The Only 3300 lb. Buick V6 in the 8s using...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well the first thing you need to do, to understand it is..........learn how to spell.

P.s In case your not sure what word it is (interpet) in-ter-pret

Replied via PM, as I would kick my own ass if said aloud......Is that good enough for you baadgn?.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cal, what Donnie has accomplished is huge considering his cubic inch/head choice, most others would have run far under the cover of Stage II equipment tent to even attempt those power shots, let alone question..Why?
Donnie achieved pretty much everything on his own, with a undersized shortblock compared to most, or do I need to be corrected?
I think Donnie brings to light what many have either lost faith in(the Idea) or have flat out given up because they know others have cubes on them, it's not about who has the latest/greatest equipment, it's about what you can do with it. I may very well be speaking out of place and out my ass, but I doubt it.

Kevin.
 
Replied via PM, as I would kick my own ass if said aloud......Is that good enough for you baadgn?.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin.

Hey, apology accepted but you would have to stand behind me for the ass kickin.
 
Replied via PM, as I would kick my own ass if said aloud......Is that good enough for you baadgn?.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cal, what Donnie has accomplished is huge considering his cubic inch/head choice, most others would have run far under the cover of Stage II equipment tent to even attempt those power shots, let alone question..Why?
Donnie achieved pretty much everything on his own, with a undersized shortblock compared to most, or do I need to be corrected?
I think Donnie brings to light what many have either lost faith in(the Idea) or have flat out given up because they know others have cubes on them, it's not about who has the latest/greatest equipment, it's about what you can do with it. I may very well be speaking out of place and out my ass, but I doubt it.

Kevin.

Don is using straight methanol as a fuel yet he's comparing his combination to gasoline powered cars. Methanol produces 22% more power than gasoline. He's comparing apples to oranges.

Hey Don, change your setup to run gasoline and lets see how fast you run at 30 psi.
 
uh .... yea right...........
500 hp more? according to a couple of calculators the cars you have shown--- flywheel hp is 1346, RWHP is 1212
so donnie only makes 700- 800hp?
hmmm maybe you been smoking to much wacky tobacky!
or is that east coast numbers? (you know -counting on yer fingers and toes)

LOL Show me in this equation where drivetain loss is factored in
HP = Weight * (MPH/234) ^ 3
157mph at 3300# is 996 hp
175mph at 3500# is 1464hp
These are NET #'s. This is what it takes to move that weight to that MPH over 1320'. The equation has a constant (distance) and two variable wt and MPH show me again where you factor in drivetrain losses and exactly how you came up with your numbers? Since most of the "wacky tobacky" comes out of the southwest I can see how this makes sense to you.

I teched Tony's car for TSO at Norwalk when he ran that number and I was with Fiscus at Edgewater and discussed his fuel consumption when he ran the 7.97 above and they are without a doubt two of the most powerful Buick V6's EVER built. You cant race calculators and chassis dynos but I can tell you from my own experience those motors are making well north of 1500hp just based on fuel the consumption I've calculated on my own TSO car.

Donnie doesn't like to compare his setup to others so don't because there is really no comparison here.

I unsubscribed to this post 4 pages ago and here I am again, lol.
 
Going back and re-reading some of the posts..... I am not sure you CAN turn up the boost much with the big turbo... big exhaust..... big turbine housing that you are using now..... you mention it falling back to 27 psi on one of the shifts. If you don't have enough exhaust energy to keep the boost constant at the shift recovery points.... you won't likely "average" a whole lot more boost than you are doing now. I am thinking in addition to major valve spring upgrade, you might also have to put a smaller a/r turbine housing on it to speed up the velocity through the turbine wheel to keep it spooled. Obviously this will negatively effect back pressure you are working hard to minimize..... but IMHO.... more boost will more than make up for the increase in back pressure.

Hey... but what do I know?
 
Going back and re-reading some of the posts..... I am not sure you CAN turn up the boost much with the big turbo... big exhaust..... big turbine housing that you are using now..... you mention it falling back to 27 psi on one of the shifts. If you don't have enough exhaust energy to keep the boost constant at the shift recovery points.... you won't likely "average" a whole lot more boost than you are doing now. I am thinking in addition to major valve spring upgrade, you might also have to put a smaller a/r turbine housing on it to speed up the velocity through the turbine wheel to keep it spooled. Obviously this will negatively effect back pressure you are working hard to minimize..... but IMHO.... more boost will more than make up for the increase in back pressure.

Hey... but what do I know?
The boost drop into 2nd gear is not because the engine can't push the boost higher. I have to control the boost via wastegate to that lower level inorder to maintain traction through the 1-2 shift and part of 2nd gear. I then slowly ramp in the boost until the finish line. Again, the boost curve is controlled down by myself via the wastegate for one main reason only. To maintain tire traction to the substandard racing surface of my home track.
Not realizing at the time that my home track was the main cause of my traction problems, when I ran the 1/4 mile at Firebird, I still used the strategy of reducing the boost around 2nd gear. With what I know now about my chassis and track conditions, I would have approached Firebird much different where it comes to my boost control curve. What I'm basically saying is, the 8.76 run at Firebird was a detuned run, and on top of that, I was having major fueling issues. It's sad for me to think that I may be the only person on this site that is actually capable of realizing that run could very well have been much more improved if only the fueling wasn't causing me fits, and the boost control curve was better matched to the traction capabilities of the Firebird racetrack. If there are others that can see that too, I applaud you for being part of the very few on this site that can.
 
Again, this is why I control the boost DOWN for the 1-2 shift and part of 2nd gear. In this video, this was an early run with the new 91mm and a new boost controller. Obviously, the boost control curve was not set correctly for the track conditions. This is what happens if I don't control the boost rise curve correctly.
Go to 7:10.

DRW / Buick V6 Alky v3.2 20L video test - YouTube
 
Some want to blame me for being so excited when I reach a new personal best with the car. That's OK. They're free to think what they want.
They try to convey a feeling to others that I must not know what I'm doing since he gets so excited from such trivial gains. That's OK. People are free to manipulate others to pull them into their special club, if that's what they choose to do.
Some think that I truly don't understand what this engine is still capable of. That is complete horse ****. The car has given me many signs over the years of what its capable of. I have had to go through a learning curve to get the power, I feel this engine is truly capable of, to the ground.
One sign of what this engine is capable of, and has not yet been proven on the timeslip, is the above video. That shift into 2nd was between a 31-35 psi boost shift. I am presently controlling the boost level at 2nd gear to about 270 kPa MAP, or 170 kPa boost. You guys can convert that to psi for yourselves, if your interested.
The difference is the amount of boost I'm having to detune this engine, to make it through 2nd gear on my home track. :eek: Starting to see the light yet?

It makes me giggle when I see some fellas trying to gauge what the horsepower level of my engine truly is with only the present performances that the car has done. Believe me, Cal, I know there is much more in her. Don't pretend to others that I don't know.

Again, 1.83, 1.5 valves.
 
Believe me, Cal, I know there is much more in her. Don't pretend to others that I don't know.

Since you mentioned me directly, I'll respond.

I'm glad you've changed your tune (pun intended). In this thread: http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/ti...bo-buick-v6-does-impossible-8-76-158-7-a.html you claimed "it was doing the impossible" and "she has surpassed my wildest expectations". We have always said that you should run faster. KL Mallender mentioned 7's and I couldn't agree more. You just need to turn the boost up and learn how to get the car down the track. I made you aware that your boost controller wasn't capable of running the curve you had programmed and I know others have made suggestions with you suspension. If you devote as much time to getting the car down the track as you did the tune up, you would already be there. And no, I don't think a big wing is the answer. There are a several guys who have posted in this thread that run much faster than you on stock suspension and Drag Radials. Perhaps you could ask them for assistance. I am still willing to help with the boost controller if you want/need it.
 
Since you mentioned me directly, I'll respond.

I'm glad you've changed your tune (pun intended). In this thread: http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/ti...bo-buick-v6-does-impossible-8-76-158-7-a.html you claimed "it was doing the impossible" and "she has surpassed my wildest expectations". We have always said that you should run faster. KL Mallender mentioned 7's and I couldn't agree more. You just need to turn the boost up and learn how to get the car down the track. I made you aware that your boost controller wasn't capable of running the curve you had programmed and I know others have made suggestions with you suspension. If you devote as much time to getting the car down the track as you did the tune up, you would already be there. And no, I don't think a big wing is the answer. There are a several guys who have posted in this thread that run much faster than you on stock suspension and Drag Radials. Perhaps you could ask them for assistance. I am still willing to help with the boost controller if you want/need it.
7s with 1.83, 1.5 valves. I have to admit that even I don't have that level of optimism, but we'll see. That sure would discredit a lot of engne builders that feel you have to use bigger valves and have the bitchin flowing ports. But then, it's awfully easy to sit back behind a keyboard and claim that someone elses creation should be going faster, "because if I was tuning it, it certainly would have been going faster a long time ago." Especially with all the experience you have with a combination like mine, on a home track like mine.

I refer you back to post #258;
http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/ti...-3300-lb-buick-v6-8s-using-8.html#post2904934
You really think that when I post advances in my project, that I don't have some realization of what more there might be in her? Even after the last few posts I've made? Look at the date on that video. You really think that after inspecting a datalog where the boost went that high in second, and afterwards I had to lower the boost that much to get traction with the car, that I didn't realize a potential? Really? How long have you been tuning? If you had been in that same circumstance, would you have not seen a potential? And do you think you would have been compelled to have to share that thought with everyone? Or, is it something you might have chose to save for yourself? Although, any tuner worth a darn would have figured it out straight away after seeing that video. Right, Cal?
Over the years of testing with this car, I have seen a lot. Do I share a lot about my car? Yes. Do I share everything? No. There is a lot that I simply forget to bring up, sometimes. Maybe, I just save it for the right time to bring it up. Maybe I have brought it up, but people just look over that comment or didn't comprehend the value of that comment. A lot of that has certainly been going on in this thread.
Before you assume you could get my car down my home track any faster, maybe you should bother to take a look at it (the track) next time you're out this way tuning on someone's car. Making promises without attempting to learn the full situation doesn't make you look any better in my eyes.
You certainly keep forgetting about the track surface variable. And if you're not, I'm confused as to how you're able to know what the condition of the track is from where you're at. Ask Manny what he thinks of Barona. He's been here. Managed to keep it out of the wall a few times.
 
uh .... yea right...........
500 hp more? according to a couple of calculators the cars you have shown--- flywheel hp is 1346, RWHP is 1212
so donnie only makes 700- 800hp?
hmmm maybe you been smoking to much wacky tobacky!
or is that east coast numbers? (you know -counting on yer fingers and toes)

Must have been my car. It only went 155....in the 1/8 mile. Add 40 to that for the 1/4 mph:cool:
 
Don. Maybe you missed my question earlier.

Will you gain et and mph at the track with a 274ci engine using your heads? What does the sim say?
 
don. Maybe you missed my question earlier.

Will you gain et and mph at the track with a 274ci engine using your heads? What does the sim say?
dusty why ?? Dont play this game anymore .. Your car is way faster and it sticks to the track .. I wouldnt put in on this anymore .. Your wasting your time .. And time is money on the street ..
 
Don. Maybe you missed my question earlier.

Will you gain et and mph at the track with a 274ci engine using your heads? What does the sim say?
I believe I posted something in this thread that would answer that for you. Skim over it again. I'm tired of having to repeat myself.
 
I find it hard to believe its "ALL" the tracks fault your car gets loose on the 1-2 shift. "IF" it can stay hooked through first, I would be looking at the suspension,not dailing back the boost controller.
That is a whole lot of tire for a car running 157MPH.
 
from looking at this thread Don likes talking to himself .... get a better set of heads an see what it will do ... havent made a pass yet but heads flow way better than yours on a stock 109 with a lil turbo
 
I find it hard to believe its "ALL" the tracks fault your car gets loose on the 1-2 shift. "IF" it can stay hooked through first, I would be looking at the suspension,not dailing back the boost controller.
That is a whole lot of tire for a car running 157MPH.
I have gone over the track situation in a thread I started in the brakes and suspension section. I think it's discussed somewhere in the last 2 pages. I list some details about the track surface.
Here's the thread.
http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/br...econd-oem-4-link-drag-race-chassis-setup.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top