Vizard's LSA - CI/Inch Valve Diameter chart

This would be why the Big 3 and all the foriegn manufacturers went to EFI in the first place. Reducded ring wear due to fuel wash secondly fuel control for emissions reasons.
.
You can make make a carbed car drive nice but it'll never be anywhere as good as an efi car at fuel control.
And the carbs go marching on.
This would be why the Big 3 and all the foriegn manufacturers went to EFI in the first place. Reducded ring wear due to fuel wash secondly fuel control for emissions reasons.
.
You can make make a carbed car drive nice but it'll never be anywhere as good as an efi car at fuel control.
And the carbs go marching on.

The only time it would be that rich would be either an accelerator pump shot, or the PV opening. Both of which (esp pump shot) are mechanical 'cover ups' for 2nd or 3rd circuits that arent working right.
The more 'sensitive' the main circuits are, the less of a pump shot you need.
Most people up the pump shot with bigger squirters, or bigger CC pumps, or both. I increase the sensitivity of the main circuit, or booster. How? Well, I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you!
So, back to the original topic. Carbs, set up right, are more forgiving than EFI.
The BIG 3 never intended EFI to control engines with 8 in of manifold vacuum, driving around at 1400 rpms.
I don't know about that, I have tuned circle track "Modified's" that are on methanol and run at 7k+ most all of the time on the track. My combo's are running for a full season without blowby on the valve cover breather's. I have several motors that have two full season's on them without having to tear them down at all. They will be refreashed at the end of this season, as the blowby is starting to get progressively worse. These cars that I am talking about are in the top 6 this year for the points lead on their 46+ race engine's. I may not be the smartest guy in the automotive industry, but I am smart enough to know that you don't make blanket statements about all carb'd motors run like dogshit. If that was the case I guess all of the NHRA race team's have crappy running carb motors too.
Metering circut senstitivty isn;t your issue. Try instead on graphing up your AF across various RPM and Load ranges. You see what I am talking about.
The only time it would be that rich would be either an accelerator pump shot, or the PV opening. Both of which (esp pump shot) are mechanical 'cover ups' for 2nd or 3rd circuits that arent working right.
The more 'sensitive' the main circuits are, the less of a pump shot you need.
Most people up the pump shot with bigger squirters, or bigger CC pumps, or both. I increase the sensitivity of the main circuit, or booster. How? Well, I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you!
So, back to the original topic. Carbs, set up right, are more forgiving than EFI.
The BIG 3 never intended EFI to control engines with 8 in of manifold vacuum, driving around at 1400 rpms.
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Metering circut senstitivty isn;t your issue. Try instead on graphing up your AF across various RPM and Load ranges. You see what I am talking about.
You stated some crap about washing rings. I stated if you were washing rings your carb is wacked.
Now you wanna make it about graphing A/F across the entire MAP/RPM table.
You're pulling **** out your ***. You're not gonna have a carb, thats damn close for the most part, rich enough in the zones where its not close, to cause any type of ring wash.
I got alot of respect for you, but sometimes you just talk **** to be argumentative.
You aint talkin to some punk kid whos got a buddy wit a dis or dat. I've tuned, wrenched, built, assisted on TS cars, alcohol funnys, etc. Upwards of 2000 hp.
When a carb relies totally in intake manifold vacuum present, a radical cam can **** this up entirely with very poor vacuum signal.
A modern efi system can be tuned, with total disregard to manifold vacuum, which means you can tune it pretty much perfectly, and easily everywhere, regardless of how big or small a cam is.
When people started switching from carbs to efi, this was one of its biggest assets. The ability to smooth and tame what were previously horrible cams to use down low.
And yes you will have metering issue across load RPM ranges. No matter how sophisticated your carb is its still a beer can full of gas with a straw in it.
there are also sevral SAE papers on this discussion and the studys that they did. go read some papers on ring wash and engine life come back here and we can disucss this on the same footing.
You stated some crap about washing rings. I stated if you were washing rings your carb is wacked.
Now you wanna make it about graphing A/F across the entire MAP/RPM table.
You're pulling **** out your ***. You're not gonna have a carb, thats damn close for the most part, rich enough in the zones where its not close, to cause any type of ring wash.
I got alot of respect for you, but sometimes you just talk **** to be argumentative.
You aint talkin to some punk kid whos got a buddy wit a dis or dat. I've tuned, wrenched, built, assisted on TS cars, alcohol funnys, etc. Upwards of 2000 hp.
Carbs are more forgiving. Alpha-N or not. And you aint tunin no **** with no idle vacuum.
And believe me, I've cleaned up more tunes than I can count. Idle problems, surge problems, **** others cant seem to figure out. Even 'well known' tuners.
Carbs are not near as sensitve as EFI is. Even with very low vacuum, and lots of intake reversion.
And just from a pure performance standpoint, why has Harold Martins EFI NOS Pro Mod never been able to keep up with the Carb cars? Hes got all the backing in the world.
I'm not an EFI critic. I love EFI. I'm an electronics guy for the past 15 plus years. But I know their limitations.
I've tuned some of the craziest **** out there. And I know what works and what doesnt. And what you can get away with and what not.
Your analogy of a carb being a 'can of gas with a straw in it' explains your misunderstanding of the level of technology of carburators these days.
Carbs are more forgiving. Alpha-N or not. And you aint tunin no **** with no idle vacuum.
But defo cases where vacuum is very low. I can only think, that if you think carbs are easier...you must be trying to tune with a calculator. Because it sure isnt a modern efi system !!
No matter what you do to a carburator it'll never be anything beyond a gas can with a straw sticking out of it period.
You can add a ton of air bleeding and emulsifiying orifices and circuts you can redesign the discharge orifices all day but its doesn't change that fact ever. A carberator is a pressure differential device. No pressure difference no function. Sure a carb can tolerate low idle vacum becuase the venturi it self genrates Some of the signal. but as soon as that fuel hits the plenum it falls right out of suspension.
we have a huge difference between a Electronics guy and someone who does what he talks about for a living. Honestly the EFI system is not holding the EFI pro-mod back. Something else in the system is.Could be the ratting for flow on the TB's honestly. You have one TB with a rating at 1.5 inchs of mercury and another at 28inch of water deprssion. You also have a laminar flow elemnt in the carberator which is the venturi itself the helps drive airflow through the plate.
but I am done with this topic. EFI wins if carbs are so great why is proof is in the pudding. F1 runs EFI. if a carb had an advatage I think the companies spending millions daily to find HP would be all over it.
If you want to talk fankly about fuel atomoization differences between carberators and EFI glad to have that discussion.
Carbs are more forgiving. Alpha-N or not. And you aint tunin no **** with no idle vacuum.
And believe me, I've cleaned up more tunes than I can count. Idle problems, surge problems, **** others cant seem to figure out. Even 'well known' tuners.
Carbs are not near as sensitve as EFI is. Even with very low vacuum, and lots of intake reversion.
And just from a pure performance standpoint, why has Harold Martins EFI NOS Pro Mod never been able to keep up with the Carb cars? Hes got all the backing in the world.
I'm not an EFI critic. I love EFI. I'm an electronics guy for the past 15 plus years. But I know their limitations.
I've tuned some of the craziest **** out there. And I know what works and what doesnt. And what you can get away with and what not.
Your analogy of a carb being a 'can of gas with a straw in it' explains your misunderstanding of the level of technology of carburators these days.
But defo cases where vacuum is very low. I can only think, that if you think carbs are easier...you must be trying to tune with a calculator. Because it sure isnt a modern efi system !!
No matter what you do to a carburator it'll never be anything beyond a gas can with a straw sticking out of it period.
You can add a ton of air bleeding and emulsifiying orifices and circuts you can redesign the discharge orifices all day but its doesn't change that fact ever. A carberator is a pressure differential device. No pressure difference no function. Sure a carb can tolerate low idle vacum becuase the venturi it self genrates Some of the signal. but as soon as that fuel hits the plenum it falls right out of suspension.
we have a huge difference between a Electronics guy and someone who does what he talks about for a living. Honestly the EFI system is not holding the EFI pro-mod back. Something else in the system is.Could be the ratting for flow on the TB's honestly. You have one TB with a rating at 1.5 inchs of mercury and another at 28inch of water deprssion. You also have a laminar flow elemnt in the carberator which is the venturi itself the helps drive airflow through the plate.
but I am done with this topic. EFI wins if carbs are so great why is proof is in the pudding. F1 runs EFI. if a carb had an advatage I think the companies spending millions daily to find HP would be all over it.
If you want to talk fankly about fuel atomoization differences between carberators and EFI glad to have that discussion.
F1=huge technology. No doubt.
Indy car, same thing, or close anyways.
But, you gotta give some props to the NASCAR guys (I'm not a big fan) for gettin it done on 1960s technology. Not to mention all the thousands of bracket cars, circle track cars, that run engines for sometimes several seasons without tear down, and never experience "ring wash" that would be severely detrimental to the performance, and life of the engine.
PS, I also recognize the atomization difference between the two.
We can be done here.
But defo cases where vacuum is very low. I can only think, that if you think carbs are easier...you must be trying to tune with a calculator. Because it sure isnt a modern efi system !!
I tune LS1s, LT1s, aftermarket systems, yada, yada. There nothing "easy" about any of them. Not to make a cam with 8 in of idle vacuum drive nice, and idle nice, and return to idle, and not surge.
It won't run at 25 mph and 1200 RPM in 2nd gear (3.42 rear gear) - 1200 RPM 2nd gear is about 14 mph .
It will lope along ....at 1200 rpm in 3rd gear at about 22 mph. Lope ...riding on the cam.
FWIW .
Sure you can make anything work barely with enough time. If Nascar engine builder could switch to ITB with injector above the plate setups like F! it would happen tommorow.
As for ring wash I ain't gonna waste the time pulling pictures of the many engines I have discetted over the years from the various experts at carb tunning with wasted *** rings and cylinder walls.
What looks good to you might be a totaly failure in my book.
Check the SAE papers on ring and cylinder wear. Look at the average life of a modern engine. in 1980 average engine life was about 70K or so. By 1987 and with the standardization of efi ,engine and seal life doubled. directly attribuable to fuel control.
F1=huge technology. No doubt.
Indy car, same thing, or close anyways.
But, you gotta give some props to the NASCAR guys (I'm not a big fan) for gettin it done on 1960s technology. Not to mention all the thousands of bracket cars, circle track cars, that run engines for sometimes several seasons without tear down, and never experience "ring wash" that would be severely detrimental to the performance, and life of the engine.
PS, I also recognize the atomization difference between the two.
We can be done here.


