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

[Alky V6]

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?

I wouldn't be switching back to racing gas, since I've never burned racing gas from the beginning. I take that back. Back in high school I ran a mix of pump and av gas in my 12.5:1 street SBC Chevelle.
Actually, the way my engine is setup, I think it would go faster with gasoline. I really don't have any interest in having to create a whole new tuneup for gasoline. It's a lot of work with my complicated fueling systems. I like methanol too much to think of switching to a different fuel. What I like the best about the fuel is how forgiving it can be on the engine. When the tuneup is safe, and that safe region is much wider than with gasoline, the thermal loading and the mechanical loading is less at the same hp levels with methanol fuel.

On occasion, they do VHT the whole track. When they have the Nostalgia Fuel Altereds and Funny cars at the track, they will prep the track very well. Still, that does not make up for the basic condition of the surface itself. There is deep grooving in the track. Some of it is rubber buildup that they have no equipment to smooth out, and some of it is the track itself. Just looking at the bad sections of the track, I'd say you'd be lucky if you got more than 30% tire to track contact. That means that a slick that is 10" wide is only gripping the track with 3 inches worth of tire rubber width. Hard to believe, I know. I've taken the track personell out on the track myself and made that argument while showing them the areas of the track I was concerned with. They agreed with my assessment of the situation. It's a small track and they simply don't have the proper equipment to fix the problem. Once a car reaches a certain performance level on this track, they all have the same problem, if they're running a small tire. The big tire cars get by better, but they also complain about the track to no avail.

At my car weight, and my large turbo issue, I don't think a PG would work out.

 

[Alky V6]

The concrete launch pad does get prepped well all the time, and is a very good surface. They will scrape the concrete launch pad, but not the asphalt. Since I'm primarily working on the launch of the car, I'm satisfied with putting up with the track shortcomings. Once I feel I have the launch squared away, then I'll be looking at visiting Firebird or Vegas to put the screws to the car.

 

[Alky V6]

The rear tire diameter is labeled to be 29.5" on the sidewall. The physical measured diameter calculated by using a rolling circumference method of measuring is 28.4". This would make any TC slippage calculation incorrect if the sidewall label diameter is used. Use the actual diameter, 28.4".

 

[Alky V6]

Thanks to Kevin, I think we can all agree that my engine is capable of creating a minimum 1,000 rwhp and 1,180 bhp. This using a smaller cid than most, if not all, and 1.83, 1.5" valves. Also, the wrong camshaft, the wrong headers, the wrong intake, the wrong throttle body, and the wrong turbo. Some may feel, the wrong fuel, too.
No expert engine builder's help. No expert tuner's help. No chassis dyno time. Only 30 psi boost.
OH! Let's not forget the most important part. Pressure pulse tuning doesn't work on a turbocharged engine.

This brings an interesting question to mind. If I'm making that kind of power with a configuration that is oh so wrong, then what kind of rwhp numbers have people been able to accomplish over the many years with 1.83, 1.5 valves and the right cid, the right camshaft, and the right turbo? Not to mention I'm still using a torque converter that hasn't been dialed in yet, so let's include the right torque converter, too.



DonWG likes this.

 

[Dusty Bradford]

The answer is............you'll probably never know.

Why would someone build an engine and limit themselves to outdated stuff. If they are using these heads because they had them laying around then they aren't intending to run at the top of any class. We can all narrow down to valve sizes, or tire sizes, or anything we want in order to be at the top of the class. If you want to prove that you have built some engine combo that can produce more power through intake/exhaust manifolding and cam design then you have to put on a class legal turbo and see how fast you go.

The leaders for a particular turbo size are the class racers. They maximize performance with a turbo limit without the liberty of using nitrous to help it spool and cut a light on a pro-tree.

TSM. 8.80's 71mm turbo

TSL 8.40's 76mm turbo

TSO 7.90's 88mm turbo

Signed.........the fastest guy with factory turn signals:biggrin:

 

[Alky V6]

The answer is............you'll probably never know.

Why would someone build an engine and limit themselves to outdated stuff. If they are using these heads because they had them laying around then they aren't intending to run at the top of any class. We can all narrow down to valve sizes, or tire sizes, or anything we want in order to be at the top of the class. If you want to prove that you have built some engine combo that can produce more power through intake/exhaust manifolding and cam design then you have to put on a class legal turbo and see how fast you go.

The leaders for a particular turbo size are the class racers. They maximize performance with a turbo limit without the liberty of using nitrous to help it spool and cut a light on a pro-tree.

TSM. 8.80's 71mm turbo

TSL 8.40's 76mm turbo

TSO 7.90's 88mm turbo

Signed.........the fastest guy with factory turn signals:biggrin:

You have to stop hiding behind those baby blankets. Throw out the rules. Go for it!

I guess what you're telling me is that since the Buick Grand National first hit the seen back in the '80s, everyone immediately upgraded to a valve size larger than 1.83, 1.5. No one ever dynoed an engine or car with 1.83, 1.5 valves with all the bitchin parts on it from 1984 to present? Even today, everyone has larger than 1.83, 1.5 valves?
Dusty. I find that awfully hard to believe. I think no one really wants to post here and admit what numbers they've seen. Why would they want to? I know Otto, Bison, and Cal must have tuned on plenty of cars that only had 1.83, 1.5 valves. Their customers know who they are.
Dusty. You're showing me a very few examples of people that chose to go the easy route and play it safe by going with larger valves. I'm asking for examples of performances that include 1.83, 1.5 valves. Dont' try to tell me there isn't anyone out there with small valved heads.

 

[Alky V6]

Let's make this easier. Someone already mentioned in this thread that my heads are flowing comparably to a set of stock iron heads. Ported, I'm sure. OK. Let's see a list of performances from cars that are using ported, stock iron heads. Let's also limit the boost for the perfomance to 30 psi boost. That is a very doable boost level for a stock headed engine. Any cam. Any exhaust system. Any intake. Any ECM. Any turbo. Any torque converter. Any engine builder. Any tuner. Any chassis dyno tuned car.
Let's include anyone who had the eggs to build and tune their own creations.

 

[Alky V6]

So far, I've heard the argument that pressure pulse tuning could only make a 5 hp difference. I've also heard the argument that my exhaust back pressure level is making the difference. Well, if it is, then let's see what kind of difference it's making.
Let's see some numbers, people. Ported stock iron heads, 30 psi boost.

 

[turbobuick]

Let's make this easier. Someone already mentioned in this thread that my heads are flowing comparably to a set of stock iron heads. Ported, I'm sure. OK. Let's see a list of performances from cars that are using ported, stock iron heads. Let's also limit the boost for the perfomance to 30 psi boost. That is a very doable boost level for a stock headed engine. Any cam. Any exhaust system. Any intake. Any ECM. Any turbo. Any torque converter. Any engine builder. Any tuner. Any chassis dyno tuned car.
Let's include anyone who had the eggs to build and tune their own creations.

Why does boost pressure matter so much to you? You seem to never mention air temperature and volume which seem to be vastly more important at least to me, especially when comparing different combos. You also mentioned your turbo outlet temps are 1200* I take it this was a misprint?

Speaking of volume Donnie I would estimate your 91mm turbo is capable of moving at LEAST 170#/min of air. If you estimate 10.8HP/ # of air this is roughly 1800+ hp (crank). How much volume of air did you use from what you have available to run the numbers you ran?

For comparisons sake the "Fools" in TSO all run the billet wheel 88mm GT4788 PTE turbo. It is rated at 150#/min of air. How much of that turbo are these fools using to run over 170mph?

When you have a system that is only using 2/3's of it available power I think most would agree it isn't a very efficient system.

 

[Alky V6]

Why does boost pressure matter so much to you? You seem to never mention air temperature and volume which seem to be vastly more important at least to me, especially when comparing different combos. You also mentioned your turbo outlet temps are 1200* I take it this was a misprint?

Speaking of volume Donnie I would estimate your 91mm turbo is capable of moving at LEAST 170#/min of air. If you estimate 10.8HP/ # of air this is roughly 1800+ hp (crank). How much volume of air did you use from what you have available to run the numbers you ran?

For comparisons sake the "Fools" in TSO all run the billet wheel 88mm GT4788 PTE turbo. It is rated at 150#/min of air. How much of that turbo are these fools using to run over 170mph?

When you have a system that is only using 2/3's of it available power I think most would agree it isn't a very efficient system.

Why does boost pressure matter? That's an easy answer. When boost pressures are made a constant when comparing particular engine combinations, the efficiencies between the different engine combinations becomes clear. If a person was trying to compare the efficiencies of two naturally aspirated engines, would one choose to boost one of the engines by one or two psi and expect a fair comparison of the efficiencies of the two engines? Of course not.
Every combination has something that is going to limit its capabilities. At the very heart of the long list of things that could possibly be a restriction to performance, I think every engine builder would agree, it is the 'heads'. When looking at a basic long block and assessing its capabilities, it is the heads that a tuner will first examine. The heads will always be the most basic component of any engine that will guarantee the limit of an engine's capability. In building and tuning a competition engine, to me the challenge is really, what a person can do with the heads they are given to work with. All components outside the basic long block are there to compliment the long block, and most importantly, 'the heads'.
If the Buick community really wanted to encourage creativity, they would create a class where the valve size was the only performance restriction rule. Then sit back and watch some real tuning creativity. I think a rule that tells someone what turbo they have to buy is a major turnoff.

A rich tune would be 1200 egt, before the turbo. A good tune is more around 1300 egt, before the turbo. If that sounds off to you, it's because you've never burned 100% alcohol fuel.

Why do you guys keep referring to yourselves as fools? I never stated that anyone was a fool. Clean up your acts, please.

As for my large turbo compared to the turbos that some of you choose to limit yourselves to, I'm running that large turbo for top end efficiency reasons. Do you need me to explain to you what I mean by that?

 

[Alky V6]

If the Buick community really wanted to encourage creativity, they would create a class where the valve size was the only performance restriction rule. Then sit back and watch some real tuning creativity. I think a rule that tells someone what turbo they have to buy is a major turnoff.

I have to repeat this. I think you guys are really missing the ball by not doing this.

 

[Dusty Bradford]

You have to stop hiding behind those baby blankets. Throw out the rules. Go for it!

I guess what you're telling me is that since the Buick Grand National first hit the seen back in the '80s, everyone immediately upgraded to a valve size larger than 1.83, 1.5. No one ever dynoed an engine or car with 1.83, 1.5 valves with all the bitchin parts on it from 1984 to present? Even today, everyone has larger than 1.83, 1.5 valves?
Dusty. I find that awfully hard to believe. I think no one really wants to post here and admit what numbers they've seen. Why would they want to? I know Otto, Bison, and Cal must have tuned on plenty of cars that only had 1.83, 1.5 valves. Their customers know who they are.
Dusty. You're showing me a very few examples of people that chose to go the easy route and play it safe by going with larger valves. I'm asking for examples of performances that include 1.83, 1.5 valves. Dont' try to tell me there isn't anyone out there with small valved heads.

So you want to compare what someone did 20 years ago to what your doing today? 20 years ago a ported stock head engine barely ran 11's and now they are on the verge of running 8's. With a turbo maybe 10 mm larger than what they had back then.

Then your looking to compare a street car with say a 66mm turbo making 30psi to yours because the heads flow the same and they both make 30psi of boost. You seem to forget every single one of these iron head cars are using stock blocks and majority of them turn less than 6000rpm because they are..........street cars. This scenario is laughable.

There's only one hiding behind a blanket.

 

[Dusty Bradford]

Why does boost pressure matter?

So can you tell me the simple reason a car with twin 60's at 30psi will make more power than the exact same combination with a single 70mm? Intake boost is 30psi in both car's. No cam change, no manifold change but the car with twins will make more power. Why is that?

 

[turbobuick]

Why does boost pressure matter? That's an easy answer. When boost pressures are made a constant when comparing particular engine combinations, the efficiencies between the different engine combinations becomes clear.

Wrong, in comparing combos and especially when measuring comparing HP numbers you are talking about air volume. The pressure is irrelevant and really only significant to that particular combo. If you have a system capable of moving x volume of air and it only moves 66% of it vs another system capable of x volume of air that is using 100% of its air volume that is a fair comparison. If one uses 100psi to do it vs the other at 10psi it really doesn't matter the system that only utilizes 66% of its capabilities is still the most inefficient system.

If a person was trying to compare the efficiencies of two naturally aspirated engines, would one choose to boost one of the engines by one or two psi and expect a fair comparison of the efficiencies of the two engines? Of course not.

That comment makes no sense Donnie. Of course a higher pressure gradient is going to put a larger volume of air through the motor. Still when talking about HP that the motors make you are still talking about the volume of air being put through the motor. The pressure is irrelevant unless of course the temperatures get out of hand.

Every combination has something that is going to limit its capabilities.

In a turbo motor it is almost ALWAYS going to be the turbo. When your engine combo can't extract the volume of air that a turbo is capable of providing then I would go looking elsewhere. If your theories and ideas are that revolutionary then please start applying them and showing us how efficiently your combo can extract over 170#/min of air from that 91mm turbo. I think then most would agree you would have something to get up here and thump your chest about.

At the very heart of the long list of things that could possibly be a restriction to performance, I think every engine builder would agree, it is the 'heads'. When looking at a basic long block and assessing its capabilities, it is the heads that a tuner will first examine. The heads will always be the most basic component of any engine that will guarantee the limit of an engine's capability. In building and tuning a competition engine, to me the challenge is really, what a person can do with the heads they are given to work with. All components outside the basic long block are there to compliment the long block, and most importantly, 'the heads'.
If the Buick community really wanted to encourage creativity, they would create a class where the valve size was the only performance restriction rule. Then sit back and watch some real tuning creativity. I think a rule that tells someone what turbo they have to buy is a major turnoff.

If this where the case everyone in the TSO class would run a symmetrical port S2 head, how is it the smaller valve head cars seem to keep up with the larger valve head cars in TSO?? FYI the GN1 heads I ran 171mph with back in 2009 only flow 260/210 with 1.98/1.60 valves. You think putting 2.10/1.7 valves and heads that flow 400/300 would make any difference? Do you think I could extract more air from the turbo? The turbo dictates how much power a given combo is capable of that is why classes are dictated by turbo size. The creativity and ingenuity comes from combos that are finding ways to extract more air volume to make more power than what a given turbo is typically capable.

A rich tune would be 1200. A good tune is more around 1300. If that sounds off to you, it's because you've never burned alcohol fuel.

What does alcohol have to do with turbo (compressor) outlet temps? 1300* would be ridiculously high on anything.

Why do you guys keep referring to yourselves as fools? I never stated that anyone was a fool. Clean up your acts, please.

As for my large turbo compared to the turbos that some of you choose to limit yourselves to, I'm running that large turbo for top end efficiency reasons. Do you need me to explain to you what I mean by that?

You are very condescending to anyone who criticizes you or tries to offer advice hence your closing statement above. I believe you referred to TSO racers as fools for not understanding something or other you where ranting about previously in this thread.

 

[Alky V6]

Wrong, in comparing combos and especially when measuring comparing HP numbers you are talking about air volume. The pressure is irrelevant and really only significant to that particular combo. If you have a system capable of moving x volume of air and it only moves 66% of it vs another system capable of x volume of air that is using 100% of its air volume that is a fair comparison. If one uses 100psi to do it vs the other at 10psi it really doesn't matter the system that only utilizes 66% of its capabilities is still the most inefficient system.

Are you talking about 66% of the capabilities of the basic long block, including the heads? Or, are you talking about 66% of the flow capacity of an external auxiliary add-on device, such as a throttle body, intake air filter, exhaust headers, and turbos?
If your answer is the turbo, then someone could make the same argument for a large capacity air filter mounted on a particular engine that is only using 66% of the filter breathing capacity. Sounds a bit silly to me to make an argument like that, but then, when your back is against the wall, you've got to find something, and a turbo is such a bitchin external device to use for a silly argument.

 

[Dusty Bradford]

Here's a video showing why we build a car to fit the rules of a class.

Dusty Bradford - Ultimate Street @ SGMP Radial Revolution - YouTube

If you enjoy playing in a sandbox by yourself. More power to you. As for us class racers, we enjoy competition that can be measured on the track, not in the mind.

My class at this race had 33 entries. I fielded the fastest turbo car in the class. Those runs were all made with an 80mm turbo at only 40# lighter than you. It has the wrong un-equal length headers, the wrong cam, no oxygenated fuels and an out of the box intake straight from edelbrock.

Going back to your 76mm. I assume you felt the turbo was holding you back. The heads were flowing more air than the turbo could support. So could you have swapped to a GT47-80mm and ran 5.10's? If you could then we could easily say your manifolding and cam choice is indeed magic.

 

[Alky V6]

That comment makes no sense Donnie. Of course a higher pressure gradient is going to put a larger volume of air through the motor. Still when talking about HP that the motors make you are still talking about the volume of air being put through the motor. The pressure is irrelevant unless of course the temperatures get out of hand.

During naturally aspirated engine dyno challenges, is atmospheric pressure not an important consideration when comparing the efficiencies of two engines? I'm sure temperature is not the only variable looked at.
Would two engine dyno tests, one done at high altitude and one done below sea level, yield a fair comparison?

 

[Alky V6]

In a turbo motor it is almost ALWAYS going to be the turbo. When your engine combo can't extract the volume of air that a turbo is capable of providing then I would go looking elsewhere. If your theories and ideas are that revolutionary then please start applying them and showing us how efficiently your combo can extract over 170#/min of air from that 91mm turbo. I think then most would agree you would have something to get up here and thump your chest about.

What do you mean "almost ALWAYS going to be the turbo."
Is there almost ALWAYS something else it could be, too?

 

[Alky V6]

If this where the case everyone in the TSO class would run a symmetrical port S2 head, how is it the smaller valve head cars seem to keep up with the larger valve head cars in TSO?? FYI the GN1 heads I ran 171mph with back in 2009 only flow 260/210 with 1.98/1.60 valves. You think putting 2.10/1.7 valves and heads that flow 400/300 would make any difference? Do you think I could extract more air from the turbo? The turbo dictates how much power a given combo is capable of that is why classes are dictated by turbo size. The creativity and ingenuity comes from combos that are finding ways to extract more air volume to make more power than what a given turbo is typically capable.

TSO chooses to restrict performance using the turbo size. I chose to restrict performance using the most basic component that restricts the performance of any overhead valved engine. The valve itself. To me, pushing the capabitlies of a particular valve size was more important than trying to max out a particular turbo size. Different strokes for different folks. If that is something you really feel you need to hold against me, then have at it.

 

[Alky V6]

What does alcohol have to do with turbo (compressor) outlet temps? 1300* would be ridiculously high on anything.

If you would go back over the entire thread, there is no place where I stated that my turbo compressor outlet temps are 1200 or 1300 degrees anything. You are simply mistaken in that assumption.