Intake Runner Air Velocity Question

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the design and optimization of intake runners for an engine, specifically focusing on the effects of runner size and shape on air velocity and engine performance. Participants explore various configurations, carburetor sizing, and the implications of different intake designs, including individual runner manifolds versus plenum-style intakes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that smaller intake runners may increase air velocity, potentially benefiting torque, especially in engines designed for low-end power.
  • Others argue that maintaining full-size runners could hinder performance, particularly if the engine is designed as a torque engine with small valve heads.
  • A participant mentions that the effectiveness of an intake design is a package deal, balancing air velocity and flow capacity.
  • There is a discussion about the impact of surface roughness on intake velocity, with one participant advising against polishing the intakes to maintain microturbulence.
  • Concerns are raised about the design of the manifold, particularly regarding bends and maintaining cross-sectional area throughout the runner.
  • Participants discuss carburetor sizing, with one suggesting that four 350 CFM carbs might be appropriate for the planned intake arrangement, while another mentions the need for larger carbs for individual runner setups.
  • One participant expresses a desire to keep the runner dimensions consistent and avoid altering the cross-sectional area to prevent flow disruption.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the optimal runner size or design. There are multiple competing views regarding the benefits of smaller versus larger runners, the impact of surface finish, and carburetor sizing, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific engine types and configurations, but there are limitations in the assumptions made about airflow dynamics and the specific applications of the discussed designs. The discussion also highlights the complexity of balancing various factors in intake design without resolving the mathematical or technical details involved.

  • #31
..For carbs I'd check the Rochester 2G..

Look for earlier 2Gs because you will have more tune-ability.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32
fahlin
you need to get around more.:smile:
rochester doesn't sound too good.
sound expensive.
these Autolite 2100's are all over and
reasonable.
plus they're like working on half a holley.
gotta keep things simple to get the car to go sideways on demand.

Have A Nice Day!
 
  • #33
Yeah, all a 4V carb is just two 2V carbs. With all the circle track 'bomber' divisions or of the like, the 2G or 2GC are mandatory (maybe more if Fomoco and Mopar can run) unless the Holley 4211 is allowed. I have quite a few for my sisters race car that I got for close to zero. I have never played with Autolites, I know they are pretty plain looking compared to a Holley.

If you ever need to a 2V carb, check the local race track (mostly oval I am not sure if drag strips have a 2V classes) to see if they require a 2V carburetor to be ran in one of the classes, you could score a couple for a decent price from a racer. The hot rodding scene might be a few bucks higher if you are looking for the factory carbs of any type.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
17K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
37K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K