The definitive "quick jack" orientation thread

[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]

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

[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?