Do you think sub 1.20s are possible at 3300 lbs?
Time to go Stage II!
- 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.
I think its possible on the right car.
What were their set ups?
I've done some tranny work for the fellow I'm referring to, but didn't do any suspension work for him, so I don't have any specifics on the suspension settings. Sorry. It is still using the stock 4 link arrangement. He runs at the same track that I do. He's a tad behind me, but he's doing a great 60'.
I referring more to what the engine was. Cubic inch, turbo, supercharger, nitrous etc. What does this Mustang run for ET?
SBF on nitrous. I believe the cubes is around 360? Not a big small block. The car runs 5.80s in the 1/8. PG trans.
And he runs 1.19 or better at 3300lbs?
I just left a message with him to give me a call back. I'll get the scoop for you.
Well, my memory was playing tricks on me. Here's the scoop.
3,000 lbs w/driver. The driver's a pretty heavy guy.
347 cid SBF w/250 nitrous shot.
PG trans. Gearset was the stock 1.76.
4.30:1 rear gear.
1.2 60'.
When pressed if it was a 1.20 60', the answer was no. It was a 1.27 60'.
3,000 lbs w/driver. The driver's a pretty heavy guy.
347 cid SBF w/250 nitrous shot.
PG trans. Gearset was the stock 1.76.
4.30:1 rear gear.
1.2 60'.
When pressed if it was a 1.20 60', the answer was no. It was a 1.27 60'.
Kinda what I figured. Sub 1.20 60's are no joke. Especially if performed at 3300lbs.
Anything is possible but your not just going to run those 60ft times on your tire right out of the box because you will be making more power now
Im just saying that it will take a great setup and a great track to reach those 60ft times with your tire and suspension not that it cant be done. Billy Glidden goes .9 in 60 feet on a small tire but he is the man..http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=470563
Dusty Bradford
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2001
- Messages
- 5,802
LOL. I was about to say if this guy can't run but 5.80's with a 1.19 60' I hope he was lifting at 200 ft.
Dusty Bradford
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2001
- Messages
- 5,802
I've been 1.23 on a 325/50 radial at 3540#. My friend has been 1.17 with his nitrous BBC on a 315/60 radial at 3150#. I plan to go 1.16-1.20 with my new set-up at 3250#.
A car will not pick up a tenth to the 60' just because it makes more power. A whole lot of chassis tuning has to be able to put the power to the ground and do it immediately to go sub 1.20' Most cars going 1.14-1.16 are nitrous cars although there are a handful of small block turbo cars going 1.16 or so on a 275/60 at 3100#.
A car will not pick up a tenth to the 60' just because it makes more power. A whole lot of chassis tuning has to be able to put the power to the ground and do it immediately to go sub 1.20' Most cars going 1.14-1.16 are nitrous cars although there are a handful of small block turbo cars going 1.16 or so on a 275/60 at 3100#.
I think the torque curve throughout the 60' is going to be key. I agree the chassis will have to be set up right, but keeping the chassis loaded just right will be important.
It's going to rely a lot on how quickly this engine will be able to push this turbo to spool fast enough to maintain the correct torque curve through the 60'.
It's going to rely a lot on how quickly this engine will be able to push this turbo to spool fast enough to maintain the correct torque curve through the 60'.
I just did some calculating and to hope for a 1.20 60' the torque curve of the engine will have to ramp up from a starting torque value of 603 to 868 within .90 sec. Using the engine sim, that looks like a boost rise from 19 psi at 5,510 rpm to 31.5 psi at 8,149 rpm within .90 sec. I'm not sure if that is possible. I'm going to look at some datalogs from the Stage I build to see what sort of rpm and boost rise to time I was getting with that setup.
Using the best 60' datalog for the Stage I (1.271 sec), this is what I came up with.
Starting rpm and boost level: 5358 / 7 psi
Ending rpm and boost level at .90 second after launch: 6686 / 23.3 psi
A boost rise of 16.3 psi within .90 sec.
RPM only rose 1328 within that same .90 sec.
I'm assuming that with the new engine and large cam, I'm going to need about 19 psi boost at 5510 rpm to get around 603 ft lbs torque. If the boost rise curve is anything close to that of the Stage I build, I should have no problem reaching 31.5 psi boost well within .9 sec. What the rpm rise curve will look like is a big question. I would imagine starting out at 19 psi boost, the rpm rise should be quicker than it was with the Stage I build starting out at 7 psi boost.
It looks like boost rise to time will not be a problem. RPM rise to time will be the important factor though.
Starting rpm and boost level: 5358 / 7 psi
Ending rpm and boost level at .90 second after launch: 6686 / 23.3 psi
A boost rise of 16.3 psi within .90 sec.
RPM only rose 1328 within that same .90 sec.
I'm assuming that with the new engine and large cam, I'm going to need about 19 psi boost at 5510 rpm to get around 603 ft lbs torque. If the boost rise curve is anything close to that of the Stage I build, I should have no problem reaching 31.5 psi boost well within .9 sec. What the rpm rise curve will look like is a big question. I would imagine starting out at 19 psi boost, the rpm rise should be quicker than it was with the Stage I build starting out at 7 psi boost.
It looks like boost rise to time will not be a problem. RPM rise to time will be the important factor though.
This is an interesting comparison using the drag sim. The Stage I setup vs. the Stage II setup.
The Stage I graph used a power curve that resulted in a more average performance with the car, resulting in around 1.30 60 foots.
The Stage II graph used a power curve that will provide about a 1.20 60 foot.
The Stage I graph used a power curve that resulted in a more average performance with the car, resulting in around 1.30 60 foots.
The Stage II graph used a power curve that will provide about a 1.20 60 foot.
Studying the Stage I graph, it sort of gives a clue as to why my car may have been so prone to blowing the tires away on the 1-2 shift.
The Stage II graph shows the situation Dusty was eluding to where having too tight of a TC with my configuration could easily result in pulling the engine down too far out of the power curve. Particularly on the 1-2 shift.
The Stage II graph shows the situation Dusty was eluding to where having too tight of a TC with my configuration could easily result in pulling the engine down too far out of the power curve. Particularly on the 1-2 shift.
Similar threads
