I've found lately that it's easier to put the car on a diet than me. I gotta have those chewy chips ahoy!

 

The thing is you are typing about peak numbers and generating all of this theory based only on peak numbers. You can't do that when you compare two different drive trains. Not all peak hp numbers are created equal. One example I've experienced over and over again is I have ran a higher mph if I spin off the line as compared if I dead hook.

 

You conviently failed to address this....

I fail to see your logic, How does taking LESS time to run the 1/4 equate into LESS trap speed?

If that was the case you would run 9.90@105 and 14.50@135

If I am running QUICKER(less time) down the track that means I am accelerating HARDER and covering ground faster generating more speed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------


All being equal power to weight, mph will be similar.

Everyone runs higher mph if they spin, lower mph if they hook....I cannot expalin that...but that is just fact.


David

 

100% agreed.

I see what the guys around here in the local LSx crowd have to throw at their car $$$-wise to get where they are at.

There's no LT1 guys left in the area except for me and a buddy of mine.

 

same here.....we are riding around in dinasaurs

 

I only found one item in your reply that was worth addressing. I did and you don't agree and you cannot explain why. I didn't realize I was under contract to exacerbate every one of your sentences. No reason to keep on with this since you're getting agitated. As said... if you want to believe it takes a M6 3750 car 452rwhp to trap 120mph who am I to stop you? I don't believe it and nothing you've stated will convince me otherwise. I don't like arguing dyno numbers vs. ET. I've seen what I've seen and believe what I've seen and it has nothing to do with that much power needed to trap a 120mph speed with that race weight in a M6 f-body.
I fail and you win. We're both happy.

Edit-
Here's something I reference from one of my salty dog f-body heroes who has done almost everything you can think of to a LT1 f-body:

http://fastblackcar.com/camaro/modstoperf.htm

Car weighed 3650

This is what I believe:

 

3650 is NOT 3750 or 3800.

What DA were the two times run in???????

You cannot take a SAE corrected RWHP number from 2 cars, one runs 122 mph in 100ft DA with 438 rwhp and the other runs 122 mph in 2500ft da with 452 rwhp and say what you say.

You DO understand weight slows a car down?

You DO understand that a quicker ET yields more MPH IE 14.50@99 vs 9.90@135?

You DO understand Density altitude has a HUGE affect on the cars ability to produce power?

Same day, same track, same weight car, Similar power curves, a six speed and an auto will MPH close to the same.

Whether or not you THINK it takes 463 to the tires to run 124 in a 3800 lb car is irrevalent(sp?) I got the slips and the dyno sheets.

And just out of curiosity, just how much RWHP do you think it takes to get a 3800 lb car to run 124 mph? Gotta remember very few F bodies have a 3800lb raceweight, most are 3600lb raceweight That 200 lbs alone would put me in the 10.80's@126/127mph.

Does THAT seem more inline with you?


David

 

Once again I ask, do you really think you are going to sway my beliefs as to what I've seen from Jordon's car as well as my own and many others for the last 10 or more years? Valiant effort, but it's a no go. Especially with the following statement:
Just chalk it up as you winning and me loosing.

 

David, one thing to keep in mind is the fact that cars from years ago keep being mentioned and just about everything being done now a days just doesn't seem to matter to some people. Doesn't matter what kind off impressive times one has, it all seems to have been done before with less. And this comes from a certain individual that he himself has no current times to post up. In fact I have yet to see time slips of the past, and or dyno, track times, or pictures of his current set-up.

 

Even your buddy endorses my statement:
https://www.camaroz28.com/forums/sho...&postcount=114
Are you going to disagree with him?

 

How bout them stroker heads

-Dustin-

 

These threads always veer off topic, but I do like properly ported stock castings with bigger valves...So far the best I've seen are the Lingenfelter LT1 heads...Eric Bradby did find a bit more air in mine, but he was working with 10 year old CNC program that has been updated and research at LPE has turned up a bit more air than mine originally flowed. They use great/durable double springs, titanium retainers, Manley race flo severe duty stainless valves, etc, etc...They aint cheap, but going fast and being durable never is...and I still have the same springs/retainers going on their 13th year..

--Alan

 

I would go with ported stockers and put the extra cash into something else. Unless I was going all out, I think ported stockers will get the job done.

 

So you take it I'm talking about you? Not hardly. In fact, I don't think you actually own a Camaro, do you?
And to the OP, you can run ported stockers, as long as they come from a reputable head porter. May not be the best combo, but the best is way above many of our check book limits, or at least mine.

 

Then who were you talking about....you should specify to avoid confusion