Progressive Linkage on Tunnelwedge

[fe468stroker]

Now that the tunnelwedge is available again, given the design of the intake would running progressive linkage be advisable?  Being that the only passage between the pods is relatively small compared to other FE intakes it would seem that the rear cylinders would be starved for fuel until the rear carb starts to open.  How is everyone orienting their carbs on their tunnelwedge?

[blykins]

Most of the time on street engines, I will set my engines up with a progressive linkage.  Works just fine.

[6667fan]

I set mine up one to one. The car is a street/strip machine so I feel like one to one for racing is the way to go. Of course progressive could be run at track, how long is anyone at part throttle? Your concern about street usage has some validity. The straight shot, single plane feature of the intake might make for non ideal distribution at very low, part throttle operation. The piece was engineered for racing, not grocery getting. If the carbs are setup one to one there won’t be any worries about distribution. However, there may be some worry when standing next to the gas pump while watching the counters spin higher!

[HTRDHARLEY]

I ran mine progressive for over 80K miles, also raced at the drag strip and auto-x. It was a very responsive setup that actaully did ok on MPG when just cruising.

[Thumperbird]

Just another 1 to 1 perspective here, dual forward/normal facing quick fuels on an RPM air gap. (required offset spacers)
I did it for better distribution in a unique manifold/carb combo, to be different, and for the setup challenge as a newbie, it was a challenge.
70mph cruise comes in by 1/8 throttle at most so there is a lot of dialing in to do at idle/transition and barely into mains for no-hassle street use.
I like it, it's fun, be ready for some carb. tuning though and it is a pain to have to pull at least one carb to get to mains. (not an issue for sideways of course)
I think the pedal to carb linkage in my Thunderbird is mostly linear, a non-linear linkage yet retain 1 to 1 would improve low speed throttle control.
And yes, it's a pig for anything other than constant throttle cruise, maybe I'll make it a hybrid!

[Falcon67]

I've used only 1:1 on my tunnel ram setups - but I think this will be very application dependent.  4.56 gear and a 4600 stall converter, decent size hydro roller cam, 3" exhaust only 24" long in a car with license plates isn't the same as some dual carb street cruizers LOL.  If I were running the Edelbrock "mini spreadbore" Carter-like carbs (model 1406 and such) I'd be trying 1:1 first as the primary bores are smaller and have very good atomization.  Holley 1850/600 vac units may or may not like 1:1, depending on the rest of the combination.  On those, a purple secondary spring would also be a starting point IMHO. 

Higher stall/manual trans, more initial timing, more gear all help perk up a dual carb setup.  On a dual carb dual plane intake, 1:1 would also be first pick as the engine sees "half" the carb flow thanks to the separate plenum planes.  Remember that when you get the "1200 CFM is too much" comments.   Would you put a 600 DP on 35x engine and a single plane intake?  Sure, easy.  So two vacuum secondary carbs on a tunnel ram is about the same.  No big deal.

[HTM101]

Deleted