Dyno Results: 502 w/ AFRs
05-12-2014 | 05:35 AM
#31
Thread Starter
Registered
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 952
Likes: 83
From: East Greenwich, RI
I look at CFM #'s a lot. Of course I do. Ooops, forgot I'm SB here. Normal name is CFM.
Anyway - anyone notice this Motor could have used more carb ? Also, it looks like the carb had difficulties keep a half way linear A/F ratio.
The A/F ratio on the sheet appears not be to a wideband, but thru the fuel meter vs Air meter. So , the ratio is not what was actually used by engine but you can look at it to see peaks and valleys. Seems to flutter. Could be the carb itself, but I see the same sort of trends on carb's that aren't sized the way the motor wants.
Seems to be some power left in the carb dept. Not just WOT.
Just letting out some thoughts from my own couch / armchair on the internet. LOL.
Anyway - anyone notice this Motor could have used more carb ? Also, it looks like the carb had difficulties keep a half way linear A/F ratio.
The A/F ratio on the sheet appears not be to a wideband, but thru the fuel meter vs Air meter. So , the ratio is not what was actually used by engine but you can look at it to see peaks and valleys. Seems to flutter. Could be the carb itself, but I see the same sort of trends on carb's that aren't sized the way the motor wants.
Seems to be some power left in the carb dept. Not just WOT.
Just letting out some thoughts from my own couch / armchair on the internet. LOL.
05-12-2014 | 06:00 AM
#32
Registered
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 8,527
Likes: 706
From: Taunton Ma
I had brought my 1000 cfm pro systems carb but since we made the power we were looking for and even if it picked up 30 hp new carbs aren't in the budget, we left it as is. Those are calculated air fuel numbers from the air and fuel flow data.
Rotating assembly is hp500.
Rotating assembly is hp500.
05-14-2014 | 12:54 PM
#34
Thread Starter
Registered
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 952
Likes: 83
From: East Greenwich, RI
Yep. I'm happy with the results. I was hoping to keep it "Bravo 1 friendly"!!
05-15-2014 | 09:23 AM
#36
Registered
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,023
Likes: 1,522
From: Grand Rapids, MI
I look at CFM #'s a lot. Of course I do. Ooops, forgot I'm SB here. Normal name is CFM.
Anyway - anyone notice this Motor could have used more carb ? Also, it looks like the carb had difficulties keep a half way linear A/F ratio.
Just letting out some thoughts from my own couch / armchair on the internet. LOL.
Anyway - anyone notice this Motor could have used more carb ? Also, it looks like the carb had difficulties keep a half way linear A/F ratio.
Just letting out some thoughts from my own couch / armchair on the internet. LOL.
05-15-2014 | 09:33 AM
#37
Registered
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,332
Likes: 73
From: chicago
I think alot of guys today are still going off the carb sizing thought process from 1985. The modern high performance marine engine is a far cry from a 400hp mercury 454 cyclone or a hopped up 330. We are now seeing N/A engines making 600, 700, 800hp. A 465hp HP500 ran just fine with a 800 holley. That's 465hp at 5200rpm. A far cry from 600hp at 6000rpm.
Or there are guys running N/A 540's hoping to make 700hp but want to keep a stock 800 holley on it. I think it goes back to the days when everyone threw a dominator on a 400hp engine and wondered why is was a turd.
Or there are guys running N/A 540's hoping to make 700hp but want to keep a stock 800 holley on it. I think it goes back to the days when everyone threw a dominator on a 400hp engine and wondered why is was a turd.
