Carburetor/FI air meter flow (new thread) - NCRS Discussion Boards

Carburetor/FI air meter flow (new thread)

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Duke W.
    Beyond Control Poster
    • January 1, 1993
    • 15610

    Carburetor/FI air meter flow (new thread)

    Or I could have titled this "why mathematicians need engineers to do the math":-) Getting down to business, air flows in response to a pressure differential, like current flows in response to a voltage differential, however, unlike the linear relationship between voltage and current. Air flows in proportion to the square root of pressure drop. So if we double the pressure drop we only get 1.414 times more flow. When manufacturers measure flow rate they use a flow bench, which has a vacuum pump that can maintain a vacuum below the carburetor throttle valves. They'll take measurements, for example, every 0.2 inches of mercury pressure drop up to, let's, say 4.0 inches depression. If you then plot the curve you will clearly see that in order to double the flow the pressure drop must increase by a factor of four, or at double the pressure drop the air flow will increase by only 1.414 (the square root of two). For the purposes of sizing carburetors for specific engine applications, the industry decided to rate four-barrel carbs (and EFI throttle bodies) at 1.5 inches of mercury and two-barrels at 3.0 inches. Thus if we compare a multiple two-barrel setup to a four-barrel we must convert the two- barrel flow to four-barrel flow and we do this by dividing the two-barrel flow by 1.414 to get the flow at 1.5 inches instead of three. So the big block tripower setup flows equivalent to a 903 CFM four-barrel.

    Now, the actual flow through the carb(s) on the engine is a function of the size of the engine and it's efficiency as an air pump. I computed the flow of a 427 solid lifter engine as 642 CFM at 6500 revs. Peak VE occurs at the torque peak and is typically about 90 percent, but like the torque curve, the VE falls off with increasing revs. Ol'Geezer came back and computed 803 CFM, but he forgot to multiply by volumetric efficiency, and VE of 80 percent is typical for our engines at peak revs (redline). Knowing the the engine is actually aspirating about 642 CFM I can go back to the square root relationship of air flow to pressure drop and compute an actual pressure drop across the the three carbs at about .79 inches Hg. at 6500 revs by punching a few numbers into my slide ru...I mean, calculator. You might notice that this is different than the pressure drop I calculated in the previous thread. Yeah, I screwed up. It's a good thing that I just work on Corvettes now, and not hydrogen bombs like I did back in my twenties. Sorry. Questions or comments?

    Duke
  • Everett Ogilvie

    #2
    Rusty old Slide Rule...

    Wow, very informative and interesting summary. I have enjoyed this thread and think I dreamed about Bernoulli last night. Maybe if you would have used a new HP calculator you would not have made your first error...

    Now, why did the 425's almost always outrun the '67 435 (not your car George...)? Did the intake flow better?

    Comment

    • Duke W.
      Beyond Control Poster
      • January 1, 1993
      • 15610

      #3
      New thread subtitle

      Given my initial error, perhaps I should have subtitled the thread "why engineers need a mathematician to do the math", rather than vice versa. I actually made a logical error on the first calculations, not an arithmetic error.

      One of the issues in a carbureted engine is mixture distribution, and I think it can be more problematic with a tri-power setup than a four-barrel, which is why trips were never very popular with OEMs. Though the 3x2 setup has slightly greater flow and should result in less loss of air density through the carbs the long plenum and asymmetry in the manifold runners may have resulted is less power at some points in the rev range.

      I remember Corvette News describing the 3x2 setup as "very fuel injection like" with the vacuum operation of the outer carbs, but back when they were relatively new a lot of guys didn't like them and replaced the trips with a single Holley. Don't take this personnally guys, but I think the 3x2 setup was driven primarily by marketing considerations, but it does look neat.

      Duke

      Comment

      • Wayne M.
        Expired
        • March 1, 1980
        • 6414

        #4
        Re: New thread subtitle

        Duke -- Other than the marketing aspect of 3 x 2's, didn't this enable GM to jet the center carb lean (# 63's ?) and gain brownies in the process ?

        Comment

        • Duke W.
          Beyond Control Poster
          • January 1, 1993
          • 15610

          #5
          Re: New thread subtitle

          I'm not intimately familiar with the 3x2 system, but the lower flow rating of the center carb would indicate that it had a smaller throttle bore and/or venturi,which would help provide a good metering signal at part throttle low load operation to get decent fuel economy and achieve the required emissions level. I think the center carb also had a conventional Holley power valve to provide a rich mixture for WOT operation. I believe the end carbs did not have a power valve because they would only open at WOT at mid to high revs, so they were jetted to provide a suitablly rich mixture for maximum power.

          The Quadrajet used a similar philosophy. The small primary throttle bore and venturi provided a good metering signal for part load operation, and the very large secondary bores provided flow for high load, high rev operation. Despite all the grousing, I think the Quadrajet was a pretty good design. It's biggest problem was a small fuel bowl which could percolate or run low during high load operation if the fuel pump couldn't keep up.

          Duke

          Comment

          • Bill Braun

            #6
            Attaboy, Duke...

            Another interesting post. It has been consigned to my hard drive together with your last seminar on Positive Crankcase Ventilation theory. Bill Braun 33186

            Comment

            • motorman

              #7
              Re: New thread subtitle

              duke the pri carb has a TB of 1 1/2" and a venturi of 1 3/16" and the sec carbs have a TB of 1 3/4" and a venturi of 1 3/8". also the pri carb has a power valve while the sec carbs donot.


              Comment

              • motorman

                #8
                Re: Rusty old Slide Rule...

                the 3x2 manifold was a dropped manifold to clear the hood, the ports ran uphill just like the stock manifold on my 1970 450 hp 454 chevelle because they were going to put this engine in the vette but never did. i replaced mine with a 425 hp 427 hi rise and there was a difference at the strip. too long ago and too many cars later to remember what the numbers were. should have kept better records. never thought i would live this long or i would have taken better care of myself!


                Comment

                • Jerry Clark

                  #9
                  Re: Rusty old Slide Rule...

                  MM:

                  Yuo and I went to different schools together, I ABSOLUTELY knew I was gonna die fifteen years ago so I had as much fun as is legal, (somewhat, anyway), now I feel like I wish I had.

                  jer

                  Comment

                  • Ol'Geezer

                    #10
                    Re: Carburetor/FI air meter flow (new thread)

                    Duke -- I realize that the engine doesn't ingest all of the air that the displacement will sweep, and hence there is a need for a volumetric efficiency. My primary point, however, was that one does *not* need a wildly oversized carb. -- just showed the factors for those doubters.


                    Geezers Cars

                    Comment

                    Working...

                    Debug Information

                    Searching...Please wait.
                    An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

                    Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                    An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

                    Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                    An internal error has occurred and the module cannot be displayed.
                    There are no results that meet this criteria.
                    Search Result for "|||"