[Steve Hoog]

I beg of you 300+ CFM and RAIV size intakes with plenty of meat to port further!

[Junkyard Dog]

Originally Posted by Tech @ BG

From what we've been told depending on engine size, and setup most street engines with a good single 4bl like a Performer RPM the single 4bl is up 35 to 50 HP.

Can somebody translate this last sentence for me?

Does this mean that a single four barrel in testing is 35 to 50 hp over the system BG is testing?

[DiamondJim]

JYD, (Grasshopper, Questions are many, answers are few)Looks like BG tech is not around. The way I read his statements was his new system out-performed the 4 barrell at Butlers, while the 4 barrell out-performed a original Pontiac Tripower by 35-50 hp. BG tech please correct me if I got this wrong. I would not short-sell the original Pontiac designed Tripower, because, JYD, as you know I have a few test results myself. -Jim

[slowbird]

Our alum. tri-power flowed 297 with the carbs on the intake when bolted to our e-heads which flowed 327cfm (our iron intake flowed 295cfm). Also our carbs have be heavily ported, the air cleaner stud and arms (if that is what you want to call them) have been removed and alot of work done inside of them.

[Tech @ BG]

Tom,

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

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


JYD, DiamondJim hit the nail on the head. We tested on a 461” engine that the guys at Butler’s build on a regular basis. They ran this same (build up, but not the same engine) with the single 4bl performer RPM that they normally use vs. a Stock Pontiac 3x2 Setup that had been worked on. From what they told us the Performer RPM was about 50 HP, and 50 Ft/Lbs better than the Pontiac 3x2 setup. Our System made more torque, and HP both peak and average than the engines best pull with the single 4bl, and Performer RPM. That was with the same carburetors we use on our Chevrolet package. Going to larger carburetors not only hurt the power, and acceleration, but the sound and drivability of the package. We’re not finalized on sizing just yet; we’re going to go through our drivability testing first. From there we’d rather start out with something on the smaller side that can be ported for a larger or higher performance application, but will still work properly on a milder package like this engine was.

Again, thank you very much for all of the feedback.

[Steve Hoog]

I think this is the biggest thing since Frosted Flakes, and I'm ready for it.

[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.

[guidos]

This is a very interesting post, I plan on going back to the dyno in the spring and swaping a RPM for a 66 tripower, with no other changes. On the Mustang dyno my combo made 361HP and 415ftlbs of torque (rear wheel horse power). I will be happy and sad if the car makes that much more horsepower with the RPM. My preference is to run the tripower, I guess I will have to send the carbs out for some extra flow or wait for the Barry Grant set up.

I will post the results. Has anybody has simular results as the Butlers??

[Sicbird]

Tech @ BG, will the Six-Shooter system be Pro-Charger friendly? I could make something work for carb hats, but will the individual carbs work well in a blow-through setup?