The definitive "quick jack" orientation thread

[ACademic]

Okay, I'm thoroughly confused.

After reviewing Rinsey Mill's "AC Cobra" book several times (the only Cobra book that I own at the moment....Yeah, Yeah, I know there are others that are better), as well as viewing countless images of other cars over the years, there are several quick jack/bumper jack orientations.

Many of the earlier cars that raced actually had them mounted in the reverse that you see today (i.e. back then the curve of the hook hugged the front lower valance more than it protruded from the front end). Maybe this was done for better leverage, or it was the intended use all along and someone later decided to flip them around and have them stick out (great for banging foreheads and shins, need I mention?), especially since they are largely ornamental and not functional on most replicas?

You also see mountings done differently, with "bolts out" on some and "bolts in" on others. Even Shelby's CSX4xxx, 6xxx and 7xxx cars will sometimes differ (I suppose depending on who put it together). And then look at all of the replicas out there and they are all over the map as well.

My own analysis supports the "bolts out" orientation, but I also find it interesting that even though the original race cars had them hugging the bodywork, you rarely (if ever) see this on street driven replicas today.

So, distinguised AC experts, tell me what is the right way. Actual measurements (dimensions) would also be appreciated (if available), as I know for fact that they are different from manufacturer to manufacturer (as much as 1" or more).

Thank you,
Steve the detail freak

[patrickt]

I thought we did this. Bumper Jack orientation (bolts)

[rodneym]

I'm no expert but...
I don't believe the QJ's are more or less functional on an original than a replica (I gues it may depend on the replica). We've all seen pictures of them used on originals AND seen the damage.
From a stability standpoint, it would only help to the have the bolts 'in' and futher seperate the lobes of the QJ's.
When all is said and done, weren't they done both ways on originals?

[Roger Cormier]

I thought the 289's had them hugging the body, and the 427 S/C's had them outwards?

[ACademic]

patrickt, thanks for the reference. I now do recall that thread, but it doesn't answer matters fully. Sad to see that the originator was banned after all those contributions?

I'm confident discussing this further will hold more interest than viewing pictures of your car under a hefty bag.

[ACademic]

Originally Posted by Roger Cormier

I thought the 289's had them hugging the body, and the 427 S/C's had them outwards?

Roger, that observation does tend to fit most of the book photos that I saw.

[ACademic]

I took a harder look at the thread that patrick referenced and the answers are pretty clear there (thanks to computerworks for his inputs then). Thank you, everyone.
Steve

[ERA 778]

Enough on the debate about which way the quick jacks go! It's settled (again), just do whatever you want; there are examples of every possibility in the archives!

Say, has anyone got photos of the actual jacking mechanism? Especially in use on a Cobra? I'd like to see one, because it's not clear to me how they got enough weight and leverage for it to work at all!

[ACademic]

Originally Posted by ERA 778

Enough on the debate about which way the quick jacks go! It's settled (again), just do whatever you want; there are examples of every possibility in the archives!

Thanks for the advice! That's awesome! Have another cup of coffee!

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by ERA 778

Say, has anyone got photos of the actual jacking mechanism? Especially in use on a Cobra? I'd like to see one, because it's not clear to me how they got enough weight and leverage for it to work at all!

You mean like this?

[computerworks]

Originally Posted by ERA 778

Enough on the debate about which way the quick jacks go! It's settled (again), just do whatever you want..

Yes, you can do it whatever way you want....

But, if you want to look like the old days, set 'em up with the mounting hardware outbound... like they did at the factory



BTW, you do see some comp CSX2000 cars with the hooks inward for less flex, but not on CSX3000 cars...the jack crossbar would hit the CSX3000 oil cooler scoop that way.

[ACademic]

Originally Posted by computerworks

BTW, you do see some comp CSX2000 cars with the hooks inward for less flex, but not on CSX3000 cars...the jack crossbar would hit the CSX3000 oil cooler scoop that way.

Once again, common sense prevails to provide the right answer. Thank you.

[Dominik]

As for nuts to be visible from the side, I would look at the spacing of the jacks and if it's similar to a 289's.

Assuming you worked on a 289 and 427 at the races you would like to use the same lever.

(Just saw that I am repeating myself - did that happen to anybody here before?) :-)

[TimG427]

Here's how mine are set up, it's a 427 with a 289 front like CSX3002. The picture in the link is of the actual CSX3002 under construction and they're set up the same way

[TimG427]

Another view if it attaches.

[RedEye]

Originally Posted by rodneym

I'm no expert but...
I don't believe the QJ's are more or less functional on an original than a replica (I gues it may depend on the replica). We've all seen pictures of them used on originals AND seen the damage.
From a stability standpoint, it would only help to the have the bolts 'in' and futher seperate the lobes of the QJ's.
When all is said and done, weren't they done both ways on originals?

Just curious, but what Damage are you speaking of?

[Mando]

Heres mine.....




Regards.

[Dominik]

Damage:
The original QJs are attached to the radiator frame which is somewhat flexible.
Lifting the car will cause the holes in the body where the QJ are mounted to elongate.

Same in the rear, although the frame is a bit more sturdy there.

Old pics show that. I saw one in one of my books.

The spacing would be dictated by the 289 spacing, if you re-use your 289 lift after you bought your 427SC :-)

[1985 CCX]

[Rick Parker]

The 289 FIA's and perhaps USRRC cars had the body sheetmetal relieved around the mounting points as in the picture above. This was done to prevent body damage by the mounts and supporting skeleton sub structure flexing when put under a lifting load.