DYNO RESULTS EFI/CARB RWHP

Like I said before, if you have a legitimate question, or, as jim points out, your own test that backs up your position, such as Airdrie's position about how to take Jim seriously, then show your own test data and knowledge about how the intake, heads and exhaust behave when any of them are the choke point. 

Edited by Slate - Nov/19/2015 at 1:48am

Boris Badanov wrote: That motor obviously does not like the Torker. Other changes were made as well, that kinds skews the results a bit.

Slate wrote: ... If you doubt what he's saying ask Edelbrock. Or Menace. Torker - designed in '73. EFI intake - designed in the last 5 years with 40+ years of new experience learning about combining efficiency and performance. Hmmmm. Steve

Here's Edelbrock's dyno charts from their website comparing AirGap vs. ProFlo. With same cam, headers, heads, the AirGap made a bit more torque and ProFlo made a bit more hp (the chart shows around 440hp, where text only says 395hp ... assume misprint?).

RPM AirGap:


RPM ProFlo:



Link to KenParkman's test of AirGap vs. Torker on a relatively mild combo ... a true A-B test. In this one, AirGap made a bit more torque and Torker a bit more hp. On the street, drove about the same. On the track, a bit quicker with the Torker.
http://amccars.net/cgi/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1282276250;start=all

Link to Car Craft Rambler article where they test Air Gap vs. Torker.
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/ccrp_0601_amc_360_engine_build/viewall.html

Based on Edelbrock's results, and results posted by others, I expect the ProFlo to have similar characteristics as the AirGap, so yes, a better low-to-mid range torque curve and corresponding increase in power than with a Torker. No surprise.

Problem with jtsllc1 test is we still don't have full disclosure of the combination, test date and test conditions for test A vs. test B ... in spite of repeated requests.   

From his posts I have gleaned the following:

Test A:
- Torker ... don't know if it's out-of-the-box or has some work, spacer, etc.?
- Comp 292 cam
- 1.6 rockers ... don't know if they are stock or rollers or ??
- stock oil pan and internal pickup
- 830 Holley
- heads ... don't know if both had the same Adkin ported heads?
- short block ... don't know if it was the same short block?
- ignition ... 35 degrees total ... don't know what ignition system?
- exhaust ... don't know?
- AMC20 rear axle with 3.73 gears ... don't know what carrier
- don't know what rear brakes
- don't know what transmission, flywheel, clutch or driveshaft
- don't know what rear wheels or tires
- don't know what engine accessories are fitted

Test B:
- ProFlo modified with 4150 spacer, ported and blended
- Comp 292 cam
- 1.7 roller rockers
- Armando road race oil pan with external pickup
- 830 Holley
- heads ... Adkins ported
- short block ... don't know if same?
- ignition ... 38 degrees total ... don't know ignition system?
- exhaust ... Hedman 1 5/8" modified with Jtsllc1 custom port manifolds ... remainder of exhaust, don't know?
- Ford 9" with Nascar 3.89 gears and Detroit locker ... are these REM polished gears, lightened, or ???
- don't know what rear brakes
- don't know what transmission, flywheel, clutch or driveshaft
- don't know what rear wheels or tires
- engine accessories ... fan removed ... what else?

So there are a lot of "don't knows" that leave a bunch of questions.

- how much gain from the rocker change? Klvn8r gained 17.5 hp in his test going from 1.6 to 1.7 with a lower lift cam than the Comp 292
- how much gain from the Armando road race pan ... it has a bolt-in windage tray and scrapers, so should reduce windage and improve power
- how much gain from the exhaust
- how much gain from the intake
- what is the effect of drivetrain changes

... lots of unknowns, so don't know how anyone can make any conclusive claims about any one part. Only thing that can be said is this dyno session produced better results with the new combo than the last dyno session with the old combo.

Reading anything more than that into the test is just speculation.

Thanks,RD.
Edit: fixed links

Edited by Red Devil - Nov/19/2015 at 11:42am

When doing any test, you have a control ... the "A" ... and what you're testing against it ... the "B". If you change more than one variable in a test, how do you know which one affected the result?

It is time consuming and expensive to test each variable to fully optimize a combination because it requires a lot of back-and-forth to optimize each part to the rest of the combo to achieve the best result.

So I respect that jtsllc1 may not have the resources to fully test each change ... just had hoped he would at least disclose when the first test was done and the full details of the car, engine and drivetrain combinations for both tests.

If he could swap the Torker back on and give it a run, it would show better the difference just between intakes on his current combo ... but it's his dime, so his call.

Thanks,RD.