Although I have taken some pics, I haven't downloaded them from the digi-cam, yet. In the mean time, here's some data from what I've tested:
Carb ------------------------------------------------------------ (TM) --Dry Flow -- Calc'd Wet
Holley 3310-2 with choke ----------------------------------- (A) ----- 796.6 ----- 732.9
Holley 3310-2 with choke ----------------------------------- (B) ----- 811.6 ----- 746.7
Quick Fuel 950 1.45 v body on Demon RS baseplate -(C) ----- 964.4 ----- 887.2
Quick Fuel 950 1.45 v body on Demon RS baseplate -(D) ----- 963.0 ----- 886.0
BG (Gold Claw / Demon RS) 1.425 venturi sleeve ------ (C) ----- 960.4 ----- 883.6
BG (Gold Claw / Demon RS) 1.425 venturi sleeve ------ (D) ----- 958.1 ----- 881.5
BG (Gold Claw / Demon RS) 1.500 venturi sleeve ------ (C) ----- 982.9 ----- 904.3
BG (Gold Claw / Demon RS) 1.500 venturi sleeve ------ (D) ---- 1001.3 ----- 921.2
BG (Gold Claw / Demon RS) 1.562 venturi sleeve ------ (C) ----- 994.1 ----- 914.6
BG (Gold Claw / Demon RS) 1.562 venturi sleeve ------ (D) ---- 1012.0 ----- 931.0
Test Methods (TM):
1. Method A means this test was of a single primary bore AND then a single secondary bore with the results being added together and the sum multiplied x 2 for a Total Dry Flow #
2. Method B means this test was of both primary bores AND then both secondary bores with the results being added together for a Total Dry Flow #
3. Method C means this test was of a single bore (either primary OR secondary since the venturi have symmetrical entries) and multiplied the result x 4 for a Total Dry Flow #
4. Method D means this test was of either both primary OR both secondary bores (all venturi have symmetrical entries) and multiplied the result x 2 for a Total Dry Flow #
Other comments:
A. Not sure about the discrepancy between why the A and B results for the Holley 3310-2 varied as much as they did. The primary bore(s) results were virtually identical with both methods; all the variation was experienced during the tests of the secondary bores. I've read where some carbs when testing multiple venturi at the same time show better results than trying to combine the results of the individual venturi... this seems to be an example of that.
B. Test Methods B and D required lowering the test pressure significantly due to the small capacity of my SF-110. However, trying to test the two highest-flowing combinations using Method D required dropping the test pressure so low that I believe that lower pressure introduced a level of inaccuracy not experienced with the other tests.
C. The Calc'd Wet Flow results are simply the Total Dry Flow #s x .92 to subtract some flow for a theoretical 12.5:1 A/F ratio. I have no idea how close this comes to the reality of actually wet-flowing a carb, but it's something of an industry standard. I also suspect that if it's an "in the ballpark" correction value that .92 adjustment probably doesn't work for something like an annular booster which has different atomization characteristics that use more of the available airflow.
D. The Total Dry Flow #s posted include a 2% temperature correction (reduction) factor on my flow bench for intake results. If you want the raw Dry Flow #s, take my Total Dry Flow # and divide by .98 to get the pre-correction #. Example: 982.9 + .98 = 1003.0
E. The Demon RS 1.75 baseplate used for testing the Quick Fuel main body and the various BG (Gold Claw / Demon RS) venturi combinations has slabbed throttle shafts which are supposed to be worth 20 +/- cfm over standard round throttle shafts used by most Holley carbs, Proform carbs, Mighty Demon, etc. Quick Fuel uses a similar slabbed throttle shaft with their Q-Series and Race Q carbs.
F. I have no idea how BG came up w/ the wet flow #s they published when the Gold / Silver Claws came out (see the #s I listed in an earlier post on this thread). I know my test equipment is freakin' primitive, and maybe not having a "big gun" flow bench is skewing the peak #s lower for the larger venturi combinations, but...
