SBM Edelbrock/Speedmaster Head Data

273 said
I don't believe we can calculate a perfect engine or math should be valued over known results.

Then why do you get behind it so much and defend it so hard?
You swore up and down and fought really hard for what…. Years that an engine that calculates to consume 600 cfm should only use that since a larger carb won’t produce any meaningful amount of extra HP but only give a worse throttle response, lower mileage and a crappier pedal feel on the road?

Dozens here argued against you but you stood proud until engine masters showed you wrong.

273 said
But it's also not random why dyno sims kind of work, how we got formulas and rules of thumbs in the first place.

The applied science is in the program. What’s to argue about there! LOL!

273 said
I do see people over value formulas and rule of thumbs Eg. The carb one, cid x rpm / 3456 = cfm, But there is a underlining mathematical symmetry within all these variables and is how I generally, See add process catalogue all this information. It's how I think :)

So the formula over valves carbs?

273 said
When you 1st posted it I tried for a few minutes to figure where 0.0009875 comes from, part of of it must convert cubic inch to cubic feet, per revolution (every other stroke) 1 cubic in = .0005787 cubic feet / 2, so 360 x 6000 x .0005787/ 8 /2 = 78 actual cfm vs the 266 cfm of need head flow. That's far as I got, problem with head flow is the depends on a depression, there's not a direct translation between the two. Why the carb formula doesn't work unless the goal is to have 1.5 hg at WOT.

Is 1.5hg the optimal goal point? For you personally that is.