What I Learned Today With Jeff Smith: Carb Height Vs. Engine Power- Thoughts ?

-

A56

MoPar Affliction
FABO Gold Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2014
Messages
13,513
Reaction score
48,124
Location
White Oak, N.C.


jeffsmith.thumbnail.jpg

By JEFF SMITH MARCH 28, 2023
Our friends at Westech performed a major dyno test a number of years ago that tested a whole series of single-plane small-block Chevy intake manifolds. One major detail that jumped out at us after all the data was assembled was that power for both average and peak horsepower was directly related to carburetor mounting pad height. This was measured between the rear carb mounting pad and the rear china wall point of the manifold. This sounds overly simplistic, but the data did not lie. We’ve pulled details from three Edelbrock small-block manifolds to illustrate this point.
The test engine was a 400ci small-block Chevy making nearly 550 horsepower. We assembled a chart that lists average and peak horsepower as well as the carburetor mounting height. By studying the chart, it’s clear that carb height plays an important role in both average torque and peak horsepower. The chart also indicates the power difference between the short Torker II and the taller manifolds. A 57-horsepower increase is certainly worthy of notice!
s-engine-power-2023-03-27_11-23-43_971882-1440x282.jpg

Another important point worth mentioning is that manifold port design plays a significant role in this trend. In other words, just bolting a 1-inch-tall spacer on a Torker II manifold will not improve power by 50 horsepower. But, it will help both average and peak power. The idea behind this is that by increasing the distance between the throttle plates on the carburetor to the plenum floor, it allows the air and fuel to more gradually transition into the intake ports and reduce turbulence. Another variable that can help with this transition is a larger CFM carburetor, because the larger venturi will slow air and fuel speed exiting the carburetor and allow the mass flow to more easily make the transition.
If increasing average torque along with peak horsepower is one of your goals and there’s room to fit a taller carbureted intake manifold under the hood, it’s worth the effort. As an aside, this same concept of a taller carb mounting height applies to dual-plane manifolds as well. It’s a simple idea – but it works!
s-engine-power-2023-03-27_15-23-34_894624-1440x960.jpg

The critical depth is the distance from the carb mounting flange to the manifold floor. As this depth increases, it offers more of a gradual turn for the air and fuel leaving the carburetor to enter the intake ports. A short height makes this transition much too abrupt which causes turbulence in the manifold and directly affects power.
 
3 different intakes not the same one with 3 different carb flange heights. Dyno one and add a spacer and dyno again. That would compare "carb height"
 
Both ways have merit but more testing is needed and the results only applies to that engine though similar results will happen with every engine. The power gains and losses will not be equal between engine but will still show. Also displacement has a roll.

I say, “Keep Testing!”
 
If you look at the best Engine Master Competition engines which are looking for best average power the major run very tall plenums and large carbs sounds like it's got merit to me.
 
Wouldn't a tunnel ram be the ultimate extension of this idea.
 
I would not believe anything Jeff Smith says. I remember errors & false conclusions in magazine articles written by him.
You have three intakes with different runner lengths, different runner CSA, different carb pad opening area, different shape of the divider entrance into the plenum, etc. In other words, a lot of variables that can account for different measured TQ & HP, other than carb height.
 
Both ways have merit but more testing is needed and the results only applies to that engine though similar results will happen with every engine. The power gains and losses will not be equal between engine but will still show. Also displacement has a roll.

I say, “Keep Testing!”

Says the guy with the tunnel ram and two carbs as his avatar! I think you just want to see more car/engine ****. :poke::lol:
 
Says the guy with the tunnel ram and two carbs as his avatar! I think you just want to see more car/engine ****. :poke::lol:
Dang! Ya got me! Guilty as charged.
I don't think it's a matter of height but more of an increase in plenum volume.
I think there’s a lot of things going on and I can be really sliced and diced up like a sushi chef showing off on Friday night.
 
Hasn't the "rule" for ages been-

longer runners = more torque?

...and doesn't more torque eventually equal more power?
 
There could be something with plenum volume in the test as well. The list goes on and on….
 
A couple of 700-750hp engine masters competition engines.
They seem to respond to tall carb position for whatever reason.

cleveland.png


01-Engine-Masters-2016-Ford-Cleveland-MPG-Heads.jpg
 
-
Back
Top