Register now to get rid of these ads!

Technical predator carb on 454 chevy--thoughts

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by skull, Nov 16, 2018.

  1. skull
    Joined: Jun 26, 2007
    Posts: 498

    skull
    Member

    got a chance to get a predator carb 5OOO series, thinking about sticking it on the 454 my project rod has in it, it's a fairly stock motor and the car weighs about 2OOO pounds,
    turbo 4OO and 3:25 gears,

    thanks

    Later predator.jpg predator.jpg1.jpg predator.jpg predator.jpg1.jpg
     

    Attached Files:

    loudbang likes this.
  2. chevy57dude
    Joined: Dec 10, 2007
    Posts: 5,534

    chevy57dude
    Member

    I'm interested to hear what people have to say about these. Predators seem wonderfully simple.
     
    loudbang and mad mikey like this.
  3. KoolKat-57
    Joined: Feb 22, 2010
    Posts: 2,948

    KoolKat-57
    Member
    from Dublin, OH

    Old technology, they were not really great in street applications.
    Certainly don't see them anymore in any use.
    Have at it, who knows it may work.
    KK
     
    loudbang and mad mikey like this.
  4. We discussed the Predator carb briefly on my Induction thread. Some guys got them to work very well . From what I have seen, when they were being used years ago it was mostly on roots blown applications .
     
    chevy57dude and loudbang like this.
    Register now to get rid of these ads!

  5. Mike VV
    Joined: Sep 28, 2010
    Posts: 1,917

    Mike VV
    Member
    from SoCal

    In the 1990's, I built a 409 (421in.) powered 61 Impala. Switch Pitch Turbo 400, 3.70 Posi in the back. Lowered, with Bassett, NASCAR wheels that I had the centers moved so they fit under the stock fenders, a bunch of other fun stuff.
    I was experimenting with carburetors, Holley, Carter, different sizes. I decided to give the Predator a try. This was BEFORE...the days of the lowspeed, fuel system was introduced into the Predator. Bought new.

    I messed with the "cam" a little, got it running fairly well.
    The only thing "odd...", was that the throttle was EXTREMELY sensitive.
    I was taking a girl out that I had recently met, our second date. We were driving down the freeway, and every little bump, pothole, wave in the road, the car speed up or slowed. Almost...even my heart beat, changed the rpm.
    I noticed my date had noticed that I couldn't hold a solid MPH. So, I told her to LIGHTLY put her foot on the throttle pedal to see how sensitive it was. She touched the pedal...in a split second, we picked up 30 mph. She blurts out..."I just barley touched the pedal..!".

    Oddly enough, between an 800cfm Holley and the Predator, no other changes, At Orange County Raceway (So Cal), my ET's were virtually identical, the MPH was a touch better with the Holley. The odd difference, even though the ET's were very close, the rear tires spun hard with the Holley, and did not spin hardly at all with the Predator.
    This was with street radial tires of the day.
    I ran the Predator for about a year or so, then went back to the 800 Holley. The engine seemed to like that one the beast overall.

    I've had a coupla cars since that I thought about getting a new Predator and giving it a try..haven't yet.

    Mike
     
    loudbang, KoolKat-57 and mad mikey like this.
  6. 20 years ago, a guy that owned a local automotive tune up center, attempted to sell me one for what seemed to be a small fortune. He had forgotten that he had whined to me incessantly about the mileage he was getting compared to the Holley that he replaced with the Predator.
    I do know that back then, there were some guys that thought it was a fantastic carb. I decided to stick with the Holley and Quadrajets that I knew. The old standards always worked well for me.
    Bob
     
    Deuces and mad mikey like this.
  7. yellow dog
    Joined: Oct 15, 2011
    Posts: 414

    yellow dog
    Member
    from san diego

    I have used on two SBF since 1994; swapping engines but using the same Predator. The two engines
    are substantially built different. The "more built" engine requires a "richer cam" in the Predator
    (not surprisingly). The car has been used mostly for the track, but I probably have a few hundred
    miles on the street where the throttle is very predictable. I suspect it may not have the A/F optimized
    at all rpms and throttle positions although I really only care about WOT. I bought a FAST dual channel
    monitor, but have not installed to verify.
     
    loudbang likes this.
  8. lumpy 63
    Joined: Aug 2, 2010
    Posts: 1,138

    lumpy 63
    Member

    Didn't they used to call em flying toilet bowls? I remember back in the 80s guys ran em for a very short period and then they just disappeared ....
     
    mad mikey likes this.
  9. The Flying Toilet is a different animal, injection run by a mechanical pump, belt driven . Rons Injection sells them. I think he also has a EFI version. 6G0A6448.jpg
     
  10. Too bad they weren't more successful, they had a great look to them.
     
    loudbang, mad mikey and Deuces like this.
  11. carbking
    Joined: Dec 20, 2008
    Posts: 2,787

    carbking
    Member

    A few folks seemed to like them, most didn't. Generally, radically different engineering becomes the "new norm" or it disappears, depending on how well it works.

    The only way to know is to try it.

    But your opening post says "fairly stock motor and the car weighs about 2OOO pounds."

    If this vehicle is basically for street use, exceptionally difficult to beat a spread-bore (Rochester Q-Jet, or Carter TQ).

    If the vehicle is a trailered race car to go around circles, then a Holley square-bore might be the ticket. For inline racing, the Carter, Holley, or Rochester would all work well, depending on the ability of the tuner.

    Jon.
     
    loudbang, mad mikey and Deuces like this.
  12. Deuces
    Joined: Nov 3, 2009
    Posts: 18,539

    Deuces
    Member
    from Michigan

    Thank you Jon!!!!!.... :)
     
    loudbang and mad mikey like this.
  13. He speaks volumes.:)
     
    loudbang and Deuces like this.
  14. Like I posted, I mostly saw them on blown applications, even some monster trucks were running them back then.
     
    loudbang likes this.
  15. Don't ask about carb performance in this forum unless it's an ol #97, you'll have guys reading you the carb cfm theory, guys that have never actually held the carb in question in their own hands but will know every thing about how they won't work in your application, then you'll have the guy that worked on the OEM design team tell you anything other than what came on your engine from the factory can't possibly work, then in steps in the fuel mileage guy etc etc etc
    I would suggest asking the question on a performance type forum where people that have actually used the carb with first hand knowledge can answer, like yellow dog did here.
     
  16. nrgwizard
    Joined: Aug 18, 2006
    Posts: 1,165

    nrgwizard
    Member
    from Minn. uSA

    Hey, Mike n Yellowdog;
    Or anyone else... :D ;
    Have any of you guys used the Kendig carb, & the Predator carb, much less on the same mill?
    What are the actual differences 'twixt the two?
    I've never seen, much less held in my very own personal grubby paws, a Kendig. From what I read & could find, the Predator was a 2nd/3rd gen version of the original Kendig. What I found really odd was, the 1st I ever read of it, it was used in a mileage-type competition, & did extremely well, to the point of not being allowed in later events. Kendig seemed to disappear shortly after & along came the Predator, followed by the idle-speed attachment. What I've been trying to find out, is just what exactly were the changes made from the 1st Kendig to the Predator.
    Application is for an OT (but could be on-topic) IH 4x4. Big, heavy, flying brick. Would like better fuel economy. Yes, I know of other things to do, but this will be a start on part of the solution. Have a couple of carbs to try, (yah, I know, none of the carbs are magic - black or otherwise - but design differences have different levels of tuning/vaporization, giving different results in "drive-ability") incl edelbrocks, some spread-bore, n demon, eventually when broken rig gets back on road, someday.
    TIA.
    Marcus...
     
  17. yellow dog
    Joined: Oct 15, 2011
    Posts: 414

    yellow dog
    Member
    from san diego

    I'm not at all knowledgeable re the Kendig. I've seen them purported to be 1250 cfm vs 930 max for
    the Predator. I've never seen any actual test for either carb whether claim is wet or dry cfm or anything else. I like the air horn shape on the Kendig, however both carbs are extremely tall and necessitated hood clearance concerns in my case.

    I have my Predator mounted w/ the fuel bowl in front for straight line g's, however when making turns on the street at low rpm, the engine falters a bit. The standard fuel bowl seems really small and I wish I had searched out the alcohol version w/ more capacity. I still like the simplicity of the design
    for the Predator, although on latter projects I've moved to aftermarket off topic efi. Regarding tuning
    for either; I think tc's and/or O2 monitoring is essential for optimizing at WOT let alone the variability of street driving.
     
    loudbang and mad mikey like this.
  18. Firedup
    Joined: Feb 2, 2018
    Posts: 138

    Firedup
    Member
    from Oregon

    mad mikey likes this.

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2020 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.