Yet another dyno run of an engine with different sized carbs to test the
effects, dispel the myths and record the power outputs.

In this case, the test engine is a 408 Windsor, which is a 351 with a
half inch stroke. In the linked video, this engine is being on the dyno
run up to 7000rpm, and according to the various hypothetical carburettor
calculators this engine needs a carb with a CFM rate of 785cfm in "full
racing engine" trim. This engine is far from a "full race" configuration
and closer to a "High Performance" spec where the carb calculators list
702cfm as suiting it's needs.

In the actual test, both a single and dual carb tunnel ram configuration
are being used, with the single carb being a 950cfm unit and the dual
being a pair of 750's giving the engine 1500cfm of intake airflow which
is over *double* that of the calculator settings.

Which configuration do you think made more power? :)

You can see the results for yourself here (skip to the 5 minute mark)
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRlKrWxqJZ8

For those who can't be bothered watching it, the dual carb option was
worth 30 extra horsepower over the single with all else being equal, and
the engine sounded strong and probably had some more left on the table
with proper jetting and adjustment.

The myth *clearly* busted here is that purported by a pair of clueless
experts in here in that theoretical carburettor airflow is the *maximum*
an engine can use and anything larger will not work. We all remember
Clueless Clasener making comments like this:

> An 1150 Holley Dominator on a NA SBC is not possible, no way, no how. Intake flows
> would go sonic long before you were even close to 1150 CFM.

Well, as has been demonstrated *many* times now, this simply is not the
case and this idiot shows that all he's *really* capable of doing very
well is mouthing off about stuff he knows absolutely nothing about, and
ever time I watch a video like this it reminds me of just how clueless
this utter moron actually is.

Pay attention to this Felix. I'm not making this up. The video speaks
for itself. This is the bloke *you* think is an automotive Guru. He has
you completely conned.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 12/27/2022 8:52 AM, Noddy wrote:
> Yet another dyno run of an engine with different sized carbs to test the
> effects, dispel the myths and record the power outputs.
>
> In this case, the test engine is a 408 Windsor, which is a 351 with a
> half inch stroke. In the linked video, this engine is being on the dyno
> run up to 7000rpm, and according to the various hypothetical carburettor
> calculators this engine needs a carb with a CFM rate of 785cfm in "full
> racing engine" trim. This engine is far from a "full race" configuration
> and closer to a "High Performance" spec where the carb calculators list
> 702cfm as suiting it's needs.
>
> In the actual test, both a single and dual carb tunnel ram configuration
> are being used, with the single carb being a 950cfm unit and the dual
> being a pair of 750's giving the engine 1500cfm of intake airflow which
> is over *double* that of the calculator settings.
>
> Which configuration do you think made more power? :)
>
> You can see the results for yourself here (skip to the 5 minute mark)
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRlKrWxqJZ8
>
> For those who can't be bothered watching it, the dual carb option was
> worth 30 extra horsepower over the single with all else being equal, and
> the engine sounded strong and probably had some more left on the table
> with proper jetting and adjustment.
>
> The myth *clearly* busted here is that purported by a pair of clueless
> experts in here in that theoretical carburettor airflow is the *maximum*
> an engine can use and anything larger will not work. We all remember
> Clueless Clasener making comments like this:
>
>> An 1150 Holley Dominator on a NA SBC is not possible, no way, no how.
>> Intake flows
>> would go sonic long before you were even close to 1150 CFM.
>
> Well, as has been demonstrated *many* times now, this simply is not the
> case and this idiot shows that all he's *really* capable of doing very
> well is mouthing off about stuff he knows absolutely nothing about, and
> ever time I watch a video like this it reminds me of just how clueless
> this utter moron actually is.
>
> Pay attention to this Felix. I'm not making this up. The video speaks
> for itself. This is the bloke *you* think is an automotive Guru. He has
> you completely conned.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Got the popcorn and waiting...<G>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Usenet is like a herd ofperforming elephants with diarrhea----Massive,
difficult to redirect,awe inspiring, entertaining and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it....... Gene
Spafford

On 27/12/2022 5:52 am, Noddy wrote:
> Yet another dyno run of an engine with different sized carbs to test the
> effects, dispel the myths and record the power outputs.
>
> In this case, the test engine is a 408 Windsor, which is a 351 with a
> half inch stroke. In the linked video, this engine is being on the dyno
> run up to 7000rpm, and according to the various hypothetical carburettor
> calculators this engine needs a carb with a CFM rate of 785cfm in "full
> racing engine" trim. This engine is far from a "full race" configuration
> and closer to a "High Performance" spec where the carb calculators list
> 702cfm as suiting it's needs.
>
> In the actual test, both a single and dual carb tunnel ram configuration
> are being used, with the single carb being a 950cfm unit and the dual
> being a pair of 750's giving the engine 1500cfm of intake airflow which
> is over *double* that of the calculator settings.
>
> Which configuration do you think made more power? :)
>

Fuck me... that views like one one of those 4x4 shows that is trying to
sell 4x4 accessories to dumbarses that don't need any of it.
It's not scientific and doesn't even pretend to be, it's designed to
sell shit.

From the video, right at the beginning after bolting the single carb
from a different plenum setup which was designed for the single carb and
different engine and grafting it to dual plenum setup by means of a
custom modified plenum top to a plenum setup for a dual carb - in his
words...

"I have no idea what this manifold is going to do. The manifold taper is
different, the plenum volume is different"

"It's going to be interesting with such a small opening up there" says
the other guy.

They should be your first clues you dickhead. but no, two made more
power than one in a completely unscientific and meaningless test whilst
promoting a dual carb setup 'coz it looks better anyway duh' and
NoddyLiar's conclusion is see, proof more CFM is better.

The more you post the more you expose yourself to be an unqualified
incompetent goose to the qualified people here. You are such a fucking
idiot :-)

On 27/12/2022 11:29 am, jonz wrote:
> On 12/27/2022 8:52 AM, Noddy wrote:
>> Yet another dyno run of an engine with different sized carbs to test
>> the effects, dispel the myths and record the power outputs.
>>
>> In this case, the test engine is a 408 Windsor, which is a 351 with a
>> half inch stroke. In the linked video, this engine is being on the
>> dyno run up to 7000rpm, and according to the various hypothetical
>> carburettor calculators this engine needs a carb with a CFM rate of
>> 785cfm in "full racing engine" trim. This engine is far from a "full
>> race" configuration and closer to a "High Performance" spec where the
>> carb calculators list 702cfm as suiting it's needs.
>>
>> In the actual test, both a single and dual carb tunnel ram
>> configuration are being used, with the single carb being a 950cfm unit
>> and the dual being a pair of 750's giving the engine 1500cfm of intake
>> airflow which is over *double* that of the calculator settings.
>>
>> Which configuration do you think made more power? :)
>>
>> You can see the results for yourself here (skip to the 5 minute mark)
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRlKrWxqJZ8
>>
>> For those who can't be bothered watching it, the dual carb option was
>> worth 30 extra horsepower over the single with all else being equal,
>> and the engine sounded strong and probably had some more left on the
>> table with proper jetting and adjustment.
>>
>> The myth *clearly* busted here is that purported by a pair of clueless
>> experts in here in that theoretical carburettor airflow is the
>> *maximum* an engine can use and anything larger will not work. We all
>> remember Clueless Clasener making comments like this:
>>
>>> An 1150 Holley Dominator on a NA SBC is not possible, no way, no how.
>>> Intake flows
>>> would go sonic long before you were even close to 1150 CFM.
>>
>> Well, as has been demonstrated *many* times now, this simply is not
>> the case and this idiot shows that all he's *really* capable of doing
>> very well is mouthing off about stuff he knows absolutely nothing
>> about, and ever time I watch a video like this it reminds me of just
>> how clueless this utter moron actually is.
>>
>> Pay attention to this Felix. I'm not making this up. The video speaks
>> for itself. This is the bloke *you* think is an automotive Guru. He
>> has you completely conned.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>   Got the popcorn and waiting...<G>

Almost worth taking the bullshitting idiot out of the killfile to see
his ridiculous response. No doubt it will be as idiotic as the rambling
irrelevant bullshit he put up in a pathetic attempt at trying to justify
his inability to understand basic brakes :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 27/12/2022 12:04 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 27/12/2022 5:52 am, Noddy wrote:
>> Yet another dyno run of an engine with different sized carbs to test
>> the effects, dispel the myths and record the power outputs.
>>
>> In this case, the test engine is a 408 Windsor, which is a 351 with a
>> half inch stroke. In the linked video, this engine is being on the
>> dyno run up to 7000rpm, and according to the various hypothetical
>> carburettor calculators this engine needs a carb with a CFM rate of
>> 785cfm in "full racing engine" trim. This engine is far from a "full
>> race" configuration and closer to a "High Performance" spec where the
>> carb calculators list 702cfm as suiting it's needs.
>>
>> In the actual test, both a single and dual carb tunnel ram
>> configuration are being used, with the single carb being a 950cfm
>> unit and the dual being a pair of 750's giving the engine 1500cfm of
>> intake airflow which is over *double* that of the calculator settings.
>>
>> Which configuration do you think made more power? :)
>>
>
> Fuck me... that views like one one of those 4x4 shows that is trying
> to sell 4x4 accessories to dumbarses that don't need any of it.
> It's not scientific and doesn't even pretend to be, it's designed to
> sell shit.
>
>
> From the video, right at the beginning after bolting the single carb
> from a different plenum setup which was designed for the single carb
> and different engine and grafting it to dual plenum setup by means of
> a custom modified plenum top to a plenum setup for a dual carb - in
> his words...
>
> "I have no idea what this manifold is going to do. The manifold taper
> is different, the plenum volume is different"
>
> "It's going to be interesting with such a small opening up there" says
> the other guy.
>
> They should be your first clues you dickhead. but no, two made more
> power than one in a completely unscientific and meaningless test
> whilst promoting a dual carb setup 'coz it looks better anyway duh'
> and NoddyLiar's conclusion is see, proof more CFM is better.
>
> The more you post the more you expose yourself to be an unqualified
> incompetent goose to the qualified people here. You are such a fucking
> idiot :-)
>
>

hahaha! showing that noddy is a noddy

On 27/12/2022 12:09 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 27/12/2022 11:29 am, jonz wrote:
>> On 12/27/2022 8:52 AM, Noddy wrote:
>>> Yet another dyno run of an engine with different sized carbs to test
>>> the effects, dispel the myths and record the power outputs.
>>>
>>> In this case, the test engine is a 408 Windsor, which is a 351 with
>>> a half inch stroke. In the linked video, this engine is being on the
>>> dyno run up to 7000rpm, and according to the various hypothetical
>>> carburettor calculators this engine needs a carb with a CFM rate of
>>> 785cfm in "full racing engine" trim. This engine is far from a "full
>>> race" configuration and closer to a "High Performance" spec where
>>> the carb calculators list 702cfm as suiting it's needs.
>>>
>>> In the actual test, both a single and dual carb tunnel ram
>>> configuration are being used, with the single carb being a 950cfm
>>> unit and the dual being a pair of 750's giving the engine 1500cfm of
>>> intake airflow which is over *double* that of the calculator settings.
>>>
>>> Which configuration do you think made more power? :)
>>>
>>> You can see the results for yourself here (skip to the 5 minute mark)
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRlKrWxqJZ8
>>>
>>> For those who can't be bothered watching it, the dual carb option
>>> was worth 30 extra horsepower over the single with all else being
>>> equal, and the engine sounded strong and probably had some more left
>>> on the table with proper jetting and adjustment.
>>>
>>> The myth *clearly* busted here is that purported by a pair of
>>> clueless experts in here in that theoretical carburettor airflow is
>>> the *maximum* an engine can use and anything larger will not work.
>>> We all remember Clueless Clasener making comments like this:
>>>
>>>> An 1150 Holley Dominator on a NA SBC is not possible, no way, no
>>>> how. Intake flows
>>>> would go sonic long before you were even close to 1150 CFM.
>>>
>>> Well, as has been demonstrated *many* times now, this simply is not
>>> the case and this idiot shows that all he's *really* capable of
>>> doing very well is mouthing off about stuff he knows absolutely
>>> nothing about, and ever time I watch a video like this it reminds me
>>> of just how clueless this utter moron actually is.
>>>
>>> Pay attention to this Felix. I'm not making this up. The video
>>> speaks for itself.

but I don't know enough automotive technical stuffto know if it's fact
or fiction

>>> This is the bloke *you* think is an automotive Guru. He has you
>>> completely conned.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>    Got the popcorn and waiting...<G>
>
> Almost worth taking the bullshitting idiot out of the killfile to see
> his ridiculous response. No doubt it will be as idiotic as the
> rambling irrelevant bullshit he put up in a pathetic attempt at trying
> to justify his inability to understand basic brakes :)
>

you have not proven anything unless you can refute any argument against
your claims. so hiding won't help you. I guess you're too stupid to know
this

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam

FUCK PUTIN!! and BILL GATES!!!

On 27/12/2022 2:57 pm, Fred Nurk wrote:
> On 27/12/2022 12:04 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 27/12/2022 5:52 am, Noddy wrote:
>>> Yet another dyno run of an engine with different sized carbs to test
>>> the effects, dispel the myths and record the power outputs.
>>>
>>> In this case, the test engine is a 408 Windsor, which is a 351 with a
>>> half inch stroke. In the linked video, this engine is being on the
>>> dyno run up to 7000rpm, and according to the various hypothetical
>>> carburettor calculators this engine needs a carb with a CFM rate of
>>> 785cfm in "full racing engine" trim. This engine is far from a "full
>>> race" configuration and closer to a "High Performance" spec where the
>>> carb calculators list 702cfm as suiting it's needs.
>>>
>>> In the actual test, both a single and dual carb tunnel ram
>>> configuration are being used, with the single carb being a 950cfm
>>> unit and the dual being a pair of 750's giving the engine 1500cfm of
>>> intake airflow which is over *double* that of the calculator settings.
>>>
>>> Which configuration do you think made more power? :)
>>>
>>
>> Fuck me... that views like one one of those 4x4 shows that is trying
>> to sell 4x4 accessories to dumbarses that don't need any of it.
>> It's not scientific and doesn't even pretend to be, it's designed to
>> sell shit.
>>
>>
>> From the video, right at the beginning after bolting the single carb
>> from a different plenum setup which was designed for the single carb
>> and different engine and grafting it to dual plenum setup by means of
>> a custom modified plenum top to a plenum setup for a dual carb - in
>> his words...
>>
>> "I have no idea what this manifold is going to do. The manifold taper
>> is different, the plenum volume is different"
>>
>> "It's going to be interesting with such a small opening up there" says
>> the other guy.
>>
>> They should be your first clues you dickhead. but no, two made more
>> power than one in a completely unscientific and meaningless test
>> whilst promoting a dual carb setup 'coz it looks better anyway duh'
>> and NoddyLiar's conclusion is see, proof more CFM is better.
>>
>> The more you post the more you expose yourself to be an unqualified
>> incompetent goose to the qualified people here. You are such a fucking
>> idiot :-)
>>
>>
>
> hahaha! showing that noddy is a noddy

You're a fucking imbecile Felix. If you or your mental midget "expert"
mates had *any* idea at all you'd know that the guy was talking about
what kind of numbers it would make given that it was an untested
combination.

The elephant in the room, which your clueless clog wearing buddy tried
his best to completely ignore, was that *despite* the manifold being an
unknown quantity, the engine made *more* power with a pair of
carburettors that had a flow rate of over *double* what your fucking
moronic mates believe is the theoretical maximum which was the entire
point of the video.

Hate to break the news to you here bud, but your mates who you regard as
"experts on all things automotive" are actually dumb cunts who wouldn't
know if you were up them until you spat on their back and chucked them a
fiver.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 27/12/2022 11:57 am, Fred Nurk wrote:
> On 27/12/2022 12:04 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 27/12/2022 5:52 am, Noddy wrote:
>>> Yet another dyno run of an engine with different sized carbs to test
>>> the effects, dispel the myths and record the power outputs.
>>>
>>> In this case, the test engine is a 408 Windsor, which is a 351 with a
>>> half inch stroke. In the linked video, this engine is being on the
>>> dyno run up to 7000rpm, and according to the various hypothetical
>>> carburettor calculators this engine needs a carb with a CFM rate of
>>> 785cfm in "full racing engine" trim. This engine is far from a "full
>>> race" configuration and closer to a "High Performance" spec where the
>>> carb calculators list 702cfm as suiting it's needs.
>>>
>>> In the actual test, both a single and dual carb tunnel ram
>>> configuration are being used, with the single carb being a 950cfm
>>> unit and the dual being a pair of 750's giving the engine 1500cfm of
>>> intake airflow which is over *double* that of the calculator settings.
>>>
>>> Which configuration do you think made more power? :)
>>>
>>
>> Fuck me... that views like one one of those 4x4 shows that is trying
>> to sell 4x4 accessories to dumbarses that don't need any of it.
>> It's not scientific and doesn't even pretend to be, it's designed to
>> sell shit.
>>
>>
>> From the video, right at the beginning after bolting the single carb
>> from a different plenum setup which was designed for the single carb
>> and different engine and grafting it to dual plenum setup by means of
>> a custom modified plenum top to a plenum setup for a dual carb - in
>> his words...
>>
>> "I have no idea what this manifold is going to do. The manifold taper
>> is different, the plenum volume is different"
>>
>> "It's going to be interesting with such a small opening up there" says
>> the other guy.
>>
>> They should be your first clues you dickhead. but no, two made more
>> power than one in a completely unscientific and meaningless test
>> whilst promoting a dual carb setup 'coz it looks better anyway duh'
>> and NoddyLiar's conclusion is see, proof more CFM is better.
>>
>> The more you post the more you expose yourself to be an unqualified
>> incompetent goose to the qualified people here. You are such a fucking
>> idiot :-)
>>
>>
>
> hahaha! showing that noddy is a noddy
>
>

Watch the idiot go into damage control with a flurry of lies and abuse.

He's as predictable as he is stupid after all...

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On 27/12/2022 12:09 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 27/12/2022 11:29 am, jonz wrote:
>> On 12/27/2022 8:52 AM, Noddy wrote:
>>> Yet another dyno run of an engine with different sized carbs to test
>>> the effects, dispel the myths and record the power outputs.
>>>
>>> In this case, the test engine is a 408 Windsor, which is a 351 with a
>>> half inch stroke. In the linked video, this engine is being on the

Half inch stroke Darren? You must be getting that engine spec mixed up
with your penile dimensions.

>>> dyno run up to 7000rpm, and according to the various hypothetical
>>> carburettor calculators this engine needs a carb with a CFM rate of
>>> 785cfm in "full racing engine" trim. This engine is far from a "full
>>> race" configuration and closer to a "High Performance" spec where the
>>> carb calculators list 702cfm as suiting it's needs.
>>>
>>> In the actual test, both a single and dual carb tunnel ram
>>> configuration are being used, with the single carb being a 950cfm
>>> unit and the dual being a pair of 750's giving the engine 1500cfm of
>>> intake airflow which is over *double* that of the calculator settings.
>>>
>>> Which configuration do you think made more power? :)
>>>
>>> You can see the results for yourself here (skip to the 5 minute mark)
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRlKrWxqJZ8
>>>
>>> For those who can't be bothered watching it, the dual carb option was
>>> worth 30 extra horsepower over the single with all else being equal,
>>> and the engine sounded strong and probably had some more left on the
>>> table with proper jetting and adjustment.
>>>
>>> The myth *clearly* busted here is that purported by a pair of
>>> clueless experts in here in that theoretical carburettor airflow is
>>> the *maximum* an engine can use and anything larger will not work. We
>>> all remember Clueless Clasener making comments like this:
>>>
>>>> An 1150 Holley Dominator on a NA SBC is not possible, no way, no
>>>> how. Intake flows
>>>> would go sonic long before you were even close to 1150 CFM.
>>>
>>> Well, as has been demonstrated *many* times now, this simply is not
>>> the case and this idiot shows that all he's *really* capable of doing
>>> very well is mouthing off about stuff he knows absolutely nothing
>>> about, and ever time I watch a video like this it reminds me of just
>>> how clueless this utter moron actually is.
>>>
>>> Pay attention to this Felix. I'm not making this up. The video speaks
>>> for itself. This is the bloke *you* think is an automotive Guru. He
>>> has you completely conned.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>    Got the popcorn and waiting...<G>
>
> Almost worth taking the bullshitting idiot out of the killfile to see

Admit it Darren, I've never been in your killfail.

> his ridiculous response. No doubt it will be as idiotic as the rambling
> irrelevant bullshit he put up in a pathetic attempt at trying to justify
> his inability to understand basic brakes :)
>
Puir wee Darren, I'm really getting to you, aren't I.

All you are showing by your posting above is that *you* really have no
clue how it all works. For a start, your 408 CI engine, with it's
theoretical 826 CFM @ 7,000 RPM is *still* only going to flow that much
air, +/- 20%, and there is no way around that. That calculator you used
*assumed* either 85% VE (street engine) or 110% VE (racing engine). No
secret there. Even with the best possible VE of 120% you're still only
looking at an air flow 992 CFM. That is all that the engine, under
optimum circumstances, will flow. Impossible to get that engine to flow
any more. But I explained all this to you, and also detailed how the
engine gets around this and *still* you don't get.

Anyway, I gave you a full and complete explanation on how a dual quad
system works vis a vis *airflow*. I'm sure I mentioned that, in this
configuration, the CFM rating of a carburettor is *irrelevant*. In fact,
I said you have to treat each *cylinder* of the engine as a single
cylinder engine with its own single throat carburettor where each throat
only flows air 25% - 35% of the 4 stroke cycle. The problem with
overcarburation like this is that you end up with an extremely peaky
engine that won't idle at anything near a reasonable engine RPM and
produces its power in a very narrow power band up high in the RPM range
hence their use on high speed circle tracks and/or drag racing.
Streetable they aint.

Your problem, though not unique to you, is that *you* don't understand
how this all works and everything you post on the topic dribbles of your
bullshit. Why don't you have a go at *my explanation* of how the dual
quad setup works? Funny how you steer clear of that all the time, eh?
All you're proving is *why* you didn't qualify for any apprenticeship ever.

Going back to the beginning of your bullshit saga, I stated that *your*
story of the *stock* Chev block with the 4V Ford head was, is and always
will be bullshit. Not possible, especially with a pretender like you
working on it. I still laugh about how you screwed up Les' engine build.
Now that was funny.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 27/12/2022 3:02 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 27/12/2022 12:09 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 27/12/2022 11:29 am, jonz wrote:
>>> On 12/27/2022 8:52 AM, Noddy wrote:
>>>> Yet another dyno run of an engine with different sized carbs to test
>>>> the effects, dispel the myths and record the power outputs.
>>>>
>>>> In this case, the test engine is a 408 Windsor, which is a 351 with
>>>> a half inch stroke. In the linked video, this engine is being on the
>
> Half inch stroke Darren? You must be getting that engine spec mixed up
> with your penile dimensions.
>
>
>>>> dyno run up to 7000rpm, and according to the various hypothetical
>>>> carburettor calculators this engine needs a carb with a CFM rate of
>>>> 785cfm in "full racing engine" trim. This engine is far from a "full
>>>> race" configuration and closer to a "High Performance" spec where
>>>> the carb calculators list 702cfm as suiting it's needs.
>>>>
>>>> In the actual test, both a single and dual carb tunnel ram
>>>> configuration are being used, with the single carb being a 950cfm
>>>> unit and the dual being a pair of 750's giving the engine 1500cfm of
>>>> intake airflow which is over *double* that of the calculator settings.
>>>>
>>>> Which configuration do you think made more power? :)
>>>>
>>>> You can see the results for yourself here (skip to the 5 minute mark)
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRlKrWxqJZ8
>>>>
>>>> For those who can't be bothered watching it, the dual carb option
>>>> was worth 30 extra horsepower over the single with all else being
>>>> equal, and the engine sounded strong and probably had some more left
>>>> on the table with proper jetting and adjustment.
>>>>
>>>> The myth *clearly* busted here is that purported by a pair of
>>>> clueless experts in here in that theoretical carburettor airflow is
>>>> the *maximum* an engine can use and anything larger will not work.
>>>> We all remember Clueless Clasener making comments like this:
>>>>
>>>>> An 1150 Holley Dominator on a NA SBC is not possible, no way, no
>>>>> how. Intake flows
>>>>> would go sonic long before you were even close to 1150 CFM.
>>>>
>>>> Well, as has been demonstrated *many* times now, this simply is not
>>>> the case and this idiot shows that all he's *really* capable of
>>>> doing very well is mouthing off about stuff he knows absolutely
>>>> nothing about, and ever time I watch a video like this it reminds me
>>>> of just how clueless this utter moron actually is.
>>>>
>>>> Pay attention to this Felix. I'm not making this up. The video
>>>> speaks for itself. This is the bloke *you* think is an automotive
>>>> Guru. He has you completely conned.
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>    Got the popcorn and waiting...<G>
>>
>> Almost worth taking the bullshitting idiot out of the killfile to see
>
> Admit it Darren, I've never been in your killfail.
>
>> his ridiculous response. No doubt it will be as idiotic as the
>> rambling irrelevant bullshit he put up in a pathetic attempt at trying
>> to justify his inability to understand basic brakes :)
>>
> Puir wee Darren, I'm really getting to you, aren't I.
>
> All you are showing by your posting above is that *you* really have no
> clue how it all works. For a start, your 408 CI engine, with it's
> theoretical 826 CFM @ 7,000 RPM is *still* only going to flow that much
> air, +/- 20%, and there is no way around that. That calculator you used
> *assumed* either 85% VE (street engine) or 110% VE (racing engine). No
> secret there. Even with the best possible VE of 120% you're still only
> looking at an air flow 992 CFM. That is all that the engine, under
> optimum circumstances, will flow. Impossible to get that engine to flow
> any more. But I explained all this to you, and also detailed how the
> engine gets around this and *still* you don't get.
>
> Anyway, I gave you a full and complete explanation on how a dual quad
> system works vis a vis *airflow*. I'm sure I mentioned that, in this
> configuration, the CFM rating of a carburettor is *irrelevant*. In fact,
> I said you have to treat each *cylinder* of the engine as a single
> cylinder engine with its own single throat carburettor where each throat
> only flows air 25% - 35% of the 4 stroke cycle. The problem with
> overcarburation like this is that you end up with an extremely peaky
> engine that won't idle at anything near a reasonable engine RPM and
> produces its power in a very narrow power band up high in the RPM range
> hence their use on high speed circle tracks and/or drag racing.
> Streetable they aint.
>
> Your problem, though not unique to you, is that *you* don't understand
> how this all works and everything you post on the topic dribbles of your
> bullshit. Why don't you have a go at *my explanation* of how the dual
> quad setup works? Funny how you steer clear of that all the time, eh?
> All you're proving is *why* you didn't qualify for any apprenticeship ever.
>

You're wasting your time. He doesn't get any of it. You'll get no
explanation. What he is doing is looking for "evidence" that backs up
his false beliefs. When he thinks he's found something he posts it,
except that evidence *doesn't* support his theory - but he can't
possibly understand why it only serves to further highlight to
mechanics, engine builders, engineers and everyone else with real
technical knowledge that he's nothing more that the classic clueless
knuckle dragging bogan with a shed full of shiny shit to impress the
even more clueless.

> Going back to the beginning of your bullshit saga, I stated that *your*
> story of the *stock* Chev block with the 4V Ford head was, is and always
> will be bullshit. Not possible, especially with a pretender like you
> working on it. I still laugh about how you screwed up Les' engine build.
> Now that was funny.
>
>

The self proclaimed race engine builder not being able to correctly
identify blower components was the sealer for me.

He sure likes to compensate for his lack of qualifications, knowledge
and competence with noise in the form of bullshit, lies and abuse. It's
all he has.

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On 27/12/2022 3:54 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 27/12/2022 2:57 pm, Fred Nurk wrote:
>> On 27/12/2022 12:04 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 27/12/2022 5:52 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>> Yet another dyno run of an engine with different sized carbs to test
>>>> the effects, dispel the myths and record the power outputs.
>>>>
>>>> In this case, the test engine is a 408 Windsor, which is a 351 with
>>>> a half inch stroke. In the linked video, this engine is being on the
>>>> dyno run up to 7000rpm, and according to the various hypothetical
>>>> carburettor calculators this engine needs a carb with a CFM rate of
>>>> 785cfm in "full racing engine" trim. This engine is far from a "full
>>>> race" configuration and closer to a "High Performance" spec where
>>>> the carb calculators list 702cfm as suiting it's needs.
>>>>
>>>> In the actual test, both a single and dual carb tunnel ram
>>>> configuration are being used, with the single carb being a 950cfm
>>>> unit and the dual being a pair of 750's giving the engine 1500cfm of
>>>> intake airflow which is over *double* that of the calculator settings.
>>>>
>>>> Which configuration do you think made more power? :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Fuck me... that views like one one of those 4x4 shows that is trying
>>> to sell 4x4 accessories to dumbarses that don't need any of it.
>>> It's not scientific and doesn't even pretend to be, it's designed to
>>> sell shit.
>>>
>>>
>>> From the video, right at the beginning after bolting the single carb
>>> from a different plenum setup which was designed for the single carb
>>> and different engine and grafting it to dual plenum setup by means of
>>> a custom modified plenum top to a plenum setup for a dual carb - in
>>> his words...
>>>
>>> "I have no idea what this manifold is going to do. The manifold taper
>>> is different, the plenum volume is different"
>>>
>>> "It's going to be interesting with such a small opening up there"
>>> says the other guy.
>>>
>>> They should be your first clues you dickhead. but no, two made more
>>> power than one in a completely unscientific and meaningless test
>>> whilst promoting a dual carb setup 'coz it looks better anyway duh'
>>> and NoddyLiar's conclusion is see, proof more CFM is better.
>>>
>>> The more you post the more you expose yourself to be an unqualified
>>> incompetent goose to the qualified people here. You are such a
>>> fucking idiot :-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> hahaha! showing that noddy is a noddy
>
> You're a fucking imbecile Felix. If you or your mental midget "expert"
> mates had *any* idea at all you'd know that the guy was talking about
> what kind of numbers it would make given that it was an untested
> combination.
>
> The elephant in the room, which your clueless clog wearing buddy tried
> his best to completely ignore, was that *despite* the manifold being an
> unknown quantity, the engine made *more* power with a pair of
> carburettors that had a flow rate of over *double* what your fucking
> moronic mates believe is the theoretical maximum which was the entire
> point of the video.

Umm, Darren, just what did you learn in maths and science before you ran
away from your year 9 class? Certainly not sufficient to understand
basic automotive concepts in *physics*. As I've mentioned before, CFM
flow rates are *irrelevant* when used in a situation where the carb air
flow is *pulsed*, as it would be with dual quads on tunnel rams. You
see, the carb flow rates are measured, and calibrated, on a *flow bench*
where a continuous flow of air is used. All that goes calibration
straight out the window when *each venturi* is feeding only one
cylinder. That means in the two complete revolutions (720 deg.) of a
complete 4 stroke cycle, only half a revolution (180 deg.) is actually
drawing in any air. Allowing for wave tuning of the intake and exhaust
manifolds, intake ramming and extreme valve lead, lag and overlap, you
might extend that to 200+ degrees but you will still end up with an
extremely unsteady state flow. Now, had you studied carbs and airflow in
an apprenticeship, this would not be news to you but, since you didn't
even *qualify* for an apprenticeship *in any trade*, it isn't at all
surprising you have no clue about engine airflows. As I have oft stated,
a given engine at a given RPM can only *pump* so much air and it will be
~20% either side of the calculated theoretical value. Your 408 CI
engine will definitely max out on the wrong side of 1,000 CFM and you -
especially you - can never hope to improve on that. It's why they
invented blowers and turbochargers.
Now, if you had some *photos* of this *mythical* stock Chev small block
(because it's reliable) running a Ford 4V head and a pair of Holley
Dominators pumping out 600 HP, you might have a little credibility. But
your little bullshit tale has no credibility since it only exists *in
your head* and all such posts, as the above, are a mere diversion.

>
> Hate to break the news to you here bud, but your mates who you regard as
> "experts on all things automotive" are actually dumb cunts who wouldn't
> know if you were up them until you spat on their back and chucked them a
> fiver.

Please Darren, keep your sexual fetishes at bay. I don't want to know
what *activities* turn you on or how much you had to pay and I'm sure no
one else here does either.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 27/12/2022 6:37 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 27/12/2022 3:02 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 27/12/2022 12:09 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 27/12/2022 11:29 am, jonz wrote:
>>>> On 12/27/2022 8:52 AM, Noddy wrote:
>>>>> Yet another dyno run of an engine with different sized carbs to
>>>>> test the effects, dispel the myths and record the power outputs.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this case, the test engine is a 408 Windsor, which is a 351 with
>>>>> a half inch stroke. In the linked video, this engine is being on the
>>
>> Half inch stroke Darren? You must be getting that engine spec mixed up
>> with your penile dimensions.
>>
>>
>>>>> dyno run up to 7000rpm, and according to the various hypothetical
>>>>> carburettor calculators this engine needs a carb with a CFM rate of
>>>>> 785cfm in "full racing engine" trim. This engine is far from a
>>>>> "full race" configuration and closer to a "High Performance" spec
>>>>> where the carb calculators list 702cfm as suiting it's needs.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the actual test, both a single and dual carb tunnel ram
>>>>> configuration are being used, with the single carb being a 950cfm
>>>>> unit and the dual being a pair of 750's giving the engine 1500cfm
>>>>> of intake airflow which is over *double* that of the calculator
>>>>> settings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which configuration do you think made more power? :)
>>>>>
>>>>> You can see the results for yourself here (skip to the 5 minute mark)
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRlKrWxqJZ8
>>>>>
>>>>> For those who can't be bothered watching it, the dual carb option
>>>>> was worth 30 extra horsepower over the single with all else being
>>>>> equal, and the engine sounded strong and probably had some more
>>>>> left on the table with proper jetting and adjustment.
>>>>>
>>>>> The myth *clearly* busted here is that purported by a pair of
>>>>> clueless experts in here in that theoretical carburettor airflow is
>>>>> the *maximum* an engine can use and anything larger will not work.
>>>>> We all remember Clueless Clasener making comments like this:
>>>>>
>>>>>> An 1150 Holley Dominator on a NA SBC is not possible, no way, no
>>>>>> how. Intake flows
>>>>>> would go sonic long before you were even close to 1150 CFM.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, as has been demonstrated *many* times now, this simply is not
>>>>> the case and this idiot shows that all he's *really* capable of
>>>>> doing very well is mouthing off about stuff he knows absolutely
>>>>> nothing about, and ever time I watch a video like this it reminds
>>>>> me of just how clueless this utter moron actually is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pay attention to this Felix. I'm not making this up. The video
>>>>> speaks for itself. This is the bloke *you* think is an automotive
>>>>> Guru. He has you completely conned.
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>
>>>>    Got the popcorn and waiting...<G>
>>>
>>> Almost worth taking the bullshitting idiot out of the killfile to see
>>
>> Admit it Darren, I've never been in your killfail.
>>
>>> his ridiculous response. No doubt it will be as idiotic as the
>>> rambling irrelevant bullshit he put up in a pathetic attempt at
>>> trying to justify his inability to understand basic brakes :)
>>>
>> Puir wee Darren, I'm really getting to you, aren't I.
>>
>> All you are showing by your posting above is that *you* really have no
>> clue how it all works. For a start, your 408 CI engine, with it's
>> theoretical 826 CFM @ 7,000 RPM is *still* only going to flow that
>> much air, +/- 20%, and there is no way around that. That calculator
>> you used *assumed* either 85% VE (street engine) or 110% VE (racing
>> engine). No secret there. Even with the best possible VE of 120%
>> you're still only looking at an air flow 992 CFM. That is all that the
>> engine, under optimum circumstances, will flow. Impossible to get that
>> engine to flow any more. But I explained all this to you, and also
>> detailed how the engine gets around this and *still* you don't get.
>>
>> Anyway, I gave you a full and complete explanation on how a dual quad
>> system works vis a vis *airflow*. I'm sure I mentioned that, in this
>> configuration, the CFM rating of a carburettor is *irrelevant*. In
>> fact, I said you have to treat each *cylinder* of the engine as a
>> single cylinder engine with its own single throat carburettor where
>> each throat only flows air 25% - 35% of the 4 stroke cycle. The
>> problem with overcarburation like this is that you end up with an
>> extremely peaky engine that won't idle at anything near a reasonable
>> engine RPM and produces its power in a very narrow power band up high
>> in the RPM range hence their use on high speed circle tracks and/or
>> drag racing. Streetable they aint.
>>
>> Your problem, though not unique to you, is that *you* don't understand
>> how this all works and everything you post on the topic dribbles of
>> your bullshit. Why don't you have a go at *my explanation* of how the
>> dual quad setup works? Funny how you steer clear of that all the time,
>> eh? All you're proving is *why* you didn't qualify for any
>> apprenticeship ever.
>>
>
> You're wasting your time. He doesn't get any of it. You'll get no
> explanation. What he is doing is looking for "evidence" that backs up
> his false beliefs. When he thinks he's found something he posts it,
> except that evidence *doesn't* support his theory - but he can't
> possibly understand why it only serves to further highlight to
> mechanics, engine builders, engineers and everyone else with real
> technical knowledge that he's nothing more that the classic clueless
> knuckle dragging bogan with a shed full of shiny shit to impress the
> even more clueless.
>
>
>> Going back to the beginning of your bullshit saga, I stated that
>> *your* story of the *stock* Chev block with the 4V Ford head was, is
>> and always will be bullshit. Not possible, especially with a pretender
>> like you working on it. I still laugh about how you screwed up Les'
>> engine build. Now that was funny.
>>
>>
>
> The self proclaimed race engine builder not being able to correctly
> identify blower components was the sealer for me.

The clincher to beat all clinchers was when he (supposedly) built a high
performance engine with a *thinner* shim head gasket and *didn't check*
the valve to piston clearance. FFS, you take out 20-30 thou clearance
away from an engine that would already run tight clearances, you're just
looking for trouble. Sadly for Darren, trouble *found him* on conrod
straight right where and when you would expect that lack of clearance to
cause an issue - high RPM, downhill run. Soooo predictable!
>
> He sure likes to compensate for his lack of qualifications, knowledge
> and competence with noise in the form of bullshit, lies and abuse. It's
> all he has.
>
Empty vessels make the most sound and, boy, is he noisy.

He could show proof of his qualifications, we did! ;-)

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 27/12/2022 6:02 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 27/12/2022 12:09 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 27/12/2022 11:29 am, jonz wrote:
>>> On 12/27/2022 8:52 AM, Noddy wrote:
>>>> Yet another dyno run of an engine with different sized carbs to
>>>> test the effects, dispel the myths and record the power outputs.
>>>>
>>>> In this case, the test engine is a 408 Windsor, which is a 351 with
>>>> a half inch stroke. In the linked video, this engine is being on the
>
> Half inch stroke Darren? You must be getting that engine spec mixed up
> with your penile dimensions.
>
>

hahaha!

>>>> dyno run up to 7000rpm, and according to the various hypothetical
>>>> carburettor calculators this engine needs a carb with a CFM rate of
>>>> 785cfm in "full racing engine" trim. This engine is far from a
>>>> "full race" configuration and closer to a "High Performance" spec
>>>> where the carb calculators list 702cfm as suiting it's needs.
>>>>
>>>> In the actual test, both a single and dual carb tunnel ram
>>>> configuration are being used, with the single carb being a 950cfm
>>>> unit and the dual being a pair of 750's giving the engine 1500cfm
>>>> of intake airflow which is over *double* that of the calculator
>>>> settings.
>>>>
>>>> Which configuration do you think made more power? :)
>>>>
>>>> You can see the results for yourself here (skip to the 5 minute mark)
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRlKrWxqJZ8
>>>>
>>>> For those who can't be bothered watching it, the dual carb option
>>>> was worth 30 extra horsepower over the single with all else being
>>>> equal, and the engine sounded strong and probably had some more
>>>> left on the table with proper jetting and adjustment.
>>>>
>>>> The myth *clearly* busted here is that purported by a pair of
>>>> clueless experts in here in that theoretical carburettor airflow is
>>>> the *maximum* an engine can use and anything larger will not work.
>>>> We all remember Clueless Clasener making comments like this:
>>>>
>>>>> An 1150 Holley Dominator on a NA SBC is not possible, no way, no
>>>>> how. Intake flows
>>>>> would go sonic long before you were even close to 1150 CFM.
>>>>
>>>> Well, as has been demonstrated *many* times now, this simply is not
>>>> the case and this idiot shows that all he's *really* capable of
>>>> doing very well is mouthing off about stuff he knows absolutely
>>>> nothing about, and ever time I watch a video like this it reminds
>>>> me of just how clueless this utter moron actually is.
>>>>
>>>> Pay attention to this Felix. I'm not making this up. The video
>>>> speaks for itself. This is the bloke *you* think is an automotive
>>>> Guru. He has you completely conned.
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>    Got the popcorn and waiting...<G>
>>
>> Almost worth taking the bullshitting idiot out of the killfile to see
>
> Admit it Darren, I've never been in your killfail.
>
>> his ridiculous response. No doubt it will be as idiotic as the
>> rambling irrelevant bullshit he put up in a pathetic attempt at
>> trying to justify his inability to understand basic brakes :)
>>
> Puir wee Darren, I'm really getting to you, aren't I.
>
> All you are showing by your posting above is that *you* really have no
> clue how it all works. For a start, your 408 CI engine, with it's
> theoretical 826 CFM @ 7,000 RPM is *still* only going to flow that
> much air, +/- 20%, and there is no way around that. That calculator
> you used *assumed* either 85% VE (street engine) or 110% VE (racing
> engine). No secret there. Even with the best possible VE of 120%
> you're still only looking at an air flow 992 CFM. That is all that the
> engine, under optimum circumstances, will flow. Impossible to get that
> engine to flow any more. But I explained all this to you, and also
> detailed how the engine gets around this and *still* you don't get.
>
> Anyway, I gave you a full and complete explanation on how a dual quad
> system works vis a vis *airflow*. I'm sure I mentioned that, in this
> configuration, the CFM rating of a carburettor is *irrelevant*. In
> fact, I said you have to treat each *cylinder* of the engine as a
> single cylinder engine with its own single throat carburettor where
> each throat only flows air 25% - 35% of the 4 stroke cycle. The
> problem with overcarburation like this is that you end up with an
> extremely peaky engine that won't idle at anything near a reasonable
> engine RPM and produces its power in a very narrow power band up high
> in the RPM range hence their use on high speed circle tracks and/or
> drag racing. Streetable they aint.
>
> Your problem, though not unique to you, is that *you* don't understand
> how this all works and everything you post on the topic dribbles of
> your bullshit. Why don't you have a go at *my explanation* of how the
> dual quad setup works? Funny how you steer clear of that all the time,
> eh? All you're proving is *why* you didn't qualify for any
> apprenticeship ever.
>
> Going back to the beginning of your bullshit saga, I stated that
> *your* story of the *stock* Chev block with the 4V Ford head was, is
> and always will be bullshit. Not possible, especially with a pretender
> like you working on it. I still laugh about how you screwed up Les'
> engine build. Now that was funny.
>
>

hmmm...

On 27/12/2022 6:37 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 27/12/2022 3:02 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 27/12/2022 12:09 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 27/12/2022 11:29 am, jonz wrote:
>>>> On 12/27/2022 8:52 AM, Noddy wrote:
>>>>> Yet another dyno run of an engine with different sized carbs to
>>>>> test the effects, dispel the myths and record the power outputs.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this case, the test engine is a 408 Windsor, which is a 351
>>>>> with a half inch stroke. In the linked video, this engine is being
>>>>> on the
>>
>> Half inch stroke Darren? You must be getting that engine spec mixed
>> up with your penile dimensions.
>>
>>
>>>>> dyno run up to 7000rpm, and according to the various hypothetical
>>>>> carburettor calculators this engine needs a carb with a CFM rate
>>>>> of 785cfm in "full racing engine" trim. This engine is far from a
>>>>> "full race" configuration and closer to a "High Performance" spec
>>>>> where the carb calculators list 702cfm as suiting it's needs.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the actual test, both a single and dual carb tunnel ram
>>>>> configuration are being used, with the single carb being a 950cfm
>>>>> unit and the dual being a pair of 750's giving the engine 1500cfm
>>>>> of intake airflow which is over *double* that of the calculator
>>>>> settings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which configuration do you think made more power? :)
>>>>>
>>>>> You can see the results for yourself here (skip to the 5 minute mark)
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRlKrWxqJZ8
>>>>>
>>>>> For those who can't be bothered watching it, the dual carb option
>>>>> was worth 30 extra horsepower over the single with all else being
>>>>> equal, and the engine sounded strong and probably had some more
>>>>> left on the table with proper jetting and adjustment.
>>>>>
>>>>> The myth *clearly* busted here is that purported by a pair of
>>>>> clueless experts in here in that theoretical carburettor airflow
>>>>> is the *maximum* an engine can use and anything larger will not
>>>>> work. We all remember Clueless Clasener making comments like this:
>>>>>
>>>>>> An 1150 Holley Dominator on a NA SBC is not possible, no way, no
>>>>>> how. Intake flows
>>>>>> would go sonic long before you were even close to 1150 CFM.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, as has been demonstrated *many* times now, this simply is
>>>>> not the case and this idiot shows that all he's *really* capable
>>>>> of doing very well is mouthing off about stuff he knows absolutely
>>>>> nothing about, and ever time I watch a video like this it reminds
>>>>> me of just how clueless this utter moron actually is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pay attention to this Felix. I'm not making this up. The video
>>>>> speaks for itself. This is the bloke *you* think is an automotive
>>>>> Guru. He has you completely conned.
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>
>>>>    Got the popcorn and waiting...<G>
>>>
>>> Almost worth taking the bullshitting idiot out of the killfile to see
>>
>> Admit it Darren, I've never been in your killfail.
>>
>>> his ridiculous response. No doubt it will be as idiotic as the
>>> rambling irrelevant bullshit he put up in a pathetic attempt at
>>> trying to justify his inability to understand basic brakes :)
>>>
>> Puir wee Darren, I'm really getting to you, aren't I.
>>
>> All you are showing by your posting above is that *you* really have
>> no clue how it all works. For a start, your 408 CI engine, with it's
>> theoretical 826 CFM @ 7,000 RPM is *still* only going to flow that
>> much air, +/- 20%, and there is no way around that. That calculator
>> you used *assumed* either 85% VE (street engine) or 110% VE (racing
>> engine). No secret there. Even with the best possible VE of 120%
>> you're still only looking at an air flow 992 CFM. That is all that
>> the engine, under optimum circumstances, will flow. Impossible to get
>> that engine to flow any more. But I explained all this to you, and
>> also detailed how the engine gets around this and *still* you don't get.
>>
>> Anyway, I gave you a full and complete explanation on how a dual quad
>> system works vis a vis *airflow*. I'm sure I mentioned that, in this
>> configuration, the CFM rating of a carburettor is *irrelevant*. In
>> fact, I said you have to treat each *cylinder* of the engine as a
>> single cylinder engine with its own single throat carburettor where
>> each throat only flows air 25% - 35% of the 4 stroke cycle. The
>> problem with overcarburation like this is that you end up with an
>> extremely peaky engine that won't idle at anything near a reasonable
>> engine RPM and produces its power in a very narrow power band up high
>> in the RPM range hence their use on high speed circle tracks and/or
>> drag racing. Streetable they aint.
>>
>> Your problem, though not unique to you, is that *you* don't
>> understand how this all works and everything you post on the topic
>> dribbles of your bullshit. Why don't you have a go at *my
>> explanation* of how the dual quad setup works? Funny how you steer
>> clear of that all the time, eh? All you're proving is *why* you
>> didn't qualify for any apprenticeship ever.
>>
>
> You're wasting your time. He doesn't get any of it. You'll get no
> explanation. What he is doing is looking for "evidence" that backs up
> his false beliefs. When he thinks he's found something he posts it,
> except that evidence *doesn't* support his theory - but he can't
> possibly understand why it only serves to further highlight to
> mechanics, engine builders, engineers and everyone else with real
> technical knowledge that he's nothing more that the classic clueless
> knuckle dragging bogan with a shed full of shiny shit to impress the
> even more clueless.
>
>
>> Going back to the beginning of your bullshit saga, I stated that
>> *your* story of the *stock* Chev block with the 4V Ford head was, is
>> and always will be bullshit. Not possible, especially with a
>> pretender like you working on it. I still laugh about how you screwed
>> up Les' engine build. Now that was funny.
>>
>>
>
> The self proclaimed race engine builder not being able to correctly
> identify blower components was the sealer for me.
>
> He sure likes to compensate for his lack of qualifications, knowledge
> and competence with noise in the form of bullshit, lies and abuse.
> It's all he has.
>

I see!

On 27/12/2022 8:11 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 27/12/2022 3:54 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 27/12/2022 2:57 pm, Fred Nurk wrote:
>>> On 27/12/2022 12:04 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 27/12/2022 5:52 am, Noddy wrote:
>>>>> Yet another dyno run of an engine with different sized carbs to
>>>>> test the effects, dispel the myths and record the power outputs.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this case, the test engine is a 408 Windsor, which is a 351
>>>>> with a half inch stroke. In the linked video, this engine is being
>>>>> on the dyno run up to 7000rpm, and according to the various
>>>>> hypothetical carburettor calculators this engine needs a carb with
>>>>> a CFM rate of 785cfm in "full racing engine" trim. This engine is
>>>>> far from a "full race" configuration and closer to a "High
>>>>> Performance" spec where the carb calculators list 702cfm as
>>>>> suiting it's needs.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the actual test, both a single and dual carb tunnel ram
>>>>> configuration are being used, with the single carb being a 950cfm
>>>>> unit and the dual being a pair of 750's giving the engine 1500cfm
>>>>> of intake airflow which is over *double* that of the calculator
>>>>> settings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which configuration do you think made more power? :)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fuck me... that views like one one of those 4x4 shows that is
>>>> trying to sell 4x4 accessories to dumbarses that don't need any of it.
>>>> It's not scientific and doesn't even pretend to be, it's designed
>>>> to sell shit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From the video, right at the beginning after bolting the single
>>>> carb from a different plenum setup which was designed for the
>>>> single carb and different engine and grafting it to dual plenum
>>>> setup by means of a custom modified plenum top to a plenum setup
>>>> for a dual carb - in his words...
>>>>
>>>> "I have no idea what this manifold is going to do. The manifold
>>>> taper is different, the plenum volume is different"
>>>>
>>>> "It's going to be interesting with such a small opening up there"
>>>> says the other guy.
>>>>
>>>> They should be your first clues you dickhead. but no, two made more
>>>> power than one in a completely unscientific and meaningless test
>>>> whilst promoting a dual carb setup 'coz it looks better anyway duh'
>>>> and NoddyLiar's conclusion is see, proof more CFM is better.
>>>>
>>>> The more you post the more you expose yourself to be an unqualified
>>>> incompetent goose to the qualified people here. You are such a
>>>> fucking idiot :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> hahaha! showing that noddy is a noddy
>>
>> You're a fucking imbecile Felix. If you or your mental midget
>> "expert" mates had *any* idea at all you'd know that the guy was
>> talking about what kind of numbers it would make given that it was an
>> untested combination.
>>
>> The elephant in the room, which your clueless clog wearing buddy
>> tried his best to completely ignore, was that *despite* the manifold
>> being an unknown quantity, the engine made *more* power with a pair
>> of carburettors that had a flow rate of over *double* what your
>> fucking moronic mates believe is the theoretical maximum which was
>> the entire point of the video.
>
> Umm, Darren, just what did you learn in maths and science before you
> ran away from your year 9 class? Certainly not sufficient to
> understand basic automotive concepts in *physics*. As I've mentioned
> before, CFM flow rates are *irrelevant* when used in a situation where
> the carb air flow is *pulsed*, as it would be with dual quads on
> tunnel rams. You see, the carb flow rates are measured, and
> calibrated, on a *flow bench* where a continuous flow of air is used.
> All that goes calibration straight out the window when *each venturi*
> is feeding only one cylinder. That means in the two complete
> revolutions (720 deg.) of a complete 4 stroke cycle, only half a
> revolution (180 deg.) is actually drawing in any air. Allowing for
> wave tuning of the intake and exhaust manifolds, intake ramming and
> extreme valve lead, lag and overlap, you might extend that to 200+
> degrees but you will still end up with an extremely unsteady state
> flow. Now, had you studied carbs and airflow in an apprenticeship,
> this would not be news to you but, since you didn't even *qualify* for
> an apprenticeship *in any trade*, it isn't at all surprising you have
> no clue about engine airflows. As I have oft stated, a given engine at
> a given RPM can only *pump* so much air and it will be  ~20% either
> side of the calculated theoretical value. Your 408 CI engine will
> definitely max out on the wrong side of 1,000 CFM and you - especially
> you - can never hope to improve on that. It's why they invented
> blowers and turbochargers.
> Now, if you had some *photos* of this *mythical* stock Chev small
> block (because it's reliable) running a Ford 4V head and a pair of
> Holley Dominators pumping out 600 HP, you might have a little
> credibility. But your little bullshit tale has no credibility since it
> only exists *in your head* and all such posts, as the above, are a
> mere diversion.
>
>>
>> Hate to break the news to you here bud, but your mates who you regard
>> as "experts on all things automotive" are actually dumb cunts who
>> wouldn't know if you were up them until you spat on their back and
>> chucked them a fiver.
>
> Please Darren, keep your sexual fetishes at bay. I don't want to know
> what *activities* turn you on or how much you had to pay and I'm sure
> no one else here does either.
>

toot!toot!

On 27/12/2022 12:07 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 27/12/2022 12:09 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 27/12/2022 11:29 am, jonz wrote:
>>> On 12/27/2022 8:52 AM, Noddy wrote:
>>>> Yet another dyno run of an engine with different sized carbs to test
>>>> the effects, dispel the myths and record the power outputs.
>>>>
>>>> In this case, the test engine is a 408 Windsor, which is a 351 with
>>>> a half inch stroke. In the linked video, this engine is being on the
>>>> dyno run up to 7000rpm, and according to the various hypothetical
>>>> carburettor calculators this engine needs a carb with a CFM rate of
>>>> 785cfm in "full racing engine" trim. This engine is far from a "full
>>>> race" configuration and closer to a "High Performance" spec where
>>>> the carb calculators list 702cfm as suiting it's needs.
>>>>
>>>> In the actual test, both a single and dual carb tunnel ram
>>>> configuration are being used, with the single carb being a 950cfm
>>>> unit and the dual being a pair of 750's giving the engine 1500cfm of
>>>> intake airflow which is over *double* that of the calculator settings.
>>>>
>>>> Which configuration do you think made more power? :)
>>>>
>>>> You can see the results for yourself here (skip to the 5 minute mark)
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRlKrWxqJZ8
>>>>
>>>> For those who can't be bothered watching it, the dual carb option
>>>> was worth 30 extra horsepower over the single with all else being
>>>> equal, and the engine sounded strong and probably had some more left
>>>> on the table with proper jetting and adjustment.
>>>>
>>>> The myth *clearly* busted here is that purported by a pair of
>>>> clueless experts in here in that theoretical carburettor airflow is
>>>> the *maximum* an engine can use and anything larger will not work.
>>>> We all remember Clueless Clasener making comments like this:
>>>>
>>>>> An 1150 Holley Dominator on a NA SBC is not possible, no way, no
>>>>> how. Intake flows
>>>>> would go sonic long before you were even close to 1150 CFM.
>>>>
>>>> Well, as has been demonstrated *many* times now, this simply is not
>>>> the case and this idiot shows that all he's *really* capable of
>>>> doing very well is mouthing off about stuff he knows absolutely
>>>> nothing about, and ever time I watch a video like this it reminds me
>>>> of just how clueless this utter moron actually is.
>>>>
>>>> Pay attention to this Felix. I'm not making this up. The video
>>>> speaks for itself.
>
>
> but I don't know enough automotive technical stuffto know if it's fact
> or fiction
>
>

Don't worry, neither does Noddy.

>>>> This is the bloke *you* think is an automotive Guru. He has you
>>>> completely conned.
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>    Got the popcorn and waiting...<G>
>>
>> Almost worth taking the bullshitting idiot out of the killfile to see
>> his ridiculous response. No doubt it will be as idiotic as the
>> rambling irrelevant bullshit he put up in a pathetic attempt at trying
>> to justify his inability to understand basic brakes :)
>>
>
> you have not proven anything unless you can refute any argument against
> your claims. so hiding won't help you. I guess you're too stupid to know
> this
>

NoddyLiar proved he didn't have a clue how brake proportioning valved
operated and on how many vehicles they have been fitted to over the years.

It's basic 1st year apprentice stuff felix and NoddyLiar proved in his
own words that he has no fucking idea about any of it. Hardly surprising
considering the idiot pretend mechanic thought his own vehicle he worked
on was "All Imperial" and had no idea the yanks had been metricating
their automotive industry since the 70's.

That was his *own* vehicle... such poor observance would make him the
worst possible person to ever take your car to. Further evidence is his
claims that diagnostic scan tools can't read LTFT... something real
mechanics with real diagnostic scan tools have been doing for over 30
years to help in diagnosing faults.

If the dumbarses on team FLCJC suddenly found a clue they would be
profoundly embarrassed knowing they enabled the fucking clueless idiot
all this time.

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

Noddy <me@home.com> wrote in news:tod52d$3cnrv$1@dont-email.me:

snip irrelavant

Fraudster,

It doesn't matter if you can prove yourself to be a decent mechanic or not.
You are disliked because you're a proven liar, fraud, hypocrite and coward.
These are facts. That many people share the opinion that you're also an
abusive, and mentally ill loudmouth with a complete lack of self-awareness
doesn't help either.

So find as many clips as you like which you believe support your opinions
on engines, it won't change the *fact* that you are liar, fraud, hypocrite
and coward.

hth

alvey

Noddy <me@home.com> wrote in news:todgkm$3dv2m$1@dont-email.me:

>
> Almost worth taking the bullshitting idiot out of the killfile to see
> his ridiculous response.

Oh give it up you blustering eejit. You're not fooling anyone. ***
EVERYBODY *** knows you read every posts.

alvey

On 12/27/2022 11:11 PM, Clocky wrote:
> On 27/12/2022 12:07 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 27/12/2022 12:09 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 27/12/2022 11:29 am, jonz wrote:
>>>> On 12/27/2022 8:52 AM, Noddy wrote:
>>>>> Yet another dyno run of an engine with different sized carbs to
>>>>> test the effects, dispel the myths and record the power outputs.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this case, the test engine is a 408 Windsor, which is a 351 with
>>>>> a half inch stroke. In the linked video, this engine is being on
>>>>> the dyno run up to 7000rpm, and according to the various
>>>>> hypothetical carburettor calculators this engine needs a carb with
>>>>> a CFM rate of 785cfm in "full racing engine" trim. This engine is
>>>>> far from a "full race" configuration and closer to a "High
>>>>> Performance" spec where the carb calculators list 702cfm as suiting
>>>>> it's needs.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the actual test, both a single and dual carb tunnel ram
>>>>> configuration are being used, with the single carb being a 950cfm
>>>>> unit and the dual being a pair of 750's giving the engine 1500cfm
>>>>> of intake airflow which is over *double* that of the calculator
>>>>> settings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which configuration do you think made more power? :)
>>>>>
>>>>> You can see the results for yourself here (skip to the 5 minute mark)
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRlKrWxqJZ8
>>>>>
>>>>> For those who can't be bothered watching it, the dual carb option
>>>>> was worth 30 extra horsepower over the single with all else being
>>>>> equal, and the engine sounded strong and probably had some more
>>>>> left on the table with proper jetting and adjustment.
>>>>>
>>>>> The myth *clearly* busted here is that purported by a pair of
>>>>> clueless experts in here in that theoretical carburettor airflow is
>>>>> the *maximum* an engine can use and anything larger will not work.
>>>>> We all remember Clueless Clasener making comments like this:
>>>>>
>>>>>> An 1150 Holley Dominator on a NA SBC is not possible, no way, no
>>>>>> how. Intake flows
>>>>>> would go sonic long before you were even close to 1150 CFM.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A *definitive statement* no less....:)))

>>>>>
>>>>> Well, as has been demonstrated *many* times now, this simply is not
>>>>> the case and this idiot shows that all he's *really* capable of
>>>>> doing very well is mouthing off about stuff he knows absolutely
>>>>> nothing about, and ever time I watch a video like this it reminds
>>>>> me of just how clueless this utter moron actually is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pay attention to this Felix. I'm not making this up. The video
>>>>> speaks for itself.
>>
>>
>> but I don't know enough automotive technical stuffto know if it's fact
>> or fiction
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From "felix on the fence"..
>>
>>
>
> Don't worry, neither does Noddy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UH HUH. :)))
>
>
>
>>>>> This is the bloke *you* think is an automotive Guru. He has you
>>>>> completely conned.
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>
>>>>    Got the popcorn and waiting...<G>
>>>
>>> Almost worth taking the bullshitting idiot out of the killfile to see
>>> his ridiculous response. No doubt it will be as idiotic as the
>>> rambling irrelevant bullshit he put up in a pathetic attempt at
>>> trying to justify his inability to understand basic brakes :)
>>>
>>
>> you have not proven anything unless you can refute any argument
>> against your claims. so hiding won't help you. I guess you're too
>> stupid to know this
>>
>
>
> NoddyLiar proved he didn't have a clue how brake proportioning valved
> operated and on how many vehicles they have been fitted to over the years.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Brake proportioning valves were *NEVER* a part of *that*
discussion...Which has been pointed out to you on *numerous* occasions!!
Once again you are attempting to convince yerself that you actually
*have* an argument!.
>
> It's basic 1st year apprentice stuff felix and NoddyLiar proved in his
> own words that he has no fucking idea about any of it. Hardly surprising
> considering the idiot pretend mechanic thought his own vehicle he worked
> on was "All Imperial" and had no idea the yanks had been metricating
> their automotive industry since the 70's.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More dishonesty there viz:

"It's basic 1st year apprentice stuff *felix and NoddyLiar*
proved in *his*
> own words that he has no fucking idea about any of it."

Deception right there...However, only the brain dead numptys (You
know who you are.) will fall for it...

Re, the Jeep.`

By wheeling out *That* old saw over, and over, and over just goes to
show how flimsy you and yer arguments are....
All that meat and no potato`s. as they say!. <FBG>

>
> That was his *own* vehicle... such poor observance would make him the
> worst possible person to ever take your car to. Further evidence is his
> claims that diagnostic scan tools can't read LTFT... something real
> mechanics with real diagnostic scan tools have been doing for over 30
> years to help in diagnosing faults.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*that* statement viz: "diagnostic scan tools can't read LTFT".. was
never made. Prove otherwise.
>
> If the dumbarses on team FLCJC suddenly found a clue they would be
> profoundly embarrassed knowing they enabled the fucking clueless idiot
> all this time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You know *lots more* about windscreen construction than *anything
else* you purport to be *knowledgeable/experienced in/about*.

>
>
>

--
Usenet is like a herd ofperforming elephants with diarrhea----Massive,
difficult to redirect,awe inspiring, entertaining and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it....... Gene
Spafford

On 28/12/2022 12:28 pm, jonz wrote:
> On 12/27/2022 11:11 PM, Clocky wrote:
>> On 27/12/2022 12:07 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>> On 27/12/2022 12:09 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 27/12/2022 11:29 am, jonz wrote:
>>>>> On 12/27/2022 8:52 AM, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>> Yet another dyno run of an engine with different sized carbs to
>>>>>> test the effects, dispel the myths and record the power outputs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this case, the test engine is a 408 Windsor, which is a 351
>>>>>> with a half inch stroke. In the linked video, this engine is being
>>>>>> on the dyno run up to 7000rpm, and according to the various
>>>>>> hypothetical carburettor calculators this engine needs a carb with
>>>>>> a CFM rate of 785cfm in "full racing engine" trim. This engine is
>>>>>> far from a "full race" configuration and closer to a "High
>>>>>> Performance" spec where the carb calculators list 702cfm as
>>>>>> suiting it's needs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the actual test, both a single and dual carb tunnel ram
>>>>>> configuration are being used, with the single carb being a 950cfm
>>>>>> unit and the dual being a pair of 750's giving the engine 1500cfm
>>>>>> of intake airflow which is over *double* that of the calculator
>>>>>> settings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which configuration do you think made more power? :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can see the results for yourself here (skip to the 5 minute mark)
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRlKrWxqJZ8
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For those who can't be bothered watching it, the dual carb option
>>>>>> was worth 30 extra horsepower over the single with all else being
>>>>>> equal, and the engine sounded strong and probably had some more
>>>>>> left on the table with proper jetting and adjustment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The myth *clearly* busted here is that purported by a pair of
>>>>>> clueless experts in here in that theoretical carburettor airflow
>>>>>> is the *maximum* an engine can use and anything larger will not
>>>>>> work. We all remember Clueless Clasener making comments like this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An 1150 Holley Dominator on a NA SBC is not possible, no way, no
>>>>>>> how. Intake flows
>>>>>>> would go sonic long before you were even close to 1150 CFM.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>  A *definitive statement* no less....:)))

LOL, if he said that it won't work well on a street car then he wouldn't
be completely wrong but to say that it won't work at all is dumb, on a
race car that constantly operates at high RPM there is no reason it
won't work, it just won't work well at low rpm.
Also what is a "SBC"?. There are so many versions with different
capacities, different cylinder heads, different intake manifolds and
different camshafts that it doesn't make any sense to lump them all
together.
BTW I don't claim to be an expert on SBC's but I was working on a 383 as
recently as yesterday and I have owned a 307 in a HK.
I've fitted twin 1"3/4" SU's to a 1275 Mini which many say won't work,
dog of a thing below 3000rpm but worked very well above that, seems like
they are way too big but the factory even fitted them to NSW Police Spec
Minis in the early 1970's, keep the engine above 3000rpm and they fly.

--
Daryl

On 28/12/2022 12:28 pm, jonz wrote:
> On 12/27/2022 11:11 PM, Clocky wrote:

>>>>>>> An 1150 Holley Dominator on a NA SBC is not possible, no way, no
>>>>>>> how. Intake flows
>>>>>>> would go sonic long before you were even close to 1150 CFM.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>  A *definitive statement* no less....:)))

And one that is completely, utterly and unequivocally wrong :)

>>>>>> Pay attention to this Felix. I'm not making this up. The video
>>>>>> speaks for itself.
>>>
>>>
>>> but I don't know enough automotive technical stuffto know if it's
>>> fact or fiction
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>  From "felix on the fence"..

Yeah, he does a fair bit of that, but in his defence he's not an
automotive expert and can't be expected to know these things. However
you don't need to be an expert to look at the video and see exactly what
happens. The dyno runs tell the story in plain fact, and that fact is
that Clasener's claim that carburettors larger than the theoretical
maximum don't work is completely wrong.

There has been a plethora of evidence put up to show this now, and he
sticks his fingers in his ears and screams "La-La-La" while ignoring
every bit of it. *This* is the thing that should bother the likes of
Felix. The fact that Clasener totally ignores that which shows him to be
wrong.

>>> you have not proven anything unless you can refute any argument
>>> against your claims. so hiding won't help you. I guess you're too
>>> stupid to know this

And this is a prefect example of why Felix gets treated with nothing but
contempt. By his own admission he knows *nothing* of the subject matter,
but rather than look at the video objectively and observe the results
which are crystal clear to *anyone*, he comes up with bullshit like this
which does nothing other than make him look like a complete idiot.

>> NoddyLiar proved he didn't have a clue how brake proportioning valved
>> operated and on how many vehicles they have been fitted to over the
>> years.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>  Brake proportioning valves were *NEVER* a part of *that*
> discussion...Which has been pointed out to you on *numerous* occasions!!
>  Once again you are attempting to convince yerself that you actually
> *have* an argument!.

It's his stock in trade. I pointed out *precisely* what the valve on the
Fiat 124 was, and even posted a copy of the workshop manual page that
explained it's operation and how it was adjusted. It was all very
simple, but apparently what these clueless experts couldn't seem to
understand was that no matter *how* you adjusted the thing it *never*
worked as intended.

It's a design fault that these fucktards claim works perfectly if it's
adjusted correctly, yet if you google "fiat 124 proportioning valve
problem" you get almost 1.2 million hits with one of the most commonly
asked questions being how to remove the fucking thing and avoid the rear
wheel lock up.

Doesn't sound much like a well designed and working idea to me :)

> Re, the Jeep.`
>
>  By wheeling out *That* old saw over, and over, and over just goes to
> show how flimsy you and yer arguments are....
>  All that meat and no potato`s. as they say!. <FBG>

I laughed when he claimed it was "mostly metric". The fact was that
while I was wrong in claiming it was all imperial (it certainly was
under the bonnet) he had no idea how much of it was metric and made the
rest up to suit himself.

His claim to fame with Jeeps was that he removed and refitted a couple
of suspension bolts on one. How the fuck that allowed him to determine
the breakdown of fastener types is a mystery known only to him, but I
sure as shit pissed myself laughing when he put up some random pic of a
Jeep in some tin shed somewhere that he claimed proved he "had access"
to the things.

For all anyone knows it was his boss's car that he washed once a week :)

>> That was his *own* vehicle... such poor observance would make him the
>> worst possible person to ever take your car to. Further evidence is
>> his claims that diagnostic scan tools can't read LTFT... something
>> real mechanics with real diagnostic scan tools have been doing for
>> over 30 years to help in diagnosing faults.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>  *that* statement viz:  "diagnostic scan tools can't read LTFT".. was
> never made. Prove otherwise.

Yep. Another perfect example of the flog who beats his chest about being
the group's resident truth teller lying his fucking head off just to
have something to whinge about. This is a complete fabrication on his
part, and I also challenge the shit talking arsewipe to cite the post
where he claims I said anything like this.

You are 100% correct. I no time did I ever say scan tools cannot read
fuel trim data, and anyone who's ever spent more than a few minutes with
such a tool would know that even the most basic 10 buck ebay cheapies
are capable of such things. What I said was that *no* scan tool can read
random fuel trim data from more than two weeks prior, and that's because
vehicle ECU's don't permanently record such data for retrieval.

The *only* time you can read anything at all that isn't "live" is if a
DTC has been tripped and a freeze frame snapshot has been recorded, and
the value of the data contained within that snapshot depends on the age
of the vehicle and who made it. Some snapshot data can be quite
comprehensive and some can be quite basic, and sometimes it may be of
great use to solving a problem and other times of no use at all. Either
way, the freeze frame data is *only* available for as long as the DTC is
current, and once it's deleted the freeze frame is also deleted along
with it. When it is it's gone forever and there is no getting it back
once it's gone.

As I said in my post about the VE Clubby, the owner kept a bluetooth
dongle permanently plugged into the OBD2 port where he deleted the DTC's
as soon as they appeared. Perhaps *now* these fucking clueless morons
might understand why I never bothered plugging in the scan tool....

>> If the dumbarses on team FLCJC suddenly found a clue they would be
>> profoundly embarrassed knowing they enabled the fucking clueless idiot
>> all this time.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>  You know *lots more* about windscreen construction than *anything
> else* you purport to be *knowledgeable/experienced in/about*.

ROTFL :)

Knows fuck all about vehicle trim, and we all laughed our heads off when
he claimed he could get his ex taxi Commodore painted, retrimed and
mehcanically reconditioned for under 10 grand.

The bloke is a fucking idiot who has no idea what he's talking about :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 28/12/2022 1:02 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 28/12/2022 12:28 pm, jonz wrote:

>>>>>>> The myth *clearly* busted here is that purported by a pair of
>>>>>>> clueless experts in here in that theoretical carburettor airflow
>>>>>>> is the *maximum* an engine can use and anything larger will not
>>>>>>> work. We all remember Clueless Clasener making comments like this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An 1150 Holley Dominator on a NA SBC is not possible, no way, no
>>>>>>>> how. Intake flows
>>>>>>>> would go sonic long before you were even close to 1150 CFM.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>   A *definitive statement* no less....:)))
>
> LOL, if he said that it won't work well on a street car then he wouldn't
> be completely wrong but to say that it won't work at all is dumb, on a
> race car that constantly operates at high RPM there is no reason it
> won't work, it just won't work well at low rpm.

He has zero idea of any of this, and it's not hard to understand why
given that his claim to automotive fame is being a Morris Marina expert :)

He's been shown *many* examples of oversized induction systems working
*so* well that they set national records, world records, race records or
otherwise were so dominant that the rules had to be changed to prohibit
their use and give other people a chance, but he does his usual trick of
ignoring the real physical evidence and instead tries to cover his own
ineptitude with reams of nonsensical and completely irrelevant bullshit.

He is quite utterly clueless, and the *only* person around here who
swallows anything he says at all is Felix, and he freely admits to
knowing nothing about the subject at all :)

> Also what is a "SBC"?. There are so many versions with different
> capacities, different cylinder heads, different intake manifolds and
> different camshafts that it doesn't make any sense to lump them all
> together.

He's never been within 3 suburbs of a Chev engine, and clearly has no
idea about the level of modifications that they and other engines have
been subjected to. Both years ago and to this very day. Putting
Cleveland heads on a 4 inch bore Chev block was a relatively simple mod
compared to some I've seen.

Take a look at some of these:

How about iron Cleveland heads welded together to suit an inline 6?
> https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEAGUL2

Chev LS heads on a Ford Windsor
> https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEHQL2U

Chev LS heads welded together on a Ford 300 cube inline 6
> https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEAGULE

Custom hemi heads on a Ford Windsor (which looks amazing)
> https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEHQL52

How about 4V Cleveland heads on a Ford Windsor?
> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f0/b9/9b/f0b99b2f3161ebdda7ecdb3b1f1b18e2.jpg

(actually that one doesn't count, as Ford did that themselves :)

How about the ultimate modded hybrid?
> https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEHQL2X

Custom made OHC heads on an Oldsmobile block with a flat plane crank and
Daimler connecting rods that won two Formula 1 world titles. Nice :)

Plenty of people do this kind of stuff, and putting Cleveland heads on a
Chev block wasn't at all difficult. The bore spacing was only out by
around 20 thousandths so the top of the bores had to be notched for
valve clearance. Just like Ford did on the 4V Cleveland blocks :)

Chev blocks are easy for this kind of stuff as head bolt holes go
straight into the water jacket, and making a single plane sheet metal
manifold wasn't that hard. The block we used was a standard 4 bolt 010
with a steel crank, a set of aluminium rods and the pistons where made
from semi finished blanks with a compression ratio of around 12.5:1. The
difficult part as I remember was in coming up with a camshaft as no one
really knew what profile the engine would want and we didn't have a
selection to test.

Because of the altered valve configuration whatever cam we used had to
be made from a blank billet, and back in those days that was a super
expensive exercise. We were only going to get one crack at it as we were
running out of money, and we were looking for a profile that would suit
the engine in the 8500rpm range. My favourite Chev cam of the day was a
Crane R288 mechanical roller which worked fantastically well in high rpm
applications with 23 degree heads, but the Cleveland head layout was
completely different. I had a made named Dave Missingham who ran a
pretty strong Cleveland powered Cortina in Pro Stock at the time and he
was kind enough to show me the spec card on a couple of his cams and we
picked a mix of two and had that made.

The engine ran well with the Dominator and made around 580hp. Not the
600hp target that we'd hoped for, but all things considered it wasn't
too bad for an experiment. Not long after that we put together a 331
inch Chev with Pontiac heads and an Enderle constant flow injector that
made around 650hp on methanol, and the Cleveland Chev was sold off to a
bloke who ran it for a couple of seasons in a speedway car before
eventually poking a hole in the side of it and writing it off.

> BTW I don't claim to be an expert on SBC's but I was working on a 383 as
> recently as yesterday and I have owned a 307 in a HK.
> I've fitted twin 1"3/4" SU's to a 1275 Mini which many say won't work,
> dog of a thing below 3000rpm but worked very well above that, seems like
> they are way too big but the factory even fitted them to NSW Police Spec
> Minis in the early 1970's, keep the engine above 3000rpm and they fly.

These imbeciles will never understand any of this because they have zero
experience. Carburettor cfm rates mean nothing to anyone as they're just
a number recorded at an arbitrary airflow rate that serves no purpose
other than to compare carburettors against *each other*. For use on an
engine the only way you can ever find out what works best is by testing
them and recording the findings, and the best way to do that is on an
engine dyno.

When sorting an engine to make maximum power on a dyno, two of the most
critical critical measurements to take note of are manifold vacuum at
wide open throttle and air flow rating through the carburettor hat.
Often the flow rating seen at the hat isn't anything like what the
Carburettor size indicates out of the box, and in many cases the carb
isn't flowing enough for the engine at a specific RPM. The rule of thumb
with carburetted engines on the dyno is that if you're seeing more than
half an inch of manifold vacuum at full throttle then your carburettor
is restricting flow and you need to increase the size.

The last engine I had on a dyno was the 408 Windsor that belongs to the
bloke across the street. It made 520hp at 6000rpm. It was running a 750
Holley "4 corner" that was tunned a little on the rich side, and at full
noise was showing close to 2 inches of manifold vacuum indicating that
the carb was way too small for it. It probably had another 70 or 80hp on
the table if the carb was upsized to a 950 or 1050 and the rpm limit
stepped up to 7500, but 6 thousand was the cutoff the owner wanted to
use and the 750 was the carb he wanted to run.

Oddly enough that engine has yet to see a day on the street and he's
changed his mind about it where he now wants to run a blower with a
sniper type of injector, and it looks like I'll be making a manifold for
it some time soon.

Oh boy. More dyno time :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 28/12/2022 9:27 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 28/12/2022 1:02 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 28/12/2022 12:28 pm, jonz wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> The myth *clearly* busted here is that purported by a pair of
>>>>>>>> clueless experts in here in that theoretical carburettor airflow
>>>>>>>> is the *maximum* an engine can use and anything larger will not
>>>>>>>> work. We all remember Clueless Clasener making comments like this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An 1150 Holley Dominator on a NA SBC is not possible, no way,
>>>>>>>>> no how. Intake flows
>>>>>>>>> would go sonic long before you were even close to 1150 CFM.
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>   A *definitive statement* no less....:)))
>>
>> LOL, if he said that it won't work well on a street car then he
>> wouldn't be completely wrong but to say that it won't work at all is
>> dumb, on a race car that constantly operates at high RPM there is no
>> reason it won't work, it just won't work well at low rpm.
>
> He has zero idea of any of this, and it's not hard to understand why
> given that his claim to automotive fame is being a Morris Marina expert :)
>
> He's been shown *many* examples of oversized induction systems working
> *so* well that they set national records, world records, race records or
> otherwise were so dominant that the rules had to be changed to prohibit
> their use and give other people a chance, but he does his usual trick of
> ignoring the real physical evidence and instead tries to cover his own
> ineptitude with reams of nonsensical and completely irrelevant bullshit.
>
> He is quite utterly clueless, and the *only* person around here who
> swallows anything he says at all is Felix, and he freely admits to
> knowing nothing about the subject at all :)
>
>> Also what is a "SBC"?. There are so many versions with different
>> capacities, different cylinder heads, different intake manifolds and
>> different camshafts that it doesn't make any sense to lump them all
>> together.
>
> He's never been within 3 suburbs of a Chev engine, and clearly has no
> idea about the level of modifications that they and other engines have
> been subjected to. Both years ago and to this very day. Putting
> Cleveland heads on a 4 inch bore Chev block was a relatively simple mod
> compared to some I've seen.
>
> Take a look at some of these:
>
> How about iron Cleveland heads welded together to suit an inline 6?
>> https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEAGUL2
>
> Chev LS heads on a Ford Windsor
>> https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEHQL2U
>
> Chev LS heads welded together on a Ford 300 cube inline 6
>> https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEAGULE
>
> Custom hemi heads on a Ford Windsor (which looks amazing)
>> https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEHQL52
>
> How about 4V Cleveland heads on a Ford Windsor?
>> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f0/b9/9b/f0b99b2f3161ebdda7ecdb3b1f1b18e2.jpg
>
> (actually that one doesn't count, as Ford did that themselves :)
>
> How about the ultimate modded hybrid?
>> https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEHQL2X
>
> Custom made OHC heads on an Oldsmobile block with a flat plane crank and
> Daimler connecting rods that won two Formula 1 world titles. Nice :)
>
> Plenty of people do this kind of stuff, and putting Cleveland heads on a
> Chev block wasn't at all difficult. The bore spacing was only out by
> around 20 thousandths so the top of the bores had to be notched for
> valve clearance. Just like Ford did on the 4V Cleveland blocks :)
>
> Chev blocks are easy for this kind of stuff as head bolt holes go
> straight into the water jacket, and making a single plane sheet metal
> manifold wasn't that hard. The block we used was a standard 4 bolt 010
> with a steel crank, a set of aluminium rods and the pistons where made
> from semi finished blanks with a compression ratio of around 12.5:1. The
> difficult part as I remember was in coming up with a camshaft as no one
> really knew what profile the engine would want and we didn't have a
> selection to test.
>
> Because of the altered valve configuration whatever cam we used had to
> be made from a blank billet, and back in those days that was a super
> expensive exercise. We were only going to get one crack at it as we were
> running out of money, and we were looking for a profile that would suit
> the engine in the 8500rpm range. My favourite Chev cam of the day was a
> Crane R288 mechanical roller which worked fantastically well in high rpm
> applications with 23 degree heads, but the Cleveland head layout was
> completely different. I had a made named Dave Missingham who ran a
> pretty strong Cleveland powered Cortina in Pro Stock at the time and he
> was kind enough to show me the spec card on a couple of his cams and we
> picked a mix of two and had that made.
>
> The engine ran well with the Dominator and made around 580hp. Not the
> 600hp target that we'd hoped for, but all things considered it wasn't
> too bad for an experiment. Not long after that we put together a 331
> inch Chev with Pontiac heads and an Enderle constant flow injector that
> made around 650hp on methanol, and the Cleveland Chev was sold off to a
> bloke who ran it for a couple of seasons in a speedway car before
> eventually poking a hole in the side of it and writing it off.
>
>> BTW I don't claim to be an expert on SBC's but I was working on a 383
>> as recently as yesterday and I have owned a 307 in a HK.
>> I've fitted twin 1"3/4" SU's to a 1275 Mini which many say won't work,
>> dog of a thing below 3000rpm but worked very well above that, seems
>> like they are way too big but the factory even fitted them to NSW
>> Police Spec Minis in the early 1970's, keep the engine above 3000rpm
>> and they fly.
>
> These imbeciles will never understand any of this because they have zero
> experience. Carburettor cfm rates mean nothing to anyone as they're just
> a number recorded at an arbitrary airflow rate that serves no purpose
> other than to compare carburettors against *each other*. For use on an
> engine the only way you can ever find out what works best is by testing
> them and recording the findings, and the best way to do that is on an
> engine dyno.
>
> When sorting an engine to make maximum power on a dyno, two of the most
> critical critical measurements to take note of are manifold vacuum at
> wide open throttle and air flow rating through the carburettor hat.
> Often the flow rating seen at the hat isn't anything like what the
> Carburettor size indicates out of the box, and in many cases the carb
> isn't flowing enough for the engine at a specific RPM. The rule of thumb
> with carburetted engines on the dyno is that if you're seeing more than
> half an inch of manifold vacuum at full throttle then your carburettor
> is restricting flow and you need to increase the size.
>
> The last engine I had on a dyno was the 408 Windsor that belongs to the
> bloke across the street. It made 520hp at 6000rpm. It was running a 750
> Holley "4 corner" that was tunned a little on the rich side, and at full
> noise was showing close to 2 inches of manifold vacuum indicating that
> the carb was way too small for it. It probably had another 70 or 80hp on
> the table if the carb was upsized to a 950 or 1050 and the rpm limit
> stepped up to 7500, but 6 thousand was the cutoff the owner wanted to
> use and the 750 was the carb he wanted to run.
>
> Oddly enough that engine has yet to see a day on the street and he's
> changed his mind about it where he now wants to run a blower with a
> sniper type of injector, and it looks like I'll be making a manifold for
> it some time soon.
>
> Oh boy. More dyno time :)
>
>
>
LOL, time consuming but its the best way to sort any engine.
I've mentioned it before but who would think that a 350 Holley set up
for a red Holden 6 on a bodged up Holden inlet manifold would work very
well on an XJ6 Jag engine, dramatically improved idle, power and
economy, the bloke who did it as a bit of a joke was astounded by the
results.
Just because something won't work in theory doesn't mean that it won't
work in practice.

--
Daryl

On 28/12/2022 9:50 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 28/12/2022 9:27 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> Oddly enough that engine has yet to see a day on the street and he's
>> changed his mind about it where he now wants to run a blower with a
>> sniper type of injector, and it looks like I'll be making a manifold
>> for it some time soon.
>>
>> Oh boy. More dyno time :)
>>
>>
>>
> LOL, time consuming but its the best way to sort any engine.
> I've mentioned it before but who would think that a 350 Holley set up
> for a red Holden 6 on a bodged up Holden inlet manifold would work very
> well on an XJ6 Jag engine, dramatically improved idle, power and
> economy, the bloke who did it as a bit of a joke was astounded by the
> results.

Heh :)

You can always pick people who don't know carburettors very well, as
they're the ones who have no idea that carbs have a sweet spot where
they work really well at a certain point, but are progressively
shithouse everywhere else :)

> Just because something won't work in theory doesn't mean that it won't
> work in practice.

Theory and practice are often completely unrelated. Look at Clasener for
example. Has all the theoretical answers, but then it comes to practice,
well.... :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 28/12/2022 9:27 pm, Noddy wrote:

<snipped what *other people* did>
>
> Oddly enough that engine has yet to see a day on the street and he's
> changed his mind about it where he now wants to run a blower with a
> sniper type of injector, and it looks like I'll be making a manifold for
> it some time soon.
>
> Oh boy. More dyno time :)
>
>
>
No Darren, more bullshit is all we'll see!

But boy do I have you bugged!

Feel free to post more pics of what *others do*. The problem is it is
*your claim* that I'm refuting.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)