Search results for query: *

My view is a little different. Looking at the incrementals it was quicker everywhere except the 60ft. The fact that its was able to do that with 5.5 inches of vacuum tells me that engine needs vacuum to aid it in the vaporization department as he's running pump fuel which has higher temp...

You mean Morgan can actually see what's happening?

What defines whether its too fast or too slow?

Why would it split?

@Mattax did you ever fix that combo you and Bruce spoke about?

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

That's funny some one else saw the gaping inconsistencies I pointed out. And Maybe I should post the video of Kaase sticking his finger in an intake port in a running engine so you can see the reversion and how far it travels back up the port? Pay your money and target what ever you want.

Pay your money and target what ever velocity you want. P.s. when was the last time you looked at that pic of your intake manifold with the evidence of reversion?

What happens when you increase the vacuum in the plenum? Why read spark plugs......when you have a formula.

Did you make the assumption that the fuel droplets are all the same size and uniform in weight as they leave the carb and magically turn corners like gasses do? Let me guess you think a formula can tell you what size droplet the fuel is when it has to travel past the exhaust charge as it...

But he has a chart and DV preaches it so it must be true.

You pointed out that Darin Morgan said he is a velocity manager did you not. Why is velocity important.

Tell me why velocity matters

Software trumps Physics.

Why would velocity matter?

Shhh.......You'll get sacrificed on the alter of the hot rod engine builder gods for pointing that out. The emperor has no clothes.

If you want to believe those numbers are set in stone then pay your money and get your heads done so they get exactly the number you want.

No one said he was fucked you did. All I'm pointing out is those numbers do not account for all the variables in a running engine. If you want to use them go right ahead.

All I'm doing is simply pointing out the flawed assumptions and holes in claims people make.

:rofl: They're currently feverishly scanning DV's books to find mention of these points....

No need. Too many variables to accurately predict combustion outcomes with a simple simulation program.

It doesn't, that chart clearly shows there's no such thing as reversion.

There fixed it for you. Maybe DV could tell you all about his scientific testing?

Now there's a great question! It doesn't because my flow bench tells me air flow demand is constant and so is velocity (sarcasm)......

I know who Larry is. Can you tell me what size fuel droplet was found to best follow the intake tract air flow? Here's a hint its in the microns. What sort of compression ratios is he running in his engine?

Nothings changed.....

Great so where's the scientific testing to back it up.

Great let me know how they came to those numbers........Cant wait to look at their methodology and testing procedures and equipment used to verify those conclusions.

I've provided enough examples of "supposedly" flow challenged engines that make more power than people claim they should whether they were under headed or under carbed because they utilize the oxygen they get. What you fail to grasp is to use the oxygen the fuel needs to be in the correct...

You mean the test where they dyno tune the carbs on a chassis dyno then take them to the track to see how they actually perform? Was it the test where the engine ran fastest with 5 inches of vacuum at the top end with all those pumping losses? Why did it run fastest and idle best with the...