|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> Carb to Engine distance. /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1317050414 Message started by Jockesavage on 09/26/11 at 08:20:14 |
|
Title: Carb to Engine distance. Post by Jockesavage on 09/26/11 at 08:20:14 How far from the engine can you place the carb? |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by Oldfeller on 09/26/11 at 08:31:53 The downside to long intake distances is you have a response lag to a throttle change and you have a nice long 15:1 gas/air filled chamber that will explode quite nicely on the eventual backfire event (a minor intake valve leakage igniting the long chamber full of perfect gas air mixture). Tell us how it all works out for you .... BTW, dragster people who put their blowers after their carbs can tell you all about them narsty 15:1 mixture filled chamber explosions. Hey you could go ask Shirley Muldowney .... she'll tell you. :o |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by Arnold on 09/26/11 at 08:45:13 I would imagine choke would also be a problem. |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by verslagen1 on 09/26/11 at 09:23:35 A few have side mounted their carbs (harley style) search REX for one, but there are a few in the gallery. |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by Gyrobob on 09/26/11 at 10:03:13 It can be placed just about as far away as you want. On some aircraft installations, the carb is feet away from the furthest cylinders. On a motorcycle, you can't get it far enough away to make much difference. The mixture is traveling something like 50mph or so,.. around 70ft/sec. If the carb were 1 foot away from the intake valve, it would take 1/70th of second for the mixture to travel that distance. The main differences from moving the carb away from the cylinder head would be thermal (the carb and manifold would stay colder), and intake tube resonance (longer tubes tune for lower rpm). This resonance can result in better torque/hp at lower rpm, but it is pretty hard to get the carb far enough away from the head to take advantage of this tuning concept. On the Savage, Suzuki just ignored it, placing the carb right on the head. |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/26/11 at 10:45:37 From what little Ive read, what I got out of it is this, The volume between carb & air filter needs to be equal to or larger than the cylinder volume. BIgger is better,, anyone want to correct that? |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by Jockesavage on 09/26/11 at 12:09:57 447A716C616C61030 wrote:
So on a motorcyle you woldent feel any differens in throttle respons unless you something other than human... The backfire issue... how comon is that? I never heard about a exploding intake on a harley for example. And if there was a risk of backfiering the would be someone that experienced at least a small *poof-explosion* on there stock savage intake. Anyone?? If there were a risk of backfire in to the intake the must be some kind of release valve to place on the intake to save your "diamonds" in case of explosion right? Would it work if I moved the carb down? And made an "S" shaped intake? Oldfeller here .... please remember that Gyrobob is a helecopter/airplane person in a lot of his examples, and they get ramped up and down very gently and tend to be run at a constant speed. Our single cylinder bikes don't do that. Our intake and exhaust streams totally start and stop their motion at the valves of the one cylinder, else where residual momentum keeps the air moving, moving relatively more steadily the further you get away from the valves themselves. Bob's mental picture is of a multi-cylinder aircraft engine with a single carb set up on a manifold system, which is pretty common on small aircraft engines for maximum fuel efficency, ease of leaning/richening, reliability and ease of maintenance. Next, an intake valve backflashes (backfires) whenever it does not close completely. Two ways to do that on our single cylinder bike. 1) a piece of carbon or trash on the intake seat -- pretty rare -- and 2) over revving and floating your valves -- this one depends on your wrist really. It happens to my bike pretty frequently. Intake leakage (backfire potential) does eventually happen to all of us, I think you will just notice it a lot more than say mebbe I would. ( :-/ especially if that carb was maybe mounted sideways and happened to be aimed at your leg or your balls :o ) |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by Serowbot on 09/26/11 at 12:35:19 I just got a big WHY on this... ...much like the right-side kickstand... :-?... |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by Jockesavage on 09/26/11 at 12:38:10 2630273A22373A21550 wrote:
You are looking at it the wrong way. It's "why not?" :D And for a more specific reason, to make space in the frame and get the look I want. |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by kevinphan on 09/26/11 at 13:03:22 I run a 45 degree right now that is 3-5 inches away from the stock location it works well. Can be a lot better. |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by Gyrobob on 09/26/11 at 13:56:01 6F4A464E40764453444240250 wrote:
You are looking at it the wrong way. It's "why not?" :D And for a more specific reason, to make space in the frame and get the look I want.[/quote] I like that open space look in the area behind the engine. The Savage frame is not optimal for that look because of the angled-down side frame members. The Norton featherbed frame is great for this open look. |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by Jockesavage on 09/26/11 at 14:10:39 7C72617E79677F7679170 wrote:
Cool. Any pictures? |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by Serowbot on 09/26/11 at 15:36:03 Can you find one where the carbs ain't back there?... :-?... Here's a featherbed.... http://wannabemc.com/images/goldenoldies/1960-1990/Dresda%20Triton/out/1.JPG http://cdn-2.thejameslist.com/data/images/4359313_large2.jpg http://www.motorsm.com/aus/bikes/pics_moto/NortonManx.jpg |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by kevinphan on 09/26/11 at 15:45:20 I'll try and snap some pics but my bike just caught on fire shortly after I posted that post above. Darn bike heard me |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by bill67 on 09/26/11 at 15:55:42 If your carb is to far away it will catch on fire. |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by Serowbot on 09/26/11 at 16:43:38 ;D ;D ;D.... |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by Oldfeller on 09/26/11 at 18:39:14 Duh, caught on fire -- mebbe because it backfired ??? ::) |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by kevinphan on 09/26/11 at 20:16:25 Sadly you are right, combination of backfire and the carb falling off with the a manual petcock set to on. When the blaze caught it lit the left side at first I thought it was a goner and just stepped back and just watched, then I came to my senses and pulled the carb off and then was able to turn the petcock off before any got really damaged. Musta been a good show for the traffic next to me. http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l113/kevin_phan/D70s/D70/D300/bf00a553.jpg Crispy carb and paint, oh well no harm! |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by verslagen1 on 09/26/11 at 20:29:48 4B4556494E5048414E200 wrote:
Hmmm... manual petcock fire! |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by Oldfeller on 09/26/11 at 22:07:32 Yup, backfire fire in extended intake tube started the show to going, then he could pull the burning carb off because his PVC intake was softened some by the flames (burning off the float bowl, BTW) and then he cut the gas flow off by the manual petcock. Fire would have started off the bowl gas from either sort of petcock, but a vac petcock would have limited the fire to the bowl full of gas ---until the seat foam caught on fire anyway, then the gas in the tank would have boiled and that would have been that. I hate being right ... when I am right on shite like this it sucks because it's always bad for somebody else. |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by kevinphan on 09/27/11 at 00:56:53 Eh, I had been running this setup for 2 years now, and this was the only major problem. I blame not securing the carb better earlier in the morning when I was messing with it. Going to run this setup again but this time just going to be welding up an intake pipe and a support bracket so that this doesn't happen again |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by Jockesavage on 09/27/11 at 02:07:11 Would a intake made of metal saved the day? |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by Jockesavage on 09/28/11 at 09:43:47 So accordingly to my wiki research there is somewhat to gain from a longer intake. :) The easy explanation is that with a longer tube between the carb and engine there are more time for the air and fuel to mix, so you get a better mix in the engine. An with a longer tube you get more power at some rpm, depending on how long the tube is. This is becuse of the resonance betweene the closed valves and the carb wich builds up a pressure.. (sorry for bad eglish) |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by Routy on 09/29/11 at 15:18:45 273423223D3036343F60510 wrote:
Hmmm... manual petcock fire![/quote] x4 ! |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by bill67 on 09/29/11 at 15:20:38 727D677C606675777F7166140 wrote:
Hmmm... manual petcock fire![/quote] x4 ! [/quote] +2 |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/29/11 at 16:12:25 So,, with a manual petcock, nothing needs to suck in order for things to suck? That SUCKS! |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by Jockesavage on 09/30/11 at 19:28:06 wow, now nobody knows what to do :P |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by kevinphan on 10/03/11 at 15:32:39 Finished my intake today, 1 3/4 O.D piping got it from a local automotive store. Cut and welded into a 45 degree angle http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l113/kevin_phan/D70s/D70/D300/f12d1ec5.jpg http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l113/kevin_phan/D70s/D70/D300/783a0538.jpg http://distillery.s3.amazonaws.com/media/2011/09/28/c3cd821b5bce4abfa9849af22d2992aa_7.jpg Not sure of the exact length but, engine to bend: around 2-3 inches bend to carb: around 2 inches |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by Gyrobob on 10/03/11 at 18:24:28 What improvements are you expecting with this setup compared to stock? |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by kevinphan on 10/03/11 at 18:33:05 None, it's necessary because of the hardtail. http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l113/kevin_phan/D70s/D70/D300/e5c3555c.jpg |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by MrBrownTX on 10/04/11 at 14:17:26 Oh my, that frame is gorgeous. /drool |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by verslagen1 on 10/06/11 at 12:10:17 This one's wild... http://i977.photobucket.com/albums/ae258/cornerbrookcustoms/DSC_0045.jpg |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by babyhog on 10/06/11 at 13:02:08 Even my arse doesn't have enough padding for that seat! Can't imagine ever riding that thing. |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by ralfyguy on 10/07/11 at 18:24:06 7C6F7879666B6D6F643B0A0 wrote:
I would have at least turned it facing forward and make it a RAM-air intake. |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by Serowbot on 10/07/11 at 18:32:13 3E2D3A3B24292F2D2679480 wrote:
He didn't mount his carb/s back there though... |
|
Title: Re: Carb to Engine distance. Post by Smokestack on 10/09/11 at 13:19:25 26283B24233D252C234D0 wrote:
Absolutely awesome, man. Inpsiring. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |