Let's put a fantasy race, just based on, I dunno, gut feeling, engine specs, etc. I would like to know all angles on who would win, and why or why not, or just opinions of such.

Car 1:
1968 Camaro "SS"
Generous 3800lbs (due to sound deadening material, sound system, etc)
10-bolt rear with 3.73 gears
TH350 w/ 3500 stall converter
406 Smallblock
Fully ported and polished -186 heads with 2.02 intake, 1.72 or 1.88 exhast
Unknown piston type but which yields for 11.5:1 SCR
Unknown cam, assumed best possible to run a DCR of ~8.0:1 to run 93 octane, assume best compliment to combo from Comp Cams [Solid Lifter]
1.6 roller rockers of any type
Edelbrock dual-quad intake
dual Edelbrock 650cfm carburetors
K&N filter
MSD HEI
Hooker Super Comps, 1 7/8 tube to 3.5'' dual Borla Exhaust
Fairly stock suspension
Stock wheels with BF Goodrich street tires

Car ran previous of 13.88 @97MPH with Edelbrock RPM intake and Holley 750DP with Mickey Thompson ETs


Car 2:
1971 Chevelle SS
4000-4100lbs
12-bolt rear end/posi/4.10 gear
Muncie 5-spd*
468CID BBC
Brodix Alum. Race Rites with CNC chamber option
SRP pistons yielding SCR of ~10.5:1
Unknown cam, but assume best possible Lunati cam based on UDHarold and other's recommendation, yielding DCR of around 8.25:1 to run 93 octane [solid lifter]
Edelbrock Performer RPM
Holley 750DP carb or possibly 850, whatever engine needs.
Accel HEI
Headers, 3'' exhaust through Hooker Aero Chambers
Stock wheels with BF Goodrich street tires
Stock suspension

Assume driver is competent in using a manual transmission, and I know this tranny isn't out..yet smile.gif


So...what do you all think? Need more info or anything? I'm not particularly trying to dyno but again would like to know who you would bet on, etc, what looks like it doesn't or shouldn't or won't work, etc.

I seem to think the answer is obvious due mainly in part to simple engine mechanics, but a few people seem to think differently than I do...

Just curious again..thanks

The Chevelle by far is going to make more power,with stock suspension and a stick its going to be tough to put it to the ground,and all the HP in the world aint worth nothing if you can't hook it up.

If I owned a 68 Camaro with a 406/3.73 gears and it ran a 13.88 @97MPH with sticky tires I'd be pissed :D
The big block sounds like your typical overbuilt car that sounds impressive on paper,but won't ever ET it's best for what it is,and it needs an automatic too ;)

Isn't the muncie 5 speed just a 3 speed with overdrive? If so I'd say it may be a close race. The camaro's dual quad intake is the weak link in that combo IMO, especially with the 3.73 gears. Dual quad low rise intakes and crossrams IMO seem to like a narrow rpm band and the 3.73 gears probably won't keep it there. All in all though I'd put my money on the Chevelle winning.

Originally posted by mr 4 speed:
If I owned a 68 Camaro with a 406/3.73 gears and it ran a 13.88 @97MPH with sticky tires I'd be pissed :D And very embarrassed.

The Muncie 5-speed is actually the 4 ratios of M22 (or M22W, I think, depending what you choose), and an OD.

Eventually the Chevelle will have aftermarket suspension, but as for now it's stock. The Camaro's suspension upgrade really is only 'performance drag shocks'. Just trying to compare apples to apples on that factor, though.

The thing about the Camaro is before the dual quads it supposedly had 550HP/580 torque...car hooked dead on at the drags..heh.

Overall I think, yes the BBC has a lot more cubes, and the heads are 'just' -186. They're good, I'm not disputing that at all, but to me they're still technology from 1968, no matter how you port them. I just don't see how it could compare to the BBC at all really, except like in weight...but there's always been something about them 406's and how much power they can make that I miss because I can't see how they do it, heh.

I have 186 heads that literally still have the stock 1.94/1.5 valves from 1970 when the heads were made. Shifting at 6,000rpm's on BF Goodrich 4 season radials I ran a 12.2@113. That was on a day that everyone was 2/10th's slower than usual even. I had less gear 3.50, less converter 2,900, less cubic inches 385, less compression 10:1/8:0, less octane 87, less cam 286 magnum single pattern by comp, less exhaust 1 5/8" into 2 1/2" we do share the rpm intake and the 750 holley, along with tires. My car does weight less. I’m not sure why you ran a 97mph trap speed if you got traction!? That thing should haul some serious ass. I’m thinking either your timing is way, way screwy or you missing a bunch of cam lobes. Something is wrong because your trap speed should be like 118mph or something.

Well the Camaro in question is my friend's and the Chevelle in question is the set-up I hope to have by spring.

It's kind of a dispute and a put-up or shut-up deal, and the kind of 'kid buying motor because it's good and he has unlimited cash' vs. 'kid building motor because he [hopefully for the most part] knows what he's talking about' deal. I think the Chevelle, if power was put to ground, would beat the Camaro.

I also think the Camaro doesn't have what my friend thinks as far as internals. His car was tuned by 'his' mechanic that he always uses and built the engine, and still only got 13.88 etc. Unless something went horribly wrong right before his run at the strip, he just doesn't have the power he claimed.

I dont see anyway the chevelle can loose unless he has NO traction. the camaro is probably slower with the dual carbs, headers are to big,heads arnt gong to flow much.

The dragstrip is a very humbling place, and the clocks don't lie. Before you get too excited, it might humble you as badly as it humbled your buddy. Best to do some test-n-tune on the sly with your car before you get over confident smile.gif

Taylor,
Not to ruin your friends day,,,, but he had about 325 engine HP on that particular day & run if he ran it all the way through the
lights :(

Also, I guarantee he does not have a 1.72 ex valve & 1 7/8" headers are way too
big. :D

but to me they're still technology from 1968, no matter how you port them.Taylor, don't get fooled into thinking that just because someone is using "old tech" heads and you are using the newest Brodix CNC stuff that yours will be any better... For the compromises with tires/suspension, I personally would spend money there and stay with stock iron heads...

Owning an Edelbrock low-rise dual quad on my 396 (and looking at the data from Edelbrock when I bought it), sure it makes less power, but not that much less. And the RPM band wasn't much different. For the small block version, the RPM band is the SAME as the RPM intake ( both 1500-6500). True, a cross-ram might have a more limited RPM band...

IMO, the Dual Quad might actually be better than a DP... It will have the 4-barrels (2 sets of primaries) open with the drivers foot(just like the DP), but have (possibly) smaller venturies allowing better velocity, plus the secondaries opening additionally as needed...

IMO, the Chevelle might be the loser... Based on the 4.10s, BFG tires (I am assuming regular T/As), stock suspension, manual trans and Double Pumper carb... An automatic or better tires or vacuum secondary carb would probably be better and less likely to blow off the tires...

But this is also based on the Camaro's "specs" (not the ET data)...

Based on ET, I would tend to think the Camaro will be a little slower than previously, maybe a 14.20, but mainly because of the tires. But less of a difference with the automatic/bad tires than with the manual/bad tires...

What would be the downside of the 4.10s, just curious, in regards to the combo?

Also the reason I was using just BFG tires was to keep a regular street apples to apples comparison as best I could just for the sake of not totally being race cars and such.

Is the reason people don't want a manual because you'll lose a bit of time during shifting?

Anyway it's just my projected combo, not quite set in stone yet, but just what I'm looking at first.

Originally posted by Wolfplace:
Taylor,
Not to ruin your friends day,,,, but he had about 325 engine HP on that particular day & run if he ran it all the way through the
lights :(

Also, I guarantee he does not have a 1.72 ex valve & 1 7/8" headers are way too
big. :D That's what I said, at least about the headers. And 3.5'' exhaust all the way down, that's way huge too!

Does that HP-derived trap speed sound right, or what do you guys think it should have ran?

Pfft, nolo contendre. The Chevelle will be a full second faster assuming you don't put a whimpyass carb like a 750 on it.850. No contest. And I KNOW. I have less motor, less head , a freckle more gear, and coming off soft with a 2.10 sec 60', it's running very low 12's at 118. It'd ET better without multiple carbs as well, I think. The Chevelle is very close to Old Red specs. You should be able to 60' better and run 11s. It isnt overbuilt IMHO. Don't get crazy with torque with a stick car IMHO, they aren't good 'bse' platforms at all imho. Build a HP motor and gear it accordingly. You drop the clutch on some huge torque motor and you'll sit there doing nothing but making heat.

A stick car wants all the gear you can give it. My 1st gear is a bit below 10:1, and I wish it was more. Trouble is, you're pulling the 1/2 shift before the 60' mark, so POWERSHIFT! smile.gif

Keep the 1st gear near 9-10:1. 4.33s would be cool and nearly perfect if your OD drops them to 3.3 or less at cruise. AS long as the mill can see 6800 shift points.


That's a no brainer. And something is wrong with the small block in that Camaro. Most 1st gens I persoanlly know will run deep 12s with ease and 11s if any attention at all is paid to chassis and engine.

Is it a trick question? Too easy. If you hadn't mentioned that crappy ET, I would have though that the chevelle would run 12.0 and the Camaro 12.4. W-A-G.

Heh, thanks for the input.

It wasn't a trick question. My friend honestly thinks his Camaro is all that, it was a $3k motor and it runs what it does. 'Big blocks are never more powerful than smallblocks. The only way close is if you stroke it and maybe turbo/supercharge it' he likes to say. I ask why he thinks this, if it's just because of weight or what. I like to think that it too is a no brainer, but eh. It'd help if he knew exactly what was in his but oh well.

Originally posted by soccerguy045:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wolfplace:
Taylor,
Not to ruin your friends day,,,, but he had about 325 engine HP on that particular day & run if he ran it all the way through the
lights :(

Also, I guarantee he does not have a 1.72 ex valve & 1 7/8" headers are way too
big. :D That's what I said, at least about the headers. And 3.5'' exhaust all the way down, that's way huge too!

Does that HP-derived trap speed sound right, or what do you guys think it should have ran? </font>[/QUOTE]=
Hi Taylor,
The 97 MPH is what I based the HP on. I never use ET. Too many varibles.

A 3800# car will run about 100MPH with about 325 engine HP.
;)

I just can't figure how someone figured out how to get another gear in a Muncie case. I'm sure I read somewhere that what they're calling the soon to be released Munie 5 is actually just a gearset with a freeway friendly 4th gear. Who is going to market them? Or did they totally redesign the case, etc. Bob

I can't remember who is making them, but it's been talked about a bit in the transmission forum. Wally is kind of the go-betweener between us and the company making them. The details are at least the regular M22 ratios with a .68 (I think) OD. The case and everything fits perfectly so no hacking and slashing of the tunnel. Last update was it was due out this spring for $2400 including shifter. I can't remember the site or name of the company exactly, but I think it's Autogear.

3800 lbs? My '67 Camaro with iron head 454, m21, 12 bolt, all steel body, full interior with factory am radio weighs 3280 lbs with 1/3 tank of fuel. A '68 should be near identical.

Got some bigarse bass speakers I guess. 6 pack of 18"s and 200 lbs of amps?

Reminds me last year when Old Red ran against the ex-keeper of the L88, now with a 509 in his 68 Camaro. Almost took him. He thought I did. Old red was running 117.5-118.5 and his 68 was only 116. Dart heads, roll cage, etc., but we figured Old Red ( and I) have maybe 300 lbs on the 68 Camaro.

Car is for sale btw, and I sure wish I had 15K loose right now. Same paint shop did the 68 as Old Red. SCHWEET in black I must say.Cam swap and converter, and that car will runs 10s with suspension tuning imho. Nice street car. TRIPOWER!13-14 mpg with an auto, 14-15 with a manual tranny!

Taylor, ask your friend what color the sky is in his world, 'cause he's out there somewhere! Don;t say ANYTHING about who is faster. Just tell him you'll gladly line 'em up one day ( preferably with slicks OR you'll have to practice to know EXACTLY where the edge of grip is on your tires and keep the throttle just below that until your underway.)

The reason I say 3800 lbs is with driver, full tank of gas, car completely layered with Dynamat and some sound equipment. Maybe I guess a little high, but who knows.

68 Camaro,all steel, alum head rat, cage, no rear seat, 210 lbs of driver, we figured 3600 lbs. Guessed. We guessed the 67 Chevelle at 3850 w /driver, but it might be lighter than that considering the mph it runs.