When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Hello everyone! First post on the forum, I'm in south-central Ontario Canada, I have had many Oldsmobile cars over the years.
I am posting here because the thread is specifically about QuickJack and I am considering one for myself. It would be used on several cars but my question today is about a 1964 F85 coupe lift points and the QuickJack 5000TL... can anyone please tell me the distance, maximum and minimum, between the 'boxed'/'torque boxes' "lift point" areas of the frame on a '64 - '67 A-body ?
The car is located a very long distance from me and requires pre-arranged passage to access - I can't answer the question myself at this time.
The QuickJack 5000TL advertises a maximum distance of 60 inches that the kit-included rubber blocks can be placed at. I need to know if the 'boxed' area of the frame (iirc has circular holes on bottom side) is within that 60 inch distance, so that the 5000TL can be used.
The manufacturer offers a "frame extension kit" as a separate item; it lays over the QuickJack frames (one each side) to extend the maximum lift area of the 5000TL another 6 inches (increase from 60 inches to 66 inches total) - BUT it is expensive imo therefore I want to avoid that if possible. If this were to be used only for one car then I might simply opt for the 5000TLX or 7000 models but at home here are five cars including two small imports and I don't want to preclude using the QuickJack on them.
The original poster doesn't say which model QuickJack is used, most of the responses are for '68 and up Olds cars, and don't mention specifics on the QuickJacks they are commenting on.
In my view the QuickJack seems a nice way for undercar access and have the wheels etc dropped without a hoist and without jacking and stands (I'm not 'old' I am 'vintage' demmit! ).
I think the answer to my question could help many others since I have contacted the manufacture who simply referred me to the Canadian dealer, who I have contacted but still don't have an answer yet - this seems like a good place to ask!
Ok thanks, being a newbie here I spotted the 'QuickJack' reference and dug in, I am looking forward to spending more time here, cars is an old hobby for me and I'm planning to do some work on ones I've had for many years. Thanks again.
I can see the pic.
From that it looks like there’s a measurement of 65.25” between the frame mount on the front of the side beam and the frame mount at the rear of the side beam. I believe both areas are full boxed fore and aft of that mount so I bet 60” would be on the verge of fine.
Ok 'oldcutlass' I refreshed the page several times over a few minutes and now I can view an image of frame and dimensions for a '66 Chevelle - yes that is VERY helpful. Thank you!
At a glance I'd guess using the QuickJack 5000TL would be b a r e l y able to lift the car (as designed to be used) having the rubber blocks at their maximum distance of 60 inches. I say ' b a r e l y ' only as it relates to distance and not as it relates to weight, this car is well below the maximum capabilities of the QuickJack 5000TL. Seeing the area on that image where it shows 65 1/4 inches is where I used to (iirc) deploy jack stands, ie. just between the 'circular holes' in horizontal plane... *if* I could be certain the rubber stacking lift blocks would have enough material engaged in those 'boxes' I'd be okay to lift, then lock, the QuickJacks, I would go ahead and buy one. Problem solved if I go to the next size up but that could mean I wouldn't be able to use it on the other four cars here.
That diagram is very helpful. I am hopeful that someone on the forum can definitively say that they are safely using the 5000TL on a '64-'67 A-body or do some explicit measurements explaining exactly where they measured from and to. Is there enough of the 'boxes' within a 60 inch distance (I think the rubber blocks are each 4 inches long)?? I hate to trouble anyone, it's only because the car is inacccessable to me. I dislike the idea of having to spend another $540+taxes to get a measely extra 3 inches at each end by buying the 'frame extension kit' - I have a very, very limited budget.
Thanks 'Rallye469' I agree on "so I bet 60” would be on the verge of fine." The car doesn't have many miles but it is old, and Canadian, and someone has driven it like it somehow deserved to be punished, a lot, so the more support surface area the better. But I am getting the feeling so far that it just, might, maybe, be doable - any 'bet' that didn't work out would be more expensive than useful though lol.
Must've been a heavy cross-wind during the race in your signature video clip, that sassy looking car of yours is leaning over something terrible!
I saw that thread previous to posting, he doesn't say which model he is using, it appears to have the 'frame extension kit' used (lays on top of the basic QJ frames and uses up another 1 1/2 inches of vertical space). Also I suspect that the Delta frame is longer.
Interesting to see some other solutions and opinions.
If I had only one vehicle I would probably opt for the 7000TL and extensions as you have - so much capability. Thanks for giving us this info on your setup!
For my situation, mostly reasoned by cost, I am trying to stick to the 5000TL and no extensions if I can.
Your beautiful Delta reminds me of my '72 Royale convertible, mine was bright red, black interior and top, lotta fun down at the beach!
Last edited by rat infested; September 19th, 2023 at 09:34 AM.
That's good to know! If it can lift a 78' Toronado it can lift a 66' that's for sure. I'm in the market for a lift, which is why I'm mentioning it.
Last week a certain large red triangle store had them on sale, you could always ask if they can sell you something at the sale price, most stores would be happy to take that sale.
That's good to know! If it can lift a 78' Toronado it can lift a 66' that's for sure. I'm in the market for a lift, which is why I'm mentioning it.
Your '66 weighs about 4500 lbs. My '78 weighs about 4700 to 4800. The 5000TL and TLX are rated for 5,000 lbs maximum while the 7000TL and TLX are rated for, obviously 7,000 lbs. The 5000TL would presumably have worked for me because the Toro is just under 5,000 lbs, but I didn't want to use a lift that was right at the limit of its capacity. For the 7000TL, a 4800 lb car is well below its maximum. The difference in price for the two is $140 at the Quickjack website, and I figured the extra money was worth it.
I did end up getting the frame extensions, which were another $350, admittedly a pretty penny, but, again, I thought it was a good investment so that I have the ability to put the lift points exactly where they're supposed to be.
Here's my '73 Delta up on the lift. It weighs a bit less at about 4400 lbs. I had it up on the lift for about three weeks straight servicing various components and waiting for parts to arrive. It never once was anything other than completely stable on the lift.
Thank jaunty75 for even more detail on your equipment and reasoning for it, this is all helpful to me and future readers. If money were not an issue for me I would simply choose the same as you have, and job done. Money is an issue for me and for that reason I am considering the 5000TL.
The reason I am stuck at the 'considering' stage is because I can't access my car to measure it and I am nervous that the full 60 inch spread of the 5000TL frames might be just an inch, or two or three, shy of what is required to lift my '64 - I don't have the desire, energy, or funds to start repairing cracked glass or damage from sagging or drooping. If that turns out to be true then the solution is either go for the 5000TLX or 7000TL and the frame extension kit or the 7000TLX. In my locale the 5000TL is available occasionally on sale price at $1499, great if I can stop there then I'm happy - because the 'longest' vehicle I expect to lift is my '64. But... there are four other vehicles I have to consider, the smallest are a Mazda 3 and Nissan Sentra, at this time, therefore the TLX models might be too long for the smaller cars. The frame extension kit is listed at $540 CAD and... that price claims to represent a 30% savingsand... is only available at the time of purchasing a QuickJack kit - what happens if I/someone don't discover the need or must buy incrementally due to funding until a later time? The answer appears to be a $771 CAD frame extension kit and that is wayyyy overpriced for that basic and simple design. I suppose someone could explore buying steel and welding together a 'frame extension kit' themselves.
I remain hopeful that someone here can supply accurate measurements, and photos of [chalkmarks?] where they measured from and to, on an actual ''64-'67 A-body. Or, can say essentially that "Yes I use a QuickJack 5000TL on my '64-'67 and it's working safely according to the QuickJack instructions ie. the lift points are actually within the 60 inches of the QJ frames."
Thus far oldcutlass has provided a very helpful diagram of a '66 frame (same as mine afaik) that gives nominal dimensions. The only thing I could do with that now is measure, on my screen, and then 'scale' another measurement and overlay that onto the diagram - matching reality depends on the accuracy provided in the diagram and in the scaling process. I've done exactly that and my determination is... if I'm accurate... that the full 60 inch reach of the QJ frames 'appears' to land on the innermost areas of the 'boxes' at either end of the side portion of the frame, just barely. Probably okay for a '68-'72 A-body that I think is 3 inches shorter in that area than mine. It's just too close for me to drop that amount of money, then possibly faced with faced another expense to follow. Like I said above I am hopeful someone who owns a '64-'67 can provide a 'real' measurement or 'testimonial' about the QJ 5000TL and their car. For context I have a 'long reach, low lift' trolley jack (107 lbs) that lifts from 3 1/4 to 24 inches and plenty of stands and steel ramps, the jack handle is long for inside my cramped space and the incremental jacking and placing of stands takes time and energy I'd rather spend on the car.
Why do I want a QJ 5000TL? Compared to alternatives like hoists or larger it is truly portable, affordable, stores easily and allows a user to access lines, hoses, and much more including having the wheels and suspension dropped. For my situation the 5000TL is the most viable (funds) *if* it can be used for my cars. If funds were not an issue then I would do exactly as jaunty75 has done.
Why am I asking here about measurements? Because I don't have access to my car to measure it.
Been a member here for only a day and am pleasantly surprised at the abundant and generous assistance offered regarding my quest for an answer on the QJ, hoping we can definitively resolve this, for others as well as myself.
Maybe you have done all of this math already, but here’s what I came up with.
The diagram below is from the 1967 Olds Chassis Service manual showing the lift points for all 1967 models, whether it’s A-body, B-body, or C-body.
The wheelbase for all 1967 (and ‘64, ‘65, and ‘66) A-bodies is 115 inches, so that’s the distance between the front and rear axles in the diagram above. If we can assume that the diagram is to scale, we can print out the diagram (I didn't try to do this on my computer screen), measure the wheelbase in the picture with a ruler, and then set up a proportionality.
Starting at the zero end (top/front axle) in the diagram, the front lift point is at 1.875 inches on my piece of paper. Setting up a proportionality, 1.875/6.125 = x/115. For this, x = 22.3 inches. So the front lift point is 22.3 inches behind the front axle.
For the rear lift point, which is at a point 4.625 inches from the front axle on my piece of paper, 4.625/6.125 = x/115, and x =86.8. So the rear lift point is 86.8 inches behind the front axle, or 28.2 (115 - 86.8) inches in front of the rear axle.
The all-important spacing between the lift points is 86.8 – 22.3 = 64.5 inches.
So now you go to the Quickjack site and look at the various models.
The 5000TL has a maximum lift point spread of 60 inches, so, as you suspected, this will not work.
The 5000TLX has a maximum lift point spread of 66 inches, so this should work for you. The price difference between these at the Quickjack website is only $40. I don't know what it will be in Canada, but I'm guessing that getting the TLX will be cheaper than getting the TL with frame extensions. The 5000TLX has a minimum lift point spread of 43 inches, which may or may not be fine for the other cars you mention you might want to use this with. The 5000TL has a minimum lift point spread of 37 inches. You might want to see what the lift point spead is on the Mazda and Nissan you are talking about. If it is less than 43 inches, then you might be better off with the 5000TL plus the separate frame extension. This will cost more, but it will give you the most versatility. Use the 5000TL with frame extensions when working on your Cutlass and without the extensions when working on the other cars.
The A-bodies of that era all weighed about 3500 lbs, so the 5000 lb lift capacity of these models should be fine for you.
Last edited by jaunty75; September 18th, 2023 at 11:02 AM.
I saw in your other thread that the car you're talking about is a '64 Cutlass. Here's the lift-point diagram for the A-bodies from the '64 service manual. Looks pretty much identical to the '67s as far as lift points.
Thank you again jaunty75, from myself and for other readers. Yes, I did do all the calculations on my screen but you have generously provided some materials for others to peruse, and some numbers. I did mine with the diagram supplied by oldcutlass and 'determined' as best I could that 60 inches will only catch the innermost surface areas of the 'boxes' which I don't really feel comfortable with - probably doable properly for '68-'72 though - wish I could get to my car to have a look and a ponder.
So... now what... am I a hotrodder? Does a hotrodder make things when necessary, as well as buy them? If one does then do I have what's needed, starting with a safe engineering plan and needed tools? I now have to evaluate all the possible iterations of the various (four) applicable lifts and the 'frame extension kit' and compare the total cost to what a 5000TL and home made extensions or full length frame extension kit would cost in money, time, and energy. Still centering around the 5000TL due to price (on sale) being the lowest realistic starting point, and that it can service the smaller cars in the family 'fleet'. Hmmm... to price some steel, I have everything else. If the cost weren't such a significant factor for me the the solution is easy.
One thing has been alleged by another forum member and that is the BL 5000EXT (he calls it that, I wonder if it's a BL 5000TLX - maybe mfr. renamed since his post?) 'works' on a Mazda 3 - which applies in my situation. I thought the 5000TLX might too long but I measured our Mazda 3 and now can see it seems a plausible claim. If I compare the sale price of 5000TL and the 5000TLX the total difference in cost to me is about $485 CAD, that's substantial! And it's the amount I will use to compare against making my own frame extension kit of some kind. For the record I am confident the manufacturer recommends against this, as do I, and presume the same for this website - whatever anyone else decides to do is soley their own choice and soley their own responsibility.
So we are making incremental progress toward an answer to the question... stay tuned.
Last edited by rat infested; September 18th, 2023 at 05:50 PM.
Reason: gramr n spelin
For CANADIAN buyers considering a QuickJack 5000TL they are on sale this week $1499 (regular price there is $1699 CAD) - starting Thurs. Sep. 28 to Thur. Oct 5, 2023 .
September 16th, 2023, 12:52 PM
).
has driven it like it somehow deserved to be punished, a lot, so the more support surface area the better. But I am getting the feeling so far that it just, might, maybe, be doable - any 'bet' that didn't work out would be more expensive than useful though lol.
