Author Topic: Sphinx vs. Puma (Read 13289 times)

GO OVRIT · « **Reply #15 on:** August 03, 2013, 02:23:47 PM »

Does the intake volume not have the same effect as the carb size as far as what rpm range makes power? Would too large of an intake cause the velocity through the carb make for hard tuning? Or is the amount that the reeds open limited to the size of the carb? Not questioning anything posted, just wanting to learn.

udontknowme · « **Reply #16 on:** August 03, 2013, 02:36:43 PM »

i dont know about calvins cylinders but on oem production cylinders its probly a safe bet the intake is too small for good power. if the spynx and puma of the same bore size im taking the one with bigger intake. if you dont need to move a ton of air volume then the smaller one would probly work fine

Pumashine · « **Reply #17 on:** August 03, 2013, 03:38:37 PM »

Calvins cylinders are designed to use the biggest bore suggested. If you are going smaller then you are just spending extra money to be safe. A good example is my 89mm saber. Can't go over 87mm on the Puma and don't need to race. The 431 is fine but the 478 will be the ultimate dune machine. Yeah, I gotta buy some snowmo intake. You also need to increase the stinger size on the motors over 400cc.

rsss396 · « **Reply #18 on:** August 03, 2013, 05:53:24 PM »

intakes/reed cage size is a funny thing, normally you can go bigger and help upper HP but not always, velocity does matter and some of the banshee cylinders actually worked out better with smaller reeds, the Cheetah cylinders I believe had this issue
along with the small DM's

udontknowme · « **Reply #19 on:** August 04, 2013, 12:51:14 AM »

seems theres a connection between intake, trans, exh ports. chapter6 blairs book. perhaps the cheetah design had a miscalculation that put the intake grossly too large for the rest of the engines state of tune