Most power out of a 23* head pumpgas smallblock?

airflowdevelop · Post by **airflowdevelop** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:15 pm

FASTFATBOY wrote:I get a kick out of people, man what thin skins we have.

Bret is a straightup guy, he tells it like it is. NOT the way you want to hear it. I like that, I wish MORE were like that. Bret has left some boards for being straight up and honest about paying sponsors and the admins didnt like it...oh well. Brets not a difficult guy, people just take him the wrong way.

Ed Wright is also that way, some people take him as grumpy. Hell I like the guy. If I was closer I would be in his back pocket as much as possible. He tells you like it is. You ask a dumb question, hes gonna hit you in the nose with the answer you got commin'! He is like E.F. Hutton, when he talks people listen. I know I do. He would probably put a knot on my head If I lived closer.

The car when it was stock, with a 9 inch rear and a six speed weighed 3470 lbs with no driver. I am about 290 now. Everything I pulled out to help the weight went back in, rollbar, seatbelts, 4 inch Mufflex, 4L60E, steel driveshaft. It all kinda washed out.

I am gonna 4 corner scale it tommorrow, I have gotten about 50lbs out in the last week or so.

As far as the Ai car, it is impressive. ANd Bret is right it is their "Holy Grail" Every Ai customer on LS1tech thinks this car is a full interior pumpgas streetcar that runs in Denver everytime it goes down the track. Hell I know better, but ya cant tell those guys anything. I know it runs the number, but callit like it is, its a racecar plain and simple.

good post.

Don't sacrifice the streetability of your car though... that way you are not playing everyone elses game. if you have extra not used weight...sure get rid of it.

You have plenty of power to be found.

Post by **CamKing** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:18 am

FASTFATBOY wrote:Bret is a straightup guy, he tells it like it is.

Now that's the funniest thing I've ever read on Speedtalk.
I'd have no problem with him if he would actually "tell it like it is".

FASTFATBOY · Post by **FASTFATBOY** » Fri Jan 02, 2009 3:52 pm

CamKing wrote:Now that's the funniest thing I've ever read on Speedtalk.
I'd have no problem with him if he would actually "tell it like it is".

Hes always been straight up with me. We get along fine.

BTW I weighed the car yesterday. The initial weight when I started was 3768 with driver(best of 11.02@123). WHen it ran the 10.84@124 it weighed 3650 with driver. Now it weighs 3602 with driver. Its getting better. Still got an easy 5-8lbs I can get.

Hey Mr Ed, did you take the Panhard rod brace out? I aint going road racing anytime soon, I see no need for it.

lun40119 · Post by **lun40119** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:40 pm

SStrokerAce wrote:I wouldn't consider going down the block to Jerry's place "In-House", not to mention getting grinding help from outside sources who have BTDT for years and can actually shape a short turn!

http://www.ipnews.com/archives/applying ... 07/dmg.htm

I just wanted to post this. Sorry to kick the dead horse. Its a picture of Phil and Ron with there machine.

FASTFATBOY wrote:Bret is a straightup guy, he tells it like it is.

How long do I have to know him before he starts telling it like it is.

Post by **CamKing** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:54 pm

lun40119 wrote:How long do I have to know him before he starts telling it like it is.

You just need to move to fantasy land.

user-9274568 · Post by **user-9274568** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:33 pm

You guys are in the WRONG business if you think someone is asking you a dumb question! No such thing guys, just humble people who aren't affraid to let someone teach them something!!

my opinion.

Post by **CamKing** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:40 pm

cspeier wrote:You guys are in the WRONG business if you think someone is asking you a dumb question! No such thing guys, just humble people who aren't affraid to let someone teach them something!!

my opinion.

????????
please explain????

new engine builder · Post by **new engine builder** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:46 pm

CamKing wrote:????????
please explain????

If you try and help they may just throw it back in your face.

user-9274568 · Post by **user-9274568** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:47 pm

I read the post that said so and so was a type guy that if you ask a stupid question, he gonna hit you between the eyes with the answer you got coming. I might have taken it wrong. I was just saying that there is no such thing as a "dumb" question. If you want people to know the correct answer, you need to answer them all, every time.

Like I said, I might have taken it wrong. Just so much hostility, or underlying resentment going on..

I'll shut up

cboggs · Post by **cboggs** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:56 pm

so Chad, .. did you have a dumb question ?

Curtis

user-9274568 · Post by **user-9274568** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 12:05 am

cboggs wrote:so Chad, .. did you have a dumb question ?

Curtis

How much time you got?

GrannySShifting · Post by **GrannySShifting** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 12:53 am

airflowdevelop wrote:In my experience it takes almost a fixed amount of hp to turn the driveline components mass a certain RPM. another fixed amount is lost in friction. and another fixed amount in accelerating the mass. Once you have reached your RPM goal, then the only loss that increases as HP increases is the energy to accelerate the mass quicker.

I have seen a number of engines show the addition of 200hp from nitrous on the engine dyno...and show 195-198 RWHP on a dynojet 2 days later.

The whole 15-20-25% deal is a joke IMO! It just doesn't work that way!

If your tranny is eating up 100+ Rwhp like many think... get a new converter / Transmission guy! He's doing it wrong!

you are right, it takes what it takes to turn. 1500 hp car doesnt consume 400 hp driving stuff that would take 130 hp to turn with a 500 hp car

Id say its making 530-550 at most, I cant see my stock engine with a cam making 600 (it runs 10.8s at 127). We see about 80-100 from flywheel to rearwheel with manual trans cars. My 430 may be little under 530 Id say. Dont go by your rearwheel numbers they are all over the place. 470 on our dyno at that weight goes 10.3s for example. 600 seems to go nearer to 10.0.

GrannySShifting · Post by **GrannySShifting** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:04 am

edit i see those were locked numbers.440 is getting nearer to normal numbers unlocked

Howd you hurt two pistons NA?

GrannySShifting · Post by **GrannySShifting** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:22 am

Id say it is entirely possible with manifold, cylinder, and camshaft its possible to see 60-90 hp absolutely. Not necessarily less driveable camshaft, just optimizing everything.

flyin ryan · Post by **flyin ryan** » Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:06 pm

This threads kinda moved around a little but i've just picked up on it. so back to the original question...my 'old' personal small block was 395 cube (4.125" X 3.70") wet sump Bow-Tie alum. block (10185075), 12.37:1 C/R, Pontiac '867' 23º heads ('true' 23º, no angle milling etc.) 235cc Int. volume, 2.48² min.C.S.A., 2.175" Int./1.60" Exh. valve's, Int. rocker off-set .350", Bullet cam I. 274º/E. 280º @ .050", I. .745"/E. .678" lift, 108L/S, Brodix HV 1002 intake w/ a 4150/4500 adapter, lots of epoxy between intake & adapter trasitions, Holley 950 HP, Moroso vac. pump-12"-13" vacuum, 1.875"/2" stepped headers X 3½ collector. last time i dynoed this engine was Sept. 2005 & uesd 94 octane fuel straight from the pump. 300 RPM/Second Accl. rate, was 564 ft./lbs. @ 6250 RPM & 740 HP @ 7500 RPM. i beat on that combination for a lot of years (1994) but it worked good for a 23º deal. the aluminum block didn't help power but the car liked it. even drove the car to the track 95% of the time.