A few years back, I installed a Goodparts head (ported, polished, cc'd,
9.5:1 compression, reshaped valves, 1.65 roller rockers) and Goodparts
GP3 cam. I also had a Monza header, free flow exhaust, and K&N
filters. I ran this with the stock dual carb setup, and the car was
quick and fun. I ran it like this for about a year, then bought a new
header from Rimmer to replace the Monza header I had been using. I
also decided to upgrade to triple strombergs at that time. I am not
sure how much power difference the triples made over the duals, because
I never had it dynod. But it sure looks cool! And Goodparts has dynod
an engine with basically the same mods as my engine at 170hp. But he
never dynod one with dual carbs, so we may never know what the true
power gain of that third carb is...
One piece of advice though: don't go adding a third carb if you haven't
upgraded your head, cam and exhaust. You'll be wasting your money. No
sense adding more fuel if the engine can't breathe right.
I believe I may be selling my triple carb manifold in a few months, to
raise money for other projects. However, my manifold only fits the
early-style heads (I have a 1971 car), so keep this in mind. If and
when I decide to sell, I will let the 6pack list know first...
Tim Holbrook
1971 TR6
--- Don Malling <dmallin@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Hi Vance, Shane, Dick, and others
>
>
> Thanks for the response.
>
> I have a way of asking my questions in an obtuse way... :-)
>
> I did not mean to ask about the value of PI vs ZS. My real question
> is
> the value of triple ZS over stock dual ZS.
>
> Many folks say dual ZS are all that is required -- triple ZS will not
> add much. Yet Kastners manual shows a real difference between the
> stock
> dual ZS and PI, and he implies that PI vs ZS is the only difference
> between the two engines on the chart. This tells me that there may be
> some possible performance improvements to be made over the stock dual
> ZS
> carbs.
>
> I don't have the money or knowledge to pursue PI, but I have 4 ZS
> carbs,
> and am wondering if I should spend the $300+ for the triple ZS
> manifold.
>
> What does triple ZS accomplish in terms of Kastners dual ZS vs PI
> chart?
> That is, how much of an improvement is triple ZS over stock dual ZS?
> This is a street engine not a race engine. If I can't feel the
> difference, I'd probably rather spend the $300+ elsewhere.
>
> Maybe it's less than $300+???? Anyone out there in 6pack land have a
> triple ZS manifold they'd like to sell?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Don
>
>
>
>
> "Navarrette, Vance" wrote:
> >
> > Don:
> >
> > The reason PI performed so much better than ZS:
> >
> > 1. Better mixture balance between cylinders by virtue of
> > one injector per intake runner. Carbs are subject to
> > the vagaries of mixing and air flow in the plenum.
> > 2. PI cars have higher compression (9.5:1) compared to
> > a max of 8.5:1 for Carbs (later dropped to 7.75:1).
> > 3. The PI cars always had the dual exhaust system, which
> > gave better breathing than the single pipe on the
> > carb cars. Triumph later added the dual pipe to the
> > US spec cars to make up lost performance as emission
> > limits were steadily tightened.
> > 4. The PI cars had a better cam for most of their life.
> > The carb cars had a wimpy cam for most of their run.
> > Once again, the cam was upgraded later as emission
> > controls took their toll on the carb'ed cars.
> > 5. PI cars had lower gears, which gave better acceleration.
> > 7. Although it is less certain, the PI cars had a higher
> > rocker ratio giving more lift and duration for a
> > given cam (1.5:1 vs 1.45:1). This point has been
> > disputed.
> > 8. The PI cars had cold air induction, the carb'ed cars
> > never did. Cold air is denser, which allows more
> > fuel to be burned, which makes more power.
> >
> > So you see, it is much more complicated that just bolting
> > n PI and expecting 150HP "because PI is better". No doubt PI is
> > better, but it is just part of a whole package that gave better
> > performance on the European spec'ed cars. The PI cars
> > got TERRIBLE mileage relative to their US counterparts. From
> > memory (always dicey with me) it was about 9mpg worse on PI
> > cars.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Vance
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > 1974 Mimosa Yellow Triumph TR6
> > Cogito Ergo Zoom
> > (I think, therefore I go fast)
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Don Malling [mailto:dmallin@attglobal.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 6:58 PM
> > To: 6-Pack
> > Subject: PI vs dual ZS vs triple ZS -- dumb questions
> >
> > Some say that dual ZS are sufficient until I run over 5000 rpm for
> over
> > one minute, because that is where I will run into fuel starvation
> with
> > dual ZS. Some say triple ZS will add to performance at any RPM.
> >
> > What is it about PI that provides a performance increase over
> > carburetion?
> >
> > Is it a case where a theoretically very small carburetor could
> never
> > provide enough fuel air mixture to a theoretically very large
> engine
> > without running too rich -- I assume running too rich means that
> the
> > fuel is not being atomized or vaporized correctly? On the other
> hand, a
> > theoretically very large carburetor could not provide correctly
> mixed
> > fuel/air to a theoretically very small engine because the
> theoretically
> > very small engine can not produce enough air flow to make the
> > theoretically very large carburetor work correctly?
> >
> > Hmmm.... Is that it? There has to be a balance between the "size"
> of the
> > carburetor and the "size" of the engine for things to work
> correctly?
> > And even when working correctly (the best it can work), the
> carburetor,
> > by its nature, still can not generate as much correctly mixed
> fuel/air
> > as can the PI?
> >
> > If this is the case, then were does triple ZS fall in the scheme of
> > things -- on a scale of 1-10, where 1 is dual ZS and 10 is PI?
> Maybe
> > the answer is at low RPM triple ZS is at a 2 and at high RPM triple
> ZS
> > is at 7?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Don Malling
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
|