[Tom Vaught]

Quote:

"I certainly don’t want to get into an argument about flow with you, you’ve probably forgotten more about carburetors than I know."

Nor do I wish to. The more questions asked up front the fewer issues down the road.

Quote:

"I’ll gladly do a test on both of these carburetors at 1.5” hg “Wet” at 12.5:1 A/F, the next time I’m doing some testing. I should be able to get this done in the next week or so. Although not having anything to compare it against it will still just be a number."

That would be great. Compare the air flow against a 850 Mighty Demon.

Quote:

"I’d like to know what kind of annular boosters you’re using to only see a 5 CFM difference running at a constant test pressure, and A/F ratio. I’ve never seen nearly this small of a difference using anything we’ve manufactured, or that Holley® has manufactured that I’ve tested."

Well, I have watched hundreds of wet flow tests on Holley's air boxes (using Stoddard's solvent - same SG as gasoline but not dangerous) and the 850 carb for example would flow with fuel from 830 to 870 cfm. An Annular booster carb would drop that flow rating by 20 cfm for the carb and the booster signal would require two sizes smaller jetting. 80 going to 78s.

Quote:

"Not being around when Holley® did there 1.5” flow data I can’t say how it was done, but if you flow one of their carburetors “Wet” at 1.5” hg it does not flow what the carburetor is “Rated” at." See above, I totally disagree. I used to get a carb out of every 100 High Perf carbs made and then would have it flowed for qc and they were all in spec.

Quote:

"Flow numbers are only a good comparison within each company’s product line for the most part."

Agree, obviously you flow stand is not the same as Holley's was. They had at least 6 carb air boxes and an old Tank/ Aircraft orifice stand (that could flow 3000 cfm) when I was there.

Keep up the good work and get some flow numbers.

Tom V.