Yellow Bullet Forums banner

21 - 37 of 37 Posts

·
Long Live The King
Joined
·
100,859 Posts
Discussion Starter #24
Thanks
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBF612

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,041 Posts
I miss Predator carbs....I ran Dale's tech board for almost 12 years....He offered me the company years ago but I didn't have the resources at the time to buy it or I would have.....Loved those carbs, ran them for a long time on several different applications....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,090 Posts
I miss Predator carbs....I ran Dale's tech board for almost 12 years....He offered me the company years ago but I didn't have the resources at the time to buy it or I would have.....Loved those carbs, ran them for a long time on several different applications....
Never actually SEEN one in person myself? Maybe because in Canada there just isn't the population therefore most just use the traditional Holley/Carter?Qjets?? Always was intrigued by them carbs though, such a departure from the "norm".

Actually have a buddy looking for a scrap Predator wall wall art?

Can you tell us more on why you loved them so much??
 

·
Long Live The King
Joined
·
100,859 Posts
Discussion Starter #29 (Edited)
I sure would have thought the TR would have gained more than 40 hp ? ? ?

I do wish that when the guys do carb and intake tests they would always run a vac gauge.

That 557 at 7,000 at 110% VE would be 1,240 cfm. I'd think the distribution of the TR would have been worth much more, but maybe that single is well balanced ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,041 Posts
Never actually SEEN one in person myself? Maybe because in Canada there just isn't the population therefore most just use the traditional Holley/Carter?Qjets?? Always was intrigued by them carbs though, such a departure from the "norm".

Actually have a buddy looking for a scrap Predator wall wall art?

Can you tell us more on why you loved them so much??
There were different. So many people saying they didn't work, couldn't adjust them, etc....it was more due to a lack of knowledge and how they work vs actual performance. Granted, they weren't the best carbs for every application, but they did work well in many. The biggest issue I found with people was they were trying to tune them like a Holley and they weren't even remotely close to working the same way. I honestly don't think there is a better "off road" carb out there. Throttle response on these when properly tuned can't be beat. I guess the biggest thing though is that they were different....out of the norm so to speak....I wish I had the resources available when Dale offered me the company, it would have been fun to continue the brand.
 

·
Long Live The King
Joined
·
100,859 Posts
Discussion Starter #32
There were different. So many people saying they didn't work, couldn't adjust them, etc....it was more due to a lack of knowledge and how they work vs actual performance. Granted, they weren't the best carbs for every application, but they did work well in many.
How much power could a single support ?

They were that good for off road application ?
 

·
Long Live The King
Joined
·
100,859 Posts
Discussion Starter #33 (Edited)
Depends on how good the combination already is that you're putting the TR on and also, how well the TR matches the combination. I've heard a lot of mixed opinions on that TR.
Maybe an interesting comparison for a 560" ( +/-) at 7,000 ?



Someday, someday I will get around to running both of them on the 565 or the 600" pump gas deal I'll be replacing it with. I'm going to have a 2" plenum spacer made for the "Holmes" manifold and see what it does with and without.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scott foxwell

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,041 Posts
How much power could a single support ?

They were that good for off road application ?
They could flow a max of about 930 cfm, but I'm sure it was much higher than that. Hot rod magazine did a test back in the 80's where they compared one to a holley and it pretty much spanked it. The holley was a 750 dp. Off road was where they shined because of throttle response, but also because bouncing around and angles didn't affect them like it did holleys or carter type carbs. Mud racers swore by them. They were designed around delivering a afr of approx 12.5-13:1, and weren't good for economy. I ran one for three seasons on my old nova bracket racing. Finished third overall in points first year, second year I got about halfway through the season and had to deploy (was in the Marines), and third season got cut short due to various reasons, but still made 50-60 passes. Only issue I had was repeatability. They would swing with weather changes more than a Holley, and I didn't track the changes like I should. But they were very consistent in the swings, so that was on me for not doing better.

The biggest difference is in tuning them, and if you don't understand how they work they will beat you up trying to get them right...

The alky versions were the best, they worked very well when running alcohol.
 

·
Long Live The King
Joined
·
100,859 Posts
Discussion Starter #35
Thanks for the info.

So size wise, basically a 460" (+/-) engine at 6,500 ( +/-) = 930 cfm +/-

400" at 7,500 ( +/-)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,041 Posts
Thanks for the info.

So size wise, basically a 460" (+/-) engine at 6,500 ( +/-) = 930 cfm +/-

400" at 7,500 ( +/-)
They worked well on any size of engine....bigger engines were easier to tune than smaller ones were.
 

·
Long Live The King
Joined
·
100,859 Posts
Discussion Starter #37
^
Gotcha. I have those 2 for the TR and a refreshed single.

Kind of ended up with all three of them as a fluke. Next time I put something on the dyno I'll compare the single to a conventional carb.

" Dare to be different"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coloradoracer
21 - 37 of 37 Posts
Top