I would think that there are some significant differences between the 200cc LT1 heads that AI was using compared to the 215cc AFR heads that Joe Sherman was using.

Just my $.02

 

Many times people look at a good combination and assume it's making
lots of HP. In reality thats not the case at all.

Take these examples from wallaceracing.com
HP computed from 3200 LB vehicle with good chassis set up,
10.9 ET, 401.11 rear wheel HP and 445.67 flywheel HP.

60 Foot 1.52
330 Foot 4.38
660 Foot 6.88
660 MPH 98.83
1000 Foot 9.05
1/4 Mile ET 10.9
1/4 Mile MPH 121.56

HP computed from 3200 LB vehicle with good chassis set up,
9.9 ET 535.34 rear wheel HP and 594.83 flywheel HP.

60 Foot 1.38
330 Foot 3.97
660 Foot 6.25
660 MPH 108.81
1000 Foot 8.22
1/4 Mile ET 9.9
1/4 Mile MPH 133.84

The first example is very easy to do with a ported production head;
the second example is rarely done, the closest I have seen is Ben Moore
running a highly developed cylinder head.

Benjamin Moore III "ou812/z28"
1994 Camaro Z28
396 LT1, AFR 210cc heads, th350, stock pcm, 467rwhp and 517rwtq, 3325 raceweight
1/4: 10.18 at 132
60 ft: 1.38

 

The only way those numbers "compute" is with a standard shift trans and a 10 bolt rear....which you for sure aint gonna run those numbers on.

Even so they look a little "optimistic".

David

 

David,
The Wallace Racing calculator posts this disclaimer:

"These equations are for recreation only.
Not a substitute for actual testing.
Rear Wheel HP is assuming 10% drive train loss"


Surprisingly these numbers match drag strip results fairly well, I do
agree with an automatic and loose converter drive train loss will be
higher than 10%. These types of calculators are fairly accurate because
they are based on many many years of actual drag strip passes.

As for a 10 bolt, they work just fine until they break!

Pedo runs a 10 bolt in his T350/383 powered 3800 LB pick up truck,
consistent 10.80s. I must admit its hard on gears.



NO PROBLEM RACEWAY PARK
Belle Rose, La. (Feb. 8)
Gambler’s Race
W: Warren "Pedo" Blanchard ('90 Silverado) - 10.824, 120.62 (10.85 dial).
R/U: Kerry Cortez ('68 Camaro) - 9.891, 133.24 (9.93 dial).

according to Wallace calculators

His HP computed from his vehicle ET is 486.42 rear wheel HP and 540.46 flywheel HP.

His HP computed from his vehicle MPH is 468.42 rear wheel HP and 520.47 flywheel HP.

Using the calculator to compute ideal MPH and times at 60', 330', 660' and 1000'
from the 10.824 ET we get this. His actual 60ft is a littler better and the MPH is
lower, I suppose because of the heavy weight and frontal area.

60 Foot 1.50
330 Foot 4.35
660 Foot 6.83
660 MPH 99.52
1000 Foot 8.98
1/4 Mile ET 10.824
1/4 Mile MPH 122.41

.

 

half ton truck uses a 8.5" 10 bolt not the 7.5" the f-body and s-10 got.

 

The sarcasm was directed at whoever feels the need to suggest that the results posted about the AI 500rwhp car were somehow falsified or bogus. The EMC comparison is worthless imo for the reasons already mentioned. And I agree - there are not that many 600hp conventional headed street sbc out there as some would have you believe - hell, you don't even need the internet for that. Go to a car show and talk to people showing off their "600HP" cars that have tiny Carter AFB carbs and/or stock exhaust manifolds.

 

Have you ever done any dyno testing? Using MPH, the calculator implies
your engine is making more HP than what the ET shows.

(Rear Wheel HP is assuming 10% drivetrain loss)

HP computed from your vehicle ET is 391.48 rear wheel HP and 434.97 flywheel HP.

HP computed from your vehicle MPH is 415.54 rear wheel HP and 461.71 flywheel HP.

Ideal times at 60', 330', 660', 1000' & 1/4 mile using 113 MPH trap speed.

60 Foot 1.63
330 Foot 4.71
660 Foot 7.40
660 MPH 91.87
1000 Foot 9.73
1/4 Mile ET 11.73
1/4 Mile MPH 113


(8.5" 10 bolt is a tough piece)

 

10% drivetrain loss, what the hell has 10% drivetrain loss? A saginaw 3 speed, aluminum driveshft, 3.08 gear, 14 inch radial tires on aluminum wheels???????????????????????????


David

 

a stocker or a pro stock. sure as hell not my car. I lose about 58% drivetrain loss

 

The 8.5" is what is in the LT1 b-bodies, agreed it is stout.

I tried to dyno it once but the AFR was 14.x and it spun a bearing in the over 100K shortblock. I did not know about replacing the oilpump relief spring at that time(new engine has that done) and I had just put on a new airfilter. I think the airfilter caused the lean AFR. It was a cone with an inverted cone in the end and after I replaced the shortblock with a lower milage stocker testing showed the inverted cone too close to the MAF screwed up MAF readings. Likely causing the lean condition, pervious street wideband logging with a normal filter had showed the AFR actually rich 12.2-7, little extra fuel is a safe thing.

Have not been back to the dyno since, call it once bitten twice shy, proof is in the track performance anyway.

Oddly it 60fts better than your calculations 1.611, 1.614 1.622 are my bests. Converter hits pretty hard 3400 ProEdge/3.73s/27" QTPs, is truely a street car seeing about 8K miles each of the last two hears it has been setup as it is now. So it will not likely ever run at 100% of potential, too many compromises made to keep it comfortable.

 

How would you have the faintest idea about the validity of those results?

Rich

 

Who even cares......


wheres bert when you need em

 

I don't think 10% is out of the question for a purpose built drag race setup.,

My M6 setup showed a 12.2% loss at 762 flywheel HP, based on running the engine on an engine dyno with full intake and exhaust, and then putting it in the car and running it on a chassis dyno. The 12.2% number could easily have been reduced farther, with a more efficient drivetrain - Dana rear with 2% lower losses than my 12-bolt; lighter rear axle components like a spool in place of the HD Eaton, lightened gears, gun-drilled axles, mikronized gears, etc.; swap my steel Street Twin flywheel for aluminum; swap the 3.5" chrome moly DS for a CF setup; replace the street wheels and tires that were run on the chassis dyno with light weight drag wheels and drag slicks. Its doable.

 

Likewise, what do you rely on to refute them? Other than that I know them and can vouch for their credibility? That what they are achieving is not beyond the realm of possibility? That others, who may be 'more credible' in your book, can vouch for the results as well? Take your pick.

Instead, should we rely on your 'research' through the quoted EMC (there's a journal of non-advertiser influence for you), which handicapped the participants? Since Joe can't do it through a stipulated criteria, the suggestion from you in a few posts, is that the results AI achieved are forged? Give me a break.

FYI - AI plans to sell this engine combo as a forged long-block, with it broken in and an engine dyno sheet, ready to bolt in to your car. I guess we'll see if it's a fluke when the long blocks start showing up in folk's cars and the numbers are significantly less.

 

You have been around a while, how many places have coime and gone with similar claims and the results were not there? they burn as many people as they can before they go under. Nothing against Ai......but you have alot of faith in them. And the fastest thing they ever produced is a hi 9 sec pass? I don't know...I'm asking. I don't care if its a race car or not.......thats o.k. for what it is but in the real world it pretty ****ing weak for an all out " Hey look at what we can do" type of car.

No offence or anything