Try calculating how much air you can pump through an engine. Since it takes two turns of the crankshaft to complete the 4 stroke cycle on all the cylinders, divide the cubic inch displacement in half, and multiply it by the RPM you intend to run. You will end up with "cubic inches per minute". Then divide that figure by 1728 (cubic inches in a cubic foot). You'll get CFM - - - -for an engine with 100% volumetric efficiency, which is an impossibility. The design of the glorified 1920's tractor engine cylinder head on a stovebolt would struggle to get 85%-90% VE under ideal conditions. I think you'll be surprised at how little CFM a stovebolt engine is actually capable of moving.
The laws of physics are not "suggestions" no matter how fervently a hotrodder wishes otherwise. Big carburetors and dual exhausts on a stovebolt are like putting lipstick on a pig- - - -the mouth breathers at a show and shine are impressed, but it's a lot simpler and probably less expensive to flush a few C-notes down the toilet, and stick with the system the GM engineers designed.
Jerry
