TRENT THOMPSON
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2001
so I am the fastest a high mileage TR has been with untouched heads and stock camfrom the people who have answered 
TRENT THOMPSON
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2001
I though stockwell was like 11.70 or somewhere close
strikeeagle
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2001
My T (in the hands of the original owner) went 12.0's at approaching 110 with less than 20 PSI, with a bone stock motor (not even new valve springs), stock turbo (with bleeder valve, ported wastegate hole and dump pipe), stock injectors and a stock intercooler (with ice box), 4.10 gears, 30" tires and no scan tool (i.e. "uninformed" tuning).
The port job on the wastegate hole looked like it was done by a 6 year old with a butter knife. He never ran over 20 PSI because the boost gauge only went to 20 PSI - sounds logical to me.
So much for popular theory...
The port job on the wastegate hole looked like it was done by a 6 year old with a butter knife. He never ran over 20 PSI because the boost gauge only went to 20 PSI - sounds logical to me.
So much for popular theory...
My T has gone 110.5 "all stock" with less than 20 psi, too, but I only went 12.2's because of my lousy 1.80 60fts (back when I didn't know how drag radials worked) The only non stock parts on the motor were the FP regulator, the K&N and a THDP.
With what I know today, I'm pretty sure I could go 113 and high 11.8's with an unopened motor at around 21 psi, stock turbo, intercooler, (injectors would be questionable and I wouldn't try that - would probably use bluetops), TC, rear gears, etc.
I bet Vetters motor was "blueprinted", had a "wink, wink" three angle valve job, and I also bet his turbo had a .82 exhaust housing.
With what I know today, I'm pretty sure I could go 113 and high 11.8's with an unopened motor at around 21 psi, stock turbo, intercooler, (injectors would be questionable and I wouldn't try that - would probably use bluetops), TC, rear gears, etc.
I bet Vetters motor was "blueprinted", had a "wink, wink" three angle valve job, and I also bet his turbo had a .82 exhaust housing.
It's funny that this (stock eliminator) topic came up. I have been working on my motor at a shop that preps a lot of circle track stuff, including heads for classes that require "OEM iron stock, unported" heads.
The head of choice for the GM guys is the Vortech head; he does the valve job by choosing the bottom angle that basically does a bowl port as it goes down. He sets up so that the short side radius ridge that's there stock is almost eliminated by the bottom cut. The heads are angle milled to the max for compression, all valve heights are equalized, screw in studs and better springs are installed to deal with the higher RPM range they spin these motors to...man I want a set of "stock" 8445 heads like this!
The head of choice for the GM guys is the Vortech head; he does the valve job by choosing the bottom angle that basically does a bowl port as it goes down.
He sets up so that the short side radius ridge that's there stock is almost eliminated by the bottom cut. The heads are angle milled to the max for compression, all valve heights are equalized, screw in studs and better springs are installed to deal with the higher RPM range they spin these motors to...man I want a set of "stock" 8445 heads like this!strikeeagle
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2001
Somebody told me a while ago that NHRA is really fussy on heads and cams. I know guys used to bury heads in their backyard - letting Mother Nature port 'em (i.e. rust). I don't think that flies with tech anymore...
I can tell you this....."stock" prepared heads by those that know flow an awful lot like they were well ported and "stock" prepared turbos act a lot like TE-60's.........and with a Motec and no wastegate, low 11's on a "stock" motor are right there......not to mention 4.30 gears, 30" tires, 6,000 lb rear brake pressures, no limit on injector size, or exhaust (downpipe).......I could go on & on....those "stock" cars have way more in 'em than your average 9 sec TR
I was just informed last night that a friend is approaching 115 with stock turbo, stock IC, stock injectors with home ported heads in his 20k mile low option 'T'... I don't know what ET that was but he has also gone low 11.8's before but only a few times... 60's are 1.58-1.59 with 15psi launches..
ks
ks
QuickWrench
Don't Read This
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2002
As far as the Stockwell issue is concerned, I can offer some information from close personal experience.
Tim's car reportedly ran 11.62 @ 112 or 113 (can't remember, it's been 5 years). This was with a 40,000 mile untouched long-block, trans, converter, and rear end, 009 injectors, 3" THDP, 26x10 M/T slicks, and Red Armstrong 108 chip. It had the usual little things (cold air kit, adj. fuel press. reg, adj. wastegate, etc.)
Needless to say, this (and the famous 10.76@123 run) has caused YEARS of debate and finger-pointing.
My roommate now owns this car, and it has undergone some changes since then, but feel free to direct any "Stockwell's Car" questions my way.
Tim's car reportedly ran 11.62 @ 112 or 113 (can't remember, it's been 5 years). This was with a 40,000 mile untouched long-block, trans, converter, and rear end, 009 injectors, 3" THDP, 26x10 M/T slicks, and Red Armstrong 108 chip. It had the usual little things (cold air kit, adj. fuel press. reg, adj. wastegate, etc.)
Needless to say, this (and the famous 10.76@123 run) has caused YEARS of debate and finger-pointing.
My roommate now owns this car, and it has undergone some changes since then, but feel free to direct any "Stockwell's Car" questions my way.
Back in the day (around 1992 or so) and way before my time with these cars, guys in my club were going 11.9's and I believe a best of 11.82. I don't know the exact mph but it was around 112 or so.
We do have a distinct advantage though of being at Sea Level as well as having"good air days" that actually yeild the equivalent of running at 500-700 feet below sea level
These guys used to do it with stock turbo's, injectors and downpipe's with a dump and they would do it with a Red Armstrong 100 chip, locking the convertor. Probably a little easier with a 5 year old nice, tight, low mileage stock long block. Being cheap SOB's probably didn't hurt either.
We do have a distinct advantage though of being at Sea Level as well as having"good air days" that actually yeild the equivalent of running at 500-700 feet below sea level
These guys used to do it with stock turbo's, injectors and downpipe's with a dump and they would do it with a Red Armstrong 100 chip, locking the convertor. Probably a little easier with a 5 year old nice, tight, low mileage stock long block.
Being cheap SOB's probably didn't hurt either. Anybody mention the Gallinas yet? I know their TTA is approaching 10.99s and it is in one of the "stock" classes! Not sure where their GN is at ET-wise, but I'm sure it is flying! Yes, there are certain things they can get away with in the "stock" classes... just ask my buddy who qualified third in St. Louis last weekend at the Ford meet. He ran 114 mph in his "stock" 'Stang!
I personally went 111.97 mph best, and I really didn't have that many tuning passes in my GN. ETs were 12.6s on real all season radials, so my 1.95-2.2 60's didn't help! Combo is below. Stock weight T-Top car. Was already to run again in the fall of '00 and top my 111.97, but the track decided to close for the season on the day I was to go! I had been tuning for a week straight and it felt 1-2 mph faster at 22-23 psi boost in the cold air, to say the least! I then relinquished it to pump gas and alky duty only after that, but didn't lose too much with a 12.60@110.87.
I personally went 111.97 mph best, and I really didn't have that many tuning passes in my GN. ETs were 12.6s on real all season radials, so my 1.95-2.2 60's didn't help! Combo is below. Stock weight T-Top car. Was already to run again in the fall of '00 and top my 111.97, but the track decided to close for the season on the day I was to go! I had been tuning for a week straight and it felt 1-2 mph faster at 22-23 psi boost in the cold air, to say the least! I then relinquished it to pump gas and alky duty only after that, but didn't lose too much with a 12.60@110.87.
not bad
12.79 @ 113.5 (street tires) only mods K&N, Maf pipe, 108 Thrasher, Power Plate, adj. wastegate, open dump, on 22#'s Stock turbo, IC, injectors, DP, fuel pump, valve springs (valve covers have never been off car ) suspension and everything else.
12.79 @ 113.5 (street tires) only mods K&N, Maf pipe, 108 Thrasher, Power Plate, adj. wastegate, open dump, on 22#'s Stock turbo, IC, injectors, DP, fuel pump, valve springs (valve covers have never been off car
) suspension and everything else.Quickturbosix
High on PSI
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2001
12.73@around 105. Everything was stock. Only mod was a Adj. FPR and Wlabro 340. 107,000 miles. Motor wise it was all stock, dp, ic, turbo, injectors, etc... Without a scan tool, I used DS, it would not have been possible. Ran 100 octane on a 93 chip with 20+psi. Oh and yeah it knocked a little.
