LT1 Based Engine Tech 1993-1997 LT1/LT4 Engine Related

1.7 RR why havn't the ........

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 7, 2003 | 09:58 AM
  #1  
T/A#4's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 402
From: Clinton Twp.,MI
Lightbulb 1.7 RR why havn't the ........

......................... big boys jumped on this ? I'm talking about, Crane, Comp. etc.
Old Dec 7, 2003 | 10:41 AM
  #2  
b-stevens's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 666
From: Elk Grove Vlg, IL
They probably dont want to have to worry about liability issues from unknowledgable people throwing them in with huge cams and destroying their engines
Old Dec 7, 2003 | 02:37 PM
  #3  
chad_g69's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 45
From: San Diego, CA
1.7 RR rule ! !
Old Dec 7, 2003 | 02:45 PM
  #4  
LilJayV10's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 471
From: Evansville,IN,USA
Originally posted by chad_g69
1.7 RR rule ! !
I just read your engine combonation, holy crap batman
Old Dec 7, 2003 | 03:47 PM
  #5  
Spinner's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,945
From: Fort Benning, GA
Ehm, it's not possible to bore+stroke an LT1 to 427...(right?) so he must have something else in there?
Old Dec 7, 2003 | 03:49 PM
  #6  
chad_g69's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 45
From: San Diego, CA
Originally posted by Spinner
Ehm, it's not possible to bore+stroke an LT1 to 427...(right?) so he must have something else in there?
4bolt LT-4 block, sleeved & filled w/ block filler
Old Dec 7, 2003 | 03:54 PM
  #7  
madwolf's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,577
From: DeKalb, IL
Originally posted by chad_g69
4bolt LT-4 block, sleeved & filled w/ block filler
You ran a 12.1 @ 127 with a 1.7 60' and 438 RWHP??
Old Dec 7, 2003 | 03:59 PM
  #8  
chad_g69's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 45
From: San Diego, CA
Originally posted by madwolf
You ran a 12.1 @ 127 with a 1.7 60' and 438 RWHP??
ya - i double check my time slip

Track location: long beach, CA (now closed)
1/4mi: 12.18 @ 127MPH
1/8mi: 6.4@ 89MPH
0 to 60: 1.47sec
R/T: .8sec
alt: <30feet above sealevel


(EDIT)last time i ran was when i lived in LosAngeles
any one know of any good 1/4 mile tracks in San Diego??

)when i ran i had no idea how much RWHP, had 1.6roller rockers - maybe worth a few HP)

Last edited by chad_g69; Dec 7, 2003 at 04:14 PM.
Old Dec 7, 2003 | 04:03 PM
  #9  
madwolf's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,577
From: DeKalb, IL
Something is not right. With a 127 MPH you should be deep into 11s if not high 10s with a 1.47 60 footer.
Old Dec 7, 2003 | 04:40 PM
  #10  
Robert95z's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,001
From: Houston TX
it says 0-60
Old Dec 7, 2003 | 04:50 PM
  #11  
QCKZ28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,853
From: Christiansburg, VA
double check your timeslip man, your 1/8 mile et and mph, doesnt match your 1/4 et and mph....something doesnt add up

just as a comparison my 1/8 is 8.1 at 89mph and my 1/4 mile was 12.5 at 115

1/8 to 1/4 difference:
for you 5.78 seconds and gained 38mph
for me 4.4 seconds and gained 26mph.....

and we crossed the 1/8 mile at the same mph.....
jesse
Old Dec 7, 2003 | 05:38 PM
  #12  
Cmr0z28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,287
From: Palm City, Florida
Comp already makes 1.7RRs.
Old Dec 7, 2003 | 06:03 PM
  #13  
TA Dreaming's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 433
From: Athens, GA
back to the topic please. what are the advantages and disadvantages of running 1.7RR to 1.6 RR? maybe the disadvantages are too great, or by the time people want that much lift they just get a bigger cam. would 1.7RR do anything for stock motor/cam? would the valves still clear the pistons? Trey
Old Dec 7, 2003 | 06:05 PM
  #14  
QCKZ28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,853
From: Christiansburg, VA
the topic of "1.7 RR" has been discussed in detail in a thread a couple of months ago. try the search button
jesse
Old Mar 9, 2004 | 09:31 AM
  #15  
93redbird's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 307
Probably a GPS system was used... That wasnt at the track.

Tim



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:33 AM.