[bmpmdf]

455-4+1; That is one reason I take all new carbs apart before even trying to use them. Between loose parts and shavings in every brand, I trust none of them.

[esahlin]

Check out these Braswell patented Nascar boosters on the Braswell site....they dont seem to be much different than the older Holley downleg design....This braswell design supposedly has a shown a proven increase in torque. I dont have a car consistent enough nor dyno opportunities to test them adequately.....but i do have a Holley booster installation tool....so Ive though about giving them a try. Maybe they are only effective in the upper RPM range that Nascar sees.....dont know just interesting stuff. Must be something too them if Braswell went to the trouble to patent them.


http://www.braswell.com/prod_catalog...d_boosters.htm

[455-4+1]

bmpmdf

Ditto on that one

My carb had a list of problems longer than my arm. Even though it was "wet tested" and signed off (yeah right) it had the following

Float bowls full of swarf

Junk in the primary needle and seat (wouldnt move)

Drilled passages in metering block 1/2 blocked by tail out from intersection drillings

Accelerator pump linkages not adjusted properly (no clearance at bottom of stroke)

One side of secondary shooter not drilled properly (fuel only weeped out) signed off on check sheet (yea right)

I admit I never tried to remove any parts of the booster assembly. Somehow at the time I must have overlooked this as I never gave it a thought. Maybe something in the back of my mind told me things like that shouldnt fall out !!!!

Sorry for highjacking the post a little but I thought it important to bring up since the discussion was about annular boosters.

When you get your new (or used) carb with annular boosters, put your little finger inside the booster (size permitting) and see if you can pull out the top ring.

[Skip Fix]

Braeswell has some really good stuff. Even Tom Vaught had good things to say about them. I know the NASCAR guys use him alot.

[Steve C.]

I need to make a correction regarding my situation with the annular boosters. Apparantly my slower ET had little, if anything, to do with the loss of cfm. For which I was told by an outside source might be as much as 20 cfm under some situations and the specific carb involved.
I talked with John today about our situation and he indicated our problem was in the 60-ft. Apparantly with the annular boosters we had a very bad stumble and dispite trying to overcome the situation it helped very little. Something about a very strong signal and not being able to make it lean enough, or something to that effect. Not 100 percent on that statement, but anyway after the change of boosters the 60-ft came back and we picked up 3 tenths.
Like 74t/a suggested the type of heads, intake, cam, etc and other parameters are involved and each combination is effected different. On mine they did not work.

[74t/a]

Steve, you may have been able to tune the annulars to work with your combination. I had one on a 455 that made over 550hp that really ran good. It was a 9380 modified with thinner shafts, larger air bleeds and emulsion circuits, 80/88 jetting, and leaned out idle circuits. I also tried a modified 4781 that dry flowed over 1050 cfm. It did not run as good on the track or the dyno. I modify carbs in house and have been doing so for over 10 years now. I used to have a guy working for me that did carbs for Hendricks motor sports, and Roush. I learned a lot from him.