tigers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: More on carb sizing.

To: Theo Smit <tsmit@shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: More on carb sizing.
From: Larry Paulick <lpaulick@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 07:13:25 -0500
When I sized my carb to the F4B, for my 5.0L, I took a different 
approach.  I called Holley, told them my engine size, manifold, 
transmission, rear end ratio, tire size, and they told me a 600 CFM 
double pumper would be correct.

It is a simpler way, and after jetting changes when the car was dyno 
tuned, the car runs great.

Larry

Theo Smit wrote:

> Hi all,
> In a reply to Joey I stated that carb sizes are typically quoted as 
> the amount of air they flow at 28 inches water pressure differential. 
> That turns out to be wrong, on two counts. It was pointed out to me 
> that in the carburetor sizing game, two barrels and four barrels are 
> actually rated at different pressure differentials, and according to 
> this article:
>
> http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/56919/
>
> two barrels are rated at 3.0 inches mercury (corresponding to some 40 
> inches of water), while four-barrels are rated at 1.5 inches of 
> mercury (which is 20.4 inches of water pressure differential). Further 
> still, the CFM ratings of carburetors are mostly bunk anyway, because 
> if you're dropping more than about six inches of water across your 
> carb (0.5 inch mercury, give or take), then your carb is too damn small.
>
> What's all that mean when comparing two barrels and four barrel 
> carburetors? Since the pressure drop goes up with the square of the 
> flow velocity, according to Mr. Bernoulli (and who can argue with him? 
> He's dead...) it means that a 500 CFM two-barrel, tested at 3 inches 
> of mercury, would flow about 0.7 of that (or 350 CFM) at 1.5 inches. 
> Therefore, a 500 CFM two-barrel would have about the same outright 
> performance potential as a 390 CFM four-barrel, but because the 
> four-barrel has four smaller throats and only two of them are used for 
> just getting around town, the four-barrel will give better throttle 
> response (and probably, better mileage because of that).
>
> Best regards,
> Theo





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