383,ported heads,air gap,hooker headers,9.5:1,373 gears,will this carb work out the box to break in new motor or do I get another for initial break-in?:beers:

anything will technically work for break in. IMHO, I would leave that carb on after too. A little tuning/tweaking that would be a great carb for that motor...so long as you have at least 23-2800 flash converter and close to 275 duration with moderate lift. :D
Nice combo.:thumbsup:

I just got an 800 for mine, a vintage carter performance series 800, hope to get it on this weekend. I wonder what's it's worth over the 600 ede I got now?

About 200 or so....

Jim
all else equal, and that leaves a lot of grey areas....
5300 vs 7200 rpm before you starve (approximately), on a 100% efficient airflow engine. Which(100%) is an impossibility as long as engines have combustion chamber clearances. And we must have clearance or CR rises above critical for our fuel of choice, and we go boom, crack, click, pick your least favorite noise.

3000 STALL,LOOKS LIKE ONLY 272 DURATION IT'S A CRANE 272 h10,I think it's going to be a dog but that's what eng bldr installed? If so then OUT she comes!

Leave as is. It should run real nice. same combo as me but I have a 4speed. Vaccum secondaries....

Jim
all else equal, and that leaves a lot of grey areas....
5300 vs 7200 rpm before you starve (approximately), on a 100% efficient airflow engine. Which(100%) is an impossibility as long as engines have combustion chamber clearances. And we must have clearance or CR rises above critical for our fuel of choice, and we go boom, crack, click, pick your least favorite noise.

You don't think it's possible to achieve 100% or better VE on a normally aspirated engine?
At what point does the engine 'starve'?
What do you mean by 'combustion chamber clearances'?

onovakind
No sir, I don't. I know carb mfgrs and others insist you can fill the cyl entirely, and base that on things like velocity and exhaust sizing.

I would like to be proved wrong by actual flow numbers from a positive displacement type meter on the inlet air flow to an engine on dyno. I'm sure somebody has done this type of testing. I just haven't happened upon it. If you know a link, please send it because I am always learning.

Ok, you ask what is combustion chamber clearances...
It's just the way I referred to what some call TDC volume ie the cc of the heads and piston valve reliefs.

The gasses that fill these spaces and the swept volume have been compressed during the compression cycle and that pressure must return to below manifold pressure before any of the gas in the manifold can enter the chamber. The exhaust stroke can only expel the volume displaced by the piston, and to my knowledge there are no exhaust systems that operate below atmospheric pressure. So you have clearance gases left in the cylinder at a tiny bit greater than atmospheric that must expand on the intake stroke, and thereby occupy volume that is not available to fresh gases.

Let me welcome you to the world of wave tuning.

First, on the intake side you can achieve up to about 10 psi positive pressure at the intake valve due to the ram effect of the inertial waves in the intake. This will significantly increase the VE by timing the waves to arrive at the proper time.

On the exhaust side, the same inertial wave tuning can produce a large negative pressure at the exhaust valve, by some measurements a suction up to 6-7 psi. This is called scavenging and will most assuredly remove the leftover spent gases from the cylinder. Again the trick is to create the proper physics in the system so the waves arrive at the right time.

A basic formula for VE and horsepower is:

REQUIRED VE = ( 9411 x HP x BSFC ) / (DISPLACEMENT x RPM)

from - http://www.epi-eng.com/ET-VolEff.htm

Given a reasonable BSFC of about .45, What VE would you need to make 600 hp at 6300 rpm from 358 cubic inches?

9411 x 600 x .45 / 358 x 6300 = 112.7%

The dyno sheet for this motor is at:

http://www.circletrack.com/techarticles/ctrp_0704_nascar_new_motor/

OI, here we go again...

While "wave tuning" is certainly very real, and can and does boost VE well beyond 100% (in a VERY narrow RPM band) in some applications, I really do not believe it applies in the context of this discussion, that is, a street motor with a full exhaust system.

Now is you want to talk about a 1 cylinder 2 stroke with no silencer, or even a race engine required to produce max power and torque between say 6000 and 7500 rpm, that's a different story.

OI, here we go again...

While "wave tuning" is certainly very real, and can and does boost VE well beyond 100% (in a VERY narrow RPM band) in some applications, I really do not believe it applies in the context of this discussion, that is, a street motor with a full exhaust system.

Now is you want to talk about a 1 cylinder 2 stroke with no silencer, or even a race engine required to produce max power and torque between say 6000 and 7500 rpm, that's a different story.

Wave action occurs in all motors, not just selected high performance applications. You may not achieve 100% VE but you can certainly affect the power output by selecting components that are tuned to the rpm range you are interested in.

Onovakind
Nice links
Nutshelling, and correct me if I'm wrong, you are saying that based on torque vs fuel requirement correlated to displacement yields VE. Gotcha.
Some rambling preambling...
Not being argumentative, I just have opinions based on a 30 year career on industrial natural gas engines and natural gas compressors and as humans we are products of our experiences. An engine is just a modified compressor with intentional explosions and all the resultant problems. I love the theoretical but reality beckons and I get to work on engines and compressors all day long most days seeing first hand that they do indeed follow the advice my Dad gave me long ago " never forget that nature applies all her laws all the time whether you remember them or not". I am a comparative novice to most guys at intentional abuse of automobiles and engines, most of my life I have just made lots and lots of them run in order to get the job done. Of course I've played some along the way, but never at the level I decided to embark upon when I bought Wolf 2 years ago, so of course I am going to encounter areas where my views are uhhh errrr FOS:D and of course I will encounter natures laws that I overlooked. And I relish the opportunity and place to discourse them.

Scavenging is an old old old 2 cycle term, that means the inlet charge helps evacuate the spent exhaust gases. I know you are referring to the exhaust stroke and valve overlap. So it seems to me if your model has a positive pressure on the intake manifold (that somehow does not register on a gauge as any thing other than vacuum or at best atmospheric) being exposed to the exhaust header tube (that in my mind if you consider the highest output engines ie top fuel which runs an open pipe per cylinder) which in your model has negative pressure at the valve. I accept the negative pressure on the exhaust side, this is just the venturi effect or bernoullii or one of those other smart guys or a corollary thereof, and it's what makes wings and carbs work and lets me flick cigarette ashes at a cracked window whilst driving. But I have a lifetime of experience with gas telling me pressure is readable on a gauge and that gas seeks the path of least resistance and that in a small volume gas pressure is equal. I'm missing something on the intake side, and I still need a PD meter on the inlet air telling me we move more air than the cylinder displaces without forced induction. Or I need to study the ram effect and how is it capable of keeping gas from naturally seeking to evenly occupy a given volume. Otherwise I see BSFC as a function of how much power is being harnessed from a given quantity of fuel, and we all know we can take the same engine/ tune it up/ and increase MPG(alter BSFC). Does a tuneup alter airflow? No. It harnesses more of the fuel's power.
Now it also occurs to me that my VE argument is only true until more apparent power is being drawn than the fuel contains chemically, at which point more fuel must be getting used. So I need to study the chemistry of gasoline to crack this one. I'm gonna be dizzy for a while, like the time I was asked to solve the riddle about Cat's H2S spec of x picograms per btu. I cracked it and figured out a way to state it in laymens terms( higher the btu the lower the ppm h2s cuz you use more fuel to make same power) and encountered some neat uses for Excel along the way that I'm sure every one but me already knew.:D . As long as I don't get as dizzy as I do when I try to understand Einstein bending light:mad:
Here is Wolf's engine according to dtdyno
1000 44 232 14.70 49.7 84.7
1500 103 360 14.69 63.3 131.7
2000 157 412 14.67 70.0 150.6
2500 213 447 14.65 77.2 163.5
3000 272 476 14.61 83.2 174.2
3500 347 521 14.55 90.7 190.5
4000 425 558 14.47 98.0 204.1
4500 503 587 14.36 104.1 214.9
5000 563 592 14.22 107.8 216.5
5500 616 588 14.08 110.0 215.3
6000 656 574 13.93 109.6 210.0
6500 668 540 13.80 106.6 197.6
7000 676 508 13.71 104.9 185.7
7500 654 458 13.60 99.9 167.5
8000 626 411 13.57 95.7 150.4
applying the VE formula and BSFC of .45 at 7000 RPM I derive 99.4% VE, so I surmise that DTdyno uses a lower bsfc for their math. I haven't done an Excel goal seek on it yet but I will eventually. Rough cerebral math it ought to be around .4

Damthisisfun, I could do it for days but I gotta go mow the yard and be a grownup. Madcarson, Sorry I stole your thread buddy. Peace

Jim
Did I start something? I hope so cuz I like learning

Btw, dtdyno uses .5 bsfc. I mentally went the wrong way when I said .4 at the end of my previous post

And while I accept a negative pressure at the exhaust in theory, I have never seen a gauge on an exhaust system show anything lower than Zero. But I accept the theory, and of course headers is the best money you can spend. Love to see some exhaust port pressure studies. Anyone have any links?

Jim
Did I start something? I hope so cuz I like learning

Btw, dtdyno uses .5 bsfc. I mentally went the wrong way when I said .4 at the end of my previous post

And while I accept a negative pressure at the exhaust in theory, I have never seen a gauge on an exhaust system show anything lower than Zero. But I accept the theory, and of course headers is the best money you can spend. Love to see some exhaust port pressure studies. Anyone have any links?

Here are a couple of very good links. The first is a study done by the CAFE Foundation on aircraft exhaust systems.

http://cafefoundation.org/v2/pdf_cafe_reports/epg.pdf

The second is a link to an exhaust article by David Vizard written for Circle Track Magazine:

http://www.geocities.com/motorcity/track/6992/vizard.html

Another one:

http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/articles/hardcore/0505em_exh/index.html

Read those carefully, there will be a test.

Lmao