CLASS RACER FORUM
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

CLASS RACER FORUM (https://classracer.com/classforum/index.php)
-   Stock and Super Stock Tech (https://classracer.com/classforum/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   262 vs 267 sbc (https://classracer.com/classforum/showthread.php?t=53210)

Billy Nees 06-01-2014 05:00 PM
Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Feiock (Post 433363)
So how does one work around the Dual Jet? Or should I ask how much HP can be made on a carb rated at 287 CFM?

It gets even more interesting if you convert apples to apples. Since a 2BL is flowed at 3 inches vacuum and a 4BL is flowed at 1.5 inches of vacuum, you need to multiply the 2BL CFM by roughly .707 to get a value you can directly compare to a 4BL carb.

So 287 X .707 = 203 CFM

Using a quick online CFM calculator:
267 CID, 5500 RPM, 80% VE........ would need about 350 CFM minimum
Well, let's see, with a (seriously) restricted engine you don't think about making HP. You make as much torque for as long as you can.
I can assure you that a 287 CFM 2V will be flowing at least 100% VE. How can I say that? If everything is right in the combo, the engine WILL be pulling vacuum long before it gets to the finish line. OBTW, try explaining that to the man designing your cam.

Dean Feiock 06-01-2014 09:01 PM
Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Nees (Post 433442)
Well, let's see, with a (seriously) restricted engine you don't think about making HP. You make as much torque for as long as you can.
I can assure you that a 287 CFM 2V will be flowing at least 100% VE. How can I say that? If everything is right in the combo, the engine WILL be pulling vacuum long before it gets to the finish line. OBTW, try explaining that to the man designing your cam.
Billy, I understand the VE will be higher. I used a lower number in the calculation just for a number. To use 100% in the calculation would only further show inadequate the carb is.

Since the wife want's to drive and I've acquired another car......I guess I'll take a stab at it.

Dwight Southerland 06-03-2014 12:04 PM
Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Nees (Post 432745)
I think that the 81-83 267@ 150 HP(79-80 are higher) is softer than the 76 262@ 171 HP.
To give a bit of perspective to what Billy is saying, compare the 267 to a Mopar 273 from the '65-'67 era:

Mopar - 287 max disp, 1.437 B&B carburetor that meters fuel like a straw in the wind, 10.2 compression, .400 lift cam, 176 power rating.

Chev 267 - 280 max disp, 1.375 Dual Jet that meters well, 9.5 compression, .357/.373 cam (heads will flow better on the exhaust than the Mopar), lighter reciprocating weight, better transmission (TH200), 150 power rating.

Not a cake walk, but very possible. The 273 has been beat on since the '70s, so don't expect to achieve the same level of performance in a month.

brian schuetta 06-19-2014 09:35 PM
Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 
OK got a 267 block and crank but no heads. 513 castings look like one off deal. Will continue the hunt this weekend.

Mike Taylor 3601 06-20-2014 12:36 PM
Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Nees (Post 433442)
Well, let's see, with a (seriously) restricted engine you don't think about making HP. You make as much torque for as long as you can.
I can assure you that a 287 CFM 2V will be flowing at least 100% VE. How can I say that? If everything is right in the combo, the engine WILL be pulling vacuum long before it gets to the finish line. OBTW, try explaining that to the man designing your cam.
What Billy said plus this
carb is rated 287,on dyno with air turbine will pull more than 287 cfm.
Mike Taylor 3601

Billy Nees 06-20-2014 01:52 PM
Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 
Hey Mike, not for nuthin but a 267 and a 4 speed in your car would be a crapper full of fun!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:54 PM.
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.