How will you go faster?

[skinny z]

Skinny, your 10.50:1 cr 350cid engine will not make 470 hp @ 6000.
Not N/A.. The 470 hp will occur @ 6400 to 6700 RPM.

With such a power curve you got ti trap at 7000 ++ rpm.
3600 lbs use a 4.56:1 gear 26" tire (effective rolling radius 25.5")
The converter slip will likely now be a bit LESS % as the higher trap rpm alliws better coupling at speed. 7 % ish.

The Moroso calc assumes your chassis is NHRA stock/ superstock prepped efficient.

Your all street Camaro is NOT equal to this.
Are you going to remove the P/S, Water pump ,alternator belt drive. like a superstock csr?.
Not... Are yiu going to go thru the drivetrain and wheel alignment (@spwed) to remove friction loss. like a S/S car? Not..
Are you going to re-distribute weight in the car like a S/S car? not.. Are you going ti stiffen the whole chassis with a full cage? NOT..

You need to correct the Moroso formula MATH to account for this.
Are you running the car @Sea level 29.92" barometer
(station pressure). Not or 0% humitity..?
You need to correct the engine power input for this.

The trouble with sims is bad input numbers.

This is the Moroso slide rule calc.
You can do it easily on your phone cakc
https://www.ajdesigner.com/fl_horsepowe ... _speed.php

This is not the place to debate what the output of this next engine might be. That'll be another place and another time.
I posted that as a sort of reference and I'm working with that number as a basis for establishing what's likely or not likely to happen. Your vote has been counted as not likely. I can work with that.
I have no illusions what it takes to make power or what it takes to put it to the ground. This is simply a means of starting that conversation.
And yes, I may just build a gutted all out drag car. I have more than one Camaro to choose from.

[F-BIRD'88]

Your missing the point.. You are not the first guy who tried to get a 350 sbc in a 3600 lbs Street trim Camaro into the 11's...
You can make 470 hp from the 10.50:1 CR sbc. fir sure..
BUT NOT AT 6000 RPM.. It will not happen.

This engine has been built to 470 hp + and minus over 1 million times... Your will be no different.
For Calgary air you ned to build a 490 to 510 HP engine
dyno tested.. To get 470 hp in the car @ 3000 ft elevation.. ON YOUR BEST DAY.
you need to plan and account for this in your build if yiu want that xar to run 11.'s. there.

It will not happen with a 3.73 rear gear....

Best to have a reality based conversation.
Then yoy can make a plan that gets your street car to a 11 sec ET @ 3600 lbs @ 3000 ft elevation.

[Erland Cox]

One of the things I was trying to point out, is that one of the better ways, to increase speed and decrease et, is work on the tune to keep the lose of tq to a min in at least your rpm drop between shifts. That can be done with CR, carb and cam selection, with that, you increase the average tq in that range. As I said before peak hp, will do very little to go faster. You always have to work in that shift range, what come before and after means nothing.

When Pro Stock went fro 4 to 5 gears most everyone said it won’t matter. It did because there is less RPM loss between gear changes. You don’t need as broad a torque curve with 5 gears as you do 4.

And guess who the last team was to switch to the 5 speed? The idiots at Wayne County Speed Shop with the Dodge. I was at Seattle and asked them why they hadn’t made the change yet as they were getting their asses handed to them. They said “we make more torque” and I said “well how is that working for you”? I didn’t get an answer.

The heads on that engine were obsolete and they had other issues but not making that change just killed them.

It’s the same thing we are talking about. What you want to do with “torque” would be better served (in most cases) being done with gears and gear ratios.

I forget the year that happened but it had to be 1992 or 1993 but I’m not 100% sure on that. To this day, Pro Stock has done everything they can to raise RPM because RPM makes horsepower.

You can’t show me a single ET/MPH calculator that uses torque for a result. I know I’ve never seen one.

There is a reason for that.

But they won and they had more torque because they used N2O as some other teams also did.
I believe that only Jerry Eckman got caught.

Erland

[skinny z]

Your missing the point.. You are not the first guy who tried to get a 350 sbc in a 3600 lbs Street trim Camaro into the 11's...
You can make 470 hp from the 10.50:1 CR sbc. fir sure..
BUT NOT AT 6000 RPM.. It will not happen.

This engine has been built to 470 hp + and minus over 1 million times... Your will be no different.
For Calgary air you ned to build a 490 to 510 HP engine
dyno tested.. To get 470 hp in the car @ 3000 ft elevation.. ON YOUR BEST DAY.
you need to plan and account for this in your build if yiu want that xar to run 11.'s. there.

It will not happen with a 3.73 rear gear....

Best to have a reality based conversation.
Then yoy can make a plan that gets your street car to a 11 sec ET @ 3600 lbs @ 3000 ft elevation.

And THIS is some of that conversation.
And it's both understood and appreciated.
Oh, and just to be clear, I have no illusions of being able to go 120 MPH. That, as I said, was just something to throw out there.
But that have gone 109. So there's a baseline.
Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled program.

[David Redszus]

I'm inclined to simply ignore your response

By all means, please do so.

And, everyone who does know the answers about how to make a car run, knows that you don't.

Everyone? That is a large army.

Is it any wonder why the real players no longer post on this site?!

So why are you still here?

[ClassAct]

One of the things I was trying to point out, is that one of the better ways, to increase speed and decrease et, is work on the tune to keep the lose of tq to a min in at least your rpm drop between shifts. That can be done with CR, carb and cam selection, with that, you increase the average tq in that range. As I said before peak hp, will do very little to go faster. You always have to work in that shift range, what come before and after means nothing.

When Pro Stock went fro 4 to 5 gears most everyone said it won’t matter. It did because there is less RPM loss between gear changes. You don’t need as broad a torque curve with 5 gears as you do 4.

And guess who the last team was to switch to the 5 speed? The idiots at Wayne County Speed Shop with the Dodge. I was at Seattle and asked them why they hadn’t made the change yet as they were getting their asses handed to them. They said “we make more torque” and I said “well how is that working for you”? I didn’t get an answer.

The heads on that engine were obsolete and they had other issues but not making that change just killed them.

It’s the same thing we are talking about. What you want to do with “torque” would be better served (in most cases) being done with gears and gear ratios.

I forget the year that happened but it had to be 1992 or 1993 but I’m not 100% sure on that. To this day, Pro Stock has done everything they can to raise RPM because RPM makes horsepower.

You can’t show me a single ET/MPH calculator that uses torque for a result. I know I’ve never seen one.

There is a reason for that.

But they won and they had more torque because they used N2O as some other teams also did.
I believe that only Jerry Eckman got caught.

Erland

Lol. That’s true. I think there was more than Wayne County and Eckman/Orndorff doing it though. Somewhere out there is video of…never mind. That ship has sailed. No sense bringing that up again.

[Bigchief632]

When Pro Stock went fro 4 to 5 gears most everyone said it won’t matter. It did because there is less RPM loss between gear changes. You don’t need as broad a torque curve with 5 gears as you do 4.

And guess who the last team was to switch to the 5 speed? The idiots at Wayne County Speed Shop with the Dodge. I was at Seattle and asked them why they hadn’t made the change yet as they were getting their asses handed to them. They said “we make more torque” and I said “well how is that working for you”? I didn’t get an answer.

The heads on that engine were obsolete and they had other issues but not making that change just killed them.

It’s the same thing we are talking about. What you want to do with “torque” would be better served (in most cases) being done with gears and gear ratios.

I forget the year that happened but it had to be 1992 or 1993 but I’m not 100% sure on that. To this day, Pro Stock has done everything they can to raise RPM because RPM makes horsepower.

You can’t show me a single ET/MPH calculator that uses torque for a result. I know I’ve never seen one.

There is a reason for that.

But they won and they had more torque because they used N2O as some other teams also did.
I believe that only Jerry Eckman got caught.

Erland

Lol. That’s true. I think there was more than Wayne County and Eckman/Orndorff doing it though. Somewhere out there is video of…never mind. That ship has sailed. No sense bringing that up again.

Why do you think Billy Glidden is such a wizard with nitrous. Especially back in the late 90's early 2000's when he was dominating with a seemingly super basic small block Ford against much more radical and complex set ups. Obviously he was using nitrous, and it was legal in the class he was running, but he sure had something figured out compared to the others at the time. Supposedly, he was using waaaaay less nitrous than anyone else too to do it. Not saying they used nitrous in pro stock, but, that could be a plausible reason why he was so successful with it later.

[David Redszus]

Everybody knows what type tq we use and how it's generated.

Let's take a closer look.

Given a torque of 444 lbft @ 4500rpm; 380hp.

Gearing and tire diameter will result in a wheel torque value, which is converted to a
force that moves the vehicle. In this case it is 4379 lbs of force. For a 3600lb car, this would
produce an acceleration of 1.21 G.

If the wheel turns at 394 rpm, the power at the wheels is 342.4 hp.

If the accelerating force remains constant but the wheel rpm goes up, so does the wheel horsepower.
The speed will increase but the acceleration remains unchanged.

[parkman]

Of course to go faster using the above example for a 394 wheel rpm point:

Using a dyno sheet I have which is amazing close to your 444 @ 4500 torque; that engine had peak power at 5500 with 424 ft-lb. So instead of 380 hp you have 444 and the glaringly obvious point is the combo is geared or convertered wrong for acceleration.

So gear or converter it better and you get 400 rwhp using the same 11% loss and 394 wheel rpm, or 5118 lbs force and 1.42g. Obviously assuming things like traction.

[289nate]

As I said before peak hp, will do very little to go faster. You always have to work in that shift range, what come before and after means nothing.

I hope you realize an engine with less peak torque can clean the clock of an engine with significantly more peak torque. My Duramax has a ton more peak torque than my 289 had. But the 289 had more HP. The 289 was at a disadvantage of 300 comparing peak torque. But had an advantage of 70 hp. I’ll take the 289 in an acceleration test to a certain mile per hour properly geared in any weight vehicle.

When you start talking about torque at the tire you really start to understand the significance and the purpose of a horsepower rating.

[David Redszus]

Of course to go faster using the above example for a 394 wheel rpm point:

Using a dyno sheet I have which is amazing close to your 444 @ 4500 torque; that engine had peak power at 5500 with 424 ft-lb. So instead of 380 hp you have 444 and the glaringly obvious point is the combo is geared or convertered wrong for acceleration.

So gear or converter it better and you get 400 rwhp using the same 11% loss and 394 wheel rpm, or 5118 lbs force and 1.42g. Obviously assuming things like traction.

Ken
The point I was trying to make is that the torque (lb ft) at the rear wheel, divided by the tire radius, results in a force (lb) that propels the vehicle. For any point on the torque curve, we can determine vehicle acceleration. The acceleration does not require a horsepower input.

But, the wheel rpm, determines how much horsepower is present, at that moment in time.

[pastry_chef]

Acceleration does NOT require a torque input!

Acceleration = (RWHP x 550)/(vehicle weight x 1.466666 x vehicle speed)

Acceleration in g's
Vehicle weight in lbs.
Vehicle speed in MPH

There are a few on this forum who have aided many of their customers to win many BIG championships and set many racing records. All of them think the same in this regard, listen to them!
I don't listen to someone with a cracker jack box education and nothing real world to backup their BS nonsense!

Perhaps you should go back to arguing with Mike Jones about cam design.. unreal buddy.

[Tom68]

You can make 470 hp from the 10.50:1 CR sbc. fir sure..
BUT NOT AT 6000 RPM.. It will not happen.

Just gotta make 500 at 6500 to get you 470 at 6 don't you ?

[Stan Weiss]

Acceleration does NOT require a torque input!

Acceleration = (RWHP x 550)/(vehicle weight x 1.466666 x vehicle speed)

Acceleration in g's
Vehicle weight in lbs.
Vehicle speed in MPH

There are a few on this forum who have aided many of their customers to win many BIG championships and set many racing records. All of them think the same in this regard, listen to them!
I don't listen to someone with a cracker jack box education and nothing real world to backup their BS nonsense!

Perhaps you should go back to arguing with Mike Jones about cam design.. unreal buddy.

Hi Mike,
Been a while how are you doing?

While I use a different method and have not had time to check this one out. Shouldn't it be (RWHP - (Aerodynamic drag HP + Rolling resistance HP)).

Stan

[skinny z]

You can make 470 hp from the 10.50:1 CR sbc. fir sure..
BUT NOT AT 6000 RPM.. It will not happen.

Just gotta make 500 at 6500 to get you 470 at 6 don't you ?

In purely dyno trim, no problemo.
In the chassis of the car is another matter. And like anything it depends on which chassis.