At the track I frequent, the tires are holding me back. I think it's the track more than the car. After I think things are pretty well squared away, I think I'll take her to Vegas. See if there's anymore in her.
The Only 3300 lb. Buick V6 in the 8s using...
- Thread starter Alky V6
- Start date
- Status
That may happen during the next O/H. I'm thinking of a custom worked over TA SE.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2001
1.835" intake and 1.5" exhaust valves. How is this possible?
Looking for answers.
Not great but shouldnt keep you out of the 8's
Boost climbing to 28 psi by the top of first gear. Dipping to 27 psi boost for the shift into 2nd. Then slowly ramping to 31 psi boost by the end of the 1/4 mile run.
Doesn't seem like overly wild boost numbers to me. A very conservative boost rise curve. I don't think it's the boost.
I can promise you at 28psi you are not even close to working that 91mm turbo on a 224" motor
Nitrous used to spool the turbo, but turned off before the car leaves the line. I don't think it's the nitrous.
Good stuff for a V6
Torque converter? I can guarantee the torque converter is slipping too much on the top end.
Don't think it's the torque converter.
More trap speed+more rpm+tighter converter
Shock settings may play a part3300 lb. car with upgraded stock suspension.
Lots of work done on the suspension, but it's still just a stock configuration suspension that was set up by myself. I'm no expert chassis guy.
I don't think it's the chassis or suspension.
Gallina did itStroke of the engine is 3.06". A destroked Buick V6. Bore is under 4.00". CID is 224. Redline is 7800 rpm. Shift point is 7400 rpm.
No big cubes, and destroked to boot. Don't think it's the bore and stroke.
Cant race a flow benchOn the flow bench, the heads flowed 210 cfm. The intake valve size is 1.835". The exhaust valve size is 1.50".
Don't think it's the heads at all.
The camshaft has too much duration and too much overlap.
Can't possibly be the camshaft specifications.
Overlap might hurt. Long duration is fine if you spread the lobes Match cam specs to trap speed and rpm.
The exhaust pipes are rediculously large in diameter and long in length. Way too much volume.
Can't possibly be the exhaust pipes.
Yeah probably not the best design with a 224" motor and 91mm turbo. NOS can fix that though. Doing it again 1.5" primaries 1.625 max and keep turbo as close tot he motor as possible with shortest x-over.
The intake runners are the same length as a stock GN intake manifold. Way too much plenum volume. Rediculously, overly large throttle body.
No way it's the intake or throttle body.
TB is an issue with idle and drivability more than anything. Cracking a 90+mm TB on a 224" motor has to be difficult to tune although the methanol might make it easier. I went plenty fast with a 70mm and 3" IC pipes. Never saw a reason to chage even though new car will have 90mm and 4" pipes.
I didn't think about that!!! Hmmm. I am wearing a helmet, so I think my mouth being open from utter surprise and fright would not make any difference.Are you holding your mouth open or keeping it shut
Can't possibly be the wide open mouth.
a) Has anyone else done it?
b) Oh, I know.
c) Agree.
d) Agree.
e) With heads like mine?
f) So true.
g) 110 lobe seperation.
h) Difference of opinion.
i) Variable geometry throttle linkage solved that problem.
I didn't think about that!!! Hmmm. I am wearing a helmet, so I think my mouth being open from utter surprise and fright would not make any difference.
Can't possibly be the wide open mouth.
What ever the case, the car is ba and haulz azz
I've enjoyed watching the videos on youtube so keep them coming.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2001
Bob Peterson with his "six shooter" car back in the mid to late 90's
Tell me more about the car and engine. I'd like to compare specs.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2001
Lol I cant believe I even remember. I believe it was the 96 or 97 Buick MWC at US41 in Indiana I believe he went 8.83. He had M&A heads as they where the only head available at the time other than S2's and stock irons. The car was biege/cream color at the time and was called six shooter I have no idea what turbo or any other specifics. He later painted it red and went twins with S2 heads. I believe he got sick and dropped out of the scene for awhile but I think he recently returned. I know the car was for sale awhile ago. I think he is from Minnesota. He has been a regular at Buick events for many years someone else may be able to pipe up about the specifics.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2001
Better yet Jim DeAlassandro went 7.60's with a heavily worked set of M&A heads back in the 90's. Car was light in the 2200-2300# range and the heads where some freak set that where cut apart and welded back together by I believe Jim Ruggles. Still went pretty fast though and considering the times it was a pretty amazing feat. I think the car is for sale now in the for sale section as a roller.
I'm curious as to how much work the heads went through. I know they weren't just thrown on out of the box. I wonder if he stuck with the original valve sizes or went bigger? Most people were really working the M&As over back then. Repositioning valve locations, larger valves.
I stuck with the original valve sizes , but did have port work done. Nothing extravagant. A pretty basic high performance port job.
I don't think it's the port work. How can it be if it flowed a measly 210.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2001
I have no idea. I am pretty sure PTE was doing his motors back then so Dan Strezo might know as he is probably the one that did the heads and built the motor. I've flowed a few M&A heads and the intake ports never flowed that well. I think the largest valve you could stick in there was 1.90 without moving the guides. I never saw an M&A flow much better than mid 220's without doing something extravagant.I'm curious as to how much work the heads went through. I know they weren't just thrown on out of the box. I wonder if he stuck with the original valve sizes or went bigger? Most people were really working the M&As over back then. Repositioning valve locations, larger valves.
I stuck with the original valve sizes , but did have port work done. Nothing extravagant. A pretty basic high performance port job.
I don't think it's the port work. How can it be if it flowed a measly 210.
turbocliff
I Slang in my white T
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2004
Don - In my opinion nothing you have mentioned should prevent you from running 8s. I would agree with Chris Lyons about turning it up as I too believe there is more in it. I've seen your posts over the years, and you have to admit with as much testing as you have done with that combination, you eventually would have to run the number. Its a matter of you choosing to take the longer and less traveled path to get to the same destination (8s). I don't like to travel as much, and so I threw a run of the mill 274ci S2 with Stage heads in my 3400lb car on 275 radials with stock suspension and a 10 bolt rear end with an 88mm turbo (with a 1.08 exhaust housing) I went 8.40 @ 166 with a soft 1.42 60 foot my second trip to the track.
Now I've broken some parts and learned some things trying to keep it together this season (also had very limited time at the track with the car due to taking long to make minor repairs myself) and expect to run much faster in the spring, but am sure that when you turn yours up you will find it can go faster as well.
Now I've broken some parts and learned some things trying to keep it together this season (also had very limited time at the track with the car due to taking long to make minor repairs myself) and expect to run much faster in the spring, but am sure that when you turn yours up you will find it can go faster as well.
turbocliff
I Slang in my white T
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2004
Additionally Don, you keep saying that the TB "experts" say your combo is "wrong" but you're saying its "right" because it went in the 8s? I don't know which experts you are referring too, but is it really "right" when it takes CH3OH, nitrous, wheelie bars, 29.5" tire, less weight, bigger turbo, etc to run .7 sec and 20mph slower than the fastest TSO cars? I don't get it.
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2002
Its gotta be the wing
Where did I say that it was right?
I think I said, something must be right to allow me to do 8s. The question is, what is it when everything is so wrong?
Wing isn't on yet. Can't be the wing.
turbocliff
I Slang in my white T
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2004
All the experts on TB.com say every aspect of my combination is wrong.
Yet, the timeslip says something is right. What is it?
What your slips are telling you could be that something is right... or that something is wrong... depending on prespective.
- Status
