Track Results

:eyepopping:  :thumbup: Awesome Terry!!!!! I was trying to think of a good telephone ringing during the run joke but couldn't. I get the biggest kick out of telling the non-believers about your T.  :D The biggest problem for me trying to build a duplicate of your car would be finding the car, money would be next :cursing: . It's just incredible what you have managed to do with a CSOB attitude and a boat anchor engine. What the hell more can you do to prove these idiots that they are full of crap about these engines?!!!!!  :banghead: :banghead: To run the times you have run and do it without NOS or wicked low gears is mindboggleing. If anyone had done the same improvements to a bigblock chevy would they have pulled off the same times? I think not.  lol You have got to get this car in the nines, Terry. What else more can you do to it? Good luck.  :thumbup:
 
Oh, by the way, the speedworldmotorplex horsepower calculator says you are making 508 at the flywheel and 430 at the rearwheels.  :yikes: Better throw that anchor overboard! :jack:
 
An observation....and open for replies please. 2 cars running 2 different motors but all getting to a place caddilacs aren't supposed to, higher rpm. LUXLX running a differnet style of cam and 3.08 gears with NOX and an edelbrock ran his above 5500rpm and had power. The T runs 3.50 gears and the edelbrock and it turns to 6000 rpm easily, with power. So, could it be that if you give the edelbrock some help (gears or nitrous), with the right combo it will make power to 6000rpm? I realize my comparision isn't apples to apples but both of those cars made serious power on what many consider junkyard parts. The T is running on what a lot of people would consider the wrong rear end ratio, to high at 3.50 instead of a 3.08 or lower. In fact I think if you changed the gears to a 3.08 the car would slow down.
So my observation is, in the right setting is the edelbrock a good manifold for the money. I think that answer is yes, but in the wrong combo its no better than a stock manifold. Just some food for thought
George
 
I'm with you, George.  The cat's out of the bag for sure!   

I have something in the works that is also along these lines, I'll let everyone in on it when I get a little more done on it. :shhh:

And "junkyard parts" is an apt description....

Chris
 
smalltruckbigcid said:
An observation....and open for replies please. 2 cars running 2 different motors but all getting to a place caddilacs aren't supposed to, higher rpm. LUXLX running a differnet style of cam and 3.08 gears with NOX and an edelbrock ran his above 5500rpm and had power. The T runs 3.50 gears and the edelbrock and it turns to 6000 rpm easily, with power. So, could it be that if you give the edelbrock some help (gears or nitrous), with the right combo it will make power to 6000rpm? I realize my comparision isn't apples to apples but both of those cars made serious power on what many consider junkyard parts. The T is running on what a lot of people would consider the wrong rear end ratio, to high at 3.50 instead of a 3.08 or lower. In fact I think if you changed the gears to a 3.08 the car would slow down.
So my observation is, in the right setting is the edelbrock a good manifold for the money. I think that answer is yes, but in the wrong combo its no better than a stock manifold. Just some food for thought
George
Click to expand...

Not that I disagree with you George but I would like to add that imo vehicle weight has ALOT to do with what gears and cam you can get away with. There is a bunch of difference between 2500# and 3500+#.

BTW I think the Edelbrock is worth the price for the weight savings alone.

Kurt
 
Just because you can spin a performer manifold motor over 5200 and still make power does not mean that it could not make substantially more power with a better manifold.  I would like to see Terry's motor with a ported & port/adapter matched & flowed Ford 460 performer rpm or a well designed single plane. I know this takes time & money ($ being against csob club rules) but I bet it would pick up a substantial amount of power.  Also I bet Terrys motor would run out of breath sooner and be more noticeable due to the intake if it awere a bigger say 529+ cube motor.  FWIW Edelbrock generically rates it performer intakes to make power to 5500 and their rpm series to 6500.  
 
petersonracing said:
About 5600-5700 through the traps if I remember correctly. I would love to see how the car would do with a good ford manifold on adaptors. He also has a 1050 Dominator to try out sometime.
Click to expand...

What cfm is the carb on it now?
 
Vern, I think a ford setup would be a cool test or replacement part, if it picked up some power. The lightwieght car helps a lot too. As some southerners would say this was jes' fer cogitatin' on......... lol
George
 
I'll try to answer all the questions...
     Potter-
         5600 thru the traps,shifting between 56 and 58 on both shifts.She's still pullin' hard when I get out of it.
      George-
         I agree.It wants the 3.50 gear.My gut (and I know enough to trust it)says 3.00 would slow down.
      Charles
          I'm going to PM you about the adapter and manifold.But it's not looking good for the Shin-Dig for me.
      Shawn
           Carb is 870 Holley (850 DP modified by Bill Mitchell)non-HP unit.
      Duane-
            Lots of tuning.The thing was a bit lean,not enough to hurt anything but more fuel should help a bit.Play with the timing....I was at
            32 degrees 'til the last pass when I went to 30 and it lost 1 mph and .05 et.I need to bump it to 34 and see what happens,maybe even 35 or 36 (there goes my gut again).
             And like was mentioned,try a different intake.I like the Edelbrock and most of the ET is effected in the first part of the pass where the Edel shines,but this thing can make a lot of time up in the middle of the track....I've proven it.
             I'm going to try a Dominator on the Edel too,just for grins.
       Vern-
              You're right.....but CSOB or not,I will spend real money if i have to to get where I want to be(If I have the money,no borrowing).But If there is a Cheaper alternative that gives me 80% of the performance for 20% of the cost (and there are plenty of those out there,look at the T :thumbup:)I'm all over it. I'll give $400 for an intake ready to go,but 700+?? NFW :no:.
       All......
           Isn't this just BIG STUPID FUN ????? :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :beer: :beer:

      Thanks for all the thoughts
   Terry (still smilin') :D
     
 
George,

I'm with you [and Terry]. A 3.08 gear would slow it down. I'd bet $100. I think many guys get too gaught up in the "gear it to tug" thing. Granted, a caddy would not mind a taller than optimum gear as much as other engines, but imo, gearing should allow going through traps at or slightly above peak horse rpm.
Dave


< The T is running on what a lot of people would consider the wrong rear end ratio, to high at 3.50 instead of a 3.08 or lower. In fact I think if you changed the gears to a 3.08 the car would slow down.
 
&nbsp; Rermember when I first got the T running last year and took it to the track? Had a bit of valve float at 5000 rpm,so I swapped the 3.50 gear for 3.00 and tried it. Cost me .12 sec in the 60' times and .25 sec and 1.5 mph in the 1/4 mile. The car just hated that gear.It wouldn't be any better with this setup-if anything maybe a 3.70 would help but I don't want to twist it that hard yet.
&nbsp; Terry
 
Just to add to the Edelbrock air flow debate, here's what works on the RED... Paul
 

Attachments

  • dragster stuff 2 016 resized.webp
    dragster stuff 2 016 resized.webp
    47.9 KB · Views: 2,966
&nbsp; Paul
&nbsp; What size carb is it?
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Terry
 
Terry, it's a slick'ed and trick'ed 850. Built for a 560 BBC. The carb change from a worked Q-jet was less impressive than the gain from the added plenum and the leveling wedge, that's how I evened out the cyl to cyl distribution problems I had after the heads were ported. Lot's of time invested in smoothing and matching, from the carb base to the valve pocket. The full flow/bypass fuel setup lets me run lower pressure at the fuel inlet valve, without losing volume. No slosh or float bounce problems. R&D continues on the tall tube tunnel ram... Paul
 
That ought to flow enough...Paul
 

Attachments

  • Copy of junkyard jewells 030 resized.webp
    Copy of junkyard jewells 030 resized.webp
    95.3 KB · Views: 2,954
&nbsp; Good work,Paul. :thumbup: And thanks for adding another dimension and a few variables to the Edelbrock intake quandary.The intake in progress looks verrrrrrry interesting....... :scratchchin:
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Terry
 
Terry, are you running the water pump with the crank pulley? Moroso eaterpump drive may be worth a .010th or so in E.T.&nbsp; :twocents:&nbsp; I want to see you in the 9's&nbsp; :thumbup:&nbsp; &nbsp; :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top