Track is finally open up here. I was able to take my 86 Cutlass out for the first time, but I am a little dissapointed with the results. Tonight at the track I was running consistent 15.6's with mph right at about 90mph. 60ft were always in the 2.3 range.

86 LG4 305, 416 heads ported, stock CR ~8.5:1, Edelbrock RPM intake, 650 Vac Sec Carb, 214/224 hydraulic cam, 1 1/2" headers, HEI with aftermarket coil. The heads are ported, runners are gasket matched. The ports are smoothed out, but were not hogged out just slightly massaged, intake left unpolished, most time was spent on the bowls. Streamlined the valve guides, removed ridge below valve seat and opened up throat area to 85% of valve size.

The car is a 1986 Cutlass, 3850lbs with driver, stock converter stall ~2000rpm, 3.73 gears, 245/50R14 TA Radials.

Using MPH and weight the math says the car is making about ~210HP. I am pretty dissapointed with this. I truly believe I should be atleast 280hp at the flywheel putting mph in 96-98 range. What do you guys think?

Thank You
Steve

T/A radials arent the best for traction,lower that 60ft to below 2.0 range and you're in the 14's...hell,my first car that I took to the track was a 62 Impala,350-4sp,stock-weak rearend and it only ran in the mid high 15's and I still had a blast,even though I had to change the pumpkin every weekend after destroying the spider gears. I've got two 1st place trophies from running my 83 Nissan p/u also that ran mid 18's. Everyone wants to go faster,but you can win with a slower car graemlins/thumbsup.gif

I can win with this car. :D Very, very consistent. Out of 10 runs times varied from 15.81 to 15.57. That was with me changing some stuff. 60ft's were always right about 2.39. Track was terrible last night. It was only about 40F and slightly spitting. I seemed to be the only person with decent traction. No wheel hop, the tires would spin slightly, but the car seemed to be hooking up pretty good. Ok, hooking as well as TAs can hook.

Robert is right 2.0's would give me 14's, but I am more concerend with mph and my lost power. If I was runnning at 96mph but still in the 15's I would be more concerend with traction.

Thanks
Steve

If it helps, I did a compression check today, all cylinders were 150psi.

Thanks
Steve

http://www.hobbystage.net/camaro/camaroracer/1078162433-003371.jpg

Here's a stock eliminator 305 running mid 11's. One of the more impressive in the country, as the Driver was 14th in points in our division, 50th in the country last season.

That guy must have invested a lot of $$$ to get that lil 305 into the 11s, unless he built it to stock specs, but with forged parts and is squeezing the heck of out it???

No, he runs in a class called "Stock Eliminator", no nitrous.

Actually, using the calculator here, (http://www.race-cars.net/calculators/et_calculator.html) I come up with 219RWHP, which is about perfect for 280 flywheel minus 20% losses which comes out to 224. I'd say your guess of 280 is on the money.
Best of luck,

A looser convertor would help a lot. That is a relatively large cam for a 305 with 8.5-1 compression, and that stock convertor isn't doing you any favors. It probably flashes closer to 1500 rpms. Something along the lines of a 2400-2500 stall convertor would work well.

Converter is a little weird. It only footbrakes to about 1500, but flashes at 2100rpm.

I still have more tuning to do. Shift points need to go up so that will help. The fuel pump is also stock cheap parts store pump that could be a million years old. I am going to replace it with a Carter a see what happens.

Thanks for the help
Steve

Hey a 305 can run hard and strong, after a .030 over bore and blueprint of a 69 Z28 302 it runs really strong. You guys are talking about the good 305 not that POS smog engine.....right? :D

Gotta go now its time for my pills! graemlins/clonk.gif

Realistically, no one is going to be able to build a streetable 305 car that is going to be as fast as a 305 stock eliminator car, unless a set of 5:13 gears dont bother you running around town.

Yes, the average Joe can build a 305 car to go well into the 14's, but eventually it gets frustrating because you reach a point that you say "If I put all this effort into a 350, how fast would I be going"

There are a few problems that have been pointed out here, one being your cam and converter, and another being your compression. Starting out with an L69 motor would have been more of a blessing. You also dont mention the gear.

Your car is running right on target for a stock monte SS of the same vintage, all of wich had 3.73's, so you are obviously surpassing L69 power at this point.

Youve got some work to do, but with those changes, you should be able to lop a second off your et.

I've posted this before but here goes again!!

"From a 1995 Chevy High Performance article.
305 Engine Build-up.

1 ’69, 041 double hump 1.94”/1.50” valve heads cut to 59 cc’s. Bowls blended and only the exhaust ports polished.
2. Manley Pro-Flo valves, PN 11560 intakes and PN 11559 exhausts.
3. CC 292 Magnum hydraulic cam, 292/244, 110/106, .501” lift.
4. 350 rods rebuilt with good bolts and nuts.
5. L-69, 9.5 to 1 CR. LU5 fuel injection short-block engine with stock head-gasket gives 10.6 to 1 CR. Or a
6. LG4, 8.6 to 1 CR. engine will give 9+ to 1 CR.
7. Deck height was .014” down with stock four valve notch cast pistons.
8. Quench was about .035”.
9. Hooker 1.75” four tube long headers with 3.0” collectors. PN 2110 for a Third Gen. car.
10. Holley 650 double pumper PN 4777 and an E-brock Victor Jr. intake.
11. 4” K&N open filter.
12. Good Electronic ignition

The little bugger made like 402hp up top!! They ran it until she spun a bearing or just came unglued!

And an old RHS, Memphis, TN, 305 motor build-up that makes right at 300hp. http://www.goingfaster.com/spo/290hp305.html" (http://www.goingfaster.com/spo/290hp305.html)

pdq67

PS., 305HO, 1980 to 1986 14022601’s are chambered like big valved double hump heads whereas the 1980 to 1984 14014416's are like smoggers or big valved W/P, 305 Torquers... "Bathtub vs D-shaped" shaped combustion chambers!!

I figure no more then installing 1.60" exhaust valves will really wake them up along with some minor bowl work for a 265, 283, 305 and 307 motors, imho!!!

Big Block Dave - It's buried in my first post but I am running 3.73's gears. The lowest gear you could ever get in a Monte was a 3.42 in the later years, the first ones had 3.2~'s.

pdq67 - the 416's are an other version of the HO heads with the larger 1.85/1.60 valves.

Don't worry guys I am not aiming for 11's from a 305, they have big blocks for that kind of stuff. :D I just threw this motor together with parts I had laying around the garage to see what I could do with a stock 305. I had an almost identical 305 in my Chevelle. Same cam, intake, carb. The same heads but they were not ported back then. The only real difference was that car had 3500 stall converter in it, with 3.08 gears. It would run high 14's at 94 mph. That's why I am probably dissapointed with the slower times. But then again my velle was probably 400lbs lighter then the Cutlass.

Thank you for all the suggestions. I still have some more tuning and shift points to adjust. I'll do some work on traction. I can build some new lower control arms and move the rear mounting point down abit.

Thank you again
Steve

Originally posted by 70mousejob:
Actually, using the calculator here, (http://www.race-cars.net/calculators/et_calculator.html) I come up with 219RWHP, which is about perfect for 280 flywheel minus 20% losses which comes out to 224. I'd say your guess of 280 is on the money.
Best of luck, =
Brandon,
This is one of my "pet peeves"
People put these damn calculators on their sites without checking to see of they are at least somewhat accurate graemlins/angry.gif
This is another calculator that is giving approximate FLYWHEEL HP & calling it RWHP.

Before using these calculators test them by putting a few known combinations that are accurate.
A good example is Pro Stock that almost everyone follows.
Input 2350 lbs & 200MPH & see what you get.
It will not be completly accurate because Pro cars are so effecient so it will read high but I highly doubt they are making 1500+ RWHP :eek:

Here is something I have posted before about another calculator with the same problem but will post again:

Virtual 2000 supposedly gives engine HP I believe, all I can tell you is to do a few calculations & see if it makes sense to you.
If that calculator was right a 204 mph Pro car woud be making over 1500 rear wheel HP
Assuming a generous 10% loss we are talking almost 1700 engine HP????

Here is a little formula that has been around since at least the 70's & was used by Chrysler Corp. in their drag racing program & written up in the American Journal of Physics in 1973
HP=(.00426*MPH)cubed * WGT
I add about 50 HP to the number because trap speed (Thanks Pat ;) ) is measured differently now than it was in the 70's.

As an example:
00426*97=.41322cubed=.07056*3400=240HP
Add 50 to be nice,,,290HP
I find this formula works pretty fair until you get into some of the very hi end cars like Pro Stock. I find with cars like these it will give you a higher HP number than you usually see, especially adding 50HP.

This formula might be old but I believe most of the laws of physics still apply,,,,,,unless of course you are using that "Good LA air" when you dyno :D :D

Originally posted by wanarace:
Big Block Dave - It's buried in my first post but I am running 3.73's gears. The lowest gear you could ever get in a Monte was a 3.42 in the later years, the first ones had 3.2~'s.

Sorry I missed your mention of the gear, but to clarify something, all Monte SS cars cam from the factory with 3.73's, no other ratio option, only the option to have a posi.

Ya looks like I was off a little off on the gears. Early cars had 3.42 and the laters had the 3.73.

Steve

3.42 offered in 83-84 with the 3-speed automatic.
3.73 's in the 200R4 automatic from 84-88.
I think the 84 SS's could be had with either trans and the overdrive was optional. 85 and after all came with the 200R4 along with the Buick Grand Nationals. Funny though the Buicks only had the 3.42 gears. Beleive it or not most of the 9-10.00 1/4 mile Buick V-6's still run the 3.42's.

I noticed you said you have headers..does the car have true duals? How about timing? 20* initial would be great,38-45* total by 2500 or so..it a low compression 305..it can take it :D

Chris C. - Yes the car has 1.5" Hedman headers, with a true 2.25" exhaust all the way to the bumper. The mufflers are Flowmaster 40's and it has an H-pipe. The shop that did it before I had the car did a terrible job. In some places the pipe is dimpled to almost half of original size. And on top of that the entire thing is welded so the only way to get my tranny crossmember out (which the exhaust passes through a cut out) is cut out the exhaust.

I believe initial is set around 22deg right now. I know I get 36deg by 3500rpm. I tried more timming at track but mph went down, so I left it at 36.

Thanks for the help
Steve

Steve,get that 36* to being all "in" by 2500

Thanks Chris, didn't really think of that, But with such low compression, 36 by 2500 should help.

Steve

Where do you guys think this motor makes peak HP? I am thinking just over 5000rpm. So shift point should be around 6000, seem right? Just curious because I was driving around and checked shift points. 1-2 is about 4800 and 2-3 is way down at 4000. This could definetley be a problem, since I was letting the trans do all the shifting at the track. Time for a shift kit and some govener mods.

Thanks
Steve

I would shift that combo at 5500 max
Time for you to shift the trans manually at the track :D

I would shift it manually but column is pretty sloppy. But it's a good reason to get that Quicksilver I always wanted. :D