i don't see why not. Are the AFR heads drilled for TBI (probably not)? You'll have to go with a 4 BBL manifold and adapter to make it work.Will they work with TBI or will I have to buy different heads.
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
i don't see why not. Are the AFR heads drilled for TBI (probably not)? You'll have to go with a 4 BBL manifold and adapter to make it work.Will they work with TBI or will I have to buy different heads.
I noticed while I was running it the Proflow4 has very touchy response to the point it will be difficult not to smoke the vans right rear tire off a traffic light. The radius it is currently on wants to yank those 500 cfm worth of front primary barrels open quickly with a light amount of pressure on the accelerator.
Lol, I know what you mean on the Q-Jet linkages. Owned and driven more than a few of them. By far the worst OEM GM linkage as far as aggressive throttle opening has to be the early TPI systems that still used the carburetor style linkage. Around 90-91 GM went to a throttle eccentric cam and really tamed the feel. My 83 G20 had that early 85 style throttle linkage on it. Felt like I was driving a big block off-idle, then the 100% stock TPI system was crushing dissapointment as it reved out.L31MaxExpress,
If you can't have perfection, the next best thing would be an almost too-touchy response
to the acceleration pedal. (As opposed to a lethargic/laggy throttle response.)
Even so, a really touchy gas pedal is not a big deal driving driving solo...but the
resulting head toss can take some of the fun out of road trip for the passenger(s).
You actually find yourself focused on trying to feather the gas as opposed to enjoying
the top down motoring. :-(
Thinking about this a little more, in the land of carburetion I think that because of the
combo of the tiny primaries & giant secondaries, driving a Quadrajet on a torquey big block
was both carefree & luxurious. (The primary throttles were so small that it was almost like
having a 2-speed throttle linkage. Haven't driven a Q-Jet in years, but still remember how *right*
it felt.)
Later on, when I read about the superb throttle response afforded by the tiny primary/large secondary
throttle body setup on the late '80s 32-valve Corvette ZR-1, it seems to reaffirm my thoughts on all this.
****
Given all of the above, I've often thought about upgrading the throttle linkage to a cable that would be
pulling on a variable radius cam, bigger/slower when the throttle is closed, and smaller/faster the closer
you get to WOT. (Got this idea one day while working out on an actual Nautilus machine and admiring how
the weight came on from zero to max so much more smoothly than the standard weight machines?)
Once the engine is tuned to perfection, I think that this would be a fun experiement. Why not go
for the gold and do a full-on shell-shaped Fibonacci sequence from idle to WOT: (Fibonacci series)
I would bet that this would work. Maybe with some fine-tuning you get a really good match
in the man/machine interface, make a good thing just that much better? And in my humble
opinion, this would be way cooler than the newer throttle-by-wire setups where the computer
decides how far/how fast the throttles are opened?
Sometimes implementing the ideal throttle linkage using old-school cam shapes made of metal
is still superior to having some computer sifting through tables of hexadecimal in order to cook
up a decent response.
The bottom line? I prefer my torque served up with immediacy. Just not so touchy that it sets
me up for PIO. (Pilot Induced Oscillation.)
I'm so glad we're not neighbors. I haven't had any points on my license for a good long while...
but I think this would change if I was trying to keep up with that beast of a van you have managed
to concoct. What can I say -- old habits die hard.
The bad part is, I feel like the weight difference betweem this 87 and my 97 will make this van a rocket compared to the 97. 97 is no slouch, but I think 87 would have no problem leaving the 97 in its dust. Something like 2,000 lbs less weight to get rolling.
This was how the 87s linkage is currently set up. The cruise itself can yank the throttle open close to 60%.
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_mediaSnappy response for sure the way this is set up.