All Small Six Tri-power tuning

This relates to all small sixes
Status
Not open for further replies.
Great. Your working within the air flow restrictions of three small carbs on what is now a very strong 206 cubic inch engine.

You can enlarge the venturis as much as the casting will take via 3m emery paper on a drill attachment. 31 mm each venturi, or 2 mm or 78 thou extra would be a safe maximum.

As long as the ventri has a similar profile (shape/taper) as stock, and you don't break into the zinc oxide casting, then you'll do fine. If you do break into the casing during your work on three valuble 200 dollar Weber 34's, just add a little JB Weld or Devcon filler, and then reprofile.

At the moment, your total carb venturi area is just 3.07 sq inches for about 200 cubes of engine. Compared to any other performance engine, that's a lot less than it should be.If your engine was a 400 cube V8 needing 400 to 450 hp, it would need a carb like a 3310 Holley 750 cfm or Quadrajet 4MA with about 6.216 sq inches of carb venturi area to get 1 hp per cube. Proportionally, you are close with what you have on your 200, but there is not quite enough carb area with the cam package and jetting you have. If there was enough carb venturi area, you'd get stable 12:1 fuel air ratios right off the dyno at WOT. Hence the condition and diagnosis is under carburation. The prognois is continued failure to get the right fuel air ratio and hp. The remedy is to just find a valid way of gaining air flow to match the demands of the rest of your pacakge.

If you can take your carb venturi area up to 3.5 sq in by taking the venturs out to 31 mm, you carb will still work, but will yield close to a 14% increase in air flow. Vizard found that the Holley Weber carbs were too small in the total venturi area in just a 2 liter Pinto engine. A 227 cfm carb suddenly became a 275 cfm carb with just a few gentle mods with a die grinder, and showed huge improvments in power. His carb was taken from the 26/27 mm stock size to 29 and 31 mm, and it still worked well, but made a 21% aiflow improvment still using a stock carb. Area for a Holley Weber 5200 carb was just 1.736 sq in for a 121 cube engine. After mods, it was 2.19 sq in, and power increase was proportional to the area increase. So on a 206 cube engine, 3.625 sq inches would not be too much.

If you've exhasted all your jetting options, and have done the best work on cam and ignition , then its quite okay to gently whittle away the venturi to gain hp. Its what all the pro stockers do with there carbs on race engines when they are allowed to..find the ideal air flow on a stock carb by trial and error venturi area changes. You do reach a point when the carb won't function if you go too big, but as long as you have a 10 to 15% restriction from the carb throttle to the venturi, it will still funtion okay. In side and down draft webers where there is port on port carburation, you cant use venturis less than 5 mm lower than the carbs throttle size. So a DCOE 40 floes less with a 34 mm venturi than a 45 DCOE with a 32 mm venturi. On engines with less than port on port carburation thoug, they are under a lot more restriction, so a 32/36 Weber can go from 26/27 venturis to an insane 29/31 without turning the carb in to a pile of crap.

Then you can go up on jet size to more than the 175/190 combo you have, and then get better fuel air ratios. 195 or whatever jets you can get would then deliver more fuel.

If you engine won't make a fat 12.5: fuel air ratio under wide open throttle, just do the mods to make it do so..whatever mods work that still give you a functioning, safe carburation system, that's what you can do.

That should give you the the 200 hp with ease. (y)
 
For the rear end I am running an 8" with 3:80 gears. T5 transmission. Thinking of upping the primary jet to a 185 A/F had a spike as we transitioned to the secondary carbs but then instanly rolled back down to 12:1 range for the load run.. We saw that with this linkage set up the ratio numbers show a small flat spot but since I adjusted the pump arm on the outer ICT's I got a bigger squirt of fuel to bring me back down.. 'I'm hoping that the larger main inthe primary will keep me in the 13.8-14.5 range as I transition. I am 1.75 turns out on the Idle mixture so I have some room to play.
roadstershw.jpg
 
For fun threw in a larger 185 jet in my primary carb.. up from a 175..even better low end response. I know I'm at my limits with jetting without modifying the carbs venturi's but almost feels like I picked a few HP's..
 
with the newer jetting do you know your numbers @ the rear tires?

This thread is full of information that I way helpfull for carb optimization, my question to put on the table is this,
would increasing the venturi size (to allow usage of that extra 15% power) increase fuel mileage or hinder mileage?
how can I convert my ".065" autolite jet to a holley numbering system?

Don't mean to high-jack thread but all are within the same converstion and the information here is well, beautiful.

Kevin, do you know your MPG by chance with these three carbs, granted it's not 30 but I'm curious to know how if fairs in city and highway. Keep us posted with numbers too if you can, I quite enjoy this thread and your car is a really nice peice of art. (y)

doh: I understand now, holley is mm and autolite is thousands... .065 = 1.651mm
 
There lies the trade off. With the amount of head work I had done, Big Cam grind, and the over bore etc.. I am willing to sacrifice MPG vs. that of Power. I would say that I'm getting about 13 mpg.. give or take how I'm driving the car. I 'm sure with additional tuning I'm still hoping to get 200+ H.P at the flywheel. To do that utilizing the 78 log head is sold. Even the numbers I'm running now are solid.( .88 pre cube). I should be able to go up to a 205 main jet on my ICT's (outer's) and leave the Main Carb ICH at a 185 main jet. That should give me a few more ponies.. I will just stay with reading plugs at that point.. and schedule another Dyno run a month out or so. The worst I can do now is just foul plugs then 'll just jet back down.
 
So much great information. Now only if the @%#& snow will go away I will be able to apply it to mine. One question, what do you have your timing set at?

Gene
 
I started with 9 deg inital. but we found that 13 deg initial / 37Total was the safest timing. I did make one pull at 14 initial /38 total but had some detonation so back it off a degree.. The best part of all this is that with my build and the amount of head work done that the suggested jetting that was on the site for the tri-powers without the dyno info was actually a recipe for disaster with the leaning issues. I would suggest that those with similiar builds get there motors on a dyno and find out were your at.. Best $160 I've spent so far..
 
I will get the info to you. Took my cam specs from the performace book and had a local company do a grind to that spec. Oregon Cam Grinders did my cam for me.
 
OK more jetting.. up the outers to 200mm jets up from 190's.. Thought about throwing a 190 in the main but its only up from a 185 so probably not going to make that much of a difference. But the 2 step jump up in the secondaries should hit when they come in..
 
Dyno3.jpg

Dyno print out. Since the Dyno I have made the following changes which have resulted in some great gains that retest for soon. I updated the the primary carb from a 175mm jet to a 185mm.. Updated the outer secondary jets from 190mm to 200mm. Plugs look good cars pulls strong. I plan on going back to the dyno again when My other jets arrive. Hopefully according to xctasy math and help I am flowing 1650cc of fuel/min which should be enough to get me into the higher H.P. range.. Soon to see.
 
I had the distributor recurved to my cam specs. so I'm at my limits with that. Our motors like the 36-38 total best anymore than that detonation. At least for my application.
 
I didn't say change your total , I said Increase your Initial ,and keep the total the same , what I'm suggesting wont change overall power BUT , it will really improve drivability , Ive been recurving Dist's since 1976 , I dont know where you had yours done but its not right .
 
I can look into that but I'd rather keep it at the spot where I am at. The Dyno gave me solid information for my particular set up. @ 14 initial timing it was a bit much. The guy who did my distributor is well respected in our area for igition systems so I'm going to keep it where the Dyno is giving me the information. I'm sure I can reduce the amount of timing that is thrown into it and run more initial but I'm fine with where I'm at for now. May go witha DUII system and have them curve my distributor when I order it. Since my carbs don't have an off idle vacuum source I'm running mechanical advance. Full advance by 2800 RPM.
 
Keep working with ignition and jetting.

Fuel economy will improve with a custom made vac advance unit. You can make one by drilling a press fit brass tube in one or all of the carbs. The cam is low on at lash duration, high on 20 and 50 thou figures, but its mild in context of what makes power. The over lap when both valves are open 30 thou is also a measure of how suitable the cam is on the street. All indicate that Idle vac should be good with the lobe centres.

The best horsepower arrives when air speed is about 265 feet per second. You can compensate low or high air speed by ignition, rocker ratio, jetting, cam, manifold, exhast and compression ratio changes.

At 5100 rpm, a 206 cubic inch engine makes 243 cfm at 80% volumetric efficency. With three 29 mm venturis, thats an air speed of with 3.078 sq in of carb venturi area or 0.021375 sq feet

Velocity = flow times area

feet per second = 243* 0.021375
5.194 fps= 311.64 feet per minute.

Any time air speed goes too high, you loose power. Going to 31 mm drops air speed to about 274 feet per second. Thats why I suggest doing something to lower the air speed to the more ideal value. That will always get your power up.

Unless thats done, your only other options are ignition, rocker ratio, jetting, cam, manifold, exhast and compression ratio changes to optimise horsepower.
 
At 5100 rpm, a 206 cubic inch engine makes 243 cfm at 80% volumetric efficency. With three 29 mm venturis, thats an air speed of ____with 3.078 sq in of carb venturi area or 0.021375 sq feet

Velocity = flow times area

feet per second = 243* 0.021375
5.194 fps= 311.64 feet per minute

interested in following this thread but few anomalies here :

left out your air speed
velocity is flow divided by area ie ft/m= ft^3/m (CFM)divided by ft^2

i cant get your feet per second to calc out ( assuming the units of 243 used is CFM)

i get an airspeed thru each carb of 189 fps for 243 cfm (at 0.021375 ft2 total carb venturi area) - or per carb (if you like)189fps for 81cfm on a per carb venturi area of area of 0.007125 ft^2 ( 1.026in^2)

am i missing something here?
 
Yep. :oops:

You are right.

It was late.

265 feet per second is the limit to making good power. You should be below that air speed to make power.Q= v.a

Flow = velocity times area

cubic per minute (cfm)

See any on line web details on flow

Flow rate is simply volume flow per unit time. So, if you have, for example, any liquid having a volume of 100 cubic meters being moved in 10 seconds, the flow rate is

100/10 = 10 cubic meters/sec.

Another method of calculating flow rate is

Q = VA

where

Q = flow rate
V = fluid velocity
A = cross sectional area of pipe

Since most pipes have circular cross-sections, then

Q = V(pi)(r^2) or

Q = V(pi/4)(D^2)
That helped me

CFM Idealised is 206 cid*peak power rpm of 5100 all divided by 3456, then assumed as an 80% volumetric ratio. Thats 243 cfm

243 cfm = v.area in cubic feet

Total carb area in cubic feet is based on a venturi of 29mm/25.4=1.14173 inches. Square feet area is pi radius squared. Thats0.095144/2 for radius*3.141, squared

Thats about 0.021375 ft2 total carb venturi area.

Then find the v, velocity per second (not minute), by dividing, not multiplying Q=243 by 0.021375, then multiplying by 60 to convert to feet per .

That your 189 cfm. Reduce that by 13.36%, and power increases on a 3-bbl six compared to a 4-bbl eight. If you look at port on port carburation, say a 265 Aussie Valiant Charger with three 2-bbl DCOE 45s with six 40 mm venturis, air speed at 302 hp at 5300 rpm is only

345 cfm
((265*5300/3456)*0.85). Venturi area is square feet is 0.081143, and air speed is just 70.86 feet per second. That's with a carb system too small for a 306 degree cam and 302 hp. As you start moving towards a port on port system, you have to reduce air speed to allow pulse tuning to take place.
 
Ok so we agree its 189 FPS through each carb at 29mm venturi :beer:

you have stated that 265 FPS is max venturi velocity for carbs.

Reduce that by 13.36%, and power increases on a 3-bbl six compared to a 4-bbl eight


what is the releavnce of the 4bbl eight?

are you stating to reduce velocity thru the carb ventuiri's - ie increase the diameter?


or is he OK as he is 70% of max stated velocity ? ( ie 189FPS cv 265FPS)
 
The 265 figure is on 1, 2 and 4-bbl engines maxiumum. For port on port, its about 70 feet per second ideal.

For a halfway case where you have 3 1 bbl carbs on a six, its about 165 feet per second to make power. It can no longer make power with high air velocity due to the small carb area. It's got to be reworked to behave like a mechanical secondary carb like on a Mazda RX-7 or a Quadra jet. Total peak air flow on those carbs is quite low, and the power gains are huge compared to other carbs

If you check all the figures on peak air flow on port on port carbs, then look at what restrictor plate Nascar and oval track big blocks with 2-bbls are doing, you see that they get power from special cams. The easiest way to make power for multiple barrel carbs which are not port on port is to go straight to the biggest venturi sizes that will function with the throttle size you have. The result is reduced peak air speed through the carb at peak power revs.

This was basic areo engine practice back in the 20's, 30's and early 40's.

I can't really go into it too much more, as its easy to make a mistake with figures. If you just look at any given air speed with any carb and engine combination, you'll see that good power comes with lower air speed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top