Login    Forum    Search    FAQ

Board index » Racing Forum » Engine & Cylinder Head Tech




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: more cam please
 Post Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:52 pm 
 
congrats Randy! =D>

that's very impressive!  my guess is when  you retard a cam that much, it needs more cam... :-k


Top 
  
 
 Post subject: Re: more cam please
 Post Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:55 pm
Posts: 847
Location: NW MO.
raynorshine wrote:
 my guess is when  you retard a cam that much, it needs more cam... :-k


You think it needs more cam?? O:)

I knew it needed more cam once it went in a drag car, and not a truck.

That wasn't the point, it was how low of et could be ran with such a simple engine. Staying with the same heads/cam/intake/short block, but grinding on parts was legal. :-k

I had a few things still to try. I din't do anything for windage. It's a bone stock pan, crank etc, with no tray,scraper,etc. It was one thing I wanted to do seperatly to see any gains independently of other changes. I was gona try lower ring tension. And I had one more converter to try.

It also ETed a little better with a 5.86 gear, but was past 7000rpm at the finish line, and I decided to limit that, at least untill fall weather, so I went back to the 5.38 gear, and if it didn't go the 6.99 with the 5.38 gear, I'd switch gears back, and the rev-limiter would come out for a couple runs. =;

Now my crew chief wants to see how low of et can be had with the exact same engine, except now we can spray it. New rules would be engine rules remain the same, any converter, or gear, and ANY amount of Nos can be applied.
I may want to re-think the low engine oil/tranny pressure thing?? :-k

_________________
Slow racing is better than no racing!

Randy


Last edited by randy355 on Wed Dec 03, 2008 12:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: reply
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 12:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:55 pm
Posts: 847
Location: NW MO.
40Coupe wrote:

That's what I told the guy with the 434 and he agreed!   \:D/


Now Garret, IF someone a little more serious was ET hunting with that 434" sbc,(and that was the primary goal) do you think you could have said the same thing?

What % of the cars at the drag strip, do you belive have reached their lowest ET possible, with the parts they have?

_________________
Slow racing is better than no racing!

Randy


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 6:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5071
Location: Elizabethtown, KY
20% Most guys are for a good time and race. When we first started we chased ET for the first year and it got expensive and was not a lot of fun.  [-(  [-( From that point on it has been what ever the car would run is what we ran. We started going rounds and had a blast.  \:D/  \:D/  Of course heads up guys are always looking for ET. :-k

_________________
Steve

6.7772 @ 101.51 1/8th 10.747 @ 122.24 1/4

Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: reply
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 7:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 6:23 am
Posts: 151
randy355 wrote:
40Coupe wrote:

That's what I told the guy with the 434 and he agreed!   \:D/


Now Garret, IF someone a little more serious was ET hunting with that 434" sbc,(and that was the primary goal) do you think you could have said the same thing?

What % of the cars at the drag strip, do you belive have reached their lowest ET possible, with the parts they have?


I'm just funning him!  Gary knows that.  He's been trying to catch my junk for years!!! =;  But he did say that he realizes he could make more power with a BBC! =;

Yes, absolutely Randy, there's been little effort dedicated to finding ET in that combo.  Give me that car for a weekend and it's 60 footing a tenth better.  My services are available for chassis work.  PM me for pricing.   \:D/

_________________
1.27
5.85 @ 115.12


Last edited by 40Coupe on Wed Dec 03, 2008 7:42 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: reply
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 7:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:20 pm
Posts: 5852
Location: N.J.
40Coupe wrote:
randy355 wrote:
40Coupe wrote:

That's what I told the guy with the 434 and he agreed!   \:D/


Now Garret, IF someone a little more serious was ET hunting with that 434" sbc,(and that was the primary goal) do you think you could have said the same thing?

What % of the cars at the drag strip, do you belive have reached their lowest ET possible, with the parts they have?


I'm just funning him!  Gary knows that.  But he did say that he realizes he could make more power with a BBC! =;

Yes, absolutely Randy, there's been little effort dedicated to finding ET in that combo.  Give me that car for a weekend and it's 60 footing a tenth better and ET'ing .15 better in the 1/4.  My services are available for chassis work.  PM me for pricing.   \:D/





With a new shinnie paint job it will et and mph alot faster :-$  =;  =;

_________________
Image
running E85
Best ET 8.07
Best MPH 170.71
Barry


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 8:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:55 pm
Posts: 847
Location: NW MO.
randy355 wrote:
Can this engine combo, run a 6.99 or better, in a 2950 lb car?

4.03" bore x 3.48" stroke 355" SBC
750 carb
Performer rpm intake
882 casting smog heads
9/1 compression, on 87 octain
hyperuexplosive flat top pistons
204*/214* @.050" hydraulic flat tappet cam .420"/.443" lift.
Stock 2 bolt block/bottom end
stock pan, no windage work yet


The dyno said 365 HP, for this engine.

_________________
Slow racing is better than no racing!

Randy


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:32 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
That engine is very near the 355 in my Studebaker.  I got a little more camshaft and less intake than you got though.  We're getting ready to pull the s**t box single 4 tunnel ram off and put on a Performer RPM in the next couple of weeks.  The way it is right now it went 7.84 @ over 3500lbs last fall on pump gas also.  With the intake change I'm hoping it will be a little better.  The single carb tunnel ram just plain sucks!

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:36 pm
Posts: 718
Location: Blanco, Texas
Hey Randy,

Did you ever get into the 6's ?

_________________
Donee


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:55 pm
Posts: 847
Location: NW MO.
Slowpoke wrote:
Hey Randy,

Did you ever get into the 6's ?


Yes, at the end of november in 2008.

6.99 @ 96.33 at KCIR.

With ported 062 vortecs, and the same combo, it's ran a 6.902 @ 98 MPH, in worse air than when it ran the 6.99.

Somewhere back in this thread I posted it ran a 6.99 (I think)

I'm starting to think I need a bigger cam, than 204/214 @50 and .420 lift???

_________________
Slow racing is better than no racing!

Randy


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:36 pm
Posts: 718
Location: Blanco, Texas
I'm still impressed, glad you reached your goal! \:D/

_________________
Donee


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Board index » Racing Forum » Engine & Cylinder Head Tech


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: