Incorrect, a flow bench would be a fair intake test compared to this. This was a "out of 20 intakes, these work best with these cubes, heads and cam.

That's all I'm saying. Wouldn't hurt to switch to a carb grind and do it again.

 

A flow bench will give a static figure. Just because the headline number is bigger, doesnt mean the power/torque at various rpms will be better. Unless you're going to add in port velocities etc it would be pointless.
In just the same way some 285cc heads may perform worse in some areas than 225cc heads.

And it wouldnt hurt to optimise the cam for every intake used....but then it would be a cam test, not an intake test. You could easily say that cam was a bad choice for some of the efi intakes used.

There has to be some sort of baseline, the more variables you add the more pointless the test becomes.

And lets face it, very few others are offering up such test results, so at least this gives some sort of information to the public.

 

I dont know why I wasnt thinking about the downward pull of the piston when I wrote that earlier. I think I was more hung up the scavenging effect of both valves being open at that point. I have always visualized the air moving straight through the motor with little restriction at that moment if both valves were open. Extra pull and easier turning of the motor. I am sure you could probably reach a point though where there would be deminishing returns with more overlap as compression was lost though. Seems like a little more could have favorered the short runner intake but we will never know. After spending so much time dwelling on this I gotta wonder if the high end intakes are worth it from a forced induction standpoint. In many cases it would take a mighty combo to really need the high end ones considering the cams that are used under preasure. Seams so easy to make big power with out winding these turbo or supercharged combos sky high.

 

Understandably, I understand what your sayings. Just saying a flow bench would be equal. Nothing optimized for any intake.

The test for me only counts for the EFI setups and does nothing for letting the carb setups even stretch their legs. The info for the carbs is worthless for us that use them, that's all I'm getting at.

 

And I forgot, the BS that there was no super Vic used, or some of the other offerings.

 

Well dang this guys got 20 dyno runs behind his belt.... end of story.

Was the same goober that told you carb's perform better than fuel injection operating tuning the cars as well? Look at the engine masters competitions sometime. Individual cylinder spark/fuel control is where it's at...

The reason Prostock/NASCAR etc don't change over to fuel injection has nothing to do with a carb being a superior metering device. Dont' take my word for it... Here are direct quotes from some of the top names in the biz...

Some of these guys might have you're 20 dyno views topped....

http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/...-vs-injection/

 

Carbs are usually superior for budget hot rodding. If you know a little you don't need to pay a tuner, you don't need a expensive tuning setup. And they will idle with quality with any cam. But for kill mode combos? EFI has it.

 

For 2016 Pro Stock is switching over to fuel injection because they want to be "with the times" and no cars come with carbs anymore. But in one article it says "throttle body injection," I'm sure they meant using throttle bodies with a multiport intake, but it was humorous. "Get with the times and run throttle body injection!" Should be interesting.

 

Equally you could say there were plenty of other manifolds not tested. The fact they tested a few is still a good thing.


Is fuel injection not banned from Nascar etc ? It isnt a case of not wanting to use it, they arent allowed to ?

 

That is what I said. Lol.

 

NASCAR is fuel injected now. At least Sprint Cup is.
Holley throttle body.

Allows them to run restrictor plates and keep the policing easier.

If Pro Stock is really going throttle body, that's a shame.

 

[QUOTE=Forcefed86;18924564]Well dang this guys got 20 dyno runs behind his belt.... end of story.

Was the same goober that told you carb's perform better than fuel injection operating tuning the cars as well? Look at the engine masters competitions sometime. Individual cylinder spark/fuel control is where it's at...

The reason Prostock/NASCAR etc don't change over to fuel injection has nothing to do with a carb being a superior metering device. Dont' take my word for it... Here are direct quotes from some of the top names in the biz...

Some of these guys might have you're 20 dyno views

Warren Johnson:dumProperly tuned, carburetors make more peak power than EFI in a Pro Stock engine. A carb's pressure differential atomizes the gas a lot better than spraying fuel through an orifice.

I think I'll listen to this guy. Pro stock is where it's at. I'm not talking about drive ability, mpg, or power under the curve. I'm talking about Drag racing.
20 dyno pulls. You must read like a politician, out of context. So let me rephrase it for you. Out of the 20+ combos I've seen on the dyno NOT A SINGLE EFI SETUP has made more power then a carb setup. I'm also not talking about a $400 carb bought out of the Jegs or summit catalog. These are $50,000 and $60,000 engines. With $3000+ carbs on them. That will literally wear them out on the dyno, making 50 to 100 pulls per combo, trying to find every last single HP to be had. Changing everything from cams, intakes, injector placement, and carbs. Everything from 420cuiner to 800+inch IHRA Pro stockers. **** the engine master challenge. Look at the N/A classes at the track. Carbs dominant those classes. On the track engines don't have to make average power over a 2000 or 3000 rpm range. More like 1500 rpm's. Individual cylinder fueling and timing are easily controlled on a carb setup also. Coil on plug ignition and split or stretched carbs allow you to change anything you want.
As for the pro stock class. That's were we will see. Wait till next year and see if they slow down your not.
Take this as you wish. Just stating what I've seen at the track and on the dyno!

 

Sure listen to him… but post his whole quote.

His very next sentence in the text you quoted.

Average power is what matters in any kind of racing, including drag racing. Also I’ll point out that others in that article state the exact opposite.

Warren also goes on to say FI SHOULD be used in Prostock here.

Really though we can stop listening when someone says something as ignorant as “**** the Engine Master Challenge” . Cuz what do those guys know, right?

Carbs don't dominate anything. They are old outdated technoilogy plain and simple. Affordability and lack of FI knowledge is why we see so much of them at the strip. I'd run a carb, and have nothing against them. I don't understand how anyone can claim they are better if given the choice at the same cost though.

 

He says about the same. No where dose he ever say FI makes more power. He also states a carb is better at atomizing fuel. 1500 rpm's is were most drag race engines operate. If you have 2000 rpm's of drop on your shift something is wrong.
I say **** engine master challenge because it is a average over 3300 rpm's. Nothing like a drag race engine will ever see.
Most of these high end carbs cost more then a FI system. So when comparing cost everyone should run FI. The builder's and buyers of these high end engines don't give a **** what it cost. They want to know what makes power.
And Warren is right FI should be used in Pro Stock, bout time.

 

Exactly, they are the budget king. As for HP per HP, it levels out. Becomes the same and the atomization can lean to the carbs favor. 8 carbs on a V8 can tune nearly as close as a EFI and still make the extra power, but at what cost? More than I'll dish out. I'll be going EFI with my turbo setup hopefully next year because I'm not going to tune a carbed setup with boost. I want to drive the hell out of my car like I do NA with nitrous and I see all the carbs being worked on more than the EFI setups because of the variables in carb adjustment with boost issues.

Can a carb setup run great with boost? Hell yea, will I want to dish the cash out for a CSU or any of that? Rather just go Holley EFI and run my truck intake. I don't want to imagine cold starts in winter with a carb and boost. I don't mind it NA, but that's where I am personally drawing the line.

 

Sounds like rich old men afraid of change to me. If their old school tuner prefers/suggests a carb, then that's what they run.

I'd like to take any of those big dollar NA carb engines tuned for hours and hours by top name professionals. (not knocking them in anyway)

Then install a WB02 on each cylinder with a $600 megasquirt. Setup by a nobody like me and have the ECU "Auto Trim" the AFR in each cylinder. Make some back to back passes, and see if the computer can beat out the experienced carb tuners in average HP at a a fraction of the cost/time.

Like this setup.

 

Years ago motorbike guys said fuel injection could never work on bike engines, carbs were king.


Somehow that just doesnt ring true now

 

The best part about that cam being used in the test is that it wasn't ideal for any of the intakes. It wasn't really even ideal for the rest of the engine combination, either.

Do you know what it was good for? A constant. A non-variable. Sure, run all the tests again with a carb cam. Run it all with a diesel cam, I don't care, just make sure it doesn't change throughout the test.

As for carbs vs efi... let the people who choose to live in the dark continue to live in the dark. It's not our duty to enlighten the savages. Let them tinker with jets and floats by candlelight in peace.

 

So, does that mean every car I have destroyed with my carb setup that was EFI had a dark age EFI tune? Lol

And yes, that can did work very well for many of those EFI intakes. Carbs are a different animal all together and you know this. That was a EFI grind, cut and dry.

 

I found the article interesting.
The cam and heads used was nothing more than a fixed measure.
The intakes worked with what they had on hand. Everyone used the exact same scr/dcr and pretty much the same air volume and port velocity available. Some just made due better with what was available.
Intake manifold ports design and shape, plenums and inlets are the variables that we should be noting. I took it as just a baseline test and that's pretty much what it was. A baseline to start from.
Of course changing cam even roller rocker ratio would affect the test and valve events. Retarding or advancing and so forth would change the outcome drastically.
The bottom line is no particular intake is ever gonna be optimal unless it has a corresponding cam and goal. Carb or Efi.
Boost just complicates things. Now it affects intake port behavior and power stroke/exhaust stroke behavior and chamber design and compression.
I've personally seen tho happen at a low scale. Changing from 317 heads to a 243 heads. Which are essentially the same the same intake/exhaust ports but significantly different chamber design and size. Cam and intake remained the same. As well as setting on the turbo side. It affected it enough to to warrant an updated tune and it made more hp n TQ.
Just too many variables. Too many possible combos.
Take the intake test for what it is a BASIC baseline.