Hey all, I was wondering, when I go for a 2 bbl, it's either autolite 2100 (have one, don't want to spend $400 on a new Holley) or 5200, etc progressive.
I was thinking, to go the progressive route, I'd have to mount the carb one of two ways-
1- Throttle shafts perpendicular to crank- To do this, I'd center the carb on the intake, which I'd assume would create a rich mixture in cylinders 1,2,3 and a lean in 4,5,6 untill WOT when the secondary opens and evens distribution.
2- Throttle shafts parallel to crank- To do this, I'd have to widen the intake at the center to accomodate the carb base. ALOT more work. The good is, the venturis would both be feeding the cylinders equally- well, as equally as a log can- so the rich/lean predicament is gone. The bad is, if the primary is centered over the log, it'd be acting as a 1v- great. BUT, when the secondary opens up, the fuel & air would have to travel down a corridor from the secondary venturi into the log where the primary is feeding, then cut a 90 deg both directions to get into the log. I know turbulance can be good, but I'm affraid in this set up, Is it possible the turbulance could bring too puch fuel out of suspension, in which case it'd deposit on walls momentarily and converge before *dripping* back into the air stream without anularizing, thus creating a momentary over rich condition in whatever cylinder it was sucked into and pre detonating, or remaining intact and not burning, or burning post combustion and frying the exhaust.....
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the science yet to figure this stuff out, but am I kinda on the right track of the possible pros and cons of the fuel mixture, or am I over symplifying the fluid dynamics of it?
Then again, I still have a Zenith SU off the MGB... perhaps I should get another, mount them between 1&2 and 5&6 on the side of the log and make a 3-1 set up with an 1100 primary and SU secondaries....
-Michael
I was thinking, to go the progressive route, I'd have to mount the carb one of two ways-
1- Throttle shafts perpendicular to crank- To do this, I'd center the carb on the intake, which I'd assume would create a rich mixture in cylinders 1,2,3 and a lean in 4,5,6 untill WOT when the secondary opens and evens distribution.
2- Throttle shafts parallel to crank- To do this, I'd have to widen the intake at the center to accomodate the carb base. ALOT more work. The good is, the venturis would both be feeding the cylinders equally- well, as equally as a log can- so the rich/lean predicament is gone. The bad is, if the primary is centered over the log, it'd be acting as a 1v- great. BUT, when the secondary opens up, the fuel & air would have to travel down a corridor from the secondary venturi into the log where the primary is feeding, then cut a 90 deg both directions to get into the log. I know turbulance can be good, but I'm affraid in this set up, Is it possible the turbulance could bring too puch fuel out of suspension, in which case it'd deposit on walls momentarily and converge before *dripping* back into the air stream without anularizing, thus creating a momentary over rich condition in whatever cylinder it was sucked into and pre detonating, or remaining intact and not burning, or burning post combustion and frying the exhaust.....
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the science yet to figure this stuff out, but am I kinda on the right track of the possible pros and cons of the fuel mixture, or am I over symplifying the fluid dynamics of it?
Then again, I still have a Zenith SU off the MGB... perhaps I should get another, mount them between 1&2 and 5&6 on the side of the log and make a 3-1 set up with an 1100 primary and SU secondaries....
-Michael
