308 carb airbox restriction discovered

While I can certainly understand your feeling challenged, and frustrated in a way, personally I would not be too quick to put it on Enzo for the fact that we ended up with what we got on these shores. My understanding of the history is that he was consumed by racing, and cared not for the boredom of production, hence the sale of a portion to Fiat AG, whose holdings are qquite wide. I would surmise that he quite probably knew little of the goings on in this respect, and that it was the "Bean Counters" @ Fiat who were behind the scenario. My observation is that he would not have liked to see what we now do, as his heart was in "Go Fast" much as ours is. JMO FWIW
I would tend to think we would have more power, etc. if he were running the show.
But then somebody has to "make ends" and no doubt Fiat got that big by being frugal in an area or two....
Kermit
And Hell Yes, I bet he is looking down and grinning at what we are doing!

 

I bet he's just watching MS and grinning.

 

would that be martha stewart????

unsined

 

Ceramic based insulation may be of some benefit Russ. An interesting thought to be sure. It is my understanding that the F-40 has ceramic coating from the Factory, albeit in conjunction with the Turbos, which quite naturally pproduce much mor under the hood temps. My "gut" feeling is it may help somewhat, but not to the extent that it does for Turbocharged motors. Perhaps a coating of a lighter colored , perhaps silver paint added to the base of the housing may give some idea, carefully masked, it need not even appear to the casual eye.FWIW
HTH
Kermit
BTW: McMaster-Carr offers SS Knurled nuts called "Thumb Nuts" that may be what you are seeking.
No sales, promotion, or association, etc.

 

Your wish is my command oh Mondial One,

Okay guys here it is. A good day at the dyno. I was hoping for 10 more HP and almost got it. 70 degrees f. Barometric pressure 30.29 in.
Summary,

Last years dyno,
Stock airbox/Baldwin airfilter, stock velocity stacks. 125 main jets, 55 idle jets (I assume), 200 air correction jets. 20W50 Valvoline VR1 Racing Oil. Redline 75W90NS gear oil
175.6 RWHP/ 158. Ft lbs torque. Air fuel ratio (max) 14.5 to 1
Two year old NGK BP6Es spark plugs, .035 to .040" gap

This years dyno,
Modified airbox/same Baldwin airfilter, short velocity stacks, 140 mainjets, 55 idle jets(I assume), 200 air correction jets. 20W50 Valvoline Durablend. Redline 75W90NS gear oil.
184.6 RWHP/ 163.5 Ft lbs torque. Air fuel ratio (max) 12.4 to 1
Brand new NGK BP6Es plugs, .032" gap

Alex at CarbConnection said the consistant ratio across the A/F chart was very good but a little on the rich side. He also said that the air correction jets are perfect and not to touch them instead making changes only to the main jets (and eventually the idles).

I don't like the idea of running "a little rich" with the casual driving that I do as it trashes the oil faster. If I was on the track it I would leave it.

Observers noted a dark colored haze from the exhaust, again indicating a rich condition. Makes me think of going back to the 135 main jets but then it felt like it was starving for fuel at the top end. Wish I could have dyno'd with the 135's just to see the A/F differences.

When all is said and done I feel that the airbox mods and the velocity stacks contributed equally to the horse power gain based on the previously posted dyno test of both types of velocity stacks in a STOCK airbox.

Last years HP and torque are in red and today's is in blue.
The first A/F chart is today's.
The second one is last years.

Sooooooooooooooooo, how about going to 137's? Russ?
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

You are a bit rich for optimal power but congrats on the effort.
Philip

 

Thanks guys.
Figure 10 HP for under 150.00. Not bad.
Now for the supercharger.......................................................

It looks like I need to jet down. Does Pierce or anybody else have intermediate sizes?
137/138?

 

[size=+2]HA![/size] (furiously loosening airbox nuts...................)





























Thanks!

 

Alex also said to take note the smoother ignition signature.

I'll post some pictures of the event tonight. We had a Daytona with Tubi and a new Maser Quatroport on the dyno as well.

 

Pictures at the end of this thread, Dyno Day

 

I'm sure that I should know this, but what ignition are you running? Points, Pertronix, other?

Thanks

 

Same as last year. Two Crane XR700 solid state boxes, an optical pickup in each distributor and stock coils. Taylor Spiro Pro wires. The only difference this year was new plugs.

 

"When all is said and done I feel that the airbox mods and the velocity stacks contributed equally to the horse power gain based on the previously posted dyno test of both types of velocity stacks in a STOCK airbox." (Spasso post)

You have run dyno's on a car that has had multiple changes made and then make the statement above that you feel that certain changes were the result of certain things.
There is absolutley no science in this this statement or any way to know what was the TRUE source of the HP Gain.
The issue of then basing some of that statement on the earlier dyno that Spasso posted (for Durable 1) is again a joke as if you truly new the history of the earlier car tested and the other dyno result it has posted you would certainly question all.

While their may be gains (as shown) no one who knows all the facts so that they can make a factual statement of what they are directly attributal too.

I must add that I have great respect for Russ as he hepled me greatly as I work to finish my engine he has great knowledge of Ferrari's and Webers.

I however beleive that their are several assumptions being made about things and the dyno process to prove them is severly flawed.
Assumption: Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.


I am sure this will create a great uproar and many attacks but so be it. "Every one is welcome to their own opinion but not to their own set of facts", and at this point people are not getting ALL the facts and are being led to beleive on assumptions.

 

Paul,
Regardless of the previous modifications to the 308 that Kermit used the fact remains,

1. Stewarts engine put out 188.6 HP and 162.6 ft lbs of torque with a STOCK airbox and STOCK velocity stacks.

2. Stewarts engine put out 193 HP and 186.9 ft lbs of torque with a STOCK airbox and SHORT velocity stacks.

3. Only ONE aspect of the engine was changed between dyno pulls, THE VELOCITY stacks.

4. Subtract 188.6 from 193 and you have a gain of 4.4 horsepower.

5. Subtract 162.6 from 186.9 and you have a gain of 24.3 ft lbs of torque.

6. ONLY ONE ASPECT OF THE ENGINE WAS CHANGED BETWEEN PULLS, the VELOCITY STACKS. The runs were done within one hour of each other.

Paul, The numbers speak for themselves. What ADDITIONAL scientific measures can be taken to prove that this simple mathematic equation is correct or incorrect?

Again, the previous modifications made to Stewarts engine has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on the fact that it made more horsepower with the short stacks and STOCK airbox.


THE ENGINE WAS NOT ALTERED BETWEEN TESTS. THE ENGINE WAS EXACTLY THE SAME FROM ONE TEST TO THE OTHER except for switching velocity stacks.

[size=+3]THE MATH SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.[/size]

THESE ARE NOT MY FACTS. I didn't perform the test and I did not run the dyno.

THE MATH SPEAKS FOR ITSELF
and no amount of Kermit bashing is going to change THE MATH

I know you will not accept [size=+2]THE FACTS OR THE MATH[/size] and I really don't care if you do. Anyone one that looks at the dyno graphs will come to their own [size=+3]OBJECTIVE[/size] conclusion.

Below is the dyno sheet with a STOCK airbox and STOCK velocity stacks and a pull with a STOCK airbox and SHORT velocity stacks.

I will concede one point. The horse power gains MAY NOT be exactly the same from one engine to the next due to type, year and condition of the engine BUT the fact remains that there is horse power to be gained by REDUCING intake restriction REGARDLESS of how or if an engine is modified.
__________________
Spasso
"Don't let perfection get in the way of excellence"
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The facts are not all known and I did agree that there was HP Gain (That is not the point).

You are making assumptions of the exact reason for the gain.

Stewarts car cannot be a baseline espically based on one baseline run as it has a history of different outputs at baseline...there is no consistency in the baseline for that car.

The facts are clear there is a HP Gain on the Dyno but the exact reason for the gain is unkown.

Argue all you want you can't make multiple changes and then give equal credit for gains to each change.....it's nonsense any anyone with common sense knows it.

Do it right otherwise you are misleading all who read this.


Paul

The promoter of the product is giving far from independent results for his product and you are giving his product credit without any clear facts or science.

 

Going back down to 135's and putting me closer to the low 13's where I would like to be.

...or a reduction of air correction jet size by .010" equivalent to increasing of mainjet size by approximately 0.0035"?

I like the idea of going back to the 135's and like you suggest, decreasing the A/C jet size to richen the A/F in the upper range. "It seems the logical thing to do", (Spock).

Better run that idea past Sloan to make sure we have the scientific data to back it up.


Russ, You have PM

 

Posting your statement in RED with big CAPITALS letters does not help make fiction into fact but it sure looked good.

Don't try to get around the fact that you are making assumption by turning this into Kermit bashing issue only krowbar would beleive that. The fact is that I am bashing your science which lead to your assumptions which you are trying to portray as fact.

Paul

 

Thanks for the info. Do you know how well your two mechanical advance curves match? Also, what is your static timing set to, +3, 0, -8 deg? Sorry for all the questions, but I am trying to determine how much more time I need to spend getting my distributors set up before calling it 'good enough' and adjusting the carbs.

Personally, I think the HP gain was due to the phase of the moon and how he held his mouth during the run.

 

But it is the point. This ENTIRE thread is about HP gain. I posted ALL OF THE FACTS.

I am expressing an opinion based on a dyno sheet. I said,

"I feel that the airbox mods and the velocity stacks contributed equally to the horse power gain based on the previously posted dyno test of both types of velocity stacks in a STOCK airbox."

I DID NOT SAY that these were the exact reasons. I said they CONTRIBUTED, a big difference.

..And what scientific evidence do you have to support this statement? Were you present at these dyno sessions? Where are the dyno sheets that show this "unstable baseline" in Stewarts car?...................thats what I thought........................

Based on the previously posted dyno sheet it is obvious that the short velocity stacks play a part in the HP gain. I seriously doubt that ALL of the HP gain on my car was due to the gutting and modification of my airbox INSPITE OF the short velocity stacks. As I said in the end of my last post, the HP gains will vary depending on the the type, modifications (or lack of) and condition of the engine.

Based on the previously posted dyno sheet that posted a 4.4 HP gain subtracted from the roughly 9 HP gain on MY dyno sheet for MY car appears that there is ABOUT a 50/50 split (As I said in the end of my last post, the HP gains will vary depending on the the type, modifications (or lack of) and condition of the engine.)

Of course this all VERY unscientific but there is a certain amount of LOGIC involved that superceeds a biased opinion blinded by hate.

The information I have provided speaks for itself. The dyno charts show it all and my commentary isn't even neccessary. Most people here can make there own deductions about the HP gains. It is thoroughly discussed here, in detail.

After all, HORSE POWER GAINS is what this thread is all about, or was until you showed up with your equally unscientific contradictions.

The facts are clear and you are detracting from the possibility of any positive performance from those velocity stacks with FAR FROM INDEPENDANT OR OBJECTIVE perspective unsupported by any scientific proof otherwise.

 

No. They haven't been changed from the dyno run from last year either.

I don't know. I haven't had to mess with it. It hasn't been changed from the dyno run from last year either.

Take all of the time it takes. Make sure that the advance mechanisms are clean and well lubricated so you get FULL advance. Mine were done when the Crane ignition was installed. If they aren't as close to perfect as you can get them to will make it difficult to perform the other aspects of your tune, air/fuel/timing etc...........

Actually I had my "lucky sock" on the gear shift knob..............................