land-speed
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: To inject or not to inject...

To: landspeedracer <landspeedracer@msn.com>
Subject: Re: To inject or not to inject...
From: Rick Hammond <r.hammond@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:57:30 -0400
landspeedracer wrote:

> Rick
>
> It's more accurately eight into one into eight. And the carbs uses on such
> an application most often only have primaries. Supposedly a better system,
> than IR, as the proper plenum helps the top end power. To bad Dave D isn't
> still on the list as he knows the technical details.
>
> JB
>

Right you are,
Interesting the differences between the bikes and cars.  The old basics were
always the valves/ports etc., with things like the tunnel rams or spacers 
playing
with the intake length/volume after the carb.  Bikes had one carb per cylinder,
usually with a K&N right on each carb, and intakes that often took nasty twists
to fit.
Now, I look into the intake of the ST4 and I can see the valves, and the
manufacturers fight to give the airboxes as much room as possible.  The 
manifolds
for the cars have banks of foot-long intake runners.  With injectors spitting
right on the valves (somebody mentioned carbs being better for atomization; fuel
droplets from a carb are bad as they can drop out, but if you have droplets
injected right into the cylinder, I would guess it isn't as bad and I wonder if
it could even help cool if it has the chance to evaporate before burning..hmm) 
it
seems that airboxes and intake runners are the new areas of potential gains.
Other than stack stubs the idea used to be just have it as open as possible.

These are just musings, and I know there are so many variables; twins are
different than fours etc., but it is fun to compare them all.
Cheers,
Rick

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rick Hammond" <r.hammond@sympatico.ca>
> To: <hotrod32@fuse.net>
> Cc: "Ed Lutz" <edlutz@laverdajota.com>; <ardunbill@webtv.net>;
> <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 9:57 PM
> Subject: Re: To inject or not to inject...
>
> > Hi John,
> > That would really be eight into two into eight..wouldn't it?  Also, on a
> 4-barrel you have the primaries
> > and secondaries working separately.
> > Other paired systems and split/dual plane manifolds would depend on the
> firing order.
> > Cheers,
> > Rick
> >
> > hotrod32@fuse.net wrote:
> >
> > > Ed, I always liked 2 4 barrels on a tunnel ram. One hole per cylinder.
> What are your thoughts on that?
> > >
> > > John Backus

///  unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net  or try
///  http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
///  Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/land-speed


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>