By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
SignUp Now!I am certain that with a change in tire size or gearing AND a larger turbo, and better track weather, this thing is in the eights.
2" wastgate piping 304 stainless.
5" turbine housing piping 304 stainless.
Both exiting before the left front tire.
When you have great guys working with you, you need to find something to do with your time. I still get my hands dirty when an interesting job comes around or a part needs to be fabbed up for a job that one of the others is working on. Really, I started on this adventure in 1991 when I bought my first Stage II off-center block from Kenny. Available money always kept things at a snails pace. The first project engine kinda followed what everyone else was doing (except for the methanol :biggrin: ) and when that one blew in 2001, my new vision required me to learn some new skills and aquire some new tools, so that slowed me down some too.Unbelievable craftsmanship Don. I have a feeling you work more on the car than transmissions:tongue: I have a question for you, and if you don't want to answer I completely understand. How much personal time(hrs) and $$ do you think you have in just the drivetrain alone? I know what was involved with my project(only half as nice as yours) and can only imagine what you spent to get where you are....Where is the magazine coverage???
-scott wile
Had to use stock parts somewhere. It's a fairly rigid part, so it helps keep things out of the belts. I believe the radiator is the other stock part.....all those nice custom parts and technology but you're still using the ugly, stock, oil return line!![]()
I was wondering if someone would pick that up. Very good John. I'm impressed.
My shift point is 7400 rpm. The car goes through the traps at over 7800 rpm. You are absolutely correct about the gearing or tire size. I haven't figured out which way to go yet. More time on the sim. My home track is an 1/8 mile track, so at this point it's not real important to correct.
You have to take the converter into consideration. Right now you are at 7.6% efficiency which is pretty good. If you go with smaller gear and taller tire you may kill the efficiency. We went from a 3.70 gear and 28.5 tire to a 3.50 gear and 29.5 tire adn the efficiency went from 6.5% to 18% on the big end. We've since switched to a tighter converter and a VSC to solve that problem and it has worked VERY well.
Have you dynoed that motor at all to see were that cam makes power? A 108 LSA seems tight especially with a cam that size. On an engine dyno a 232/232 cam was starting to fall off after 5900 rpm. THe same cam specs with a 244/244 duration was better but still started to fall off after 6200rpm and killed our TQ numbers all together. We are getting ready to try another round of cam testing but on a chassis dyno this time. I currently have a DLS 236/236 and I'm waiting on a new grind to show up.
Bottom line, figure out what your trap rpm and mph need to be and gear your car accordingly then spend the rest of your life trying to find the right cam and converter for that perfect combo![]()
The 7.6% efficiency figure you came up with, did you include tire growth? After including tire growth, I calculated it to be in the high 8s. I'm just curious. I want to make sure I'm not missing something in my calcs.
You're correct about the higher gearing or taller tire deal. The sim doesn't like it. It does like 4.33s, but that makes my trap rpm worse. At least, that would be the case for the 1/4 mile anyway. Have to get back to work. We'll talk cams later.
I checked out the site. The formula is very simplistic. It does not take into consideration tire growth. At 150 mph, the tire growth can be 5-8 percent. A pro stock application can be 10%. A top fuel application, 20%.
Chris. When you are trying different cams on the dyno, are you using matching exhaust headers with each different cam to take advantage of gas pressure pulse tuning? This is very critical with long duration/high overlap cams. The wrong pulse tuning with a long cam can be killer. The whole gas flow package should be looked at as one system. The exhaust headers that are typically used on the Buick V6 these days is absolutely horrible, from the stand point of pulse tuning. Small cams with little or no overlap are not hurt by bad pulse tuning. The story is vastly different when you start exploring larger cams. If you're trying to match a cam to your intake and exhaust manifolding, then that's one story. If you're looking for more HP, you will find it with larger cams, if you're willing to tune the rest of the engine to match the needs of the cam.You have to take the converter into consideration. Right now you are at 7.6% efficiency which is pretty good. If you go with smaller gear and taller tire you may kill the efficiency. We went from a 3.70 gear and 28.5 tire to a 3.50 gear and 29.5 tire adn the efficiency went from 6.5% to 18% on the big end. We've since switched to a tighter converter and a VSC to solve that problem and it has worked VERY well.
Have you dynoed that motor at all to see were that cam makes power? A 108 LSA seems tight especially with a cam that size. On an engine dyno a 232/232 cam was starting to fall off after 5900 rpm. THe same cam specs with a 244/244 duration was better but still started to fall off after 6200rpm and killed our TQ numbers all together. We are getting ready to try another round of cam testing but on a chassis dyno this time. I currently have a DLS 236/236 and I'm waiting on a new grind to show up.
Bottom line, figure out what your trap rpm and mph need to be and gear your car accordingly then spend the rest of your life trying to find the right cam and converter for that perfect combo![]()