Kevin. I appreciate the time you spent to come up with the numbers. I wish you would have asked me for the proper weight first. Can you calculate again with 3290 lbs?
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
KL Mallender
Certified Dumb****
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2007
- Messages
- 532
Certainly, 3290 lb @ 158 mph = same ET objective 8.60 but power is now right at 1000 or 4.46 hp per cubic inch!!!! Well done Sir :biggrin:
I'd be very proud too Donnie, cause from what I've seen watching those vids, your little girl is leaving a few leftovers on her plate, should be right exciting to see the upcoming "refined" run once torque output and chassis get to agree with one another.
Kevin.
ps: 276 cube equivilent would need to produce 1231 hp to be comparative.
I'd be very proud too Donnie, cause from what I've seen watching those vids, your little girl is leaving a few leftovers on her plate, should be right exciting to see the upcoming "refined" run once torque output and chassis get to agree with one another.
Kevin.
ps: 276 cube equivilent would need to produce 1231 hp to be comparative.
The track conditions line can only work so many times. Plenty of drag strips in the United States.
I assume we are talking about RWHP? If so, what is your opinion of a good % to use for drivetrain losses? 400 auto trans, high stall TC. 12 bolt axle.
Yes there are.
KL Mallender
Certified Dumb****
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2007
- Messages
- 532
Yes, "NET" rwhp, you know as well as anyone the losses begin at 15% with the 400, brother your converter appears to me that it is hurting(slipping horribly) trying to deal with shift recovery drop back to torque peak, which I mentioned earlier(right between vicious and bitch) in this thread, lol
Out of curiosity, what was your trap rpm vs driveshaft speed? tire growth would be a complete guess at that speed not knowing section width vs rim width.
Kevin.
I use 3.3% for tire growth. 7827 rpm across the finish line, 1/4 mi. The DS sensor was not on the car at the time. Sorry.
I do have some 1/8 mi. examples with DS numbers, if you would like to explore that.
With your estimates so far, what are you coming up with for midtrack numbers?
KL Mallender
Certified Dumb****
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2007
- Messages
- 532
This link offers a lot of performance calculations:http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...MqnkOpjl0qsdBwJPA&sig2=vnkD3oY92EknVj--UfXAQQ
I used my old and trusty slide ruler for Don's car and have always found it "dead on"
The above link shows your car at 3290 @ 158 pulling more than 1000 hp, so much for my math.
Kevin.
I used my old and trusty slide ruler for Don's car and have always found it "dead on"
The above link shows your car at 3290 @ 158 pulling more than 1000 hp, so much for my math.
Kevin.
Dusty Bradford
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2001
- Messages
- 5,802
The TSO cars are over 3300# and trap 170-174
Long responce to PM.
There are some tuning issues that are causing it to nose over just after initial dig within the 60'. First, you need to understand that the launch pad of my home track is very good. There is a transition to asphalt from the concrete pad, just after the 60' where the track turns bad. For a better explanation of the track I'm dealing with, check out the link I posted for Otto. Some of the nose over is chassis tuning, some is the fuel map, and as you stated, I'm sure some of it is the TC. The chassis side of it is weight transfer to the rear wheels (tire slippage). I'm playing around with a new IC that is keeping the nose down more, but I feel it's too much and not allowing enough weight transfer to the rear. I'm playing with shock settings to see if I can salvage this IC setting, but if I can't, I'll begin to move the IC back towards the direction where it was at before in small steps.
Some of the videos also show the car launching with the wheelie bars set too low which was unloading the tires. Part of my chassis tuning learning curve. For an extreme example of how the car has launched before with a tighter TC and smaller turbo, check out this video; DRW / Buick Alky V6 taking the scenic route - YouTube The video was taken before any serious chassis work was done on the car.
After the fuel pressure problem in Firebird was brought to light with that 8.76 run, I found that I had been dialing in the fuel map with a leak in the signal line to the fuel pressure regulator for who knows how long. After correcting the leak, I've been having to dial in the fuel map with a corrected fuel pressure rise curve. I do fuel map changes very slowly and carefully. I have the E injectors throttle back when a constant flow aux fuel system activates. I'm still working on that step down or throttle back, and the fueling goes pretty rich at that transition. Rich enough to drop some power. That happens right off the launch. I've been leaning that step down very carefully and in very small steps. I am close to getting that step down dialed in. I figure I'm within a 3% range now of having it just right where I will no longer have a power drop during the E injector throttle back.
You're correct that the compressor side is a bit on the large side. I'm sure there could be improvement by going to a slightly smaller compressor side. With the latest ALS advancments I've made, that is becoming less of a concern. Although I do feel it's making it difficult for me during the roll out.
The turbo does stall between 3000-3200. No nitrous, no boost.
I'm sure what you're seeing on the 1-2 shift is tire slippage. After installing the DS, that has been confirmed. Where I shift into 2nd happens to be the start of the worst section of the track. My luck.
I agree. The TC does need a change. That will be coming soon.
Tire: M/T 29.5 x 10.5 -15W
Gear: 3.73:1
A lot of specs on my car can be found here, DRW/Buick Grand National
There are some tuning issues that are causing it to nose over just after initial dig within the 60'. First, you need to understand that the launch pad of my home track is very good. There is a transition to asphalt from the concrete pad, just after the 60' where the track turns bad. For a better explanation of the track I'm dealing with, check out the link I posted for Otto. Some of the nose over is chassis tuning, some is the fuel map, and as you stated, I'm sure some of it is the TC. The chassis side of it is weight transfer to the rear wheels (tire slippage). I'm playing around with a new IC that is keeping the nose down more, but I feel it's too much and not allowing enough weight transfer to the rear. I'm playing with shock settings to see if I can salvage this IC setting, but if I can't, I'll begin to move the IC back towards the direction where it was at before in small steps.
Some of the videos also show the car launching with the wheelie bars set too low which was unloading the tires. Part of my chassis tuning learning curve. For an extreme example of how the car has launched before with a tighter TC and smaller turbo, check out this video; DRW / Buick Alky V6 taking the scenic route - YouTube The video was taken before any serious chassis work was done on the car.
After the fuel pressure problem in Firebird was brought to light with that 8.76 run, I found that I had been dialing in the fuel map with a leak in the signal line to the fuel pressure regulator for who knows how long. After correcting the leak, I've been having to dial in the fuel map with a corrected fuel pressure rise curve. I do fuel map changes very slowly and carefully. I have the E injectors throttle back when a constant flow aux fuel system activates. I'm still working on that step down or throttle back, and the fueling goes pretty rich at that transition. Rich enough to drop some power. That happens right off the launch. I've been leaning that step down very carefully and in very small steps. I am close to getting that step down dialed in. I figure I'm within a 3% range now of having it just right where I will no longer have a power drop during the E injector throttle back.
You're correct that the compressor side is a bit on the large side. I'm sure there could be improvement by going to a slightly smaller compressor side. With the latest ALS advancments I've made, that is becoming less of a concern. Although I do feel it's making it difficult for me during the roll out.
The turbo does stall between 3000-3200. No nitrous, no boost.
I'm sure what you're seeing on the 1-2 shift is tire slippage. After installing the DS, that has been confirmed. Where I shift into 2nd happens to be the start of the worst section of the track. My luck.
I agree. The TC does need a change. That will be coming soon.
Tire: M/T 29.5 x 10.5 -15W
Gear: 3.73:1
A lot of specs on my car can be found here, DRW/Buick Grand National
What heads are typically found on those cars, Dusty? Does that class have a cid limit?
Kevin. Using that 8.76 ET run as an example for our calculations, if we use your minimum 15% drivetrain losses, and I agree 15% would be an absolute minimum figure to use, that means we're talking about 1,180 bhp for my combination. That happens to be exactly the bhp that a drag race simulator I use estimates for my car, taking time slip incrementals into account. BTW, it calculates a TC slippage of 12% by the finish of the 1/4. Tire slippage is also factored in for the complete run. Although, by the finish line it has ramped down to zero in the sim. I don't have any 1/4 mi. DS data, so I can't confirm the tire slippage one way or another for the end of the 1/4 mi. That's a very different story on my 1/8 mi. home track. Tire slippage throughout the whole 1/8 mi. run is very obvious.
Dusty Bradford
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2001
- Messages
- 5,802
No ci limit but with the deck height of the S2 limits the ci. Without a raised cam you can't fit more than 3.75 stroke. 3.625 has proven to be plenty.
Chris Lyons has ran over 170 with GN1's. Don Cruz has been I think 176 with GN1's. Fiscus and Gomes have ran 174 with S2's. I'm not sure of the race weights of each but they are between 3300# and 3450#
Have you heard any kind of flow numbers they were getting out of the GN1s?
What sort of redline numbers are being used with the different heads? Is anyone turning GN1s to the 9000s.
Dusty Bradford
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2001
- Messages
- 5,802
The raised runner heads should flow 320-340 at .800. I haven't personally flowed a set to see.
No comment on the redline. I get a lot of data from all sorts of combos for converter work but it's all confidential
I understand.The raised runner heads should flow 320-340 at .800. I haven't personally flowed a set to see.
No comment on the redline. I get a lot of data from all sorts of combos for converter work but it's all confidential
Correction.
BTW, I plan to try a higher gear. I'm hoping that will get me a little more mph. A converter change will come before that, though.
I didn't go through all the posts since my last post so maybe Don responded. In case he didn't, switch back to racing gas and see what the car runs with 30 psi. I'm betting you'll be back in the 9s.
As for your traction issues. Do they treat the full length of the track with VHT? If not, do they do it for track rentals? If yes, maybe join a track rental and see if it helps.
Since you build trannies and are having traction issues with 2nd gear in your 3 speed, how about running a glide? Would the car pick up using one?
As for your traction issues. Do they treat the full length of the track with VHT? If not, do they do it for track rentals? If yes, maybe join a track rental and see if it helps.
Since you build trannies and are having traction issues with 2nd gear in your 3 speed, how about running a glide? Would the car pick up using one?
I for one don't know what to think. That's why I asked. I just know that if I was putting together something for a class like TSO, I would be looking to max out all avenues that lead to maximum performance. Would going to 9000 really be necessary? I don't know for sure. But that's where I would go first.
Maybe there's a turbo size limit that might change my mind about that avenue. I think there is, right?
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
1986 Grand National factory Astroroof, 47K miles, $39,500k, SE PA- Latest: Chuck Leeper