Saying it's all about the amount of air is over simplifying things. DEPENDING ON THE COMBINATION, a smaller carb can ET & MPH better than a larger carb when it has better shift recovery.
That I doubt.
I had a 950 on my 318, local friends told me car would ET better with a 750. It didn't. Wouldn't run within a tenth of the 950.
Brett and others on here said beforehand what happened is what would be the case. Me being hardheaded, I had to try it.
Doubt all you want, but I'm one of at least three people I know who switched from a Holley 850 w/ 1.56" v x 1.75" t to the Holley HP "950" (b.s. CFM #) w/ 1.38" v x 1.75" t and picked up.
I dynoed both carbs and they made virtually the same the same peak HP & torque #s, but on the track the smaller-venturi carb was over a tenth quicker in the 60, and .2 ET & 2 MPH faster in the 1/4. It was all in the smaller carb's ability to recover from the drop in shift RPM faster, plus it was more responsive off the launch. FWIW, w/ the 850 it ran 11.7s at 116 w/ 1.70 60-ft; with the "950" it went 11.5s at 118 with a 1.55 60.
Is it combination-dependent? Absolutely. And I'm sure the less RPM drop between the shift RPM and the converter RPM post-shift, the less of an improvement it would be. But it does go to show that just putting on a bigger carb is no guaranty of improved on-track performance.
A lot of people on here have trouble accepting that, since the same people keep saying "My car always ran faster with a bigger carb." Yep, "yours" did, others haven't. I know what my own results showed, along w/ some others who had similar improvements, in back-to-back testing. Bigger is no guaranty of better.
