Using massive torque to improve 60' times - Page 6 - Chevelle Tech
Performance Our High Performance area

 90Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
post #76 of 136 (permalink) Old Oct 31st, 19, 2:39 PM
Lifetime Premium Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Under the hood of some musclecar
Posts: 28,299
Re: Using massive torque to improve 60' times

Quote:
Originally Posted by 68Chevele View Post
I bet if he had one of Mark's (Vortecpro) 496's it would go 11's with 2.56's.
Like it fell out of a tree. Alan (TC uername shouldntbehere) went 10.90 with 3.08 gears in his 71 Corvette with a 657 HP pump gas 496 built by MJ


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
mr 4 speed is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #77 of 136 (permalink) Old Oct 31st, 19, 2:43 PM
Tech Team
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 301
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by PileDriver View Post
I'm gonna be bold!

You're not going to run 11's with a naturally aspirated engine, stock stall and a 2.56 gear in a 4000lb car.

I completely understand wanting to keep the current driveability and make use of what you have. I get it! But the physics aren't going to allow this goal to happen.

But....it's 2019 and there are parts available to do everything well! A 4L80E, while not cheap, will do everything. Lock up converter for cool easy highway driving, favorable gear ratios, tough as nails, and tons of aftermarket support. So now you can run that 10" loose converter and enjoy the benefits of torque multiplication, much improved 60' and (most important!) 330' times.

I know you're most likely not interested in that setup, but I had to throw that out there.

Best of luck with the direction you choose. <img src="https://www.chevelles.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Smile" class="inlineimg" />
I know what I’m going to do, if it makes it, it makes it.

496, Isky 228/238 HR cam, good compression, good flowing heads.

I need more torque, and to be in the power band quicker. I’m going to give it an honest effort with stock stall and 2.56 gears.

It’s not spinning off the line now, but I wouldn’t call it a total slug...it just takes a bit to get up on the cam.

I figure it will take another 100 hp without sacrificing and bottom end torque. The additional cubic inches will certainly help, as will compression and roller cam. It will be close if it doesn’t make it. Near as I can guess, mph should be between 117-120.
mr 4 speed and nashville beth like this.

Proving every day hindsight is 20/20.
Dragginwagon467 is offline  
post #78 of 136 (permalink) Old Oct 31st, 19, 5:10 PM
Lifetime Premium Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: CT,USA
Posts: 13,067
Re: Using massive torque to improve 60' times

Quote:
Originally Posted by 68Chevele View Post
What he needs to effectively run an 11 with the 2.56 gears is to be in the 7.60 area in the 1/8 mile, the last 660 ft. helps but not as important as the first 660. He does need some type of stall converter and he knows that. Keeping the cam on the small side works even better as torque and not HP will get that car in the 11's the way he wants to do it, would it be easier with gears? not necessarily, look at my car , I can run 11.90'[email protected] so the mph does not get the car rolling the torque does. Back in 1988 I raced my Chevelle wagon that had 3.73 gears with my 454 and we figured with 4.56's the car would ET better, sure did, by 1 stinking tenth so in that case the gears did not make the difference I though they would. The next change was to go from the 11" converter to the looser 10", the car picked up 3 tenths went back to the 3.73's with the new converter and picked up another tenth. I bet if he had one of Mark's (Vortecpro) 496's it would go 11's with 2.56's.
In general, regardless of what ET you're running, a gear swap will only improve accelration and ET IF the gear ratio chosen matches the RPM range of the powerband that the camshaft being used creates.

As far as torque converter swaps go, stall speed RPM isn't the only factor. It's also the quality of the converter and how well it does it's job of torque multplication. I had a hevay 4,200 LB car that improved .70 seconds ET wise just by swapping out the stock converter, (which only had 4,000 street miles on it, and 6 drag strip passes) with an aftermarket torque converter which also allowed a stall speed RPM increase of about 600 RPM. The aftermarket piece was of higher quality and was mre efficient. It wasn't one of these "holeshot" cheapies either.Iit was a $700 piece.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr 4 speed View Post
Like it fell out of a tree. Alan (TC uername shouldntbehere) went 10.90 with 3.08 gears in his 71 Corvette with a 657 HP pump gas 496 built by MJ
And what was the vehicle weight of that Vette? I bet it was a whole lot lighter than the 4,000 lb car being discussed here in this thread. At the very least 500 lbs lighter if not more. I had a 73 Vette for six years. Their typical full stock weight is 3,400 lbs. That weight variable makes a big difference. Try running your car down the 1320 with just you inside, and then do it again with three 200lbs guys in there with you, and tell me what the ET difference is. It won't be just a couple tenths difference, I can assure you of that. Not by a longshot.
Steve R and bradley67 like this.

70 Chevelle SS clone (632 CI powered).
BillyGman is offline  
 
post #79 of 136 (permalink) Old Oct 31st, 19, 5:28 PM
Lifetime Premium Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: CT,USA
Posts: 13,067
Re: Using massive torque to improve 60' times

With all due respect to the O.P. here, I just think that it sounds like he's determined to make his car a jack-of-all-trades, and most often what happens in this game when you try to do that, you end up with a car that is simply a master-of-NONE. IMO trying to drag race a HEAVY car with 2.56:1 rear gears is the same as using 4.56:1 gears to do lots of interstate travel withOUT an overdrive trans. Yes there are decent compromises that can be made for street/strip cars. When it comes to rear gear ratios, 3.08, 3.55, and even 3.73's are all decent compromises as long as the appropriate camshaft is used to compliment those gear ratios. But that's a far cry from 2.56 gears. Especially with a heavy ark of a car that's being drag raced.
Rokker and brent632 like this.

70 Chevelle SS clone (632 CI powered).
BillyGman is offline  
post #80 of 136 (permalink) Old Oct 31st, 19, 7:30 PM
Tech Team
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 301
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1968 hot rod View Post
Have you thought about building more power upstairs instead of another 1/4" of stroke added? Or spending your cash on adj rear shock?
Two reasons I’m not building power upstairs, gear and torque converter. If I used a 3000 stall, it would make sense to build more power upstairs. Since I won’t, it doesn’t.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 427L88 View Post
Hey, I've never run a performance auto trans in a Chevelle, but if I did, the converter is the LAST place to skimp. A good one, with some stall an some efficiency, isnt cheap. Be sure you cool it, as those 2.56 gears, some stall, and long highway time could really build heat. Lots of heat.
Aren’t factory converters efficient? I suspect I’ll pick up a couple hundred more stall with the 496

Proving every day hindsight is 20/20.
Dragginwagon467 is offline  
post #81 of 136 (permalink) Old Oct 31st, 19, 7:50 PM
Tech Team
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 301
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyGman View Post
With all due respect to the O.P. here, I just think that it sounds like he's determined to make his car a jack-of-all-trades, and most often what happens in this game when you try to do that, you end up with a car that is simply a master-of-NONE. IMO trying to drag race a HEAVY car with 2.56:1 rear gears is the same as using 4.56:1 gears to do lots of interstate travel withOUT an overdrive trans. Yes there are decent compromises that can be made for street/strip cars. When it comes to rear gear ratios, 3.08, 3.55, and even 3.73's are all decent compromises as long as the appropriate camshaft is used to compliment those gear ratios. But that's a far cry from 2.56 gears. Especially with a heavy ark of a car that's being drag raced.
Every time I jump in the car to drive it to work, I realize I’m doing the right things. One pump, fires right up. Driving it around is unbelievably easy and fun. It gobbles up the pavement getting on the highway, acceleration is so smooth and controllable. If someone wants to play on the highway, not too many things on the road can match the 40-70. On dry pavement, just roll on the throttle and it is glued. Only from a dead stop does it require careful use of the accelerator pedal.

The 1/4 mile performance will come, but 11s won’t come without some growing pains.

Proving every day hindsight is 20/20.
Dragginwagon467 is offline  
post #82 of 136 (permalink) Old Nov 1st, 19, 5:10 AM Thread Starter
Tech Team
Mike
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 194
Garage
Send a message via AIM to dragginwagon406 Send a message via MSN to dragginwagon406 Send a message via Yahoo to dragginwagon406
Re: Using massive torque to improve 60' times

After reading this, I'm very hopeful...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgia69 View Post
I'm running an Isky hydraulic roller, Part number RR-275/284, kit number 69275/284. Cam specs are duration 228/238 @ .050, lift .553/.578, LSA 112.

Everybody says it's way too small for a 496, but it's easy on valve springs and lifters and I'm going about as quick as you can go at NHRA tracks without getting tossed for no roll bar, so I don't know why I would want to go any bigger. I love the street manners, the vacuum for power brakes, and my 2800 stall/3.42 gears.

It's not a truck cam...pulls hard to 6000...

Mike

69 Chevelle 496/TH400
ET/Speed - 11.371 @ 117.23

1981 Malibu wagon
406/350/4.10
Best ET NA 12.20 @ 110
Best ET w/N2O 11.47 @ 117
dragginwagon406 is offline  
post #83 of 136 (permalink) Old Nov 1st, 19, 8:11 AM
Lifetime Premium Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Under the hood of some musclecar
Posts: 28,299
Re: Using massive torque to improve 60' times

My point of quoting Alan's vette is this: his car weighs 3700 w/driver IIRC, so that 10.90 becomes an 11.30-11.40 in a 4200 lb car w/driver.
The 2.56 gear will make that 11.30-11.40 "suffer" further so to speak.And the stock converter will continue that theme. But, 657 HP at the crank (which is what Alan's MJ built 496 produces for HP) should get a 4200 lb. car with 2.56 gears into the 11.9-12.0 range for sure.
Personally,if I had a goal like Mike's to run high 11's-12.00's with 2.56 gears I would have to use at least a 2400-2800 rpm flash converter.Makes achieving the goal much easier.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
mr 4 speed is offline  
post #84 of 136 (permalink) Old Nov 1st, 19, 2:01 PM
Lifetime Premium Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: CT,USA
Posts: 13,067
Re: Using massive torque to improve 60' times

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr 4 speed View Post
My point of quoting Alan's vette is this: his car weighs 3700 w/driver IIRC, so that 10.90 becomes an 11.30-11.40 in a 4200 lb car w/driver.
The 2.56 gear will make that 11.30-11.40 "suffer" further so to speak.And the stock converter will continue that theme. But, 657 HP at the crank (which is what Alan's MJ built 496 produces for HP) should get a 4200 lb. car with 2.56 gears into the 11.9-12.0 range for sure.
Personally,if I had a goal like Mike's to run high 11's-12.00's with 2.56 gears I would have to use at least a 2400-2800 rpm flash converter.Makes achieving the goal much easier.
I've never heard of an early 70's Vette weighing that much. Did he add an extra 300 LBS somewhere? To my knowledge even the big block Vettes were listed as having a curb weight of 3,400 LBS. Not only are they much smaller cars than Chevelles are, but they had fiberglass bodies as well. So how can a fiberglass body 2 seater car weight as much as a big block Chevelle did?? 300 extra LBS is a lot on the drag strip

70 Chevelle SS clone (632 CI powered).
BillyGman is offline  
post #85 of 136 (permalink) Old Nov 1st, 19, 2:14 PM
Lifetime Premium Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Under the hood of some musclecar
Posts: 28,299
Re: Using massive torque to improve 60' times

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyGman View Post
I've never heard of an early 70's Vette weighing that much. Did he add an extra 300 LBS somewhere? To my knowledge even the big block Vettes were listed as having a curb weight of 3,400 LBS. Not only are they much smaller cars than Chevelles are, but they had fiberglass bodies as well. So how can a fiberglass body 2 seater car weight as much as a big block Chevelle did?? 300 extra LBS is a lot on the drag strip
3,730 lbs. with the driver.



https://www.amosauto.com/alans-vette/
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	alan.jpg
Views:	3
Size:	16.3 KB
ID:	606794  


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
mr 4 speed is offline  
post #86 of 136 (permalink) Old Nov 1st, 19, 2:44 PM
Tech Team
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 905
Re: Using massive torque to improve 60' times

Putting in a turbo 250 converter would help tremendously and retain all street functions. That's what I used prior to the higher stall converters we had today. The turbo 350 converter will stall at about up to 2400 with a 454 and no higher. I picked up .4 tenths with it back then over the turbo 400 one. If you want fuel mileage by all means use the turbo 400 model if you want to go fast with stock stuff use the turbo 350. I tried a vega 10" one time, smoked the tires all over the place and it never locked up on the top end, felt like you were winding up a rubber band.
68Chevele is offline  
post #87 of 136 (permalink) Old Nov 1st, 19, 3:09 PM
Lifetime Premium Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: CT,USA
Posts: 13,067
Re: Using massive torque to improve 60' times

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr 4 speed View Post
3,730 lbs. with the driver.



https://www.amosauto.com/alans-vette/
well if it's the race weight you were refering to than that sounds more like it. I'd say with driver and a tank full of fuel as well. That sounds about right. I cannot find it now, but I could've sworn that the OP had stated in one of his posts that the car in question weighs 4,060 LBS and because he didn't say that it was the race weight, it sounded to me that he was speaking of the curb weight, or dry weight. I just thouht that comparing vehicles which have a 600 LB weight difference doesn't really apply. But anyway I'm pretty much done with this thread. Carry on
dragginwagon406 likes this.

70 Chevelle SS clone (632 CI powered).
BillyGman is offline  
post #88 of 136 (permalink) Old Nov 1st, 19, 5:02 PM
Senior Tech Team
Joe
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Thornton, Pa
Posts: 13,328
Re: Using massive torque to improve 60' times

Best comparison I can make has been stated prior. Late in 2012, before I sold the '69, I made about 10 runs, 4-5 at Cecil and another 4-5 at Maple Grove. Traction had been a major problem with the 540 and how it was tuned, it either bit or hit the dr's so hard they just spun and car barely moved, mostly the later. Was suggested to me to try 2nd gear starts. That's how I made the last 9-10 runs with the car. 3.42 gears, starting in 2nd nets 3.42 x 1.48 = 5.06 / 2.48 = about a 2.04 rear axle equivalent if starting out in 1st. Converter was 10" XHD Low stall 2700-2900. ET's were 11.40-11.50 at 125-126 mph at race weight of 4070# with driver.
dragginwagon406 likes this.

Status: Car-Less


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GRN69CHV is offline  
post #89 of 136 (permalink) Old Nov 1st, 19, 5:43 PM Thread Starter
Tech Team
Mike
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 194
Garage
Send a message via AIM to dragginwagon406 Send a message via MSN to dragginwagon406 Send a message via Yahoo to dragginwagon406
Re: Using massive torque to improve 60' times

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyGman View Post
well if it's the race weight you were referring to than that sounds more like it. I'd say with driver and a tank full of fuel as well. That sounds about right. I cannot find it now, but I could've sworn that the OP had stated in one of his posts that the car in question weighs 4,060 LBS and because he didn't say that it was the race weight, it sounded to me that he was speaking of the curb weight, or dry weight. I just thought that comparing vehicles which have a 600 LB weight difference doesn't really apply. But anyway I'm pretty much done with this thread. Carry on
My 4060 lbs, includes me in the car taking a photo of the scale...all nearly 350 lbs of me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GRN69CHV View Post
Best comparison I can make has been stated prior. Late in 2012, before I sold the '69, I made about 10 runs, 4-5 at Cecil and another 4-5 at Maple Grove. Traction had been a major problem with the 540 and how it was tuned, it either bit or hit the dr's so hard they just spun and car barely moved, mostly the later. Was suggested to me to try 2nd gear starts. That's how I made the last 9-10 runs with the car. 3.42 gears, starting in 2nd nets 3.42 x 1.48 = 5.06 / 2.48 = about a 2.04 rear axle equivalent if starting out in 1st. Converter was 10" XHD Low stall 2700-2900. ET's were 11.40-11.50 at 125-126 mph at race weight of 4070# with driver.
Sounds like a 540 would do exactly what I want to do with a stock converter and 2.56 gears. Might need more than 4.25 stroke in this stock block lol

Only going to turn it about 5700 rpm.

1981 Malibu wagon
406/350/4.10
Best ET NA 12.20 @ 110
Best ET w/N2O 11.47 @ 117
dragginwagon406 is offline  
post #90 of 136 (permalink) Old Nov 1st, 19, 6:14 PM
Senior Tech Team
Bob
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Pa
Posts: 1,336
Biggest problem with hard tires whether it was my Chevelle or My 5speed Lx mustang was trying to kill the power leaving and trying to gradually bring it in without blowing the tires loose from a roll.

In hindsight I should of rigged up some kind of timing retard for leaving and when I shifted into 2nd.
1968 hot rod is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Chevelle Tech forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address. Note, you will be sent a confirmation request to this address.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome