rumblefish360
Well-Known Member
And there’s your first and second problem right there since I not only carefully read everything but you ASSUMED I want to get even with you.- Rumblefish. Your post #37 nonsense.
Try reading first before trying to 'get even' all the time for all your errors that I keep pointing out.
I have no idea what your talking about there but you go on and have fun with that idea.
And hear you go putting your foot in your mouth yet again.- I did not say a smaller TQ was better on a 383 than a big TQ. [ But it would be ]. What I said was the smaller AFB/AVS would be better on THIS 383.
Now you’re being stupid and childish. Not to mention suggesting stupid ideas. (Again)- throttle response is improved with a larger carb. Is that right? And it is not 100% fact, but 110% fact. And apart from your opinion, who else has a test or report of this 'fact'. Silly Chrysler, should have made the TQ pri bores 2" for unbeatable t/response.
A lot…. A real lot.- 'This is true but also wrong'. What am I missing?
Re read what I wrote.- And you missed ANOTHER point. I carefully pointed out that while a 625 Carter is not called a spread bore, it acts like one. That is because the spread bore concept of the smaller primaries for economy/response, & the larger secondaries for power is what spread carbs were designed for. The 625 Carters have small pris, bigger secs.
This is where you stick your other foot in your ***. The AFB I wrote about has no secondary velocity flap valve. It came from the factory this way.- not quite sure about the nonsense with the 66 Imperial. 'Small' 600 AFB, but vel valves removed from secondaries which would reduce the restriction & provide more flow.
Now you’re an idiot and here’s why, Carter sold the bigger carb to Chrysler which cost more and the price would have reflected to the customer. It’s not what price Carter sold to the public.- Carter sold the 750 AFBs at a higher price? Maybe in your 'mind'. But not in reality.
I have a 1988 PAW catolog. 500, 625, 750 Carter AFBs. All $149 with choke. Even if the 750 was sold by some for a higher price, I doubt a hot rodder would buy a smaller carb if he deemed the bigger carb was what he needed.
(Red Forman from that ‘70’s show - Dumbass)
Besides PAW has been out of biz for…. 20+ years. Throw the catalog away!
Yep! 750 cfm to the rescue! A better sized carb for sure and thanks to you showing it. It’ll do the same on a stock engine.And now for the Coup de Grace.
I have to thank Just Mopar Joe for this.
In the last few days, he dyno tested his 400 engine, RPM intake, headers, Edel heads, roller cam, 750 carb. It made just over 500 hp. A bigger 1050 carb was then fitted & it made the same power....because the engine didn't need the extra air.
Prove it. You’d be the first. People in this part of the world have been saying to put on 750’s to 340’s and 383’s and have gone faster, enjoyed better drivability. It’s been heard from word of mouth, factory tests stating so, magazine articles making the claim. Even Chrysler has wrote this.The OPs engine is not going to make anywhere near 500 hp; which means it needs less air & a smaller carb [ of the right size ] will provide better response & mileage & just as good top end as a bigger carb would.
For a guy saying he has built and designed his own engine and throwing mud at everyone saying “I did t think so” as to how does what here, you think you would be smart enough to STFU since it is clear you have no idea what your saying.
But you say no to it all.
Perhaps it’s a condition to living down under? Does the air rotate opposite of north of the equator?
I’ll tell you right here and now. After reading your post, (I like getting even with you? Laughable!) you’re a freakin mental case that needs meds to shooooo away the ghosts and voices in your head.
To every other down under member, my condolences to you for having to live with mental case running around without medication or parental supervision to stop him from spilling his vomit all over the net.