Edelbrock AVS2 on stock dual-plane 383 manifold

[Geoff 2]

Not in the test that I have.......The 383 S/bee was a little lighter......by 125 lbs, NOT 173lbs, & 95 lbs lighter than the Cyclone. It also had the smallest engine in the test [ you missed that ]. The 383 gave up 45 cu inches to the 428 Ford but got the same 1/4 time.
The testers rated the SB 2nd [ you missed that too ]. The SB was equal 3rd , not 4th out of 5 cars [ not 6, the Pontiac was disqualified for cheating ] .
Here they are:
396 Chev 14.41
SB 14.04
Cobra 14.04
Cyclone 13.94
RR with hemi 13.54.
The Cobra & SB both had 3.5 diffs; the Cyclone had a 3.91 diff & was 95 lb heavier. Had it had a 3.5 diff it may have well have been a 1/10 th slower.....at 14.04 which is mentioned in the text.
The Fords had 'special traction tyres', & the Cyclone could take full throttle off the line that none of the other cars could....

Nice try!

 

[66 Sat]

Geez Geoff you're hard work.
The whole point of my post was you can somehow glean from a test of 6 different cars that the brand of carburetor is the sole reason why a car will go faster or slower, and then you can cherry pick some statistics to somehow prove that Carter (or Edelbrock in other posts) are supreme, and Holley are pieces of ****.
This is the common theme on the majority of your posts.
I have the same Car and Driver test you are referring. "The Super Bee was fourth in acceleration and third in both braking and handling". These aren't my words. They are from the article. Yes it matched the 14.04 of the Cobra, but it was 1 mph slower through the traps, so they rated in behind the Ford.

The Super Bee did indeed finish 2nd overall - I didn't miss it, but it's not relevant as the overall score was related to the car as a whole, not what carburetor it has or how fast it went.

I didn't miss the size of the Super Bee engine either. Again it's not relevant.

The weight differences I quoted were also correct - I was including all the cars in the test.

You love Carter/Edelbrock, you hate Holley. Fine, we get that. I'm lucky to have 3 carbs from both brands - I can see the good and bad in all of them, and I think it's the right thing to do to point out faults or disadvantages to members who are asking for advice, instead of only giving one side of the story. If they are going to drop $500 or so of their hard-earned they deserve the truth, not some skewed version.

 

[Geoff 2]

I am old-er, but still young enough to learn......

And what I have learned from this thread is a valuable lesson: to be veeeeeeeeeeery careful who you chose to help.

I helped 66 Sat...& his engine runs better as a result.

He accuses me of 'cherry picking'. Convenient, huh. I did miss that the 383 had bigger pipes & a DP dist. This is what he omitted [ cherry picking?], mentioned in the text:
[1] p. 54. The 'remarkable' traction of the Cyclone's tyres & this direct quote: " Mercury would take full throttle off the line which neither the Ford NOR ANY OTHER OF THE TEST CARS COULD DO.
The implication in that statement is that the other cars lost time in the 1/4 mile from lack of take off grip.
[2] Another omission from 66 Sat on p.54. Quote: " The higher numerical axle ratio gave the Cyc a slight advantage in acceleration times. IT WAS ABOUT A TENTH OF A SECOND QUICKER IN THE STANDING QUARTER MILE." They are implying that if the Cyc had the same 3.5 axle, it would run a 14.04 quarter mile......exactly the same as the other Ford & the 383.

This thread was about a 650 AVS on a 383. My input was to show that the AVS was more than big enough for the desired application. I included the Econo Racers test [ post #19 ] to show how well the small AVS carb performed on a 383, & equalled or bettered in acceleration, cars with bigger carbs. [ Incidentally, I think I quoted the Holley as being 715 cfm; I believe it was 735 cfm ].

I purposely omitted the car weights in post #19. Because they were irrelevant when you look at the total package. The Cobra was 3.3% heavier than the Dodge; the Cyclone was 2.5% heavier; both Fords had engines that had 11.7% more cubic inches. Which do think is going to make a more noticeable difference?

I will give one last piece of free advice to 66 Sat & then he can go to buggary & never contact me again. [Old Aussie expression that he will know ].
The Edel AVS. I think he got a dud carb, maybe a Friday carb. Because it should wipe the floor with a 600 Holley. Maybe booster holes not drilled right through. It does happen. There was a batch of 625 AFBs many years ago that had a manufacturing defect. The idle mixture passages consist of drilled interconnecting passages. One passage was not drilled deep enough leading to a stumble.

 

[RemCharger]

Troll.

 

[Geoff 2]

You mean like you?