six question, again hypotheticly speaking, what size carbs would one by if....... Options

[pete-stevers]

one was building a 2.5?
or
if one was building a 2.7........
or.....
if one was building a 3.2
or........
a 3.4.....
of course my next question is
what are they worth???

[Thorshammer]

Eric,


I just lost my long explanation, Thanks B (you beotch).

Anyway, many people think they must strengthen the pulse at the carb, when the real problem is the lack of inlet port velocity to produce a strong signal in the first place.

About 25 years ago, someone stopped developing these engines. Now, technology has changed significantly, and very few are revisiting the 6 cylinder engines. One good example of this is Jake Raby, he has applied and developed the type four engine very nicely. I don't really feel anyone is doing this for the smaller 6's, there just isn't any money in doing it.

So, what you get is a cookbook engine, this cam, this venturi etc......
kind of what I have done, but with a different spin. Cylinder filling makes power. You get intake pulse signal from a properly designed engine package.

Good volumetrics will make power everywhere, small venturis will only enhance a piss poor package in the midrange and hinder what the top end potential may be.

Take race engine packages for example: building a 2.0 six to race: Use the 906 cam, 46mm int 40 mm exh, tall manifolds, 46 webers and 38 venturis, with 32-34 inch primaries and megaphones. How many times have you heard this shit. My 2.0 EP race motor has none of the above, and I assure you it makes more than most. People just have to do the research and apply newer technology to these engines and they will respond.


Erik Madsen