Herman wrote:
>
> Karl,
> I think you should consider a dualquad setup purely for dragracing if
> performance is your main concern.
>
> But... :o) I have however ran a Dualquad setup on the street after I had ran
> with a Single plane Torker on my 'offtopic' '67 Newport w/440.
> The dual-intake was an early '60s lowrise 413 marine manifold.
>
> I had 2 brand new Carter 625 carb's installed straight out of the box. I used a
> direct linkage throttle mechanism.
> Because today's Carters have a secondairy airvalve, it's very hard to 'over
> cfm' the engine (without valve modifications of course).
> I could stomp gas and of I went without hessitation.
>
> I did change some more things (rear end gears) on my car besides
the intake swap, but most performance gains can be found at high rpm's
because of the increased cfm you have. (provided we are talking 413
engines or bigger here)
> Why did Chrysler used a dualquad back then?
> I don't know much of carb history, but maybe there were no big cfm
carbs back then..??
> I mean almost every carmaker used multiple carbsetup's on performance
cars back then...
> Just my opinion and thoughts....
> Herman Meiners
> The Netherlands
RE; Dual carbs, my setup has 2 WCFB carbs. THey are ONLY rated at
approximately 385cfm EACH.
The Carter WCFB's were early 4bbl carbs, they were used by the other
car companies also.
I have also heard that the sum of the 2 are NOT the true total cfm of a
multiple carb setup. I have seen or been told several times that the
duals total cfm will be less then the total. WHY, I do not know.
--
Paul Holmgren
Hoosier Corps #33, L-6
2 57 300-C's in Indy
|
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network