| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
squeeezer Member

Joined: 02 Mar 2007 Posts: 1966 Location: new richmond WI 178662.08 points
1991 Chevrolet Camaro
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lun40119 Member

Joined: 22 Oct 2008 Posts: 597 Location: Wisconsin 3900.66 points
1967 Chevrolet Chevelle
|
Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Driver said it best...........ALOT OF BOOST!!!!!! I posted a vid of a buddy Shaun's white stock appearing talon street car, at 31lbs boost, making 600hp at the ground. The biggest trick is getting it down the track under power. If you could see the transmissions and clutches in these things, you would understand why they have problems. I have a couple buddies as well as myself that are into drag racing, and none of us can touch the wimpy little 2.0litres 1/8 mile, mph. I am hoping with 5.13 gear I can approach it..............
YES......true 500hp sbc's are rare.....especially on the street. It would be easier if these so called 500HP street engines could turn 8000 or 8500. Most of which can't even make 6000 without skidding on there nose. _________________ Jake
http://www.cardomain.com/id/excedrin
Make sure your picture isn't too big  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lun40119 Member

Joined: 22 Oct 2008 Posts: 597 Location: Wisconsin 3900.66 points
1967 Chevrolet Chevelle
|
Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wait, wait wait..........EVERYONE on the inet has a 500+Hp engine, that makes 400+hp at the ground.........but in the real world falls considerably short. Thats why you see more 500+horse 350's at car shows, than at the drag strip. _________________ Jake
http://www.cardomain.com/id/excedrin
Make sure your picture isn't too big  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
10sec.et Member

Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 2506 Location: Houston,Texas 315415.00 points
1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass
|
Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yeah, those cars are pretty neat especially when you consider how much power they are getting out of such a small engine. however, i bet if you put the price tag of say, a "true 500 hp" Camaro up against those 500 hp imports you would be able to get a lot more bang for your buck out of the Camaro . _________________ " we got no fear, no doubt, all in balls out " |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MufflerBearings69 Member

Joined: 22 Jul 2007 Posts: 642
21742.24 points
1968 Ford Galaxy
|
Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We talkin AWD talon?
When the driveline stays together, they are a hell of a good time!
If I were to build an import to any extreme I would want an AWD model for sure...
PS my 302 makes at least 475 on the car show hp scale... and 470 at the tires too with my super lossless driveline lubricated with Zmax!  _________________ Just here asking a zillion questions to get the education I paid to get in tech school.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
squeeezer Member

Joined: 02 Mar 2007 Posts: 1966 Location: new richmond WI 178662.08 points
1991 Chevrolet Camaro
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MufflerBearings69 wrote: | W
PS my 302 makes at least 475 on the car show hp scale... and 470 at the tires too with my super lossless driveline lubricated with Zmax!  |
that sounds like some of the lsx owners out here
some of these guys claim 450 horse at the rear wheels
and i beat them at the track with my 452 horse (at the crank)motor _________________ not fella,not squisher......its Jon......or the Brain if you wish |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
af2 Member

Joined: 01 Sep 2003 Posts: 4651 Location: grassvalley, ca 12720.16 points
1933 Willys Coupe
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| squeeezer wrote: | | MufflerBearings69 wrote: | W
PS my 302 makes at least 475 on the car show hp scale... and 470 at the tires too with my super lossless driveline lubricated with Zmax!  |
that sounds like some of the lsx owners out here
some of these guys claim 450 horse at the rear wheels
and i beat them at the track with my 452 horse (at the crank)motor |
You didn't know eveyone in California has 500 hp and runs 9.80's
F k if I can get mine to 9.999999 without something going wrong!!!!!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big Dave Moderator

Joined: 04 Dec 2005 Posts: 2136 Location: Tampa Florida 100541.88 points
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually a lot of the LS-x cars are pumping out an honest 500+ crank horse power (it isn't even all that expensive compared to other small block builds if you start out with a fully functional LS-x motor to start with).
The problem is horsepower is only good at Talladega or Daytona on the high bank track. Horsepower is what pushes the air out of the way, and overcomes the forces of friction. Torque on the other hand is what moves a drag car down the track under constant acceleration. I would rather have no more than 100 horsepower written in 24 inch tall scarlet letters on my hood; if you could only deliver to me a broad torque curve that averaged a thousand foot ponds of torque. You talk about an embarrassing time try kicking sand in the grill of some of the diesel rigs around my neck of the woods with six inch exhaust pipes a 120 gallon propane tank in the bed and a an annoying whistle that just seems to follow the truck every where it goes. Ever see 33 inch tall tires go up in smoke at a stop light (all four corners burning at once) Probably not because of all the black soot it pumps out, but they will boogie. Imagine you just got spanked by an inline six. with 445 cubic inches.
Big Dave |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lun40119 Member

Joined: 22 Oct 2008 Posts: 597 Location: Wisconsin 3900.66 points
1967 Chevrolet Chevelle
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dave, I agree to an extent, but have to respectfully disagree. Tq moves the car initially, but Hp builds the mph and et out past 60-100ft. Here is my theory.......take my engine for instance. I make peak tq at 5100, 5400, and again at 5500. But I make peak Hp at 7400. Now that being said....I don't want to set the car up to trap 5500rpm. It wouldn't get out of its own way. The mph would be crap, which is evident because I am only putting up 118-119 mph, right now trapping 6200. I need to be up around 7600 to be putting down the mph, that the car is capable of. That being said, the reason our little 4 banger buddies can keep up isn't because of tq, although cars like my buddies put down better tq than most 3.5inch stroke guys I know,(by a long shot). It is because of the hp and pull that they make out past 330. Lastly, figure this, if diesel tq is so great, why don't prostockers build low rpm tq monsters. 500" at 10500 rpm is alot more air than 500" at 5000rpm.
Again..........respectfully disagreeing. _________________ Jake
http://www.cardomain.com/id/excedrin
Make sure your picture isn't too big  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
af2 Member

Joined: 01 Sep 2003 Posts: 4651 Location: grassvalley, ca 12720.16 points
1933 Willys Coupe
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh shyt the Hp vs Torque!!!!!!!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lun40119 Member

Joined: 22 Oct 2008 Posts: 597 Location: Wisconsin 3900.66 points
1967 Chevrolet Chevelle
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey short stroke how've you been. I know which way you swing!!!!! By the way here is a vid of shawns talon. First run was 11.7 at 120something, and the second run he was low 7's at 104 at the 1/8 but, never saw 4th, the clutch disintegrated. He kept trying to force it into 4th and end up in 2nd at 105ish. I think he said it hit 10000ish. The aftermath was all the flywheel bolts were loose, and the clutch is junk. It is sitting in the shop right now next to my junk.
 _________________ Jake
http://www.cardomain.com/id/excedrin
Make sure your picture isn't too big  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
10sec.et Member

Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 2506 Location: Houston,Texas 315415.00 points
1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i dunno. i have to go with Dave on the whole torque thing. ive noticed that the guys with high reving small engines seem to spend more time fixing sh!t than driving the car. although, the torque monsters will definitely shred some drivetrain parts. _________________ " we got no fear, no doubt, all in balls out " |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
af2 Member

Joined: 01 Sep 2003 Posts: 4651 Location: grassvalley, ca 12720.16 points
1933 Willys Coupe
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 10sec.et wrote: | | i dunno. i have to go with Dave on the whole torque thing. ive noticed that the guys with high reving small engines seem to spend more time fixing sh!t than driving the car. although, the torque monsters will definitely shred some drivetrain parts. |
Biatch!
Friggen 455 olds!!!
When it gets cooler the Willys is back. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
af2 Member

Joined: 01 Sep 2003 Posts: 4651 Location: grassvalley, ca 12720.16 points
1933 Willys Coupe
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lun40119 wrote: | Dave, I agree to an extent, but have to respectfully disagree. Tq moves the car initially, but Hp builds the mph and et out past 60-100ft. Here is my theory.......take my engine for instance. I make peak tq at 5100, 5400, and again at 5500. But I make peak Hp at 7400. Now that being said....I don't want to set the car up to trap 5500rpm. It wouldn't get out of its own way. The mph would be crap, which is evident because I am only putting up 118-119 mph, right now trapping 6200. I need to be up around 7600 to be putting down the mph, that the car is capable of. That being said, the reason our little 4 banger buddies can keep up isn't because of tq, although cars like my buddies put down better tq than most 3.5inch stroke guys I know,(by a long shot). It is because of the hp and pull that they make out past 330. Lastly, figure this, if diesel tq is so great, why don't prostockers build low rpm tq monsters. 500" at 10500 rpm is alot more air than 500" at 5000rpm.
Again..........respectfully disagreeing. |
Jake, Can I borrow that thing for a week? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lun40119 Member

Joined: 22 Oct 2008 Posts: 597 Location: Wisconsin 3900.66 points
1967 Chevrolet Chevelle
|
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 10sec.et wrote: | | i dunno. i have to go with Dave on the whole torque thing. ive noticed that the guys with high reving small engines seem to spend more time fixing sh!t than driving the car. although, the torque monsters will definitely shred some drivetrain parts. |
They are fixing driveline parts . But if you build these engines with good parts, and with common sense, they will last along time. I know I reference mine alot, but I turn it pretty hard, it cruises on the highway north of 4500. On the Power tour I could drive for about an hour between fuelings, and it would spend most of the time at or above 4500 for an hour. _________________ Jake
http://www.cardomain.com/id/excedrin
Make sure your picture isn't too big  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|