What it may come down to is a test of the cruise performance (A/F ratio to each cylinder) if this new setup were run as a double-progressive, like a typical dual quad v8.
Here is my thinking:
1. The two carb pads allow better distribution wide-open.
2. But, a pair of 32/36 webers is only about 400cfm at 1.5" Hg. An engine over about 200-220hp will want more.
3. Next up is the 38/38 weber, a pair of those is about 480cfm. That is enough for maybe 240-260hp.
4. That is a pretty fancy $1260 setup to have that low of a power limit.
5. Of course, the intake will mount twin 4bbls.
6. However, the smallest modern 4bbl is the 390 Holley. A pair of those would be 780cfm, enough to feed over 400hp, plenty for most of us, with bigger carbs waiting. So the setup is pretty much power-unlimited.
But - to get even a 292 six to cruise on BOTH 390 Holley primaries, that is a lot of cfm - lousy signal, soggy response, gas guzzler. The dual quad v8's faced this way back, and solved it by cruising on one carb's primaries. That way, the massive 1100-1200 cfm dual quad setups on the 427 Ford and 426 Hemi were cruising on just a 2bbl of about 250cfm.
Similarly - if this Clifford setup would cruise on the primary of just one of its twin carbs, it could cruise on just one 32/36 primary - super-efficient. Or, even with a pair of Holley 390s, it could cruise on just the primary of one carb - about 190cfm, the same CFM as the stock 292 1bbl.
Only question is, would the cylinder pair furthest away get a good air/fuel mix? That would now be a VERY long run to the furthest cylinders. Then again, the ratio of lengths - long/short - might still be better than the stock 1bbl.
Hmmm. Thoughts?
