Duel TBI's - ATTN JON

From: Tim (magnum318@bewellnet.com)
Date: Wed Oct 28 1998 - 15:56:38 EST


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0020_01BE027A.C83C1900
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

From:Tim Roller>magnum318@bewellnet.com

 Jon--I think that dual TBI's would work much better than 6, in that =
what the engine needs is MORE AIR to give better top-end and not over =
lean itself out so much that the performance computer wouldn't be able =
to compensate. 6 TBI's would be like putting on a 1100 CFM carb on a =
stock 4-banger. It looks sweet, but the driveability wouldn't be there, =
in that it would stumble over itself. Dual TBI's, not only would give =
better acceleration, top speed and would improve the lean-burn =
conditions associated with long stretches of WOT. Just use either a =
parallel sensors setup or progressive linkage to the extra TBI that =
would kick in at a prescribed RPM. The TBI's on our trucks are just air =
units and the manifold is of a dry type(direct port injected). All we =
need now is a dual setup to test and try out. OOOH I can see it now, =
you're cruising the stretches of Nevada or Wyoming(no speed limit), no =
cop in sight, doing 90mph and a new C5 Vette comes along side, and the =
pedal goes down, and you're doing 160(proper tires of course) and you =
honk your horn and wave TA-TA and you're gone over the hill and the =
Vette owner thinks to himself-- WHY THE F--K didn't I buy a DODGE DAKOTA =
BRICK.

------=_NextPart_000_0020_01BE027A.C83C1900
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>From:Tim Roller><A=20
href=3D"mailto:magnum318@bewellnet.com">magnum318@bewellnet.com</A></FONT=
></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2> Jon--I think that dual TBI's =
would work=20
much better than 6, in that what the engine needs is MORE AIR to give =
better=20
top-end and not over lean itself out so much that the performance =
computer=20
wouldn't be able to compensate. 6 TBI's would be like putting on a 1100 =
CFM carb=20
on a stock 4-banger. It looks sweet, but the driveability wouldn't be =
there, in=20
that it would stumble over itself. Dual TBI's, not only would give =
better=20
acceleration, top speed and would improve the lean-burn conditions =

associated with long stretches of WOT. Just use either a parallel =
sensors=20
setup or progressive linkage to the extra TBI that would kick in at a =
prescribed=20
RPM. The TBI's on our trucks are just air units and the manifold is of a =
dry=20
type(direct port injected). All we need now is a dual setup to test and =
try out.=20
OOOH I can see it now, you're cruising the stretches of Nevada or =
Wyoming(no=20
speed limit), no cop in sight, doing 90mph and a new C5 Vette comes =
along side,=20
and the pedal goes down, and you're doing 160(proper tires of course) =
and you=20
honk your horn and wave TA-TA and you're gone over the hill and the =
Vette owner=20
thinks to himself-- WHY THE F--K didn't I buy a DODGE DAKOTA=20
BRICK.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0020_01BE027A.C83C1900--



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:10:48 EDT