RB Holley 465 vs. Sterling: opinions and expierence
01-28-09, 12:15 PM
#51
Nikki-Modder Rex-Rodder
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Trying to convince some clown not to put a Holley 600 on his 12a.
Posts: 2,890
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
6 Posts
Since I have the RB SP Holley setup and I've turn the carb completely apart. I few things I found out. The RB Holley is a stock carb out of 312ci Ford with some added linkage. RB says they do custom work in the inside, this is a complete lie. I called them to ask what the jets were and they said they custom drilled them. For anyone who knows about carbs, you know that you can buy any size you need. I got the specs on the stock carb and compared with the RB carb and they all match, even the jets.
OK so now I sound like I hate the Holley setup but I don't. The reason I went with the Holley setup is because I have 3 other cars with holleys. This makes it nice to have 4 cars with holleys because I only need one set of tuning stuff. I put my car on the dyno and I was able to do some jet, and AP cam and jet changes. With the time I spent on the carb I was able to get great A/F throughout the rpm and no flat spots. The car runs great. I friend of mine has a SP 13B with a dual Webber setup and my car is not as fast but it starts even when it is -5 in the morning.
-It also starts with no problem for any of my Canadian and Michigan customers. Without a choke.
As for the venturi sizes and spread bore vs. square bore. This is an argument that has been going on for at least 40 years. The advantage to a spread bore is you have a little better gas mileage if you stay out of the 4s. But a properly tuned square bore will not be much worse. It all comes out to matching air and fuel right. At 7000feet where I am, we need all the air we can get. Talking with old carb guys up here, they all say that they like to go a little bigger in cfm and match the jets with A/F. I will admit the choke on the Holley really restricts the flow. I wish I could remove is but since it is my DD I can't. Carbs like demons really improve all this.
The one thing I don't agree about this whole argument is piston vs. rotary carb thing. Yes the Holley was designed for a piston engine and the Nikki was designed for a rotary. The thing is both motors have basically the same combustion cycle. Both carb work the same, they just look different. They have all the same parts with just a few small changes. I Nikki is basically a small Q-jet carb.
The one thing I don't agree about this whole argument is piston vs. rotary carb thing. Yes the Holley was designed for a piston engine and the Nikki was designed for a rotary. The thing is both motors have basically the same combustion cycle. Both carb work the same, they just look different. They have all the same parts with just a few small changes. I Nikki is basically a small Q-jet carb.
For example, let's not make "the 4 bbl is good for MPG" case here, because we are talking about performance carbs. I'm lucky to get 15 MPG out of mine the way it's set up. I can tune it for 25, but then it's not a performance carb anymore.
There are significant differences between piston engines and rotaries, as well. What never ceases to amaze me is how many rotorheads seem to neglect those differences during the 2 bbl vs 4 bbl debate.
The rotary makes power linearly throughout a very long band, and suffers from low end power. The Otto makes power down low (at least the ones that the Holleys were designed for), and the band is quite short. With a short, early band, you really don't need to fine tune the emulsion system. You get what you get, and there's little transistion to worry about.
But with a rotary, the band covers such a vast range of air velocity through the carb, being able to adjust the AF via the emulsion system is imparitive. Now, this can be done on the big two bbls, but they do have the fundamental flaw of not being able to provide a strong atomized mixture at a relatively low velocity, where the rotary needs the help the most.
At high velocity, a beer can with a straw sticking out of the side going to the fuel bowl will work. The engine tops out at 8400 RPM, and it doesn't much matter to engine performance whether that AF mixture is coming from a carb that's close to it's max flow limit, or one that's only at half it's limit. The higher the flow, the more powerful the signal to the fuel, and the better the atomization. But at low RPMs the proper AF with better atomization WILL come from the carb with the smaller venturis. It's just plain science.
01-28-09, 12:15 PM
#52
No distributor? No thanks
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Outskirts of Road Atlanta
Posts: 3,438
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
4 Posts
Hey Sterling, if you find time later can you educate us on the emulsion system? That's one of the few things I don't recall really being discussed, and I've always wondered about the specifics.
01-28-09, 12:49 PM
#53
Nikki-Modder Rex-Rodder
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Trying to convince some clown not to put a Holley 600 on his 12a.
Posts: 2,890
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
6 Posts
Heh-
I'm having a really hard time trying to write about it on my site. I've been writing stuff like crazy for the site, but the E-system is difficult without diagrams. I have a few bmps I drew up years ago, but what I really would like to do is mill out a Nikki to expose the internal circuits so you could see just how the E-system works. Things like the fuel level inside the bowl really effect it.
Here's most of the basic part explaining the E-system:
More in-depth junk will be added on the site about the E-system with regards to track tuning.
I'm having a really hard time trying to write about it on my site. I've been writing stuff like crazy for the site, but the E-system is difficult without diagrams. I have a few bmps I drew up years ago, but what I really would like to do is mill out a Nikki to expose the internal circuits so you could see just how the E-system works. Things like the fuel level inside the bowl really effect it.
Here's most of the basic part explaining the E-system:
Although fuel readily evaporates, air cannot be saturated with enough fuel vapor needed for engine combustion. This means that liquid fuel must be mixed with the air, or atomized. Proper atomization of fuel is the key to successful tuning. Introducing fuel into the air as a fine mist in specific ratios is what we need the carburetor to do. It's difficult to atomize fuel into air using only a variable stream of air as the pressure source. There is fairly wide leeway for fuel atomization quality to be "good enough" for engine combustion, but fuel atomization needs to be nearly perfect to deliver optimum power. Liquid fuel does not stay suspended in air for very long, and even worse, turbulence within the manifold causes the fuel droplets to crash against the insides of the manifold, increasing the difficulty of keeping fuel mixed with the air consistently. Though these are problems inherent to any engine, unless the carburetor is jetted completely wrong, these occur at low enough RPMs where it's not too much of concern.
Air flows through the venturi, or "barrel" of the carburetor. The nature of the venturi is such that as air flows through it, there is a pressure drop created at a point inside it. There is also a mini, "booster", venturi set down into the primary venturi. It amplifies the pressure drop, helping to draw fuel in at low RPMs, when the air flow is lower.
Inside the booster venturi is the fuel pipe. It is located at the point where the pressure drop is the strongest. It is also located above the fuel level in the float bowl, otherwise fuel would simply spill out into the venturi. The fuel pipe comes up from a circuit at the bottom of the float bowl, where the fuel jet limits the rate of fuel that can flow up the fuel pipe.
When air flows through the venturi, the pressure at the end of the fuel pipe becomes less than the atmospheric pressure acting on the fuel in the float bowl, causing fuel to spill out of the fuel pipe and be carried into air flowing into the engine in a mist. This is sometimes refered to as the "fuel signal". As the flow of air through the venturi increases, the pressure at the fuel pipe decreases, creating a more powerful signal. The pressure drop is not linearly proportional to the flow through the venturi; the pressure decreases at a higher rate than the air
flow increases. This means that the ratio of fuel to air increases as air flow through the venturi increases. But the carburetor has a way to "bleed off" some of that powerful signal; the "Emulsion System".
For each barrel, the emulsion system consists of a thin brass tube that runs from the top of the carburetor down through the same circuit path that the fuel tube uses. It has an air jet on the top, which sits far above the level of fuel in the float bowls, and the bottom half stays submerged in fuel. At the bottom of the emulsion tube is a series of holes drilled cross-ways through it.
As the pressure grows lower inside the booster venturi (because of increasing air flow), it vacuums out fuel from the pipe. That same vaccum sucks air in from the top of the tube, which creates air bubbles in the fuel as it is drawn out of the fuel pipe and into the air flowing down the carburetor. This further helps the quality and consistentsy of fuel atomization. Arguably this is the system's primary job in the carburetor, but an equally important job that the emulsions system does is bleed off some of that overbearing signal to the main circuit when air flow velocity through the venturi becomes high enough to draw too much fuel into the air stream. In fact, if the emulsion system were blocked (air jets plugged), as the air velocity increased, the pressure differential would eventually become great enough to siphon raw fuel right into the carburetor.
The signal to the main circuit is bled off, or corrected by jets located in the tops of the emulsion tubes. Theses jets are commonly reffered to as either "air bleeds", "air jets", or "correction jets".
Air flows through the venturi, or "barrel" of the carburetor. The nature of the venturi is such that as air flows through it, there is a pressure drop created at a point inside it. There is also a mini, "booster", venturi set down into the primary venturi. It amplifies the pressure drop, helping to draw fuel in at low RPMs, when the air flow is lower.
Inside the booster venturi is the fuel pipe. It is located at the point where the pressure drop is the strongest. It is also located above the fuel level in the float bowl, otherwise fuel would simply spill out into the venturi. The fuel pipe comes up from a circuit at the bottom of the float bowl, where the fuel jet limits the rate of fuel that can flow up the fuel pipe.
When air flows through the venturi, the pressure at the end of the fuel pipe becomes less than the atmospheric pressure acting on the fuel in the float bowl, causing fuel to spill out of the fuel pipe and be carried into air flowing into the engine in a mist. This is sometimes refered to as the "fuel signal". As the flow of air through the venturi increases, the pressure at the fuel pipe decreases, creating a more powerful signal. The pressure drop is not linearly proportional to the flow through the venturi; the pressure decreases at a higher rate than the air
flow increases. This means that the ratio of fuel to air increases as air flow through the venturi increases. But the carburetor has a way to "bleed off" some of that powerful signal; the "Emulsion System".
For each barrel, the emulsion system consists of a thin brass tube that runs from the top of the carburetor down through the same circuit path that the fuel tube uses. It has an air jet on the top, which sits far above the level of fuel in the float bowls, and the bottom half stays submerged in fuel. At the bottom of the emulsion tube is a series of holes drilled cross-ways through it.
As the pressure grows lower inside the booster venturi (because of increasing air flow), it vacuums out fuel from the pipe. That same vaccum sucks air in from the top of the tube, which creates air bubbles in the fuel as it is drawn out of the fuel pipe and into the air flowing down the carburetor. This further helps the quality and consistentsy of fuel atomization. Arguably this is the system's primary job in the carburetor, but an equally important job that the emulsions system does is bleed off some of that overbearing signal to the main circuit when air flow velocity through the venturi becomes high enough to draw too much fuel into the air stream. In fact, if the emulsion system were blocked (air jets plugged), as the air velocity increased, the pressure differential would eventually become great enough to siphon raw fuel right into the carburetor.
The signal to the main circuit is bled off, or corrected by jets located in the tops of the emulsion tubes. Theses jets are commonly reffered to as either "air bleeds", "air jets", or "correction jets".
01-28-09, 12:59 PM
#54
Here is a good thread about emulsion tubes also (Weber):
https://www.rx7club.com/1st-generation-specific-1979-1985-18/weber-emulsion-tubes-805950/
If I wasn't EFI, I would probably would be getting a Sterling for myself.
https://www.rx7club.com/1st-generation-specific-1979-1985-18/weber-emulsion-tubes-805950/
If I wasn't EFI, I would probably would be getting a Sterling for myself.
01-28-09, 01:03 PM
#55
Nikki-Modder Rex-Rodder
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Trying to convince some clown not to put a Holley 600 on his 12a.
Posts: 2,890
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
6 Posts
Contrary to some popular beliefes;
The emulsion tube holes are not designed to be exposed in the Nikki. The fuel level in the bowls is supposed to stay even. If the level drops significantly (uncovering the emulsion tube holes), then you're pressure is too low. Find the highest pressure you need to maintain a good AF mixture @ redline, and you need not go beyond that.
The system was designed to have the fuel level at 1/2 up the sight glass. Any higher throws off the calibration of the air bleeds. For example, image if you take a straw and submerge it one inche into a glass of water & blow bubbles into it. It's going to take "X" amount of energy to do it. Submerge the straw deeper, and it will take more energy to do it. This alone is one of the reasons I can never assure a "one jet configuration fits all" set-up.
Also, there's a common complaint with SCCA drivers that the Nikki stumbles out of left hand curves. The Gs are pulling the fuel to the back of the carb because of the way it's orientated. The bog doesn't happen at that point, though. It occurs as a result of the floats dropping down and letting in more fuel. When the car straightens out, the carb is basically flooded, and the bog is the result. This problem has nothing to do with float drop or the fuel level with regards to the emulsion tubes like I've read.
I now build all my Spec 7, Pro7/IT7 and auto-X carbs using the "full sized" floats found in older Nikkis. I do, however, have a limited supply of these floats. About 1 in 40 carbs I get has them.
The emulsion tube holes are not designed to be exposed in the Nikki. The fuel level in the bowls is supposed to stay even. If the level drops significantly (uncovering the emulsion tube holes), then you're pressure is too low. Find the highest pressure you need to maintain a good AF mixture @ redline, and you need not go beyond that.
The system was designed to have the fuel level at 1/2 up the sight glass. Any higher throws off the calibration of the air bleeds. For example, image if you take a straw and submerge it one inche into a glass of water & blow bubbles into it. It's going to take "X" amount of energy to do it. Submerge the straw deeper, and it will take more energy to do it. This alone is one of the reasons I can never assure a "one jet configuration fits all" set-up.
Also, there's a common complaint with SCCA drivers that the Nikki stumbles out of left hand curves. The Gs are pulling the fuel to the back of the carb because of the way it's orientated. The bog doesn't happen at that point, though. It occurs as a result of the floats dropping down and letting in more fuel. When the car straightens out, the carb is basically flooded, and the bog is the result. This problem has nothing to do with float drop or the fuel level with regards to the emulsion tubes like I've read.
I now build all my Spec 7, Pro7/IT7 and auto-X carbs using the "full sized" floats found in older Nikkis. I do, however, have a limited supply of these floats. About 1 in 40 carbs I get has them.
01-28-09, 01:06 PM
#56
the holley has it float bown and floats positioned in the wrong place for a rotary. On acceleration teh rear rotor runs really rich adn the front goes lean causing the front rotor to die first on Holley cars. The sterling has them oriented correctly as nikki designed them for Mazda
01-28-09, 01:28 PM
#57
Rotary Freak
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 2,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's my understanding that RB is liscensed by Holley to modify the idle and/or transition circuits. They do this by drilling additional circuits and signal bleed orifices, but I don't know the details.The Sterling Nikki is modified to use Holley jets, both for fuel and for the air bleeds.
-It also starts with no problem for any of my Canadian and Michigan customers. Without a choke.The "ongoing arguement" has failed to ever include the consistency of simple application. Everyone tries to compare apples to oranges with regards to carbs, driving style, and what their individual priorities are regarding performance.
For example, let's not make "the 4 bbl is good for MPG" case here, because we are talking about performance carbs. I'm lucky to get 15 MPG out of mine the way it's set up. I can tune it for 25, but then it's not a performance carb anymore.
There are significant differences between piston engines and rotaries, as well. What never ceases to amaze me is how many rotorheads seem to neglect those differences during the 2 bbl vs 4 bbl debate.
The rotary makes power linearly throughout a very long band, and suffers from low end power. The Otto makes power down low (at least the ones that the Holleys were designed for), and the band is quite short. With a short, early band, you really don't need to fine tune the emulsion system. You get what you get, and there's little transistion to worry about.
But with a rotary, the band covers such a vast range of air velocity through the carb, being able to adjust the AF via the emulsion system is imparitive. Now, this can be done on the big two bbls, but they do have the fundamental flaw of not being able to provide a strong atomized mixture at a relatively low velocity, where the rotary needs the help the most.
At high velocity, a beer can with a straw sticking out of the side going to the fuel bowl will work. The engine tops out at 8400 RPM, and it doesn't much matter to engine performance whether that AF mixture is coming from a carb that's close to it's max flow limit, or one that's only at half it's limit. The higher the flow, the more powerful the signal to the fuel, and the better the atomization. But at low RPMs the proper AF with better atomization WILL come from the carb with the smaller venturis. It's just plain science.
For example, let's not make "the 4 bbl is good for MPG" case here, because we are talking about performance carbs. I'm lucky to get 15 MPG out of mine the way it's set up. I can tune it for 25, but then it's not a performance carb anymore.
There are significant differences between piston engines and rotaries, as well. What never ceases to amaze me is how many rotorheads seem to neglect those differences during the 2 bbl vs 4 bbl debate.
The rotary makes power linearly throughout a very long band, and suffers from low end power. The Otto makes power down low (at least the ones that the Holleys were designed for), and the band is quite short. With a short, early band, you really don't need to fine tune the emulsion system. You get what you get, and there's little transistion to worry about.
But with a rotary, the band covers such a vast range of air velocity through the carb, being able to adjust the AF via the emulsion system is imparitive. Now, this can be done on the big two bbls, but they do have the fundamental flaw of not being able to provide a strong atomized mixture at a relatively low velocity, where the rotary needs the help the most.
At high velocity, a beer can with a straw sticking out of the side going to the fuel bowl will work. The engine tops out at 8400 RPM, and it doesn't much matter to engine performance whether that AF mixture is coming from a carb that's close to it's max flow limit, or one that's only at half it's limit. The higher the flow, the more powerful the signal to the fuel, and the better the atomization. But at low RPMs the proper AF with better atomization WILL come from the carb with the smaller venturis. It's just plain science.
Yes your car does not have a choke but it has a fast idle and the choke can be removed on a holley carb with compensation of the fast idle. All I would have to do is remove the choke keeping the auto choke setup and turn the fast idle screw in a little.
I understand how atomization works, it is not rocket science. I am not running a 850cfm carb for a reason. If the holley carb is so flawed because primary venturis being to big for the rotary, then why has do I always here that the holley has a great low end. You say your carb is so much better then the holley but you can't really prove it. Instead of giving me proof, you atack me. You need to get a hold of a RB holley setup campare the two. You need to have some experience with a RB holley before you can call them crap. It's just plain business practice.
01-28-09, 01:43 PM
#58
Restoring
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Orlando
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orion, thanks for the info regarding the facts concerning the Sterling Nikki.
And regarding Sterling, you can see from Sterling's post he dissected, and analyzed this thread concerning his work. Covered key points and rectified them as needed.
If you visit his site you will be amazed at how in depth he gets as far as his work. I will gladly give a review concerning the Sterling Nikki.
And regarding Sterling, you can see from Sterling's post he dissected, and analyzed this thread concerning his work. Covered key points and rectified them as needed.
If you visit his site you will be amazed at how in depth he gets as far as his work. I will gladly give a review concerning the Sterling Nikki.
01-28-09, 01:49 PM
#59
Nikki-Modder Rex-Rodder
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Trying to convince some clown not to put a Holley 600 on his 12a.
Posts: 2,890
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
6 Posts
Originally Posted by RX-7 Chris
First of all I don't appreciate being treated like an idiot. I never attacked your carbs but I feel like you are atacking me personally.
Yes your car does not have a choke but it has a fast idle and the choke can be removed on a holley carb with compensation of the fast idle. All I would have to do is remove the choke keeping the auto choke setup and turn the fast idle screw in a little.
I understand how atomization works, it is not rocket science. I am not running a 850cfm carb for a reason. If the holley carb is so flawed because primary venturis being to big for the rotary, then why has do I always here that the holley has a great low end. You say your carb is so much better then the holley but you can't really prove it. Instead of giving me proof, you atack me. You need to get a hold of a RB holley setup campare the two. You need to have some experience with a RB holley before you can call them crap. It's just plain business practice.
Yes your car does not have a choke but it has a fast idle and the choke can be removed on a holley carb with compensation of the fast idle. All I would have to do is remove the choke keeping the auto choke setup and turn the fast idle screw in a little.
I understand how atomization works, it is not rocket science. I am not running a 850cfm carb for a reason. If the holley carb is so flawed because primary venturis being to big for the rotary, then why has do I always here that the holley has a great low end. You say your carb is so much better then the holley but you can't really prove it. Instead of giving me proof, you atack me. You need to get a hold of a RB holley setup campare the two. You need to have some experience with a RB holley before you can call them crap. It's just plain business practice.
Just what the hell's your problem, here? I'm not treating you like an idiot or attacking you.
First off, you're the one who mentioned that you could start your Holley carbed rotary in "-5 degree" whether. It was also stated somewhere that the choke is a flow impedence. That's the only reason I mentioned that mine starts fine and has no choke.
As for how atomization works, I posted some of my web up for Crit, who asked me about the emulsion system.
Now, if you think that me explaining to you why the statement that rotary and piston engines "have basically the same combustion cycle. Both carb work the same, they just look different." is false is attacking you, then you have two issues to get straight.
I initially responded to this thread because my credibility was being questioned. I'm not here for a fight, or another Holley vs Sterling vs Webber arguement. That's all opinion crap, and fighting NEVER changes opinion.
But if someone states matter of factly something that just isn't true, I'm going to correct them.
01-28-09, 02:30 PM
#61
Zoom Zoom
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all I don't appreciate being treated like an idiot. I never attacked your carbs but I feel like you are atacking me personally.
I understand how atomization works, it is not rocket science. I am not running a 850cfm carb for a reason. If the holley carb is so flawed because primary venturis being to big for the rotary, then why has do I always here that the holley has a great low end. You say your carb is so much better then the holley but you can't really prove it. Instead of giving me proof, you atack me. You need to get a hold of a RB holley setup campare the two. You need to have some experience with a RB holley before you can call them crap. It's just plain business practice.
I understand how atomization works, it is not rocket science. I am not running a 850cfm carb for a reason. If the holley carb is so flawed because primary venturis being to big for the rotary, then why has do I always here that the holley has a great low end. You say your carb is so much better then the holley but you can't really prove it. Instead of giving me proof, you atack me. You need to get a hold of a RB holley setup campare the two. You need to have some experience with a RB holley before you can call them crap. It's just plain business practice.
TBH, I'd prefer a spreadbore carb. Thats one of the downsides of the Holley. I'm also very aware of velocity and why it is good to have small venturis. But there is a line, small is not always better, and the Nikkis primaries are extremely small. I really don't know you managed to flow that much air thru them, but good for you. The problem with having that small of venturis that I can think of is that your primaries are of course functioning all the time and by the time you get up in to those higher RPMs the small venturis should be REALLY holding the flow back. With the holley it should keep pulling hard way past the safe limits of the 12a. And how you interpret venturi size is just that. Lets say your going with a ported motor. I don't think your carb would keep up there. Where as with the holley it shouldn't be a big deal to make your 4160 a bit beefier. Bigger venturis are entirely good, depending on what you are going to use it for. This means by sticking with such small primaries you are hurting your top end. Low end is good, don't get me wrong, but last time I drag raced I wasn't ever below 3000rpm. I haven't yet autocrossed, I'm getting into that this summer, but I'm sure that is similar, if I needed more power I'd just have to shift down.
The Holley has been around since 1903, it says that right on the fuel bowl. Now I'm not saying that the 4160 has and I wasn't saying the Nikki has been around that long either, but I'm very aware that the Holley has long been the go-to carb for performance. I like to stick with brands like this. And even though the 4160 1848 wasn't designed for a rotary it has been modified to work with one. My knowledge of carburetors says that all the have to do is properly atomize fuel and air to a paticular ratio. Both the Holleys and the Nikkis do that, so why is the Holley a 'piston' carb?
Does anybody here with a holley complain about low end? Not a rhetorical question, I'd like to know if they do, but I sure haven't heard anybody mention it. Just because you put in Holley parts does not mean that you've made the Nikki easy to work with. I wasn't trying to knock your product. It seems like a very good carb, I just happend to get a not-so-used Holley 465 and Mani for cheaper than one of your carbs. Otherwise I would have looked into a Sterling. I'm not denying what you have is a good product, I said the happy users don't lie. I put out plenty of facts as well. The venturis on a Holley are bigger. FACT. It is easier to get parts for a holley. FACT. It is easier to find people with knowledge about Holleys. FACT. And finally, Holley, unlike Nikki, is a sucessful brand with years of experience with racing carbs. FACT.
Please don't take this the wrong way, like you took my last post. What I'm trying to say is that there is no best carb, and that the Holleys aren't bad either. I think you'd make a much better impression on people here if you weren't so quick to judge the holleys and make them sound inferior. Also you can't begin to compare them until you actually do. All of your carb theory is just that-theory. Even though in theory wider spread carb should be better for the performance for a rotary it is hard to argue until you get an actual race against them. When it comes down to it I think alot of us are going to need hard numbers before we will certifiably accept that your carb is godsend and is indeed better than the holley.
BTW-trochoid I just checked my holley. It is four tubes straight down into the motor. There is no such place where they all hook up into one, you are mistaken there. I know I've seen holleys like that, but the one RB is putting out right now isn't that way.
01-28-09, 03:39 PM
#65
Nikki-Modder Rex-Rodder
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Trying to convince some clown not to put a Holley 600 on his 12a.
Posts: 2,890
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
6 Posts
Well, here goes another carb thread down the crapper...
It might be a "diskish thing to say", -if I had said it.
However, it sure isn't a "dickish" thing to assume, from what you've written in this thread.
You've been far less than respectful of me, so as far as I'm concerned, you deserve no respect from me. And you're about to get none again.
Though you insist you didn't, you inferred twice that I may be deceptive regarding the flow capability of the Sterling Nikki. The problem here is that you just don't know enough about venturi design to understand how changing the inlet / outlet angles changes air flow capability. You've never actually compared one of my carbs to a stock Nikki, so you don't even know what the venturis on the Sterling Nikki look like. It's also obvious that you've never even been to my website to read all of the other modifications I do to improve flow.
When it comes right down to it, as far as arguing about the flow capabilities of the Sterling Nikki, you're simply...
...unqualified.
Every once in a while, I run into someone like you; someone who's so sure that they're right that they'll argue till the cows come home. But when it comes time to produce to some facts to support their aggressive assertions, they fall back on shoddy half-truths, partial data and brand loyalty as if they were valid arguments.
Unless you can explain to me the REASONS behind your opinions, you have nothing but opinions. But when you start spouting information that is either false or incomplete, you need to be corrected on a forum where others look to learn.
Ask anyone on this forum. I've had plenty of practice with guys like you. I'm mean and nasty and I don't like people that disrespect me. People here call me "ornery". But you ask those same people who they would go to for Nikki help. I always extend myself to help people, and I always treat them with consideration and respect. But I work too damned hard to take any **** from anyone.
Don't be angry with me, Super82. I didn't make you look like an idiot about carburetors. You did that all by yourself. (trust me. You did.)
Now, at the very least, you can't say I'm just here to sell carbs. A real businessman would maintain more of a "kiss-*** & take it" composure.
Not me. Treat me the way you'd like to be treated, cause that's exactly what you get with me.
Originally Posted by Super82
To assume I know nothing about carbs is a pretty dickish thing to say sterling.
However, it sure isn't a "dickish" thing to assume, from what you've written in this thread.
You've been far less than respectful of me, so as far as I'm concerned, you deserve no respect from me. And you're about to get none again.
Though you insist you didn't, you inferred twice that I may be deceptive regarding the flow capability of the Sterling Nikki. The problem here is that you just don't know enough about venturi design to understand how changing the inlet / outlet angles changes air flow capability. You've never actually compared one of my carbs to a stock Nikki, so you don't even know what the venturis on the Sterling Nikki look like. It's also obvious that you've never even been to my website to read all of the other modifications I do to improve flow.
When it comes right down to it, as far as arguing about the flow capabilities of the Sterling Nikki, you're simply...
...unqualified.
Every once in a while, I run into someone like you; someone who's so sure that they're right that they'll argue till the cows come home. But when it comes time to produce to some facts to support their aggressive assertions, they fall back on shoddy half-truths, partial data and brand loyalty as if they were valid arguments.
Unless you can explain to me the REASONS behind your opinions, you have nothing but opinions. But when you start spouting information that is either false or incomplete, you need to be corrected on a forum where others look to learn.
Ask anyone on this forum. I've had plenty of practice with guys like you. I'm mean and nasty and I don't like people that disrespect me. People here call me "ornery". But you ask those same people who they would go to for Nikki help. I always extend myself to help people, and I always treat them with consideration and respect. But I work too damned hard to take any **** from anyone.
Don't be angry with me, Super82. I didn't make you look like an idiot about carburetors. You did that all by yourself. (trust me. You did.)
Now, at the very least, you can't say I'm just here to sell carbs. A real businessman would maintain more of a "kiss-*** & take it" composure.
Not me. Treat me the way you'd like to be treated, cause that's exactly what you get with me.
01-28-09, 06:03 PM
#68
Viper,
I had no Idea that we weren't allowed to bring back an old thread. But what's done is done, so the right thing to do would of been to start a new thread with the same question? IMO usually people will just paste a link to an old thread to answer your question. So why not go to the root.. If there are different procedures that need to be followed as far as gaining information regarding a specific subject that was already discussed. I would like to know please. I don't want to look like a jack ***.
I had no Idea that we weren't allowed to bring back an old thread. But what's done is done, so the right thing to do would of been to start a new thread with the same question? IMO usually people will just paste a link to an old thread to answer your question. So why not go to the root.. If there are different procedures that need to be followed as far as gaining information regarding a specific subject that was already discussed. I would like to know please. I don't want to look like a jack ***.
Jon
01-28-09, 06:15 PM
#69
The Holley comes with a much better intake manifold. The runners are much longer and tubular, and also have a smoother angle. The Holley is much bigger all around, as well. I haven't gotten exact measurements but it appears all four barrels on the holley are bigger than the secondaries of the Nikki. This could be better or worse, depending on how you interpret it. The Holley is also MUCH easier to work with, tune and modify. This isn't my opinion, it is the opinion of many racers for over 100 years. The Holleys are performance made for easy tunability and racing. The Holley is less of a mess of tubes and more of a bare bones racebred carb. The Holley 4160 is a timeless, tried and true design with limitless capabilities.
I'm not knocking either, but I must say you've got to keep in mine where you are hearing alot of the praise for Sterlings. Most I hear either comes from Sterling himself or from people who haven't used Holley's. Everyone who has ever used a Holley has said it has completely changed the motor from mild to wild. I also have to question where Sterling gets these flow ratings. I know that the Holley 465cfm has the capacity to flow much, much more, so maybe the stock 313cfm (is that right?) Nikki can, but I find it hard to believe that that much can flow thru those TINY primaries and not so big secondaries. I don't know if Sterling has actually done flow test but I find it a little convenient that it is exactly 465, exactly the same as his biggest competitor. I also find it odd that Racing beat claims that you will have major problems even using the Holley 465 without headers while Sterling doesn't.
The Holley is for pistons and Sterling is for Rotary comments are dumb, IMO. Racing beat is the formost in rotary performance and they chose to use the Holley. They tuned and prepped the holley for the rotary engine. I really doubt racing beat would bother using a holley if it wasn't the best for the engine, and I know they made many changes to it that make it possible to work. The RB Holley 465 is designed to work with our engines, and it is not just an inferior V8 carb. Whats better-A tuned racing carb or a tuned economy carb? And that is basically what the Nikki amounts to, one of the major points in its design is economy and emissions.
Just my $0.02, I'm sure the sterling carb is indeed a good product. The numbers and happy users don't lie, but I felt there wasn't enough of the other side of the coin in this thread.[/QUOTE]
01-28-09, 06:57 PM
#70
Originally Posted by Super82
The Holley comes with a much better intake manifold. The runners are much longer and tubular, and also have a smoother angle.
Originally Posted by Super82
The Holley is much bigger all around, as well. I haven't gotten exact measurements but it appears all four barrels on the holley are bigger than the secondaries of the Nikki. This could be better or worse, depending on how you interpret it.
If your carb is too large (like a holley 600 for example) this problem will persist throughout most of your powerband.
Originally Posted by Super82
The Holley is also MUCH easier to work with, tune and modify. This isn't my opinion, it is the opinion of many racers for over 100 years. The Holleys are performance made for easy tunability and racing. The Holley is less of a mess of tubes and more of a bare bones racebred carb. The Holley 4160 is a timeless, tried and true design with limitless capabilities.
Speaking of the air bleeds, the primary and secondary air bleeds have been drilled and tapped so that you can use holley 10/32" Jets as air bleeds. This makes the Sterling more adjustible than the stock Nikki, bringing it more on par with a Holley in that respect. The primary and secondary main fuel jets can also make use of the SAME 10/32" jets, so you buy one jet kit and you've got both your jet's and air bleeds covered. Compare that to the Holley where jets and air bleeds are often different size and thread and can't be interchanged (why, you ask? Well to make money of course, though I'm sure there are other technical reasons).
So if you can change the jets and air bleeds all around, and it's easy to get to, what makes the Holley easier to tune again? Oh yeah, the fact that "everyone" uses them. I don't take that as a testiment to the quality or tuneability of a Holley as much as the fact that they're one of the few aftermarket 4 barrel carburetors available, and they're available in a wide variety of configurations. Add that they're an American product (and Americans have too much pride to bother with non-American things most of the time), and that they've been around for a long time and you'll end up with the same kind of arguement about being "better" that you could use to say a Ford or GM is better than a Mazda, Honda or Subaru. Just because more people know it and they've been around for a while doesn't automatically make it better. Heck, if that was the case, we could just give up on this whole Rotary thing altogether, since the piston engine has a minimum 50 years more development (if you don't count the fact that it was partially derived from piston-driven steam engines) and every car company has half a dozen engines on that platform...
Originally Posted by Super82
I'm not knocking either, but I must say you've got to keep in mine where you are hearing alot of the praise for Sterlings. Most I hear either comes from Sterling himself or from people who haven't used Holley's. Everyone who has ever used a Holley has said it has completely changed the motor from mild to wild.
Originally Posted by Super82
I also have to question where Sterling gets these flow ratings. I know that the Holley 465cfm has the capacity to flow much, much more, so maybe the stock 313cfm (is that right?) Nikki can, but I find it hard to believe that that much can flow thru those TINY primaries and not so big secondaries. I don't know if Sterling has actually done flow test but I find it a little convenient that it is exactly 465, exactly the same as his biggest competitor.
As for the barrel size, they actually press them out of the carb and put them on a lathe. I don't know if you've ever seen a Sterling firsthand but its secondaries are remarkably larger than stock. The primaries aren't enlarged a huge amount, partly because there's not a huge amount of room to enlarge into, but partly because of what I said earlier - bigger primaries don't help you. The whole reason of having a 4 barrel carb is to have two barrels for "down low" and two more that add to it "up high". He also tweaked the entry and exit angles to increase the venturi effect. Go read up on Bernoulli's Principal and how venturis work for a better idea of why the entry and exit angles are important.
If you look down the secondaries of a Sterling you'll notice that compared to a stock Nikki, there are also less flow obstructions. The arm that holds the venturis in the middle is only attached at one side. It's strong enough to hold them (there's a lot of meat to that arm) and the other side wasn't necessary so he cut that for more flow.
Trust me when I say that this carb flows 465cfm, proven on a flowbench, and is as much of a work of art as it is a study of science and flow dynamics. Holleys are a mass-produced "well we can't have it perfect with the production line equipment we want to use so we'll call it good enough" carb. It lacks the attention to detail that Mazda and Sterling have come together to give to the Nikki.
Originally Posted by Super82
I also find it odd that Racing beat claims that you will have major problems even using the Holley 465 without headers while Sterling doesn't.
In fact, when I first visited Sterling he practically bitched me out for not having upgraded the stock exhaust and set my expectations very straight when it came to the performace gain a Sterling alone would have compared to a Sterling on an RB exhaust or similar (and frak was he ever right!!)
The Sterling isn't magic, the same physics applies to both carbs, and both benefit from a free flowing exhaust. The difference is that you actually can put a Holley 465 on you car with a stock exhaust just like you can with a Sterling, despite what RB says. If you were RB, wouldn't you put that in your carb description to a)cover your *** from people saying "where's the power your carb promised me" and b) to sell more RB exhausts?
Originally Posted by Super82
The Holley is for pistons and Sterling is for Rotary comments are dumb, IMO. Racing beat is the formost in rotary performance and they chose to use the Holley. They tuned and prepped the holley for the rotary engine. I really doubt racing beat would bother using a holley if it wasn't the best for the engine, and I know they made many changes to it that make it possible to work.
So in this case you can't compare Holley to Sterling, it's Apples to Oranges from an RB business perspective. The question you should be asking is why are they using Holley instead of Edelbrock or another brand like that? Does Edelbrock make a 465cfm or similarly small enough carb for our engines? Can it be modded with Edelbrock-supplied parts (centre-hung floats, etc...) ?
I'm willing to bed the Holleys were the cheapest, easiest to change for the rotary, and most available of all the other 4-barrel American carbs commonly used.
Originally Posted by Super82
The RB Holley 465 is designed to work with our engines, and it is not just an inferior V8 carb. Whats better-A tuned racing carb or a tuned economy carb? And that is basically what the Nikki amounts to, one of the major points in its design is economy and emissions.
No the Holley 465cfm wasn't designed for a rotary. If you could call the Holley engineers and ask them I bet Rotary engines didn't even factor into their design choices at all. Holley, again, is an American company with a big history in modding and racing American-made, piston-powered vehicles. The Nikki was designed by a Japanese company, and ours was designed by engineers who specifically had the unique flow characteristics of a rotary in mind. Don't kid yourself, they *are* different. Two rotors, their timing, the amount of air they draw and their overlap have very different flow characteristics than six small cylinders.
Originally Posted by Super82
Just my $0.02, I'm sure the sterling carb is indeed a good product. The numbers and happy users don't lie, but I felt there wasn't enough of the other side of the coin in this thread.
The Holley isn't a bad product, but IMHO it's not as well suited to the task as the Sterling, and in part that's because there hasn't been as much care and attention to detail in making it perfect for our engines as the Sterling has had, both from the original engineers and Sterling himself.
Jon
Edit: oops.. In after the lock? lol
Last edited by vipernicus42; 01-28-09 at 07:00 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
