View Single Post
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 01-09-2024, 02:05 PM
Buddy Rawls's Avatar
Buddy Rawls Buddy Rawls is offline
CC Member
Visit my Photo Gallery

 
Join Date: Sep 2022
Location: HSV/Madison, AL
Cobra Make, Engine: ‘92 Unique 289 FIA w/8.2" SBF
Posts: 31
Not Ranked     
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaider View Post
Actually, it has everything to do with eliminating the flow imbalances, Buddy.
optimizing A/F has nothing to do flow parameter imbalances. optimizing A/F cylinder to cylinder is a compensation for those flow imbalances. You cannot improve flow of a motor by A/F compensation. it doesnt work that way. You are simply tuning the motor cylinder to cylinder, compensating for those for those differences cylinder to cylinder.

Ok, I see your issue. You wrote "If you accept the premise that individual (mass) air flows for cylinders of the same volume, vary in relation to intake runner size and volume, then obviously, making all intake runners the same shape and length eliminates the variable and the differentiation."

yes, that fixes the situation of needing different lobes by cylinder. But that is not the question. The question was, if differing lobes for the cylinders for a single plane intake manifold design a snake oil concept? The differing lobes on one cylinder to the next is used to compensate for flow parameter differences. When the question is about the reasoning for a multi pattern cam within its design parameter, ie the typical single plane manifold, your answer is, if it had an IR manifold it wouldn’t need such a cam. You’re basically agreeing that different flow cylinder to cylinder can benefit from a cam that address cylinder to cylinder differences.

If this was a class motor that had specific rules for intake manifolds, the answer is not use a different manifold. So is it snake oil? No it’s not. But if you go with an OTS camshaft that may not respond to the actual motors’ flow differences it’s junk.

Last edited by Buddy Rawls; 01-09-2024 at 04:57 PM..
Reply With Quote