Well it just gives out a calculated number based on torque and rpmI learned from Chris a dyno doesn’t measure horsepower, just torque and rpm, didn’t know that
Well it just gives out a calculated number based on torque and rpmI learned from Chris a dyno doesn’t measure horsepower, just torque and rpm, didn’t know that
I learned from Chris a dyno doesn’t measure horsepower, just torque and rpm, didn’t know that
LOL. Nope. You can’t have both. No one can. And again, what does torque matter once you are past converter stall speed or clutch launch RPM? That’s exactly what I’m asking.
Maybe you should ask Chris Hardy how he does it. His stuff must be rpming to be winning.
This guy right?
"I'll say it again. Don't make the port bigger there's math for this right. You'll learn it and my customers know my stuffs fast and its fast for a reason, its small ports you'll never see big heads, you'll see that my modified cars and my street stock cars run these unconventional small port heads and kicking peoples butts and not big cams right, big cams don't do it."
Sounds like my kind of guy!
Continue with the good part.Well another thread gone to ****. It started out good and now it’s a pissing match.
Well another thread gone to ****. It started out good and now it’s a pissing match.
Is he the only one winning? Nope. I’m saying you can’t move torque down, or even build torque below useable RPM and not give up horsepower where it counts. That’s simple science.
He says… “ you have obviously been listening to dyno guys too much. You need to think about torque, more torque, faster down the track. You have a bigger runner head now, you have lost torque, thus the 3 loss in the 60 foot.
We just went from 1.625 to 1.875 headers on @lead69’s Dart. The engine was pretty close on tune before the headers. Just bolting on the bigger headers made the engine pig rich. And most would jump to the conclusion that the big header was killing it. In fact, the opposite was true.
The big header actually was pulling harder on the boosters and even on the idle circuit (which is exactly what you want the header to do) and made it pig rich.
To quote the late great Shrinker when asked about why the AFR changed when they went to a bigger header Bruce replied. "The reason for that is not that the carby has changed AFR, that it not possible unless your exhaust pipes managed to grab a spanner while you weren't looking and changed the jets"
Have a think about that for a while.
Do you ever put anything in your own words?
I don’t need to think about that quote at all. It makes zero sense.
Once again you have no point in a thread. I’m out.
Tuning isn’t magic. It is a science that can be learned.
I don't need to when I can provide evidence of what I think by deferring to a higher authority on a subject. I'll let you think you know more than him about how carbs work.
Maybe start with Larew's work in "Carburetors and Carburetion" 1967.
To quote the late great Shrinker when asked about why the AFR changed when they went to a bigger header Bruce replied. "The reason for that is not that the carby has changed AFR, that it not possible unless your exhaust pipes managed to grab a spanner while you weren't looking and changed the jets"
Have a think about that for a while.
To quote the late great Shrinker when asked about why the AFR changed when they went to a bigger header Bruce replied. "The reason for that is not that the carby has changed AFR, that it not possible unless your exhaust pipes managed to grab a spanner while you weren't looking and changed the jets"
Have a think about that for a while.
Bruce knew and wrote plenty about reversion so I have to disagree with that. In fact I recall discussions with him about black up the intake and even into the carbs.The guy you are quoting clearly has never heard of intake reversion.
Its a good question. I dont know that we can answer that over the internet, but I do think its worth trying to understand.I run a Rons toilet and I was way rich after the bigger header swap. So my question is, why is that?
Post number 9 touches on this, we just experienced the exact same thing in my car going from 1 5/8 to 1 7/8, had to take a bunch of jet out.I run a Rons toilet and I was way rich after the bigger header swap. So my question is, why is that?
Because you lost exhaust velocity, it built a low pressure wave at or near the collector which did not get evacuated completely, it just sat there until and was partially sucked back into your intake charge.I run a Rons toilet and I was way rich after the bigger header swap. So my question is, why is that?
I run a Rons toilet and I was way rich after the bigger header swap. So my question is, why is that?
Yep. The scavenge effect.Because you lost exhaust velocity, it built a low pressure wave at or near the collector which did not get evacuated completely, it just sat there until and was partially sucked back into your intake charge.
Not enough fresh air paired with all that fuel caused rich mixture
The guy you are quoting clearly has never heard of intake reversion. As you make the exhaust more efficient, the intake reversion gets reduced/eliminated. When that happens, the incoming air does not go "backwards" through the booster because of reversion, you will now have a leaner mixture. You can "see" this happening on an engine dyno, the lbs of fuel use goes down, A/F trends leaner and the volumetric efficiency goes up.
As far as the HP "changing" with the rate of acceleration changing on a dyno pull, well it doesn't, only what is measured changes. There is a way to get actuate numbers. I wrote on this same subject on my website, if you want to read it go to http://www.cen-texenginedyno.com/ and read "Joe's BS" at the bottom of the page.
Joe
Yep. The scavenge effect.
Because you lost exhaust velocity, it built a low pressure wave at or near the collector which did not get evacuated completely, it just sat there until and was partially sucked back into your intake charge.
Not enough fresh air paired with all that fuel caused rich mixture.
I believe darin Morgan and hooker headers told me that in my reading