Triumphrat

ecrabbit96 · 04-16-2007

I was going to respond to some of the quotes and there respective retorts by Moto, but I couldn't make enough sense of them too. I'm not confused, I'm telling myself, play nice.

denny · 04-17-2007

Quote:

On 2007-04-16 22:49, moto wrote:
It also should not be necessary, as a Daytona Super III has made up to 98.34 HP & 56.33 ft/lbs on my dyno with the airbox intact and the snorkels & inserts in place.

Regards,

Derek

The Super3 airbox is considerably different than the one used on the TBird/Legend/Adventurer/TBS.

ecrabbit96 · 04-17-2007

Just as a point of interest, the factory pro documentation recommends raising your float levels slightly when getting into larger jets (1-2mm). This is to allow for the extra demand on the carb under heavy load, WOT. I believe this is to prevent the straws from cavitating when demmand is high. Why would they recommend this if all it does is effect the low end and create a rich idle. It's not vacuum that is pulling fuel into the cyl, it's air pressure rushing through the carb as it tries to fill the void created by the fall of the piston. In this regard it works like a paint gun, the air rushing by picks up paint as long as the pickup tube (straw) is submerged. Does a full paint can paint richer then one that is half full? Or does it remain consistent until it cavitates when near empty?

ecrabbit96 · 04-17-2007

One more thing I find interesting is we are talking about a 900 tripple that has a slightly more agresive cam, airbox and filter, and pipes. There is the evidence that supports the feel ing that the jets & pilots are too big. I didn't see where the bore or stroke have been increased nor have the valves been increased, so we are still only dealing with stock displacement and a little extra cam lift, and duration. How does that support the agressive mods to the carbs. Yes we do need to make more fuel available because we do have less restricted air flow, but again how much air can this carb support with the given ci's?

ecrabbit96 · 04-17-2007

If raising the float height lowers the fuel level, then you need to turn the carbs over, you have them upside down. The straws I refer to are those little round things that stick down into the bowl, or in your case up apparently. Now refer to your comment about how the paint gun would have further to draw as the paint is depleted, this is also true with fuel. So having raised your float height (fuel level) you have made it easier to draw. Close the pilot if idle is rich, but leave the fuel available for the mains if and when they need it, otherwise you might end up lean on top due to the lack of available fuel because it has too far to draw and not enough to draw from. I sometimes use analagies for concept only not equal comparison. A pilot is a controled valve and it's size pertains to it's range and sensitivity, a main jet is controlled by the needle for mid range and is governed solely by it's size and ability to draw during WOT. The needle valve does not effect the whole range, it only overlaps slightly into the top of the low end and a little more into WOT at the other end. It does have the most range but if "set up properly" no effect on idle or WOT. The main is effectively off at idle, and unrestricted once the needle is removed WOT. Carbs101.com

BadMouth · 04-17-2007

I was considering a trophy airbox since that's what Saigon5 used, but I figured a hacked stock one with a K&N could flow all the air the engine would demand. My thinking was just "more air + more fuel = more power". This is all a learning experience for me. I've got a credit at the dealership burning a hole in my pocket. I'll order a trophy or super III airbox and see what difference it makes. I'm assuming pod filters wouldn't do any better than the hacked airbox then?

denny · 04-17-2007

Quote:

On 2007-04-17 00:20, moto wrote:

Quote:

On 2007-04-16 23:59, denny wrote:
The Super3 airbox is considerably different than the one used on the TBird/Legend/Adventurer/TBS.

Super III to Adventurer, the only difference is that one of the rear plenums is not plugged and that the snorkels are longer on the Super III. I have successfully removed the one plug and used two of the short snorkels on an Adventurer. It was a '97 and made 72.37 HP and 47.66 ft/lbs. The only things I did to it was to install a K&N in the airbox, weld up the cracks in the rear plenums, add the aforementioned snorkel and tune the carbs correctly. I tried it without the inserts in the plenums, but it didn't work as well. I think vaguely remember that you might be right about the T-bird, Legend, and/or TBS, in that they are missing the rear plenum on one side in it's entirety.

Regards,

Derek

The parts fiche shows exactly the same front and rear airboxes for TBS, TBird, Adventurer, and Legend so you must have worked on a Customized Adventurer if it had two rear plenums.

ecrabbit96 · 04-18-2007

Now we are getting into terminology debates, rather than concept sharing. Looking back I see a couple of individuals offering suggestions attempting to help and Moto trying to blow holes in them which is not helping. Some concepts we can agree on, others we don't. Understanding the difference between vacuum and displacement is one concept that is very difficult to understand because we always refer to it as vacuum. There is no such thing as a vacuum cleaner, because a vavuum does not need cleaning. Should be called an air displacement cleaner. Since you know why our suggestions are wrong, it can only mean that you have the right answer. I don't see where you have offered the answer, what's up with that? Jimmyj900 may have learned something, more likely taught something. You could learn from this as well, try a different approach, and try not to be so obstinate. I'm outta here.

Gdsila · 04-18-2007

Hey Moto, Could you please explain " full throttle low RPM"
Are you talking about the engine response / AF Ratio at the very moment you go from 1/4 throttle to WOT?
Or is it something else?

ecrabbit96 · 04-18-2007

There is absolutely no question that you have knowledge, anyone reading this thread can see that. We are also here for the same reasons, to try and help. We are rarely presented with all the facts so some answers are just things to consider, others are pure guess work, and some factual. In reading the information you've provided it looks to me that you are in fact recommending the same thing we offered early on in the thread, you just opted not to offer any specific jet or pilot without more facts. Fair enough, I did, not because I thought it would put him right on target, but rather get him closer, not having all the facts. You are also correct that EGT analisys is much more precise as opposed to O2. I'm mearly suggesting rather than pooping on a post because it didn't come with a bag of facts to support it, you take a different less attacking approach. I'm always interested to hear what others have to say, I'm not interested in being on trial.

Finally I would like to say that your knowledge is very valuable and you added many good points and facts, I think we do see things very much the same, the precise terminology being most of the confusion, sooooorrieeee. If I said I didn't learn something I'd be lieing. One other major thing you brought to the table is your final comment about airbox mods, I couldn't agree with you more. Glad you said it. I'm sure you have more to offer, and I hope you do.

Regards

Badmouth; I hope there has been helpful information contained in this thread, after all, you started it!! :-D