Super Victor vs RPM Airgap Dyno results SBC

[Matt Gruber]

it is 3.73 gears, was 3.08 in 2009. i dug up an old post to see what it was back then.
just pointing out some perhaps useful results that someone might want to know with a similar combo. don't need a wild cam, steep gears, and a single plane or even the rpm airgap to move a 77 vette from 15's to mid 12's. high 12's w/3.08 is real highway friendly, that is why i use 3.08 in my 72 vette.
not wolf's combo at all, but i find his and other combos interesting. i hope wolf is impressed w/single at the track. But, if not, a non-airgap RPM should cruise around as low as 1500-1600 rpm converter locked. The true dual plane helps a mostly drag strip set-up drive nicer on the street.

[gmrocket]

a 2250 rpm spread is a very narrow test range, why so narrow if it has the capability to make more top end power? will you shift at 6200?

and can you explain why the vic peaked at such a low rpm? 5560 seems like it show keep pulling from there&up. the power is also dropping off at a quicker rate from that rpm on up compared to the RPM&that seems odd from what the VIC is suppose to do. at 6250, the gap is narrower than lower down because of the VIC dropping off sooner, the diff is only around 18.

the RPM seems to have a flatter curve up top&holds on longer, why? it looks like they would meet if the graph continued.

and can you explain why the VIC has a big dip at the start of the pull? the RPM doesnt have that&i think thats important

[CamKing]

and can you explain why the vic peaked at such a low rpm? 5560 seems like it show keep pulling from there&up. the power is also dropping off at a quicker rate from that rpm on up compared to the RPM&that seems odd from what the VIC is suppose to do. at 6250, the gap is narrower than lower down because of the VIC dropping off sooner, the diff is only around 18.

the RPM seems to have a flatter curve up top&holds on longer, why? it looks like they would meet if the graph continued.

and can you explain why the VIC has a big dip at the start of the pull? the RPM doesnt have that&i think thats important

Two words.
Chassis Dyno

[Winston Wolf]

a 2250 rpm spread is a very narrow test range, why so narrow if it has the capability to make more top end power? will you shift at 6200?

and can you explain why the vic peaked at such a low rpm? 5560 seems like it show keep pulling from there&up. the power is also dropping off at a quicker rate from that rpm on up compared to the RPM&that seems odd from what the VIC is suppose to do. at 6250, the gap is narrower than lower down because of the VIC dropping off sooner, the diff is only around 18.

the RPM seems to have a flatter curve up top&holds on longer, why? it looks like they would meet if the graph continued.

and can you explain why the VIC has a big dip at the start of the pull? the RPM doesnt have that&i think thats important

There must be a problem with some people not being able to see all of the dyno sheet. (make your internet window as wide as you can) Here are some smaller photos of the 2 graphs I posted that may fit on everybody's screen.

The Airgap isn't even close, and there is no way they would ever cross over again. I made pulls to 6800, 6900 and 7000.

The dip at the start of all the pulls is from how we had to opperate it on the chassis dyno. The trans will kick down into second if you floor it before 4000 rpms. We would run the rpms up slowly in 3rd until it got over 4000, hit the start button, and then nail it. No way to test it under 4200 ish when it's in the car, and with a 4k stall, who cares anyways. at WOT, it will never see less than that.

The 3 pull graph are all with the Super Vic, I don't know why they are not consistant, I am assuming the dyno is the culprit. However, compare any of them to the RPM and it gets creamed every time.....

[rally]

Creamed how? Again lets test these inatkes on the strip at a given RPM range, start low and up high. Lets see 330-660 ft times at these RPMs. gm rocket makes a great point, he has proof what his tests are capable of. Dynos are great, but give me the real world first and foremost. These tests dont lie.

[Winston Wolf]

Creamed how? Again lets test these inatkes on the strip at a given RPM range, start low and up high. Lets see 330-660 ft times at these RPMs. gm rocket makes a great point, he has proof what his tests are capable of. Dynos are great, but give me the real world first and foremost. These tests dont lie.

Don't worry, I will. And if the RPM is faster, it will be back on the next day. Snow/rain mix this weekend, Easter next, so the track is closed. You guys will have to wait until the 30th...

[gmrocket]

Creamed how? Again lets test these inatkes on the strip at a given RPM range, start low and up high. Lets see 330-660 ft times at these RPMs. gm rocket makes a great point, he has proof what his tests are capable of. Dynos are great, but give me the real world first and foremost. These tests dont lie.

Don't worry, I will. And if the RPM is faster, it will be back on the next day. Snow/rain mix this weekend, Easter next, so the track is closed. You guys will have to wait until the 30th...

the only way to make it half fair would be to put a big spacer on the RPM, or a bigger carb. the RPM will fail your test as you have it.

on second thought, after seeing the whole graph&how inconsistant they are..i wouldnt trust them. did you let the car cool down between runs?

[rally]

Good points gm rocket, Winston needs to make this fair. Spacer, bigger carb on the RPM Air Gap is the only way to compare. Winston i cant wait for your results.

[Winston Wolf]

Creamed how? Again lets test these inatkes on the strip at a given RPM range, start low and up high. Lets see 330-660 ft times at these RPMs. gm rocket makes a great point, he has proof what his tests are capable of. Dynos are great, but give me the real world first and foremost. These tests dont lie.

Don't worry, I will. And if the RPM is faster, it will be back on the next day. Snow/rain mix this weekend, Easter next, so the track is closed. You guys will have to wait until the 30th...

the only way to make it half fair would be to put a big spacer on the RPM, or a bigger carb. the RPM will fail your test as you have it.

on second thought, after seeing the whole graph&how inconsistant they are..i wouldnt trust them. did you let the car cool down between runs?

I was running a 1" open spacer on the RPM, for what it's worth. I run no spacer on the Super Victor.

The car was never "cool", as I had to drive it there, but runs 1 and 2 are back to back without shutting off the car. After seeing the difference in the 2 pulls, the dyno operator suggested we shut it off for a few minutes. We did, maybe 5 minutes, then did the 3rd pull.

[SBC-68-FIREBIRD]

Hi,

Do you have any track results yet ?

[Winston Wolf]

Hi,

Do you have any track results yet ?

Sorry guys, not yet. We had a rain-out last weekend, and all the tracks within 6 hours were closed this weekend for mothers day. I am all ready to go for the 14th though.

[rally]

Looking forward to your tests on the strip. That Air Gap will give you the best performance IMO.

[pdq67]

Didn't GM cut down the center divider in the L-88/ZL-1 dual plane intakes to help them breath better way up top because they didn't want to tool up for a single plane due to such small part volume sales.

Therefore they used what they had back then. GM never did have a BBC single plane intake back then.

pdq67

[rally]

pdg57 yes thats exactly what Chevy did on the L-88 ZL-1 intake, the 198. They milled the center plenum right down to the plenum floor and left about an inch of material on the front and back of the divder. I have this intake, a 69 version. This is the intake i will be bolting on in the future to see how my 330-660 ft times are on the strip. No they never eally called it a single plane. It was the same intake as the L-72- L-78 they used these on the 396-427, a true dual plane. The L-88- ZL-1 intake is strong in the 7,000 and up range. Dont underestimate this intake. I know a person who drag races his 69 Camaro 427 ci and uses this intake with a good roller cam, stock heads, etc and runs low 10s, 10:20 Ets. He claims this ZL-1 intake outperforms all single plane intakes he has tried on his combo. He told me he would never go back to a single plane intake for his RPM range of 7,000. That ZL-1 intake out pulls the single plane everytime in his tests and he needs no dyno tests to prove it. A dyno may say something else but you never know until you physically put that car and engine combo together and run it in tests condition on the strip. I will try my ZL-1 intake on my 468 ci 69 Camaro. For my RPM range of 6500 this intake will ET better.

[bigjoe1]

Back in 1970, I raced a BB 396 Chevelle= That same L-88 manifold was 30 HP better than the new (in 1970 ) super low profile intake that just came out that year. When I moved up to a 427, I ran the L-88 manifold with a one inch open spacer and a pretty big cam ( 280 at 050 )this setup would make 625 Hp at 7300, and would pull up to 76-7800 very well. It is important to know that you had to run the correct carburetor with the L-88 manifold to get all the HP out of the setup= The 850 CFM carb was number 4296 Holley. It came with little tabs cast on to the boosters to direct flow into the proper manifold runners. It required four differant jet sizes in each position, and to run the one inch spacer, I was up in the number 90 jet range on the 427 engine. The l-88 manifold was 15 or 20 HP BETTER than the first Edelbrock single plane manifolds= Edelbrock coppied the L-88 with their owu version, but it was 15 HP less than the original GM manifold


JOE SHERMAN RACING ENGINES