? on Record RWHP on a stock bottom LT1 N/A, Hows 452!
07-08-2003, 03:59 PM
#106
West South Central Moderator / Special Guest
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Coppell, TX USA
Posts: 1,650
I think the problem is that somebody posted the highest Lt1 head/cam dyno numbers most of us have heard of, and it was on a dyno that very few of us know.
Like somebody said.. get it on a dyno jet and quiet the nay sayers.
Like somebody said.. get it on a dyno jet and quiet the nay sayers.
07-08-2003, 04:30 PM
#107
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: In a house by the bay
Posts: 2,985
Originally posted by Quickshotkimber
I think that Joe gets a kick out of reading more than posting. We joke all of the time about the flow #s tossed back and fourth on here. I think that some of the "experts" on here seem to know everything so why add his 2cents? After all, he's just a country boy from the stix
I've really got to thank Joe, almost everything that I thought I knew about LT1s was wrong. The internet is a very dangerous thing.
Mindgame- you seem like a class act
I think that Joe gets a kick out of reading more than posting. We joke all of the time about the flow #s tossed back and fourth on here. I think that some of the "experts" on here seem to know everything so why add his 2cents? After all, he's just a country boy from the stix
I've really got to thank Joe, almost everything that I thought I knew about LT1s was wrong. The internet is a very dangerous thing. Mindgame- you seem like a class act
For kicks, go back and read what I said in the beginning of this thread. Those guys (and they know who they are) still haven't said a thing. Yet they were all over the other threads.
It's understandable that we're all competitive by nature but we're also all car guys and it is ok to tell someone, "Hey man, good job". Even if they weren't your ported heads, your engine buildup, your special cam selection.
If you can't then you should find a new hobby IMO.
If anyone has the right to do any bragging it's Joe... but you see he doesn't need to.
And 94bird's cam is just right.
What rpm you shifting at Tim?
-Mindgame
07-08-2003, 04:57 PM
#108
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Carlisle, PA
Posts: 874
Mind, Quickshot, Joe....
I know I have read multiple times in thread by MindGame, oldstrokker, rkrause... that they feel people seem to be under the wrong impression when selecting a cam. (Paraphrased... no connotation is implied in the statement.)
I read as much as possible when it comes to this, so could one of you guys point me in the right direction as to literature that I could read over to follow your logic. I understand that most of it is probably in your head and some is experience that you have and it isn't documented but can you guide a guy in the right direction.
Maybe just some basic advice to follow.
The reason I ask is because I think a lot of new guys (me included) read these threads and get confused by the unbelievable about of contradicting information out there.
Thanks
I know I have read multiple times in thread by MindGame, oldstrokker, rkrause... that they feel people seem to be under the wrong impression when selecting a cam. (Paraphrased... no connotation is implied in the statement.)
I read as much as possible when it comes to this, so could one of you guys point me in the right direction as to literature that I could read over to follow your logic. I understand that most of it is probably in your head and some is experience that you have and it isn't documented but can you guide a guy in the right direction.
Maybe just some basic advice to follow.
The reason I ask is because I think a lot of new guys (me included) read these threads and get confused by the unbelievable about of contradicting information out there.
Thanks
Last edited by GetaZforgetGT; 07-08-2003 at 04:59 PM.
07-08-2003, 07:22 PM
#109
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: VA
Posts: 185
Originally posted by JordonMusser
I think the problem is that somebody posted the highest Lt1 head/cam dyno numbers most of us have heard of, and it was on a dyno that very few of us know.
Like somebody said.. get it on a dyno jet and quiet the nay sayers.
I think the problem is that somebody posted the highest Lt1 head/cam dyno numbers most of us have heard of, and it was on a dyno that very few of us know.
Like somebody said.. get it on a dyno jet and quiet the nay sayers.
Anywhow, we figured it out and ran the 452 and the AF was good to go. Unfortunately Joe must have been real busy that afternoon because I couldn't get back through to him so he had to see the big number posted on the net like everyone else. When I get the chance I'll put her on the dynojet just for those familiar with that dyno. Besides Luke's bringing beer.
Thanks for chiming in Joe, it's a lot easier to have you answer the questions you feel like answering since you know where the power came from.
Sig Check
07-08-2003, 09:10 PM
#111
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Jackstandican
Posts: 3,144
I'm not going to take sides w/ this issue. However, I would think since this car weighs in at 3750 w/ 450rwhp and a "good" clutch the car should trap anywhere between 122-124mph. We shall see.
Not necessarily... dyno rollers do not have the capability to put the wheels under true load.
Originally posted by Dr.Mudge
If it was slipping @ 114 MPH before the dyno trip, it would slip on the dyno, affecting HP numbers since the MPH goes down on the roller.
If it was slipping @ 114 MPH before the dyno trip, it would slip on the dyno, affecting HP numbers since the MPH goes down on the roller.
07-08-2003, 09:43 PM
#113
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: sarasota, fl
Posts: 2,456
Originally posted by SS RRR
However, I would think since this car weighs in at 3750 w/ 450rwhp and a "good" clutch the car should trap anywhere between 122-124mph. We shall see.
However, I would think since this car weighs in at 3750 w/ 450rwhp and a "good" clutch the car should trap anywhere between 122-124mph. We shall see.
07-08-2003, 10:17 PM
#114
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,518
Originally posted by SS RRR
However, I would think since this car weighs in at 3750 w/ 450rwhp and a "good" clutch the car should trap anywhere between 122-124mph.
However, I would think since this car weighs in at 3750 w/ 450rwhp and a "good" clutch the car should trap anywhere between 122-124mph.
Those are some great numbers. Good Job. Let's see the MPH at the track and that's enough for me.
Bret
07-08-2003, 10:53 PM
#115
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Shreveport La.
Posts: 541
Excellent numbers! Do you think they would have been near the same with the cam we talked about? My old set-up made 397 RW and ran 117.5 mph w/ a 3600 lb. race weight. (for others who are comparing mph/weight)
My old set-up made 397 RW and ran 117.5 mph w/ a 3600 lb. race weight. (for others who are comparing mph/weight)
07-09-2003, 12:33 AM
#116
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Jackstandican
Posts: 3,144
Originally posted by got_hp?
id like some of the crack you are smoking please.
id like some of the crack you are smoking please.
Countless 3600lb raceweight f-bods reaching the 400rwhp mark trap between 118 and 120mph at a nearly zero elevation track w/ good atmospheric conditions.
To your best experience and knowledge, what should the car trap w/ that weight and power? Please enlighten.
Last edited by SS RRR; 07-09-2003 at 03:21 AM.
07-09-2003, 06:26 AM
#117
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Bridgewater, MA
Posts: 5,645
Originally posted by SS RRR
Countless 3600lb raceweight f-bods reaching the 400rwhp mark trap between 118 and 120mph at a nearly zero elevation track w/ good atmospheric conditions.
To your best experience and knowledge, what should the car trap w/ that weight and power? Please enlighten.
Countless 3600lb raceweight f-bods reaching the 400rwhp mark trap between 118 and 120mph at a nearly zero elevation track w/ good atmospheric conditions.
To your best experience and knowledge, what should the car trap w/ that weight and power? Please enlighten.
07-09-2003, 06:37 AM
#118
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Location: IL
Posts: 36
Whats so hard to bealive here? How many guys are runnin 400rwhp on stock bottom ends. I know of 4 so if someone has some mucho dinero to get some fancey heads and a monster cam sounds completely reasonable to me
07-09-2003, 07:22 AM
#119
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Jackstandican
Posts: 3,144
Originally posted by RealQuick
I kno where talking totally different cars here, but I know 03 cobras (3700+lbs for the coupe) run about 116-118mph with 450rwhp, and one guy in particular I know of has 500rwhp and he traps 121-122mph. I know its a different vehicle, different tranny gears, different rear gears, suspension, etc. Just wanted to chime in.
I kno where talking totally different cars here, but I know 03 cobras (3700+lbs for the coupe) run about 116-118mph with 450rwhp, and one guy in particular I know of has 500rwhp and he traps 121-122mph. I know its a different vehicle, different tranny gears, different rear gears, suspension, etc. Just wanted to chime in.
My point is from what I have seen, experienced and the people I have known with 400rwhp combos between the Texas Motorplex in Ennis, TX and here in VA/MD at either Cecil County Dragway or Maryland Int. Raceway where both tracks are at sea level and have been known for excellent track prep and good weather conditions is where I am basing my opinion.
07-09-2003, 08:46 AM
#120
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: sarasota, fl
Posts: 2,456
Originally posted by SS RRR
Countless 3600lb raceweight f-bods reaching the 400rwhp mark trap between 118 and 120mph at a nearly zero elevation track w/ good atmospheric conditions.
To your best experience and knowledge, what should the car trap w/ that weight and power? Please enlighten.
Countless 3600lb raceweight f-bods reaching the 400rwhp mark trap between 118 and 120mph at a nearly zero elevation track w/ good atmospheric conditions.
To your best experience and knowledge, what should the car trap w/ that weight and power? Please enlighten.
im glad people are running faster.