We did run 6A... briefly. It was not a "happy" carb and didn't even make one full pull before we yanked it off and tried a different carb.

Not enough time to "go deep" on any one carb with multiple items on the test checklist.

I'm going to take a s.w.a.g. that a day on the dyno spent on tuning ONE carb is probably enough to get a basic carb sorted out, if the original tune isn't close.

That thing had issues for me also but it went into the 12's-13's on my car then I figured you'd sort it out from there but apparently Andy's testing showed it to be good also......... IF you would of spent more time on one as stated, the end results could of been better and ironed out.........good stuff and info guys........

And sometimes....... Even after a full day...... You might still not get there if what it really needs from the start is a booster change, and you don't have the pieces on hand to perform that operation.

In hindsight, we probably should have stuffed the 88/99 jets in it and made a pull with it, just to "get a number".

Agreed although a bit "outta the park" but the old adage of give it what it wants apply's a LOT when testing..........

No PCV. Unless I have some type of separator to ensure oil doesn't get sucked back into the induction system, I won't be using one, either. Oil in combustion chamber = Bad JuJu

If you notice Triple Threat copies me and than super tunes

How about going as big as possible on the pvcr? That is what I always do. But Im an idiot but it seems to work

Not sure why, but I feel a need to pick on the "big" carbs. From the results the AFR at WOT was pretty good on the big carbs, so there may not be much more power there. All of the tuning would be to get some measure of street manners. The "little" Demon didn't put up the numbers but I look at this way:
654HP
10+ with the added timing (conservative)
5+ with a flatter fuel curve (conservative)
2+ with the bigger spacer (complete guess)
=====
671HP
And it already has some decent manners. I know you go for every last bit, but are you going to even notice the difference of 10HP on a 700HP motor?!!!

For me, the Demon is the clear winner, and the best choice to spend time fine tuning.

Yeah, that'll be something I expect to try.

10 HP will definitely show up on the ET slip.

For me, there was no clear winner... but IMO one of the carbs tested isn't worth putting much -- maybe any -- effort into.

I feel if the fuel curve on the Demon could be sorted out, it would have made within a few hp of the others...... As they were.
It had the biggest spread in A/F ratio within a pull. Going from memory, it had areas near the bottom where it was in the 14's, and ended up in the 11's at the top.

I'm fairly certain there is 5-10hp left on the table if you could really get one of the annular carb combos dialed right in.

I base that off the last few pulls we made, in which we tried my dyno mule HP950, which was within a couple tq/hp of the others.
I have A/B'd that carb quite a few times against my old CFS built annular 850, and the CFS carb is usually worth 5hp+ over the my 950.
In all fairness though, while the CFS carb does make good power, it also would not have been any better at part throttle than the QFT carbs. It's pretty rich on the bottom.

The dyno mule HP950 is something I built from a bare Holley body and old style HP metering blocks. I used Braswell stepped boosters in it, and it has a tendency to slightly richen up from bottom to top.
Trying this carb on this motor for me was sort of a "control" test, to guage if the characteristic we were seeing of all the carbs richening up was something peculiar to the combo, or just what the carbs were doing.
If anything, on Brads motor, I'd say the dyno 950's tendency to richen up was slightly less than what is typical with it.

Also, I've run that carb on many motors and its never shown a problem being lean before, so again..... As a control item...... If it would have required a bunch of jet put in it, it would point the finger at a combo specific issue, not so much a carb issue.
The A/F ratio was mid/hi-12's for most of the pull, and richened up to low 12's at the end.....with the std jetting I had in it.

The motor itself didn't appear to present any out of the ordinary challenge for fuel delivery to the carbs...... The ones that required really big jets to get the wot A/F ratios right are just configured in a way where that was the case.
My dyno mule 950 was flowing plenty of fuel with only 75/84 jets(primary pv).

The motor was using about 20cfm more air at the top end of the pull with the bigger carbs....... So there is some power to be gained if the metering is really sorted out.

Yeah, something in the current tune w/ the Race Demon (which basically duplicated what my Gold Claw last used on the car) is just... wrong.

The previous dyno tests w/ the Gold Claw using a different emulsion config started & ended in a normal A-F range, but had a prominent lean swing in the mid-range. I thought the basic changes I made would have simply flattened out the curve, not make it go progressively richer as the RPM increased.

IIRC, (don't have my notes on hand), with both carbs set up w/ 1.42" venturi sleeves, .026 & 70 air bleeds, 80 pri & 90 sec jets, .035 IFRs, and the same .160" ID downleg boosters, the difference was the original Gold Claw emulsion stack was .031"/blank/.031"/blank/.031", whereas I set up the Race Demon with .028"/blank/blank/.028"/blank (more of a traditional Holley DP configuration). Regardless, the two tunes ran waaay differently re air-fuel curves than I would guessed.


That's what I'm hoping, but am in wait-and-see mode until the car's back on the track. One thing I did notice was the run w/ the QF 1.59 annular using the 32 MABs actually made more power across the RPM range, even though it went rich at the very end, than the subsequent runs where we leaned out the MABs.

That original QF 1.59 annular pull made more power across most of the RPM range than the QF 1.52 downleg did w/ the 88/98 tune, too. That 1.52 tune is quite a bit richer than I'd expected because the QFT RQ-1000 tune out-of-the-box has 82 & 88 jets and a much leaner .035 MAB. Those BLP .450" ID x .155" leg boosters worked REALLY differently than I anticipated. I thought w/ their improved booster signal that they'd want less jet, not more.

FWIW. I checked last night and verified the QFT RQ-1050-AN tune w/ THEIR metering blocks starts at 33 & 73 air bleeds, 84 pri & 90 sec jets, and .035 IFRs. I'm not 100% sure about their emulsion stack -- although I think whatever they don't plug gets .029" or .031" e-jets -- or their PVCRs size.

I put mine together using Holley Ultra XP .160" angle channel metering blocks with 32 & 73 bleeds, 84 & 92 jets, .035 IFRs (lowered), an emulsion stack of .0305"/blank/.0305"/blank/blank, and .059" PVCRs.

ALL of my carbs have room to mess w/ their tunes.

A 2-circuit Dominator built by me would of topped em all GUARANTEED as it has even on small blocks to the tune of 5-6 mph and .05+ in et reduction.........simple physics and a stout motor need lots of air n fuel and the fuel curve would make ya smile. Here's a "cool" deal I found the other day testing an 850 on my Dart. I had to put a 4150-Dommy adapter on my adapter upside down to test it and after getting heat in the motor and some foot brake climbs, I removed it and it was iced up on the base plate.......try that w/EFI.............NOT GONNA HAPPEN..........I will send Brad a 1050 to try someday if interested for a street/track test even w/out a hood if that's what it takes to see the difference so we can all get some info..........

Maybe some day Dominic.

FWIW, I plan in the next couple of days to post a "before" pull from my old combination and an "after" pull from the new one to see where & how much it picked up.

All good Brad but I always say that I will not compromise power for space or clearance especially when those that tried what I said got great results........not ALL but most...........

Here's one:
- Stg VI SFT A = Stage VIs w/ 266 at .050 x .600" on 108 SFT with ported Victor (no spacer, since it wouldn't fit under the old hood) and my Gold Claw carb set up with the 1.42" venturi sleeves

- Victor SR A = PRH Victors w/ 266 x .050 x .650" on 108 Solid Roller w/ mildy modified Trick Flow intake, 1" Super Sucker spacer, and the QFT 1.52 v downleg carb

I've got the raw #s, but thought the graph presented better. The thing that most stands out -- for me, at least -- is this wasn't simply a gain on the top end. It pretty much gained everywhere across the test RPM range.

You definitely picked up power with the Victor heads, roller cam and TF intake. Hard to say which was the most important ingredient but probably the heads. You'll feel that difference in power. Lots more area under the curve, even down low.

I like the low end TQ#,thx for posting