carb question

MikeG

VIP MEMBER
Country flag
What issues might I run into putting a set of 932 carbs on a stock non combat 750 engine? Is the reduction from 32mm carb to 28.5mm port in the head a deal breaker?
 
Why ? This head was designed to use 930's.
My 70 ran best with them into the smaller intake ports.
Use matching manifolds into the correct heat insulating washers to avoid any possible air dam effect from a mismatch situation.
 
It will work fine. My combat head self destructed and I replaced it with an earlier one with the smaller ports. Used the combat carbs, chamfered the Tufnol heat resistant washers. Bike runs fine, accelerates fine, pulls well. No problems at all.
 
Use the tapered manifolds, 32 at carb end, 30 at the port
The manifolds on it are 30MM at carb and 28.5MM at head. I was thinking of chamfering the carb end out a bit so as not to have an abrupt lip there but it's hardly noticeable so maybe not.
 
carb question
 
The increased power experienced while testing on a dynamometer has to be attributed to better fuel/air mixing. The stepping, as vell the venturi, will increase air speed and swirl. Swirl consumes energy and allows manifold pressure to increase (i.e., the partial vacuum will be reduced), affecting the volumetric efficiency of the engine. However, because of the improved mixing and higher gas speeds within the combustion chamber at the exhaust stroke, there may still be a positive net outcome.
In the low rpm range, the manifold pressure is higher because of dynamic effects within the combustion chamber. The net gain may turn into a loss because of the increase in manifold pressure along with no improved mixing.

I think the best strategy overall is to have a good carburettor (or injectors!) and even ducts, preventing large swirls. Rather experimenting with venturis, I would have focused on crancase ventilation. Keeping a partial vacuum in the crancase will promote a higher combustion chamber pressure and avoid pumping losses.

- Knut
 
On my old Nourish race bike I found that it produced slightly higher peak power with posh mk2 smoothbore Amals, but actually, it gave a better overall power curve with normal none smoothbore Amals. I have no idea why other than the none smoothbores caused some turbulence or swirl that was accidentally beneficial.
 
 
My former boss, Terrence Keneth Weatherly, had an Austin Healey 3000, and claimed his rough, as-cast ports were more efficient (more power) than the clean polished ones he did. I thought about that a lot
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: baz
I'm no expert...

I've always thought that smooth let the fuel/air in easier, but turbulent caused the fuel and air to mix better. I was told that by member of Gary Nixon's 1967 Triumph 500 Daytona winning team. Supposedly, they slightly smoothed out the manifolds and then slightly roughed them to get as much well mixed fuel and air into the cylinders as possible.
 
Mike just did this with my 750. Flared the intakes to match the carbs, not polished. 3.5 slides #2 needle in the richest clip setting 17 pilot. K&N filter and Baffled reverse megaphones. Runs great, it always ran better the my 850's. Just posted my problems with it not wanting to idle down. Hope to correct this tomorrow.
 
Mike just did this with my 750. Flared the intakes to match the carbs, not polished. 3.5 slides #2 needle in the richest clip setting 17 pilot. K&N filter and Baffled reverse megaphones. Runs great, it always ran better the my 850's. Just posted my problems with it not wanting to idle down. Hope to correct this tomorrow.
What port sizes are in your head? 30mm or 28.5mm?
 
Back
Top