[MidnightAuto]

Just got these on and also dropped the restrictive air cleaners. Left the base as a faux velocity stack.

Anxious to see how it runs. Was a bit rich before thinking this may lean out a bit

[MidnightAuto]

Pic

[Dick Boneske]

Let us know. A lot has been said about how restrictive the foam air cleaners are. I've not seen any tests to confirm.

[MidnightAuto]

Will do. And of course that beauty of a center carb is your handiwork Dick. 👍

[chrisp]

Originally Posted by Dick Boneske

Let us know. A lot has been said about how restrictive the foam air cleaners are. I've not seen any tests to confirm.

Elaborate on what you have heard about the foam air filters being restrictive .

[Dick Boneske]

Originally Posted by chrisp

Elaborate on what you have heard about the foam air filters being restrictive .

AS I said, I've heard the foam elements are more restrictive than paper. I've not seen or heard anything to confirm this.

I also often hear or read how much better the '66 Tri-Power flows than the '64 or '65 Tri-Powers. Someone on this forum was going to compare the two using a dyno.. That comparison would be fantastic to see!

There has also been a lot of discussion about the Quadrajet vs. Tri-Power. I personally ran a '66 Tri-Power and a '67 Quadrajet on alternate weekends at Great Lakes Dragaway in the early '70's. MY '64 GTO ran consistent 12.70's with the Tri-Power and 13.00's with the Quadrajet. This was on a '67 400 engine with an Engle Hydraulic flat tappet cam. I also ran a 850 Holley at times, which matched the '66 Tri-Power on the drag strip, but was terrible for MPG and driveability.

[MidnightAuto]

If u search around a bit on the site u will find stories about the air cleaners robbing power. Not just the foam, the size, etc. engines masters had an air cleaner shoot out and while not tripower, they tested a gazillion 4 barrel carbs air cleaners. If I recall right, the worst performing took away like 50 hp. The only thing that did better than no filter at all was a an open velocity stack. They had tested it with an element first and it gave up single digit hp. No element gained 5 hp.

[Sirrotica]

Air cleaners are just about the same as oil filters, the more area, and the larger the pores are the less restriction there is. The cotton gauze usually are said to be the least restrictive, but you sacrifice micron size for the less restriction. I have never used a cotton gauze filter because I don't want to sacrifice the ability to filter out fine particulate. I've always used stacked paper filters for my dirt cars.

If you think about it, on any construction equipment I've ever worked on, which is aways run in the worst possible conditions, there are only paper filters. Sometimes there is a redundant inner filter on the main filter element to double filter the incoming air. Always thought about running a cannister setup on a performance car like what is used on construction equipment. Then just run ductwork to the carb from a remote mounted filter cannister.

I once had a tri power filter from a B body car that had a large element and covered all 3 carbs, likely more efficient than the 3 single small units, although not as aesthetically pleasing.

[MidnightAuto]

Well I think I about have this set up dialed in. Still need to test with my draggy, but def feels like an improvement. Throttle response improved a fair amount. Before it was a bit lazy - but I think those two hole spacers added a bit more velocity. Arbs sound awesome with filters. A/f is in a better spot, although I did take up timing to 16 for initial. Very happy with this update. On to the next thing…

[carbking]

Hearsay:

Some 40 or so years ago, more than one drag racer running Pontiac tripower told me that the large aircleaner flowed better than the three pie pans.

It does make sense, in that there is considerable area where the pie pan cleaners meet that would not be available. It would also appear that the '66 unit with the raised center carb might have improved the pie pan flow.

When Pontiac tried to make the tripower work as well as a four barrel on the SD, they did use a large air cleaner with no snorkels, and 7 oval holes the size of the snorkel holes.

Would be interested in comments by the "Toms" (both "S" and "V") on this subject.

Jon

[chrisp]

Originally Posted by Dick Boneske

AS I said, I've heard the foam elements are more restrictive than paper. I've not seen or heard anything to confirm this.

I also often hear or read how much better the '66 Tri-Power flows than the '64 or '65 Tri-Powers. Someone on this forum was going to compare the two using a dyno.. That comparison would be fantastic to see!

There has also been a lot of discussion about the Quadrajet vs. Tri-Power. I personally ran a '66 Tri-Power and a '67 Quadrajet on alternate weekends at Great Lakes Dragaway in the early '70's. MY '64 GTO ran consistent 12.70's with the Tri-Power and 13.00's with the Quadrajet. This was on a '67 400 engine with an Engle Hydraulic flat tappet cam. I also ran a 850 Holley at times, which matched the '66 Tri-Power on the drag strip, but was terrible for MPG and driveability.

I can assure you as i am the original designer & maker of the current correct Foam tripower filters that Ames sell & they are less restrictive then any other filter available for the 3 individual filters . The 1st improper design foam filter by REM is very restrictive , as is the paper filters .