Listers:
I was re-reading my own post (probably should have done that before
sending it in the first place) and realized that what was in my head
wasn't when it came out--which could lead to a misunderstanding on the
part of those reading it.
When Steve L clarified a historical fact (that Vic Edelbrock and Doane
Spencer had developed the F4B combination with the PCV port using the
front runner) I put that together with Steve K's post on the lean runner
problem (in response to another lister's question about hooking the PCV
to the rear vacuum port over the #8 runner, I think) and wondered how
the Edelbrock company would respond. I wasn't trying to 'catch'
Edelbrock out, I just wondered what they would say about what appeared
to me (based on Steve K's post) to be a design flaw in the original
Edelbrock developed aftermarket F4B setup .
Posting the response from Edelbrock was intended to:
1. Support Steve K's post about leaning out the runners, since they said
basically the same thing as he did.
2. Augment Steve L's clarification af a historical fact about the F4B by
pointing out that:
A). Edelbrock representatives today are unaware of what had been done by
their own company forty years ago. Perhaps that's not surprising, but
it's still disappointing. I imagined them having this vast database of
past company info at their fingertips. Not very realistic, I guess.
B). I wanted to share what I thought was an ironic twist; What the tech
guy was telling me (and didn't seem to realize that he was implying) was
that the F4B aftermarket package that Vic Edelbrock (the tech guy's own
boss) helped develop 40 years ago is technically flawed by today's
standards and today's understanding of engine airflow dymnamics.
It also seemed to me that the tech guy was indirectly suggesting that I
buy one of their current carburetors in order to solve my clearance
problem and that he didn't know much about Sunbeam Tigers (the last is
certainly understandable, though also disappointing). As an aside, I
think it might be better for me to try to figure out how to make lots of
power with a low-rpm engine which would mean I could use the low-rise
manifold, keep my PCV spacer and avoid the problem.
This isn't and wasn't intended to slam anyone. I realized on re-reading
that it could be taken that way and I didn't want that to happen.
Anyway, I apologize for the garbled previous post.
Best Regards
David Sosna
sosnaenergyconsulting wrote:
> Well, beating a dead horse isn't quite my intention. The point that
> was made recenty about tapping into an intake runner causing a lean
> condition and then Steve L's mentioning that Doane and Edelbrock had
> actually used the front runner for the PCV connection on the Tiger got
> me curious--so I wrote the Edelbrock tech department and, explaining
> that I have a '66 Tiger, asked them both of the above questions.
|