake?

[bwag575]

Any thoughts or experience with running a QJet on an Edelbrock 2692 Performer Intake with the adapter kit?

My current set up is a 1997 4.3 with a Qjet and Steel Manifold which is working just fine for me.

My biggest reason for looking at the Edelbrock manifold is the weight savings it offers. A bit more performance over stock would be nice but not necessary.

I figure coupling the lighter intake with some aluminum exhaust manifolds could save me 100lbs. or so in the back of the boat. I'm running the old OMC batwing style manifolds at present. They are heavy........

Just curious to see what you guys think.

Side note- I just had the Qjet rebuilt.....otherwise i would look into the performer carb as well.

 

[Bondo]

Re: QJet on Edelbrock 2692 Performer Intake?

Any thoughts or experience with running a QJet on an Edelbrock 2692 Performer Intake with the adapter kit?

My current set up is a 1997 4.3 with a Qjet and Steel Manifold which is working just fine for me.

My biggest reason for looking at the Edelbrock manifold is the weight savings it offers. A bit more performance over stock would be nice but not necessary.

I figure coupling the lighter intake with some aluminum exhaust manifolds could save me 100lbs. or so in the back of the boat. I'm running the old OMC batwing style manifolds at present. They are heavy........

Just curious to see what you guys think.

Side note- I just had the Qjet rebuilt.....otherwise i would look into the performer carb as well.

Ayuh,.... I wouldn't do it,... Any gains, are lost with the adapter plate,...

And, it'll raise the carb, causin' motorbox fitment issues, carb linkage issues, 'n fuel line issues,...

 

[Walt T]

Re: QJet on Edelbrock 2692 Performer Intake?

100 lb weight savings won't be noticeable. I can loan you my anorexic girlfriend, toss her in and tie her onto the boat or she'll blow away and see if she slows you down any. No? Well there you go.

 

[Scott Danforth]

Re: QJet on Edelbrock 2692 Performer Intake?

you wont notice the intake change.

However if you are changing exhaust manifolds, I would consider switching to aluminum only if I was in fresh water, or running a HX

 

[bwag575]

Re: QJet on Edelbrock 2692 Performer Intake?

100 lb weight savings won't be noticeable. I can loan you my anorexic girlfriend, toss her in and tie her onto the boat or she'll blow away and see if she slows you down any. No? Well there you go.

Thanks for your response Walt!

I'll pass on the loaner......

The boat is extremely light for this size motor (barely 16.25 feet long and 1650lbs.). I figure a 100 lb. weight savings ,proportionally to the weight of my boat, would be considerable as opposed to a heavier boat (19-20'). If my calculations are correct shaving 100lbs. would reduce the weight of the boat by about 6%. People on this forum always talk about better performance at the bottom of a tank of gas. If gas weighs 6 lbs. per gallon then 100 lbs. would be the equivalent of running with about 16 gallons less fuel weight. That's about a 1/2 full tank in your average runabout and about 1/3 full tank in mine. I personally can tell the difference between a full tank and 1/3 tank. I just need to decide if the weight savings is worth the investment.

Thanks again for the input.

 

[bwag575]

Re: QJet on Edelbrock 2692 Performer Intake?

Thanks for the input Scott!

This is a freshwater boat. I just need to decide if the weight savings are worth the financial investment.

Thanks again for the advice!

 

[bwag575]

Re: QJet on Edelbrock 2692 Performer Intake?

Thanks for the input Bondo!

It's already a Frankenstein setup with the '97 block mated to the '88 externals. A few more modifications to the throttle linkage doesn't scare me. The QJet is already on a riser plate so the throttle linkage can clear the Vortec manifold so I don't think motor box clearance will be an issue. If I won't lose any engine performance by doing this I just need to decide if the weight savings are worth the investment. 100lbs. here....50 lbs. there. It all adds up in my opinion.

Thanks again for the input!

 

[Fastatv]

Re: QJet on Edelbrock 2692 Performer Intake?

Any thoughts or experience with running a QJet on an Edelbrock 2692 Performer Intake with the adapter kit?

My current set up is a 1997 4.3 with a Qjet and Steel Manifold which is working just fine for me.

My biggest reason for looking at the Edelbrock manifold is the weight savings it offers. A bit more performance over stock would be nice but not necessary.

I figure coupling the lighter intake with some aluminum exhaust manifolds could save me 100lbs. or so in the back of the boat. I'm running the old OMC batwing style manifolds at present. They are heavy........

Just curious to see what you guys think.

Side note- I just had the Qjet rebuilt.....otherwise i would look into the performer carb as well.

Many years ago, I replaced the cast iron intake on a boat V8, a Chevy 350. I used the Edlebrock performer as well but, I purchased the spreadbore flanged intake, not the square "Holley" type. Cant you get a spreadbore flange for the 4.3? And yes, there is a pretty good weight savings and another point, when you change things out, you are also making it more of "your" own engine/boat. I will say this though, the aluminum intake may not provide any noticeable performance change....if that's all you change. When I modified my 350, I changed the intake, cam, valve springs, installed roller rockers, and did a few mods to the Qjet. There was a significant increase in performance. Let us know what you do. Rick

 

[MikDee]

Re: QJet on Edelbrock 2692 Performer Intake?

The purpose of a high rise manifold is an increase in torque throughout the RPM range, along with the weight savings, so there is an extra benefit with that. The prime examples of an extreme high rise, long ram manifold is the 63' Dodge dual quad 426 Ramcharger, (I had one) & the 69' Camaro Z28 302 with the dual carb setup. If you wanted the most performance available with dual carbs, that would be the way to go (but not necessarily in a boat.) I'd guess it would be hard to find a high rise ram for any engine nowadays.

 

[bwag575]

Re: QJet on Edelbrock 2692 Performer Intake?

Many years ago, I replaced the cast iron intake on a boat V8, a Chevy 350. I used the Edlebrock performer as well but, I purchased the spreadbore flanged intake, not the square "Holley" type. Cant you get a spreadbore flange for the 4.3? And yes, there is a pretty good weight savings and another point, when you change things out, you are also making it more of "your" own engine/boat. I will say this though, the aluminum intake may not provide any noticeable performance change....if that's all you change. When I modified my 350, I changed the intake, cam, valve springs, installed roller rockers, and did a few mods to the Qjet. There was a significant increase in performance. Let us know what you do. Rick

Thanks for the response.

They only make 4.3 manifold for the square bore carb so the adapter plate is the only way to go. I agree with your idea of making the boat 'more your own'. Tinkering with it during the week and in the off season is half the fun. I'm still a few months out on the aluminum intake and exhaust manifolds. I will check back in when I get the mods done.