Why not a 2bbl Holley? Is the nikki really that small?!
02-03-09, 05:01 PM
#28
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
simply change the venturies to larger ones and your cfm rating goes up
02-03-09, 06:40 PM
#30
I need a new user title
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Yaizu, Japan
Posts: 2,646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's hard to find flow ratings for Webers. According to this thread, the 48 IDA with 44mm chokes is 622 CFM at 1.5" Hg! I remember I found somewhere that said my 45 DCOE with 40mm chokes was 444 CFM at 1.5" Hg.
02-03-09, 07:11 PM
#31
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
I suppose flowing the carb main body without the venturis would give a good base to compare for efficiency.
But if you were to just forget about the efficiency descrepency for a basic round-about comparison, just calculate pi (r^2) to get area.
The Sterling is bored out to 22mm primary & 30mm secondary.
The total of all four bores is 2174 square mm.
The total of the two 44mm Weber bores is 3042 square mm.
This is at the apex, so it's pretty loose a comparison, but it should be pretty obvious that the Weber's got oodles of flow.
But if you were to just forget about the efficiency descrepency for a basic round-about comparison, just calculate pi (r^2) to get area.
The Sterling is bored out to 22mm primary & 30mm secondary.
The total of all four bores is 2174 square mm.
The total of the two 44mm Weber bores is 3042 square mm.
This is at the apex, so it's pretty loose a comparison, but it should be pretty obvious that the Weber's got oodles of flow.
02-03-09, 08:05 PM
#32
On one hand it makes sense the 4bbl is better because the primary bores are smaller which should increase velocity, however using a similarly sized over all 2bbl.... the blades just aren't open as far, combined with a RB intake I would think should suffice well enough to get the ball rolling for the turbo?
Am I correct in thinking this or am I way off base?
02-03-09, 08:16 PM
#33
Weber 48mm IDA w/44 venturi-311cfm (per venturi)
So if 36mm is 81% of 43mm then my rough guess is that my 48 ida w/36mm chokes flowed around 497cfm... then why did switching from 36mm chokes to 43 mm chokes net me 12whp? I though the engine didn't need the extra cfm.
02-03-09, 08:45 PM
#34
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
But once you enter boost into the equasion, it's a whole new ball game. You can use undersized carbs with boost because the carbs are measured for flow at 14.7 psi. You add 6 or 7 psi to that, and now the max cfm is going to be higher.
Wow so my 48 IDa with 43mm chokes should flow just under 622cfm, say 607 for he hell of it sice it's 97% the size of a 44.
So if 36mm is 81% of 43mm then my rough guess is that my 48 ida w/36mm chokes flowed around 497cfm... then why did switching from 36mm chokes to 43 mm chokes net me 12whp? I though the engine didn't need the extra cfm.
So if 36mm is 81% of 43mm then my rough guess is that my 48 ida w/36mm chokes flowed around 497cfm... then why did switching from 36mm chokes to 43 mm chokes net me 12whp? I though the engine didn't need the extra cfm.
Did you have A/F meter readings or A/F readings from the dyno to compare?
This happened to me a few times when I was trying out new venturi cuts. Even subtle changes sometimes made a big enough difference that I could tell without a dyno.
Also, keep in mind that I was just illustrating that the Webers are actually a pretty big breather. I would never suggest cfm is directly proportional to bore area. There are just too many variables.
02-03-09, 09:18 PM
#36
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could you give me a brief explanation on the physics claiming a 4bbl works better low end than the 2bbl?? I am trying to do the research here before just slapping something on. I plan to house the carburetor in an enclosure for a low 6-8psi turbo application.
On one hand it makes sense the 4bbl is better because the primary bores are smaller which should increase velocity, however using a similarly sized over all 2bbl.... the blades just aren't open as far, combined with a RB intake I would think should suffice well enough to get the ball rolling for the turbo?
Am I correct in thinking this or am I way off base?
On one hand it makes sense the 4bbl is better because the primary bores are smaller which should increase velocity, however using a similarly sized over all 2bbl.... the blades just aren't open as far, combined with a RB intake I would think should suffice well enough to get the ball rolling for the turbo?
Am I correct in thinking this or am I way off base?
02-03-09, 09:54 PM
#37
Well, the valves are basically stopping air flow. The velocity "business" part happens far up from the valves.
But once you enter boost into the equasion, it's a whole new ball game. You can use undersized carbs with boost because the carbs are measured for flow at 14.7 psi. You add 6 or 7 psi to that, and now the max cfm is going to be higher.It doesn't. Was this peak HP up top? Maybe your jetting was too rich / lean for the 36mm set-up.
Did you have A/F meter readings or A/F readings from the dyno to compare?
This happened to me a few times when I was trying out new venturi cuts. Even subtle changes sometimes made a big enough difference that I could tell without a dyno.
Also, keep in mind that I was just illustrating that the Webers are actually a pretty big breather. I would never suggest cfm is directly proportional to bore area. There are just too many variables.
But once you enter boost into the equasion, it's a whole new ball game. You can use undersized carbs with boost because the carbs are measured for flow at 14.7 psi. You add 6 or 7 psi to that, and now the max cfm is going to be higher.It doesn't. Was this peak HP up top? Maybe your jetting was too rich / lean for the 36mm set-up.
Did you have A/F meter readings or A/F readings from the dyno to compare?
This happened to me a few times when I was trying out new venturi cuts. Even subtle changes sometimes made a big enough difference that I could tell without a dyno.
Also, keep in mind that I was just illustrating that the Webers are actually a pretty big breather. I would never suggest cfm is directly proportional to bore area. There are just too many variables.
03-05-09, 08:07 PM
#38
If the stock Nikki is 313 CFM
What would be the better choice for boost and why? Here is what I'm up against:
350 CFM 2bbl flows like a 247CFM (4bbl)
500 CFM 2bbl flows like a 354CFM (4bbl)
Now if I used the smaller 350 cfm carb, it wouldn't have near the performance on the top end N/A, but should have much better drivability characteristics down low. The smaller carb COULD be harder to tune with boost 6-8psi, due to the small size air bleed modifications may be necessary.
The 500CFM carb should perform well up top, but be a bit lazy down low. Tuning with the turbo should be much simpler because the total air flow will be closer to the realm the carb is designed to work with.
This is my daily driver, just looking for a little more go from the Turbo. So I'm leaning more towards the smaller carb, seems like it would be much more efficient.
Thoughts?
What would be the better choice for boost and why? Here is what I'm up against:
350 CFM 2bbl flows like a 247CFM (4bbl)
500 CFM 2bbl flows like a 354CFM (4bbl)
Now if I used the smaller 350 cfm carb, it wouldn't have near the performance on the top end N/A, but should have much better drivability characteristics down low. The smaller carb COULD be harder to tune with boost 6-8psi, due to the small size air bleed modifications may be necessary.
The 500CFM carb should perform well up top, but be a bit lazy down low. Tuning with the turbo should be much simpler because the total air flow will be closer to the realm the carb is designed to work with.
This is my daily driver, just looking for a little more go from the Turbo. So I'm leaning more towards the smaller carb, seems like it would be much more efficient.
Thoughts?
03-08-09, 08:04 PM
#41
I need a new user title
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Yaizu, Japan
Posts: 2,646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Between the two you'd definitely want the 500. The 350 is just going to choke you and the car won't make power anywhere. You haven't given us any details about your setup, but the 500 is already smaller than what most people use for boost, even blow-through, which doesn't require as big a carb as draw-through.
03-08-09, 10:44 PM
#42
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,826
Received 2,594 Likes
on
1,842 Posts
Wow so my 48 IDa with 43mm chokes should flow just under 622cfm, say 607 for he hell of it sice it's 97% the size of a 44.
So if 36mm is 81% of 43mm then my rough guess is that my 48 ida w/36mm chokes flowed around 497cfm... then why did switching from 36mm chokes to 43 mm chokes net me 12whp? I though the engine didn't need the extra cfm.
So if 36mm is 81% of 43mm then my rough guess is that my 48 ida w/36mm chokes flowed around 497cfm... then why did switching from 36mm chokes to 43 mm chokes net me 12whp? I though the engine didn't need the extra cfm.
we know a 4 bbl holley is rated at 1.5 in
a 2 bbl holley is rated at 3
the webers from that linked thread were flowed at various numbers, i see 20" and 25"
it makes a huge difference weber 48 w 44 venturies @25" is 348cfm per venturi @20" its 311.
03-08-09, 11:29 PM
#43
Right. And if you see up top I did... the 2bbl 500CFM is like a 354CFM 4bbl. Etc.
The issue I'm trying to hash is maintaining enough velocity for low end (under boost) performance for everyday driving. Everyone says you can use a smaller carb for Boost than the unboosted NA setup. If the stock nikki is 313 then the 2bbl choices are equivilently 264/354 however since they aren't a 4bbl the primaries are the effictive secondaries as well.
And above in the post we've deamed the 70CI Wankel to only need 340CFM at a high VE and an RPM well above the redline my tach says anyways.
The issue I'm trying to hash is maintaining enough velocity for low end (under boost) performance for everyday driving. Everyone says you can use a smaller carb for Boost than the unboosted NA setup. If the stock nikki is 313 then the 2bbl choices are equivilently 264/354 however since they aren't a 4bbl the primaries are the effictive secondaries as well.
And above in the post we've deamed the 70CI Wankel to only need 340CFM at a high VE and an RPM well above the redline my tach says anyways.
03-09-09, 03:09 PM
#46
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,826
Received 2,594 Likes
on
1,842 Posts
Right. And if you see up top I did... the 2bbl 500CFM is like a 354CFM 4bbl. Etc.
The issue I'm trying to hash is maintaining enough velocity for low end (under boost) performance for everyday driving. Everyone says you can use a smaller carb for Boost than the unboosted NA setup. If the stock nikki is 313 then the 2bbl choices are equivilently 264/354 however since they aren't a 4bbl the primaries are the effictive secondaries as well.
And above in the post we've deamed the 70CI Wankel to only need 340CFM at a high VE and an RPM well above the redline my tach says anyways.
The issue I'm trying to hash is maintaining enough velocity for low end (under boost) performance for everyday driving. Everyone says you can use a smaller carb for Boost than the unboosted NA setup. If the stock nikki is 313 then the 2bbl choices are equivilently 264/354 however since they aren't a 4bbl the primaries are the effictive secondaries as well.
And above in the post we've deamed the 70CI Wankel to only need 340CFM at a high VE and an RPM well above the redline my tach says anyways.
if the stock nikki is 313 (at what pressure drop?) and the holley is 354, why would you bother buying the holley when you can run more boost?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Jeff20B
1st Generation Specific (1979-1985)
73
09-16-18 07:16 PM
