Put a vacuum gauge on a manifold vacuum source and monitor it while you are making a full-throttle pass for a minimum of 12 seconds at WOT. If the vacuum is high, you could gain from the increase in CFM. If the vacuum is low, you are not taking full advantage of the CFM that you have now.
Post your findings and then a better educated guess can be made regarding CFM.
Spot on.
I want to make an attempt to explain the train of thought of why the larger, mechanical secondary carburetor.
Lets use the 760 vacuum secondary vs an 850 mechanical secondary carburetors because that has been established as the benchmarks.
Keep in mind, these numbers are likely not realistic and are for explanation purposes only.
First, a vacuum secondary carburetor (speaking specifically a Holley) needs two things to work velocity and manifold vacuum. Unfortunately, a properly tuned jet boat has neither.
A mechanical secondary carburetor needs very little vacuum and the velocity can be crazy low and still maintain a stoichiometric fuel mixture.
So here is the theoretical part.
A vacuum secondary carburetor first, lets say you have a wide open throttle manifold vacuum of 2.5"hg. It wont be a lot lower than that because it takes vacuum to open the butterflies. That means the engine needs to pull the air (and fuel) in under somewhat a restriction.
Looking at the mechanical secondary (again, theoretical numbers) the secondaries open mechanically regardless of vacuum, this allows the manifold vacuum to be much higher, I have personally witnessed numbers in the .5"hg range.... As long as the velocities and fuel ratios are spot on, she will continue makng horsepower.
Now here is the bad ass part (IMO). With the vacuum deal, with the 2.5"hg, the manifold pressure is -1.25PSI (or 13.45PSIA), same engine, potentially more RPM on the mechanical deal, can run .5"hg, this converts to -.25 PSI (or 14.45PSIA). Now I'm no genius, but I am seeing a 1 pound difference in the two.
The reason this works is because the atmospheric pressure at sea level is 14.7PSIA... Less negative is more positive.
Now this does not apply to a car, simply because the torque requirement on a jet pump is totally linear..... Meaning the torque goes up as the rpm does.
In your application, I would feel that the 750 VS may be a good choice, can it work better? My best answer is, maybe.
GT