I must agree with Ed. Don't change a thing.
Besides, the really big discrepancy is between positive displacement
blowers and turbos. The horsepower needed to drive the positive displ. deal
is put right into the trans input shaft. Wheee!
Now trying to control the fuel mixture on an induction system with linear
fuel flow and an exponential boost curve is at least tricky but can be
accomplished without electronics...........just not easily. Ken Walkey did
it with a centrifugal supercharger and the fuel flow followed the boost
curve "exactly" according to Ken. The engine certainly ran like the mixture
was awfully close. Now maybe he could have gotten a bit more out of it with
electronics but there has to be something for the tuner to do (maybe to
his/her detriment though). The deal Ken used could easily be used to "fine
tune" the positive displ setups too.
So I think that if anything is to be adjusted as a result of technological
development it should be in the "boost" category. It could be that turbo
boosted engines advance two displacement classes. Sort of like it used to
be in the nostalgic days (whenever that was).
Thanks for the opportunity to join in the forum.
Skip Higginbotham in Texas, 9:10 PMCST
At 08:36 PM 12/8/99 , you wrote:
>I have been following this thread with great interest. My own opinion is don't
>change a thing. Besides, what do you do with somebody like me that scrapped
>the OEM electonic injection and replaced it with a Holly 4-barrel? I've got
>it!! We devise a new class called RETRO for those people that took a giant
leap
>backward in technology!!
>Ed
>
>ECTA845@aol.com wrote:
>
>> It look's like I'll have to side with Doug and John on this one.As I
>> slowly work on my Monza for racing I can't not look at the electronics that
>> are out there.You can bet if I have the cash to use them to my advantage I
>> will.
>>
>> Thank's Randy Williams
>> ECTA # 845
|