The Only 3300 lb. Buick V6 in the 8s using...
- Thread starter Alky V6
- Start date
Welcome!
By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
- Status
Don,
Whats your thoughts on this car, its got iron ported stock heads 71 3bolt turbo thats 20 mm smaller than yours 3450 lbs !!
http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/tsm-rules-regulations/364107-kcir-today-video.html
Whats your thoughts on this car, its got iron ported stock heads 71 3bolt turbo thats 20 mm smaller than yours 3450 lbs !!
http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/tsm-rules-regulations/364107-kcir-today-video.html
John ran 5.78 in the eighth, with a 5 mm smaller turbo, a car that was probley 200-250 heavier than your's was, with iron heads not aftermarket ones.....OH and on 275 DRAG RADIALS......
I let you guess, lets see what you think you know.......
Trust me, I have NEVER tuned a car like yours.
Yeah, I'd keep the boost secret too.
Secret ? what secret Don, ask him.... I brought this up to show you what other people are doing with less, and all you have to say is whats the boost !!!! not that its very impressive that he doesnt run alcohol, that he the doesnt have a stage block, that he is 200# heavier than you, that he doesnt have nitrous, that his turbo is 5 mm smaller than what you had, that his heads are LESS then what you have, and yet he ran the same as you did with a 76 turbo and you had all those things that he didnt have !!!!!!! You asked earlier in this post HAS ANYONE GONE FAST WITH SMALL VALVES the answer is yes with less then you have.......
Dusty Bradford
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2001
- Messages
- 5,802
I feel the gains seem from any pulse tuning on a boosted car is minimal. You could easily make more power with 2more psi than you can with any sort of header intake design.
You know why they narrow the rpm range through out the run. To hold the motor in it's sweet spot.
You keep bringing the cubic inches into this discussion like your at a disadvantage. Here again is proof of why you can't say a stroker motor will make more power. The ci only effects the rpm range of the engine, not the hp attainable.
2011 NHRA AAA Auto Club Finals John Mihovetz 6.08 236 MPH - YouTube
Stock stroke, stock ci 281ci mod motor. Fastest run under his index in history. There are 500+ ci engine that can't run this fast.
Donnie,
I think you are overthinking the mach number and it's effects in your motor and should try a bigger valve spring on your existing heads. You can change them out without pulling the motor or heads......just put something about twice as big as what you are running now..... and some big pushrods. Then cut the boost up. I bet you will see you don't have the theoretical upper boost limit you think you have now.
Just give it a try....
I think you are overthinking the mach number and it's effects in your motor and should try a bigger valve spring on your existing heads. You can change them out without pulling the motor or heads......just put something about twice as big as what you are running now..... and some big pushrods. Then cut the boost up. I bet you will see you don't have the theoretical upper boost limit you think you have now.
Just give it a try....
Don't get me wrong, I think that's great! Why isn't everyone with stock heads and blocks doing the same? That fella is sure showing the rest how to get it done. Good for him. Just a little more work and he should dependably and reliably be in the 8s, no problem. Can't wait to see it. I'm sure it's a street car to boot. The advancements in head gasket design. Amazing.
That's amazing that he can get it done with a 70mm. I'm sure that can be attributed to the advancements in turbocharger design since back when the T76 was introduced. Amazing stuff.
And the valve size! Amazing! Goes to show you that big heads and valves are completely unnecessary. Big valves and ports are just bandaids for other tuning deficiencies. This performance proves it.
And your right, Tony. Who cares what the boost was. I'm sure it was a reasonable level. My hat's off to him. I wish him luck in reaching for the 8s. It's not too far off now.
That's part of the plan, even if it means doing a burnout across the finish line at my home track. Just want to check the fueling. :biggrin:
1) I wish then you could explain my performance when so many others struggle to get close to the same, and not with just 2 more psi boost.
2) What's creating this sweet spot? Why is this sweet spot so attractive to them that they'd bother with it? Couldn't they just throw some OEM log manifolds on the car and do the same? Why bother?
3) You keep wanting to compare with other motors with greatly advanced head design. Why is that? What's your point? Of course a small engine with comparably superior head design is going to take out a two valver designed back in the 50s and 60s. That's a no brainer.
Are you really trying to say that I should be able to achieve 10 hp per cubic inch with these heads because some mod motor is doing fantastic things? Dusty, you have to take a closer look at the rest of the engine combination. Cubic inches is not the only parameter to be concerned with when comparing engines. I don't think I should really have to tell you this.
OK Dusty, here we go.
Let's compare two engines. They both have the same cid. One has a VE of 80% due to all other parameters that control VE. The other engine has a VE of 90% due to all other parameters that control VE. They're both configured to operate in the same rpm range, same manifold pressure. Which will perform better?
Let's compare two more engines. One has a larger cid. One has a VE of 85% due to all other parameters that control VE. The other also has a VE of 85% due to all other parameters that contol VE. They're both configured to operate in the same rpm range, same manifold pressure. Which will perform better?
Let's compare two engines. They both have the same cid. One has a VE of 80% due to all other parameters that control VE. The other engine has a VE of 90% due to all other parameters that control VE. They're both configured to operate in the same rpm range, same manifold pressure. Which will perform better?
Let's compare two more engines. One has a larger cid. One has a VE of 85% due to all other parameters that control VE. The other also has a VE of 85% due to all other parameters that contol VE. They're both configured to operate in the same rpm range, same manifold pressure. Which will perform better?
I typed out a big long reply, but deleted it. Why bother. You think you've found some magical thing that is earth shattering and we are all too dumb to see it. If it's true, show us data to support it. And no, an 8.80 with a 91mm turbo, 220" and 30 psi boost on alcohol isn't sufficient data to support it. That's not earth shattering or even remotely impressive.
No one is going to convince you that your chasing after minute amounts of power. When it is quite clear to everyone else in this thread that you could be making hundreds more by refining your combiantion instead of chasing after this pulse tuning. Who's opinion do you respect about turbo engine design? Go argue with them about it. Your not impressing anyone but yourself.
No one is going to convince you that your chasing after minute amounts of power. When it is quite clear to everyone else in this thread that you could be making hundreds more by refining your combiantion instead of chasing after this pulse tuning. Who's opinion do you respect about turbo engine design? Go argue with them about it. Your not impressing anyone but yourself.
Becuase pro stock looks for every last 1/2 hp and spends hundreds of thousands to do it. Yes, there is some power to be had with resonance tuning. But it is nothing remotely close to what you could gain with even 1 lb. of boost. And because your motor doesn't pick up more power with 1 lb. of boost doesn't mean it's not true. That means your motor has other problems like valve springs.
Well there you go. Your reading comprehensive skills are off, my boy. Obviously, you missed the whole intention of this project that I started back in the late '90s. Read up on some of my past threads I've started and you might pick up on what my project is all about.
Proof? The only 1.83/1.5 valved head, Buick V6 deep in the 8s isn't enough for you. I admit, not very 'tangible', but sorry, that's all I got. :biggrin:
In my opinion, a time slip trumps dyno sheets any day.
- Status
Similar threads
