224 Stage I Single Turbo Buick V6 does the impossible. 8.76 @ 158.7

[Alky V6]

I went ahead and used my calculator to determine torque converter slippage without taking tire growth into consideration, since that seems to be the popular method on this site.
You guys really need to start taking tire growth into consideration. It skews the power curve and the TC slippage factor immensely, to the point where I ran out of TC slippage parameter range in an attempt to get an answer that would match my timeslip and datalog information. The range for the TC slippage parameter is 1.00 through 10.00. I had to input 00.10!
The answer I got was 5%.
If I had more range on the TC slippage parameter, because I still couldn't get it to exactly match my timeslip and datalog information, the answer probably would have been even lower!

WARNING: These low numbers that everyone is throwing around for torque converter slippage on the top end are not realistic numbers!!!

Sorry for not figuring this out a lot sooner for you people.

 

[Otto J]

I was able to run 152 MPH with a 3.42 rear gear 28" tall tire
crossing the line at 6400 RPM.

how does that calculate out? I am not a good a mathmatician as yourself.

 

[Otto J]

Don what tire,gear,and finsh line rpm did you have on hte 158 mph run?

 

[Dusty Bradford]

WARNING: These low numbers that everyone is throwing around for torque converter slippage on the top end are not realistic numbers!!!

Sorry for not figuring this out a lot sooner for you people.

Sorry for the comment that is to follow but.........This statement rates up there in the top 5 most ignorant posts on the internet that I've ever seen.

The slip #'s posted by the fastest guys on this site are not from some calculation but from datalogging tools. Namely engine rpm and driveshaft rpm. Under 10% is no problem for cars even running 7's. Sorry you don't believe it.

Hang tight, I'm sure data logs will soon follow proving you wrong.

 

[Otto J]

Don are you datalogging driveshaft RPM? if so what is it in comparison to your finish line rpm?

 

[HighPSI]

You beat me to the punch, Dusty. I can get you the datalogs if proof is needed
Don, do you log driveshaft speed? What other non-essential parameters do you log? I assume turbo backpressure.

 

[Otto J]

Sorry for the comment that is to follow but.........This statement rates up there in the top 5 most ignorant posts on the internet that I've ever seen.

Its quite possible Don holds more than one of the top 5,at least on this site.

 

[Alky V6]

My calculations were for my situation, but I'd like to see those 2-4% slippage datalogs.

 

[Alky V6]

OK. Here's a challenge for you. Supply me with a TC that will stall the way my present TC stalls for the launch, but will give me 2-4% slippage on the top end of the 1/4. I will even install a driveshaft speed sensor to verify the tests. If the TC meets these requirements, I will pay triple the price for it. If it fails to meet these requirements, someone just gave me a TC for the trouble.

 

[TURBOPOWERED68]

OK. Here's a challenge for you. Supply me with a TC that will stall the way my present TC stalls for the launch, but will give me 2-4% slippage on the top end of the 1/4. I will even install a driveshaft speed sensor to verify the tests. If the TC meets these requirements, I will pay triple the price for it. If it fails to meet these requirements, someone just gave me a TC for the trouble.

WOW

 

[Alky V6]

Its quite possible Don holds more than one of the top 5,at least on this site.

I'm sure one of those quotes involved me claiming that I could make this 224 cid V6 faster with the 91mm.

 

[Otto J]

you keep bringing up 224 CI???? there are plenty of cars that run as fast and faster than you with way smaller motor,CI is not holding you back

 

[bison]

My calculations were for my situation, but I'd like to see those 2-4% slippage datalogs.

Don, how does this calculate out? 27.3" drag radial, 3.42, 1:1, 5750 rpm, 133.4mph. What growth % do you use for a DR?

 

[bison]

you keep bringing up 224 CI???? there are plenty of cars that run as fast and faster than you with way smaller motor,CI is not holding you back

If i was looking for hp id take a big bore short stroke engine any day. I would use a different valve configuration than Don has though. But even with the small valve heads you can still make a boat load of power on any engine. CI doesnt matter.

 

[HighPSI]

I'm sure one of those quotes involved me claiming that I could make this 224 cid V6 faster with the 91mm.

I don't think that is a ridiculous statement. I think your combination is capable of outrunning the 76mm guys. Especially considering your weight advantage and the use of NOS. You are the one who has underestimated your combination and is "continuously suprised" and thinks it's "doing the impossible".
I do think that you still have a lot to learn and as you continue to do so, you will be even more amazed and might realize why some of the more experienced racers were a little critical of your low 9 second accomplishments. It has never had anything to do with your ingenuity or deviating from the norm. In fact, nearly everyone can appreciate that portion of your program.

 

[Dusty Bradford]

OK. Here's a challenge for you. Supply me with a TC that will stall the way my present TC stalls for the launch, but will give me 2-4% slippage on the top end of the 1/4. I will even install a driveshaft speed sensor to verify the tests. If the TC meets these requirements, I will pay triple the price for it. If it fails to meet these requirements, someone just gave me a TC for the trouble.

Sorry for taking so long to respond. I'm still laughing at your challenge so it's hard to type.

You said "WARNING: These low numbers that everyone is throwing around for torque converter slippage on the top end are not realistic numbers!!!

Sorry for not figuring this out a lot sooner for you people.

Don't start adding all these stipulations for your challenge. Fact is, low slip #'s are very possible that can also 60' in the 1.20's in a 3400# car without n2o assist. Just because it's not possible with your poor combination don't mean others are lying about their #'s.

Your combination requires an ultra high flash stall which can't be coupled in the rpm window you want to run in. I'm pretty good at figuring converters out but I can't fix a poor combination with a converter. Now you are seeing there is much more to making a car fast other than hp/ci or hp/valve size....whatever it was that you set out to blow our minds with.

So here's where I will offer to help. If I have your converter info I can see if it's possible to loosen it down low and tighten it up top. I need the core size used and who manufactured it, the stator design details. How many blades and at what angle? Pump details. We'll start with positive or negative angle and how much of an angle?

 

[Alky V6]

you keep bringing up 224 CI???? there are plenty of cars that run as fast and faster than you with way smaller motor,CI is not holding you back

And they're spooling a 91mm too? And I'm not talking about an ultra high rpm engine either.

 

[Alky V6]

If i was looking for hp id take a big bore short stroke engine any day. I would use a different valve configuration than Don has though. But even with the small valve heads you can still make a boat load of power on any engine. CI doesnt matter.

I can tell you have some insight into my combination. I've noticed that for quite awhile now. Good for you.

 

[Alky V6]

I don't think that is a ridiculous statement. I think your combination is capable of outrunning the 76mm guys. Especially considering your weight advantage and the use of NOS. You are the one who has underestimated your combination and is "continuously suprised" and thinks it's "doing the impossible".
I do think that you still have a lot to learn and as you continue to do so, you will be even more amazed and might realize why some of the more experienced racers were a little critical of your low 9 second accomplishments. It has never had anything to do with your ingenuity or deviating from the norm. In fact, nearly everyone can appreciate that portion of your program.

Thanks, Cal. I appreciate that.
You're right. For the more experienced out there, I'm sure it's like watching an infant growing up. But, for someone that has zero experience in all this, including myself, it's very exciting. So, for the more experienced out there that are keeping track of my adventure, please excuse my over-enthusiasm at each step of my personal conquests.
Those that have already made high accomplishments and continue to badger me as I learn, well, they just have a problem they need to learn to get over.

 

[JOHNDEEREGN]

This is getting good