DeTomaso Mailing List: August 2000, Message #129

Dave,
Same here...please take the time to explain to us what happened!
Tom
Racerman@MSN.com

..
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony DiGiovanna <t.digiovanna@mindspring.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <detomaso@realbig.com>
Date: Friday, August 04, 2000 6:57 AM
Subject: Re: Cylinder heads & Big HP "Clevelands"...


>Hey Dave,
>
>I don't see why you say that.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: David Doddek <pantera@pobox.com>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <detomaso@realbig.com>
>Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 8:45 PM
>Subject: RE: Cylinder heads & Big HP "Clevelands"...
>
>
>> I see all that ever happens here is that my comments get slammed.
Thefore
>> I will NEVER reply to a technical question on this forum again.
>>
>> Dave "goodby" D
>>
>> At 05:26 PM 8/3/00 -0400, you wrote:
>> >>In light of most peoples driving, use the Performer dual plane.  It
will
>> >>pull to over 6000 rpm and provide more low end torque.  If you plan on
>more
>> >>racing than street driving then use the blue thunder.  Or if you chose
>to
>> >>do the crower stage 4 cam then go with the blue thunder.  DO NOT use a
>> >>single plane for a street car unless you want to turn the engine over
>7000
>> >>rpm and use a big cam.  Also the edelbrock will allow you to use the
>engine
>> >>screen.
>> >
>> >A guy on another list recently posted the results of intake manifold
>tests
>> >he
>> >performed on a 350 Chevy in a Camaro that nominally ran the 1/4 mile in
>> >13.5 seconds or so.  He used a Rochester Qjet carb and several single
and
>> >dual plane intakes.  He was meticulous about carb tuning and his best
>> >results
>> >in real world driving were with a small port single plane intake
>manifold.
>> >He said
>> >the dual planes were only better right off idle.  Everywhere else,
>including
>> >MPG,
>> >the single planes were better.
>> >
>> >I think this has as much to do with the specific intakes in question.
>With
>> >a 4V
>> >Cleveland, all the single plane intakes are large port.  I like the
>Weiand
>> >Xcelerator
>> >2V I'm running on my Aussie headed 351C and wonder how it would work on
a
>> >4V engine.  It might work better than a Performer (or an Xcelerator 4V,
>for
>> >that
>> >matter).
>> >
>> >Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the crossover point where even a big
>port
>> >single
>> >plane intake, like a Holley Strip Dominator, make more power than a dual
>> >plane
>> >like the Performer is much less than 7000 rpm.  Personally, below 3000
>rpms,
>> >
>> >I'm interested in how smoothly the intake works.  When you're looking
for
>> >performance, you'll have the revs up anyway.
>> >
>> >>You can use any carb you like, but My best performance was from a
>> >>Carter AVS from an old dodge big block.  The Performer carb runs well
>but
>> >>does not corner well.
>> >
>> >The Performer is a slightly modified Carter AFB.  The Carter AFB and AVS
>> >are very similar carbs, differing mainly in that the AVS uses an
>adjustable
>> >spring-loaded air valve and the AFB uses a counter-weighted one.  The
>float
>> >and bowl arrangements are the same, so cornering potential should be
>> >identical.
>> >
>> >>Use around 750 cfm.  I think for what you want the 600 or 650 will be
>too
>> >>small.  By the way, that carter I used was an 850 and it had plenty of
>> >torque.
>> >
>> >Hmmm, I believe the largest AVS was a 750.  Perhaps you were using a
>> >ThermoQuad which is an exaggerated spreadbore like a Quadrajet?
>> >ThermoQuads are very sophisticated carbs and were available in 800 and
>> >1000 CFM versions.
>> >
>> >Dan Jones
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>