Real Fiero Tech

Dont miss this event, http://www.goodson.com/landing/vizard.php

Planning on missing it..

David Vizard is definitely a tall figure in the relatively small world of carbeuretted V8 motorsports. He has a LOT of good things to say, and I'd love to go to one of his seminars.

A lot of his material is on porting, airflow and mixture preparation.
While each head is different, ports are universal. Development of a truly high end race port works the same way whether you're working on a SBC, Northstar or Mercedes V12.
Some of his material on mixture preparation is applicable to EFI, some isn't. The big deal take away is that a well set up race carb does a *BETTER* job at mixture preparation than conventional port EFI.

Will, you are so right. - - - "The big deal take away is that a well set up race carb does a *BETTER* job at mixture preparation than conventional port EFI".

EFI cant win the engine masters but for those that want to learn (or can, read the itinerary in my link) David is the best and this seminar (that I arranged) is being held at Tuned Port Injection Specialties so EFI will be discussed in depth like never before.

I'll start by reiterating that I think David Vizard would be a great guy learn from and I still want to attend.

bigblockfiero wrote:Will, you are so right. - - - "The big deal take away is that a well set up race carb does a *BETTER* job at mixture preparation than conventional port EFI".

EFI cant win the engine masters

Because the engine "masters" rules are biased against EFI. The throttle and injectors have to be in the same place as stock? That's not remotely fair, compared to the latitude given to carbeuretted manifolds. I haven't read this/next years' rules, though.

I think you know better than to think that I've reversed my stance when considering carbs vs. EFI...

I said that a well set up race carb is better at preparing the mixture; this means droplet size, homogeneity, vapor fraction.

EFI is still better at fuel metering and cylinder to cylinder mixture distribution.

A *fully developed* racing EFI system will eat a carb'd system at the same level of development for breakfast because it will have the mixture preparation AND metering AND cylinder distribution... but that's a throttle per cylinder intake with the injectors way up the runners vs Webers or similar. EMC would *NEVER* allow that.

The EFI rules are ment to prevent a guy from jacking his fuel pressure to the moon, then using the injecter to artificially aspirate the engine. That would certainly not be fair unless others could install a supercharger power adder or ????
This way everybodys V.E. is gotten honestly by clever flow technologies and timing.

bigblockfiero wrote:The EFI rules are ment to prevent a guy from jacking his fuel pressure to the moon, then using the injecter to artificially aspirate the engine. That would certainly not be fair unless others could install a supercharger power adder or ????
This way everybodys V.E. is gotten honestly by clever flow technologies and timing.

I have no idea where you got that bit about fuel pressure, but it's utter nonsense. Injection at 500 psi will inject *fuel* into the engine, but no more air (and no more fuel) than running 45 psi of fuel pressure. What 500 psi of pressure will do is give EFI mixture quality (droplet size) better than that of the best carbs. Running that much pressure is pretty difficult and expensive, though, which is why almost no one does it in motorsports generally and no one at all does it in EMC. Usually that much fuel pressure is used with direct injection, which puts any out-of-cylinder method of fuel delivery utterly to shame.

How's this for fair?

If your engine of choice is a Cadillac 472/500, and you run it with a carb, you can use the high rise Edelbrock intake manifold (or whatever you want as long as it mounts a 4 barrel). However, if you want to run EFI, you have to use a manifold that puts the throttle in the same position as the stock squashed manifold that's so low the runners come *UP* to the ports. The carb gets to run a much better manifold than the EFI. That's not fair at all.

That's based on my reading of a previous years' rules. If the modern rules are different/better, I'd be glad to hear about it, but it doesn't affect my life enough for me to go look them up.

Vizard? Not as clever, or as right, as he claims.
I've seen a magazine build unwittingly disprove a couple of his claims about speccing a cam. I've dis-proved a couple, also.
His love of Holleys and Demons may be great for Nascar, but he has no understanding of the real-world-superior Quadra-Jet.
He uses single-pattern cams in builds that NEED dual -patterns.
He builds awesome peak torque with great HP, but NO low-end to drive around on.
And all his builds always have massive dips in the torque curve, usually more than one.
He builds race engines, not street engines that can be raced and will win, like Awesome John (Lingenfelter) did.
Lots of modern builders impress me. But the lessons this guy has learned have no relevance.
I guarantee on my very soul that I could put ALL of his magazine builds to shame, getting the same in-car acceleration performance with more MPG, more idle vacuum, and emissions-clean, for less money. Hell, none of his cams are ever emissions-capable anymore.
Vizard? We don't need him.

Attila, is there anybody qualified enough to tech you anything?
You should enter the engine masters and school the whole country, Im not being funny here im just saying that if you have these talents then please share them with the rest of us.

If any others of you went to this event you would certainly learn something. Regarding fuel injection, Speaker- Dave Storline "engine masters" will give a demonstration of the absence of pre-fuel emulsification within an injection system and its effect on horsepower.

Also top fuel driver and engine builder "Doug Herbert" of herbert cams will also be in attendance and a speaker at this event.

Now you have me wondering Atilla, what is the quadrajet advantage you are referring too. Back in the day I used to set up quadrajets and with my kits that tune the vacuume advance diaphram/accelerator pump shot, to the secoundary mixture butterfly opening speed.
Maybe your talking about something else or somebody is making knock-offs of my kits.

More info:
http://www.davidvizardseminars.com/

Atilla the Fun wrote:Vizard? Not as clever, or as right, as he claims.
I've seen a magazine build unwittingly disprove a couple of his claims about speccing a cam. I've dis-proved a couple, also.
His love of Holleys and Demons may be great for Nascar, but he has no understanding of the real-world-superior Quadra-Jet.
He uses single-pattern cams in builds that NEED dual -patterns.
He builds awesome peak torque with great HP, but NO low-end to drive around on.
And all his builds always have massive dips in the torque curve, usually more than one.
He builds race engines, not street engines that can be raced and will win, like Awesome John (Lingenfelter) did.
Lots of modern builders impress me. But the lessons this guy has learned have no relevance.
I guarantee on my very soul that I could put ALL of his magazine builds to shame, getting the same in-car acceleration performance with more MPG, more idle vacuum, and emissions-clean, for less money. Hell, none of his cams are ever emissions-capable anymore.
Vizard? We don't need him.

More?

Doug Herbert is promoting this event but will not be in attendance.

No responce on the quadrajet supeiriority?
I can say a quadrajet runs better without a carb spacer then most other carborators because the secoundary mixture flow has less dirrectional stability, flow that would otherwise hit the manifold plenum floor. Mixture velocity is low on the secondary side as the flow turns around the mixture door that opens to an overly wide cross sectional area then wraps around and under the secondary throttle butterflys and shaft.
If rules dont allow the use of a carb spacer then yes I understand why a quadrajet is supeirior and I see their advantage in a fiero when its owner does not want to cut a hole in the trunk lid for carb clearance with the carb spacer.

Also, yes the secoundary opening/fuel pullover circuit is a slick feature, like an exccelerator pump, but the quadrajet needs this feature more then other carbs because it has a greater velocity drop/increased cross section as the throttle opens. Comparable double pumper carbs dont have these issues.

*response
*superiority
*carburator
*butterflies
*superior
*secondary
*accelerator

*directional

Attila wrote "I've seen a magazine build unwittingly disprove a couple of his claims about speccing a cam. I've dis-proved a couple, also".

Atilla, what claims have u disproved? about dual pattern cams VS single pattern?

Keep in mind that valve seat assembled hights have everything to do with what what an engine will want for a camshaft and weather (due to inefficiency) a dual pattern will be nessesary. As an example, the intake valve "top" should always be higher/farther into the chamber/ then the exhaust valve. Yes, many or most builders make the intake and exhaust valve heights equal but that dosnt make the most power and especially if the exhaust side is higher into the chamber, and yes, getting this issue wrong will make nessesary the bandaid/need for a dual pattern camshaft.
More power with a wider curve is a reality with a single pattern camshaft when you enhance deficient flow capabilities by using a higher seat height. A port will think it has a raised floor when the short turn radius is longer via the seat height being higher.
I oftentimes spec a dual pattern cam even after enhancing a port/seat combination but its my last effort.

David knows all this stuff, Attila, and about quadrajets and whatever else you have a gripe about so you should just keep an open mind, go to this seminar, and introduce yourself to me when your there. I honestly believe the people that show up to these events make it that much more informative, by digging into the subjects even with sceptisism and for comments to be shared.

Aaron wrote:*directional

Good catch.

bigblockfiero wrote:Attila wrote "I've seen a magazine build unwittingly disprove a couple of his claims about speccing a cam. I've dis-proved a couple, also".

Atilla, what claims have u disproved? about dual pattern cams VS single pattern?

Keep in mind that valve seat assembled hights have everything to do with what what an engine will want for a camshaft and weather (due to inefficiency) a dual pattern will be nessesary. As an example, the intake valve "top" should always be higher/farther into the chamber/ then the exhaust valve. Yes, many or most builders make the intake and exhaust valve heights equal but that dosnt make the most power and especially if the exhaust side is higher into the chamber, and yes, getting this issue wrong will make nessesary the bandaid/need for a dual pattern camshaft.
More power with a wider curve is a reality with a single pattern camshaft when you enhance deficient flow capabilities by using a higher seat height. A port will think it has a raised floor when the short turn radius is longer via the seat height being higher.
I oftentimes spec a dual pattern cam even after enhancing a port/seat combination but its my last effort.

David knows all this stuff, Attila, and about quadrajets and whatever else you have a gripe about so you should just keep an open mind, go to this seminar, and introduce yourself to me when your there. I honestly believe the people that show up to these events make it that much more informative, by digging into the subjects even with sceptisism and for comments to be shared.

Thank you for contributing material toward a meaningful discussion.

bigblockfiero wrote:Attila wrote "I've seen a magazine build unwittingly disprove a couple of his claims about speccing a cam. I've dis-proved a couple, also".

Atilla, what claims have u disproved? about dual pattern cams VS single pattern?

Keep in mind that valve seat assembled hights have everything to do with what what an engine will want for a camshaft and weather (due to inefficiency) a dual pattern will be nessesary. As an example, the intake valve "top" should always be higher/farther into the chamber/ then the exhaust valve. Yes, many or most builders make the intake and exhaust valve heights equal but that dosnt make the most power and especially if the exhaust side is higher into the chamber, and yes, getting this issue wrong will make nessesary the bandaid/need for a dual pattern camshaft.
More power with a wider curve is a reality with a single pattern camshaft when you enhance deficient flow capabilities by using a higher seat height. A port will think it has a raised floor when the short turn radius is longer via the seat height being higher.
I oftentimes spec a dual pattern cam even after enhancing a port/seat combination but its my last effort.

David knows all this stuff, Attila, and about quadrajets and whatever else you have a gripe about so you should just keep an open mind, go to this seminar, and introduce yourself to me when your there. I honestly believe the people that show up to these events make it that much more informative, by digging into the subjects even with sceptisism and for comments to be shared.

Explain more about the valve seat heights you are referring too? Are you talking about modifying the valve seat height to increase or modify flow into and out of the head? Please clarify I am intrigued!
Thanks