|
Author
|
Topic: 750HP vs 950HP time slips
|
70coupe
Gearhead Posts: 483
From: Toronto,Ontario,Canada
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 09-02-2002 10:35 AM
  
Hey guys,I really need some help here. I'm a bit confused with the numbers I ran with these 2 carbs. It appears the 750HP works best but they are very close. Tried the 950 in the morning when the air was a little better.
1.950HP [email protected] temp75,hum64%,alt3033
no pv's jets 82/83
2.950HP [email protected] temp77,hum62%,alt3030
no pv's jets 82/83
3.950HP [email protected] temp 78,hum58%,alt 3025
no pv's but lowered jets to 80/80 as they looked very rich on the other 2 runs. I went back to my 750 for eliminations as I know how it runs but only went 2 rounds.Here are the 750HP numbers.
4.750HP [email protected] temp79,hum55%,alt3022
no pv's jets 81/81
5.750HP [email protected] temp80,hum55%,alt3020
no pv's jets 81/81 I still think the 750 is best suited to my car even though the numbers are very close. I was very surprised how much slower the car went(leaned out) when I went down to the 80 square jets. When I had the 82/83's in the plugs looked very black and sooty where with the 750 it retained its nice light tan colour. I could try 82 square in my 750 and see if the MPH goes up. What do you think?
IP: Logged |
kid vishus
Gearhead Posts: 6590
From: middle of NC
Registered: Oct 2000
|
posted 09-02-2002 10:41 AM
I think the 750 is the better carb for your car. Especially since it is more consistent. As for changing the jets, it's worth a shot. If it doesnt work, you can always put it back.
IP: Logged |
70coupe
Gearhead Posts: 483
From: Toronto,Ontario,Canada
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 09-02-2002 01:55 PM
Well, time to sell off the 950 and 1000HP's.
See classifieds.
IP: Logged |
jkilroy
Gearhead Posts: 1808
From: Vicksburg, MS
Registered: Dec 99
|
posted 09-04-2002 08:51 AM
LOL, I thought you meant you were running low 12's with 950 HORSEPOWER!  I was about to say, "Hmmmm, the mph looks a little low"------------------
Jay Kilroy
68' Fastback GT 390
"No such thing as a cam thats too big"
IP: Logged |
'69Stang
Gearhead Posts: 205
From: Detroit, MI USA
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 09-04-2002 09:03 AM
Hmmmm, 70coupe I'm assuming that you are running a 351C....I thought that the 950HP was the hot ticket for that engine.
IP: Logged |
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 27499
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 09-04-2002 09:19 AM
I would try fattening up that 950 once.
If you ran the same with the 750 and a little more jet 80/81, the 950 would wnat substantially more as it flows more air. I would try it.  ------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator/ non 65-66 Mustang owner sensitivity co-ordinator NHRA/IHRA/SRA/MCA member
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Part time secret agent license #0089
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl Quote: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
IP: Logged |
70coupe
Gearhead Posts: 483
From: Toronto,Ontario,Canada
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 09-04-2002 12:36 PM
I think I will fatten it up big time! The stock jets on the 750 are 73's and I went up 8 sizes when removing the power valve so how about me trying 86 square without pv's since stock jets are 78 on the 950? It justs sounds like alot of jet but you never know. I tried going the other way with the 950,tried 80/80 and lost 2 mph. I was surprised to lose that much just with a couple of jet sizes.
IP: Logged |
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 27499
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 09-04-2002 12:58 PM
Sounds like a plan. ------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator/ non 65-66 Mustang owner sensitivity co-ordinator NHRA/IHRA/SRA/MCA member
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Part time secret agent license #0089
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl Quote: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
IP: Logged |
Mustangsandmore Forums
