Wow, What a hole that guy is:eek2: I can see him saying about the carb is way too big, I get that a lot also, but to insult you on your car:af:
The proof is there. The calculators are a useful tool, but don't take everything into consideration (such as the Buick 350's runner design). This is why you see CFM requirements for certain RPMs for a 355 CID engine falling within a spectrum with no exact number shown as the 'best'. The calculator on Wallaceracing I've used before shows 550-650 CFM for a 5500 or so RPM 355 CID, if I recall. This would be useful for runner types such as found on a SBC, but things change when you create a runner that is narrow in width and tall in height. The narrow aspect creates a greater air/fuel charge velocity, while the height of it provides the increased volume it needs to feed the displacement. It's like having the best of both worlds all rolled into one. Simple aspect, and genius in functionality. Even the newer LS engines use this runner design, when Buick was using it over 45 years ago... The runner design also makes the engine function well on many different CFM sizes, depending on how the fuel is delivered, which is why a large 2 barrel does well on it at lower RPMs, but then starves out beyond 4500 or so RPM (I know this for a fact). More air/fuel CFM potential on a carb (the CFM rating) is utilized when the engine 'thinks' it is seeing higher RPMs because of the runner velocity (narrow) as well as the runner volume (tall), so you could dump as much CFM as you could cram down its throat and it'll take it. Saying that a 650 Holley DP would work great on it isn't necessarily untrue (works great on a bone stock engine), with the larger primaries and more even fuel distribution vs a spread bore design, though larger carbs than this work even better when the flow is improved through the rest of the engine, when considering the runner design. In short, the Buick 350 loves large throttle blades, whether there's 2 or 4 of them. Why? Tall and Narrow baby. :TU:
