https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMHgbFPEVXA

This may help all our bog problems???

I wouldn't mind trying this on my Eddy 500.

 

It looks great, but I'm not buying all the hype about R&D--for a piece of brass sheet?

So, I wonder how it would work with an Autolite 4100, or the Summit Carb, that has 6 squirts per side. That would be interesting to see.

Thanks for the link.

 

I too wonder if I would have known about this before I changed carburetors how my holley 600 would have responded to this slight mod.

 

I have often looked down my carb and thought, there has to be something better. Atomization couldn't possibly be optimal with those squirters.
$44 for a Holley 1460. I'll let you all know how well it works or doesn't work once I get it delivered and installed.

 

Please and thank you!!!

 

I remember talking to one of the chief petty officers in my department, back in the '90s, He talked about putting a brass screen between the carb and intake on an old truck. He said he got better gas mileage and performance.

 

That kind of BS was real big during the gas crunch and oil embargo in the 1970s. Platinum wire screens and propellors and all manner of snake oil. "Can increase fuel mileage by up to 35%!! As seen on TV". Doesn't do **** except lighten yer wallet.

 

anecdotal evidence

That is what it is referred to when scientific claims are made and not backed by the scientific experimental process of determining if a specific change is responsible for a specific improvement in performance. An experiment should be done that isolates one variable change at a time, usually in an A-B-A format of control-variable-control process.

I hear false claims all the time - everything from better mileage, more performance, to removing up to fifteen pounds of "belly bloat" or lose up to 30 lbs in the first month of a weight loss program. Unless it is confirmed by the scientific method of testing I take it all with more than a little bit of skepticism.

I have actually run controlled dynamometer A-B-A tests on various products on the market. It always amused me to present these findings in a meeting to the proponent of some whizbang gadget they are trying to hawk and listen to the excuses of why it did no good. "You have a 'not invented here' attitude, your tests are invalid," yadda,yadda. I don't have any experience with this gadget so I'll not comment specifically on it. But at least show me some repeatable test results done by a reliable testing agency before I give a serious listen.

 

This makes a lot of sense why it would work. It's like putting your thumb over the end of a garden hose and dispersing the spray. The more dispersed and "spray" like the fuel is, the easier it is to atomize.

I'm game to give this a try. The price is a little bit up there for what it is, but something's gotta pay for the R&D.

Honestly, I see nothing negative about this. Even if it doesn't work great, it still should offer some form of improvement.

 

My guess is that development stopped on making carburetors better once EFI came along. So, sure, things like this will come about, they may even be useful if they work.

 

I installed one on my Holley 390 today. I had to change the actual squirter to one without the brass nipples so that it would sit flush with the plate. Luckily I have a few odd different ones sitting around.
It does feel crisper. I started her up this evening and wasn't thinking about it much, turned the key, crank crank, pumped the pedal as she fired and said, oh my.
Does it correlate to better performance,.. I don't know. The only baseline stat that I have is mpg that I've religiously kept for 4 years now. I don't really see how it would increase mpg as the squirter remains the same size, same shot and all. Tomorrow I'll try playing with pump cams and see what happens.
It does sound cool and quicker.

 

Awesome!! Keep us updated please! If performance is increased I'm game to buy this!

😬

 

Ctubitis - remember there was about 80-90 years worth of work on carburetors before EFI became common... a well designed carb has some very sophisticated design in it.

 

Carloespo, definitely keep us updated.


My thoughts on this are such:

Will it improve mpg? If it works right, maybe slightly. If it gives crisper throttle response, you won't have to get into it as much to get moving, or you can put on a smaller squirter and get the same throttle response you had before. Every little bit adds up, but you probably wouldn't notice.

Will it improve hp? Not peak hp, but it may slightly at the bottom end by increasing your torque due to a better fuel mixture.

Is there room for improvement on carburetors? Shouldn't they have thought of this a long time ago? Who knows. Not everyone thinks of everything. There's a lot of things that are designed by computers nowadays and that technology just didn't exist back then. They also may have simply come up with different ideas that did work, but those ideas were more expensive, so they equated to more expensive carburetors. That's why high performance carbs are more expensive, and probably don't need something like this. But, on a low end, generic carb, something like this could help overcome some of those missing features that high end carbs have. Who knows.

This is all, of course, just brainstorming.

My bottom line is, if it improves throttle response, it's worth every penny. I don't care if it doesn't do anything else. A single Holley squirter is $25, and if its the wrong size, you have to go buy another, so what's $40 for a part that's said to help them work better?

Unlike other "snake oil" contraptions I've seen come and go, knowing how carbs work, this one actually makes sense to me.

Since you posted this, I've read several other forums where people are all discussing it as well. Everyone is saying the same thing. Either A: I can actually see why this would work. Or B: They would have thought of this long ago if so. But no one has C: tried it yet!

So... keep us posted Carloespo.

 

In the first several years of testing multi-port fuel injection it was postulated that smaller, finer droplet size fuel coming from the end of the injector would aid evaporation and improve burn rate and maybe emissions. To that end I devised an experiment whereby the high pressure stream of fuel coming out of the injector nozzle impinged on a surface to break up the droplets of fuel into tinier bits prior to entering the cylinder. I tried flat deflectors, tiny spoon shaped deflectors - both concave and convex - and various surface finishes - pebble-grained, pock-marked, etc. None of these attempts had any appreciable affect on engine performance. What did ultimately help was better injector design that gave smaller droplet size, such as SMM (silicone micro-machined) multi holed injectors.

In the case of a carb pump squirter lets look at the math:
A typical Holley 4-V carb has a 30 cc pump. Some have a 50 cc pump. Contrary to popular belief that is not how much fuel comes out of the squirters when the throttle is fully opened, but rather it is how much fuel comes out of that pump circuit when the carb is bench tested and the pump is completely cycled through ten complete openings. Further, some of that 3ccs is returned back to the fuel bowl through a return bleed depending on squirter size and pump cam profile. For a typical acceleration from idle to highway speeds experiments show most drivers only mash the the throttle down 40% of the way. It is easy to imagine that for a typical accel that maybe only 1 cc of fuel gets delivered by the squirters. Compare that to the total amount of fuel delivered to the engine (I won't continue to do the math here as it is highly drive cycle and vehicle specific, but suffice it to say it may be only a very tiny portion of the fuel used). I believe it was Professor Heywood who said "Only nothing makes no difference", but the gains by further dispersing the pump shot may be too small for us to measure reliably.