• Welcome to For E Bodies Only !

    We are a community of Plymouth Cuda and Dodge Challenger owners. Join now! Its Free!

carburator confusion

volcanocar

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 25, 2015
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
I was looking through and doing a bit or research about carb sizing for various applications and it ended up leaving me with another question. why did the 440 six pack need 1200cfm worth of carbs but every where you look carb calculators and people building engines all recommend a 750 -850?
it just seems like even engines now adays that are putting out the same power numbers as the 70s are not using carbs near as big.
 

moparleo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
7,102
Reaction score
1,886
Location
So. Cal. Riverside area Moreno Valley
Remember that that was 3 carbs. It usually only ran on one of them, unless you floored the gas pedal. So if you take your 1200 cfm's and divide by 3, you get 600 cfm's. Actually a little small for a 440 ci. .
 

volcanocar

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 25, 2015
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
I understand that it was 3 2bbl carbs but total at wide open throttle its 1200, why did they think it necessary for that much cfm?
 

volcanocar

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 25, 2015
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
And if I recall correctly the middle carb was a 500 while the two secondary carbs were 350
 

AUSTA

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
937
Reaction score
503
Location
PERTH WA
Another site states only the 340 6 pak had a 355 CFM centre carby the 440 was 1350 in total using the below method from The Carburettor shop the four barrel equiv comes in at 954 CFM which is in the region of what some folks use recommending.
CFM ratings are more accurate than physical carburetor sizes, as the CFM rating takes into account the venturi size of the carburetor. It is not uncommon for a given physical size (see Carburetor sizes paragraphs) to have many different internal venturi sizes. Early Stromberg and Zenith carbs could have as many as 9 different venturi sizes for a given physical size. Carburetor CFM ratings have been around since at least the 1920’s; however many O.E. (original equipment) carburetors never had published CFM ratings. I have not seen any actual agreement that stated that it had to be this way, but the early published ratings that I have seen for 1-barrel and 2-barrel carburetors were measured at 3 inches of mercury. This rating was about the amount of vacuum available on engines of the period under wide-open throttle conditions.



Sometime during the 1950’s, engineers found that a passenger engine with a four-barrel carburetor would not maintain a vacuum of 3 inches of mercury at wide-open throttle; and by some convention 1 ½ inches of mercury was chosen for rating 4-barrel carburetors. The ratings for 1-barrel and 2-barrel carburetors were left unchanged.



To convert from one system to another (with a very small percentage of error) is relatively simple. Simply use the square root of 2 (1.414). Thus to convert a two-barrel rating into a four-barrel rating, divide the two-barrel rating by 1.414. To convert the four-barrel rating to a two-barrel rating, multiply the four-barrel rating by 1.414.



This worked very well up through the mid-1960’s, when carburetor comparison tests became popular in car magazines. One carburetor company determined that the results could be skewed by rating their carburetors “dry” (air only), instead of the conventional “wet” (a non-flamable liquid with the density property of gasoline and air mixed). Rating the carburetor dry would add approximately 8 percent to the rating (example – a carburetor rated on the four-barrel rating scale at 500 CFM would now amazingly flow 540 CFM).



As the general public was unaware of the “wet” versus “dry”, this system worked fairly well until the mid-1980’s when it seems that other scales were “needed”. No attempt will be made to explain ratings of carburetors produced after 1980. The best way to compare these units would be throttle area (which was a measurement used back in the 1950’s and 1960’s); or more accurately, the comparitive area of the main venturi. On the later carburetors, best to write to the company, and ask at what vacuum the carburetor was tested, and whether it was tested wet or dry. If this information cannot be obtained, then the rating is suspect.


Info found at The Carbeuretor Shop LLC.
 

moparleo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
7,102
Reaction score
1,886
Location
So. Cal. Riverside area Moreno Valley
One thing to remember about any carburetor is that they work on demand. In other words the more the throttle plates open, the more air flow. Carburetors have cfm flow ratings, That doesn't mean that it will actually flow that much on your particular set up. In the 70's the larger Thermo-quads were rated at 800-850 cfm. In 1971, the 340 came with the 800 cfm carb while the 440 came with an 850 cfm rating.
 

73DAD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
45
Reaction score
11
Location
Eastern Indiana
So if you take your 1200 cfm's and divide by 3, you get 600 cfm's. Actually a little small for a 440 ci. .
Yikes, better recheck those figures there Mr. Leo...

Something to consider. Some sanctioning bodies required the factory equipped carb to be used. That's why you see some of the top hp era engines with way more cfm than they really need for a street motor.

440 six pack 390hp 1200cfm
440 holley 4bbl 350hp (c-body) 570cfm
 

volcanocar

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 25, 2015
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
So what did they do for the street cars? Jet the carb way down so it didn't Flood it at wide open?
 
Back
Top