Using massive torque to improve 60' times - Page 8 - Chevelle Tech
Performance Our High Performance area

 73Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
post #106 of 121 (permalink) Old Nov 3rd, 19, 12:06 PM
Tech Team
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 285
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo71 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragginwagon406 View Post
That's a nice time on hard tires. What was your 60'?

I don't doubt Billy knows what he's talking about (suspension or otherwise), only that it doesn't apply unless your willing to change mounting points (or converter). He's speaking from experience, so am I. He comes with a different perspective, and background, so he reads into my statements as saying something they are not.

When we had the B&M kit in my friends car with stock converter, it shifted so hard you thought the dash was going to land in your lap. B&M kits are reckless hard shifts, in my opinion, it was softer in my wagon with a stall but still very firm. I prefer the Transgo for off the shelf.

For what it's worth, it broke the front U-joint on the first pass and broke the transmission into three pieces.

Video from 2001...my ex son-in-law in riding shotgun. Watch the poof of dust toward the end of the track. Quite possibly the loudest noise I've ever heard inside the car. Driveshaft cut into two pieces (no loop at the time) and Torque Tech exhaust beat up (and of course, a two mile transmission in pieces).

https://youtu.be/K7r5BSWZCCs
Never fun breaking stuff!
My chevelle trans I had built with extra clutches etc...tried a tighter 2400 converter, for one day haha...driving easy that thing shifted so hard that driving easy car would go sideways on shifts. Much better with the higher stall. But it takes alot more to accelerate from a stop which would stink for daily driving.

At the time regular 60’ times were 1.64-68 range. On this hard tire pass it was 1.71. One more pass with a little less tire pressure it would have been back to the reg times...since then have eeked out a bit more down to 1.61’s.

The suspension on both the chevelle and wagon are close to the same...just upgraded factory type stuff in the rear. Front is all the stock arms.

Once I get the converter swapped in the wagon, may try a pass or two to see what it might run.
That’s impressive to hook a 4500 stall on street tires. Am I understanding that correctly? What changes have you made?

To be clear, my wagon is not stock suspension. It’s low buck for sure. The rear end itself is from a ‘75 Olds 442. The upper mounting ears are both taller and wider than the 7.5” rear end (changing the IC and AS). The upper arms were cut, shortened, and widened to fit the rear. I also boxed the rear arms and installed poly bushings. The rear springs are from a Caprice wagon, the G-wagon springs were not stiff enough, especially at launch. Front shocks are worn out stockers, rear are newer, but not adjustable.

Proving every day hindsight is 20/20.
Dragginwagon467 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #107 of 121 (permalink) Old Nov 3rd, 19, 6:55 PM
Team Member
George
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Upper Sandusky, Ohio
Posts: 2,641
Re: Using massive torque to improve 60' times

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragginwagon467 View Post
Thatís impressive to hook a 4500 stall on street tires. Am I understanding that correctly? What changes have you made?

To be clear, my wagon is not stock suspension. Itís low buck for sure. The rear end itself is from a Ď75 Olds 442. The upper mounting ears are both taller and wider than the 7.5Ē rear end (changing the IC and AS). The upper arms were cut, shortened, and widened to fit the rear. I also boxed the rear arms and installed poly bushings. The rear springs are from a Caprice wagon, the G-wagon springs were not stiff enough, especially at launch. Front shocks are worn out stockers, rear are newer, but not adjustable.
Yes that was on the street tires that are on the wagon normally.

The Chevelle front arms are stock, bottom arms have poly bushings and upper drivers side is rubber after loosing one bushing somehow, other side is poly. Guess I should fix that someday haha....did the double nut trick Billy told me about to free them up.
Upper ball joints are .050 taller, viking d/a shocks and moog 65 olds f85 six cylinder springs and no front sway bar.

The rear are adj uppers and non adjustable umi tubular arms, poly bushings, umi frame braces, poly bushings in rear end ears. Matching 65 olds f85 rear springs, cheapie stock advance auto gas shocks, BMR extreme anti roll bar. Also added the umi lower are relocation brackets, they helped alot.

The wagon I was going to do the boxing of the stock stuff, then umi had a sale so went that route instead.
Front arms are stock with global west delrin bushing kit, .050 taller upper ball joints, stock bb springs trimmed alittle, stock shocks and sway bar
Rear is same as chevelle except no relocation brackets, rubber bushings in the upper ears, moog cc501 springs and stock air shocks. I want to add some type of rear anti sway bar to help with cornering just not sure what to get. The bmr piece is too rigid.
BillyGman likes this.

'71 Malibu
3580 #, Carbed 6.0l LS swap in process
T-350, PTC 9" converter, 12 bolt, spool, 3.90 gears, MT ET R 275/60/15

355 [email protected]
125 [email protected]
383 Mud Motor- [email protected]
100 shot [email protected]
'72 Greenbrier Wagon: 454, 700R4, 12 bolt with 3.73
Geo71 is offline  
post #108 of 121 (permalink) Old Nov 3rd, 19, 7:16 PM
Tech Team
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 285
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo71 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragginwagon467 View Post
That’s impressive to hook a 4500 stall on street tires. Am I understanding that correctly? What changes have you made?

To be clear, my wagon is not stock suspension. It’s low buck for sure. The rear end itself is from a ‘75 Olds 442. The upper mounting ears are both taller and wider than the 7.5” rear end (changing the IC and AS). The upper arms were cut, shortened, and widened to fit the rear. I also boxed the rear arms and installed poly bushings. The rear springs are from a Caprice wagon, the G-wagon springs were not stiff enough, especially at launch. Front shocks are worn out stockers, rear are newer, but not adjustable.
Yes that was on the street tires that are on the wagon normally.

The Chevelle front arms are stock, bottom arms have poly bushings and upper drivers side is rubber after loosing one bushing somehow, other side is poly. Guess I should fix that someday haha....did the double nut trick Billy told me about to free them up.
Upper ball joints are .050 taller, viking d/a shocks and moog 65 olds f85 six cylinder springs and no front sway bar.

The rear are adj uppers and non adjustable umi tubular arms, poly bushings, umi frame braces, poly bushings in rear end ears. Matching 65 olds f85 rear springs, cheapie stock advance auto gas shocks, BMR extreme anti roll bar. Also added the umi lower are relocation brackets, they helped alot.

The wagon I was going to do the boxing of the stock stuff, then umi had a sale so went that route instead.
Front arms are stock with global west delrin bushing kit, .050 taller upper ball joints, stock bb springs trimmed alittle, stock shocks and sway bar
Rear is same as chevelle except no relocation brackets, rubber bushings in the upper ears, moog cc501 springs and stock air shocks. I want to add some type of rear anti sway bar to help with cornering just not sure what to get. The bmr piece is too rigid.
I have to ask, is there an advantage to the taller upper ball joints?

I heard the A-body control arm areas can be weak, is the Umi braces to address these area(s)?

Proving every day hindsight is 20/20.
Dragginwagon467 is offline  
 
post #109 of 121 (permalink) Old Nov 3rd, 19, 7:25 PM
Lifetime Premium Member
Beth
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Nashville TN
Posts: 1,644
Garage
Re: Using massive torque to improve 60' times

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragginwagon467 View Post
I have to ask, is there an advantage to the taller upper ball joints?

I heard the A-body control arm areas can be weak, is the Umi braces to address these area(s)?
I think the frame braces may already be on your Monte. They were on hi-perf models in 1966-67, but were on most models after that.

67 Chevelle convertible, 138 vin, original 4 speed, bucket seats, Marina Blue with black interior
nashville beth is offline  
post #110 of 121 (permalink) Old Nov 3rd, 19, 8:03 PM
Team Member
George
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Upper Sandusky, Ohio
Posts: 2,641
Re: Using massive torque to improve 60' times

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragginwagon467 View Post
I have to ask, is there an advantage to the taller upper ball joints?

I heard the A-body control arm areas can be weak, is the Umi braces to address these area(s)?
The taller upper bj adds alittle upward travel and keeps the tires from drooping. Both the wagon and chevelle have 6Ē of travel in the front end. I think it also helps in the handling somehow.

The braces are improved versions of the stock ss type suspension. Not sure if it is beefing up that or not. They were not too expensive and everything else was getting swapped so figured why not...haha.
BillyGman likes this.

'71 Malibu
3580 #, Carbed 6.0l LS swap in process
T-350, PTC 9" converter, 12 bolt, spool, 3.90 gears, MT ET R 275/60/15

355 [email protected]
125 [email protected]
383 Mud Motor- [email protected]
100 shot [email protected]
'72 Greenbrier Wagon: 454, 700R4, 12 bolt with 3.73
Geo71 is offline  
post #111 of 121 (permalink) Old Nov 3rd, 19, 8:03 PM
Tech Team
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 285
Garage
Is there an advantage to the taller upper ball joints?

Proving every day hindsight is 20/20.
Dragginwagon467 is offline  
post #112 of 121 (permalink) Old Nov 3rd, 19, 8:06 PM
Team Member
George
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Upper Sandusky, Ohio
Posts: 2,641
Re: Using massive torque to improve 60' times

Quote:
Originally Posted by nashville beth View Post
I think the frame braces may already be on your Monte. They were on hi-perf models in 1966-67, but were on most models after that.
They werent on any of mine stock...I thought only SS cars got them. Or maybe if you ordered the f41 suspension?

'71 Malibu
3580 #, Carbed 6.0l LS swap in process
T-350, PTC 9" converter, 12 bolt, spool, 3.90 gears, MT ET R 275/60/15

355 [email protected]
125 [email protected]
383 Mud Motor- [email protected]
100 shot [email protected]
'72 Greenbrier Wagon: 454, 700R4, 12 bolt with 3.73
Geo71 is offline  
post #113 of 121 (permalink) Old Nov 3rd, 19, 10:46 PM
Lifetime Premium Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: CT,USA
Posts: 12,561
Re: Using massive torque to improve 60' times

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragginwagon406 View Post
I love a good launch. It's all relative, my personal best is 1.60 on hard street tires and that felt amazing. Even two cars with similar 60' times can feel totally different in the first foot.

I also get a kick out of watching side by side drag racing. 15 years ago, I was the guy running through mufflers on street tires, neck and neck with slick tired, open header car in the 12s and up bracket class. It's also fun to see cars with similar ET but one have a much higher mph - can make for an interesting bracket race at the stripe.
I can sure relate to that Mike, because I've had similar experiences. I had a 2003 Merc Marauder that I installed a very stealth underhood roots supercharger on, (the labor wasn't bad, because the instruction booklet was fantastic, so the job took me four days, and I tend to be a very slow/deliberate/methodical worker).

Anyway, the car was my pump gas daily driver, and I would drive it two states away from where I live to race it at the track on the daily driven Nitto Drag radial tires, full exhaust, and I would even leave the factory front sway bar hookedup when I raced it. I never even touched the shock absorbers nor anything else on the factory stock suspension. I installed 4.56:1 rear gears, headers, and full 2.5" diameter exhaust with muffs, and a quality aftermarket 9.5" torque converter that stalled at 3,000 RPM. At the track I brought the air pressure in the drag radials down to 17 PSI and I ran consistent 12.2's and 1.6 second short times and I was neck and neck with old school cars with slicks, open headers and roll bars installed, and I was out-running some of them. A couple of them looked ticked off too. LOL The great thing was that those guys went home with their cars on trailers, and I just jumped back in my car and drove it home for the 3 hour trek.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragginwagon406 View Post
....If someone chooses to follow my obscure path to the 11s (or low 12s), think of all the money I've saved them on converter, gears, suspension parts, and tires. My whole point is what cubic inch engine will allow this to happen on hard tires? I've done it with 4.10s in the wagon, using a touch of spray. This time I'd like to do it with cubic inches, stock gears, and converter.

Could it go quicker with more investment in converter, gears, suspension parts, and tires? Sure, but then you're joining the rat race. Cheers.
This is the thing Mike....my guess is that in order to hold onto those extreme highway gears that you have in the car, and turn mid 11's along with considerably more respectable short times than you presently are, you might have to add 80-100 cubic inches of engine displacement, and that's going to cost you more money than a rear gear swap and a decent torque converter purchase. So your goal to save money, and "do more with less" as the saying goes, will be lost. And that's ok if you admit that to yourself and you still want to do it anyway. Just don't tell yourself, (and us here) that it's to save money, because I really don't think that you will be. LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragginwagon467 View Post
Is there an advantage to the taller upper ball joints?
+.5" UPPER ball joint and +.9" upper ball joints add more upward front suspension travel, (as George has accurately stated) ( I think about +.9" more travel at the spindle and +1.4" respectively) withOUT hurting street handling. In fact it's one of the few things that can benefit on the dragstrip as well as on the street, ( at least for GM A-body cars anyway). The reason why this extra front suspension travel helps straight line traction off the starting line is because that little bit of upward travel increase allows you take more advantage of what is called "stored energy" in the front coil springs. This stored energy helps facilitate maximum vehicle weight transfer from front to rear during the launch.

When the vehicle is static, you have the weight of the car compressing the front coil springs, and there is stored energy created in the compression of those springs. A wise drag racer takes advantage of that with such things like "double-nutting" the stock front control arms studs/bolts to free-up the front suspension movement, and also with the use of taller UPPER ball joints.

Two important things I must point out here concerning the above^...

#1. Only the +.5" upper ball joints can safely be used with factory stock upper control arms. To my knowledge, the +.9" tall upper ball joints can only be used with aftermarket upper arms since the stock upper arms cannot handle the extra angles that the +.9" tall ball joints move in. Also for drag racing you really only want to use the taller UPPER ball joints, and NOT the taller lower ball joints since the taller lower ball joints change other factors in the steering and suspension geometry, and therefore can offset the suspension travel advantage that you create with the tall upper ball joints.

#2. Although the taller upper ball joints can make a positive change in the way the car launches, keep in mind that this change is brought about by enhanced weight transfer potential, and the fact is that only ONE third of the downward hit on the rear tires during the starting line launch comes from vehicle weight transfer, and TWO thirds of the downward hit comes from AXLE TORQUE. And the way that we can manage and take full advantage of the use of axle torque to effect the hit on the rear tires is through the use of the proper INSTANT CENTER LOCATION. Both weight transfer and correct I.C. location are needed and are beneficial, yes. But the I.C. has more influence on the the available rear tire traction during the launch
Geo71 likes this.

70 Chevelle SS clone (632 CI powered).
BillyGman is offline  
post #114 of 121 (permalink) Old Nov 4th, 19, 5:23 AM
Tech Team
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 285
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyGman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragginwagon406 View Post
I love a good launch. It's all relative, my personal best is 1.60 on hard street tires and that felt amazing. Even two cars with similar 60' times can feel totally different in the first foot.

I also get a kick out of watching side by side drag racing. 15 years ago, I was the guy running through mufflers on street tires, neck and neck with slick tired, open header car in the 12s and up bracket class. It's also fun to see cars with similar ET but one have a much higher mph - can make for an interesting bracket race at the stripe.
I can sure relate to that Mike, because I've had similar experiences. I had a 2003 Merc Marauder that I installed a very stealth underhood roots supercharger on, (the labor wasn't bad, because the instruction booklet was fantastic, so the job took me four days, and I tend to be a very slow/deliberate/methodical worker).

Anyway, the car was my pump gas daily driver, and I would drive it two states away from where I live to race it at the track on the daily driven Nitto Drag radial tires, full exhaust, and I would even leave the factory front sway bar hookedup when I raced it. I never even touched the shock absorbers nor anything else on the factory stock suspension. I installed 4.56:1 rear gears, headers, and full 2.5" diameter exhaust with muffs, and a quality aftermarket 9.5" torque converter that stalled at 3,000 RPM. At the track I brought the air pressure in the drag radials down to 17 PSI and I ran consistent 12.2's and 1.6 second short times and I was neck and neck with old school cars with slicks, open headers and roll bars installed, and I was out-running some of them. A couple of them looked ticked off too. LOL The great thing was that those guys went home with their cars on trailers, and I just jumped back in my car and drove it home for the 3 hour trek.
That sounds like a really cool bracket car, exactly what I’m talking about. I’m sure that was fun standing in the staging lanes chatting with others.

What made the wagon a hoot, other than being a wagon, was the classic Olds rally wheels. Non-matching steel wheels is always a nice touch lol

12.0 is a good time for the bracket classes I tend to run. I’d like to get back to this point when I do take the Monte Carlo racing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyGman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragginwagon406 View Post
....If someone chooses to follow my obscure path to the 11s (or low 12s), think of all the money I've saved them on converter, gears, suspension parts, and tires. My whole point is what cubic inch engine will allow this to happen on hard tires? I've done it with 4.10s in the wagon, using a touch of spray. This time I'd like to do it with cubic inches, stock gears, and converter.

Could it go quicker with more investment in converter, gears, suspension parts, and tires? Sure, but then you're joining the rat race. Cheers.
This is the thing Mike....my guess is that in order to hold onto those extreme highway gears that you have in the car, and turn mid 11's along with considerably more respectable short times than you presently are, you might have to add 80-100 cubic inches of engine displacement, and that's going to cost you more money than a rear gear swap and a decent torque converter purchase. So your goal to save money, and "do more with less" as the saying goes, will be lost. And that's ok if you admit that to yourself and you still want to do it anyway. Just don't tell yourself, (and us here) that it's to save money, because I really don't think that you will be. LOL
Now we’re talking. So maybe 540 or 555? How about a factory block 525/535?

It’s not really about money, really, it’s more about being different, taking a different path, and being satisfied where you end up. I have the wagon if I want to be a little more conventional (I’ll never be conventional lol)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyGman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragginwagon467 View Post
Is there an advantage to the taller upper ball joints?
+.5" UPPER ball joint and +.9" upper ball joints add more upward front suspension travel, (as George has accurately stated) ( I think about +.9" more travel at the spindle and +1.4" respectively) withOUT hurting street handling. In fact it's one of the few things that can benefit on the dragstrip as well as on the street, ( at least for GM A-body cars anyway). The reason why this extra front suspension travel helps straight line traction off the starting line is because that little bit of upward travel increase allows you take more advantage of what is called "stored energy" in the front coil springs. This stored energy helps facilitate maximum vehicle weight transfer from front to rear during the launch.

When the vehicle is static, you have the weight of the car compressing the front coil springs, and there is stored energy created in the compression of those springs. A wise drag racer takes advantage of that with such things like "double-nutting" the stock front control arms studs/bolts to free-up the front suspension movement, and also with the use of taller UPPER ball joints.

Two important things I must point out here concerning the above^...

#1. Only the +.5" upper ball joints can safely be used with factory stock upper control arms. To my knowledge, the +.9" tall upper ball joints can only be used with aftermarket upper arms since the stock upper arms cannot handle the extra angles that the +.9" tall ball joints move in. Also for drag racing you really only want to use the taller UPPER ball joints, and NOT the taller lower ball joints since the taller lower ball joints change other factors in the steering and suspension geometry, and therefore can offset the suspension travel advantage that you create with the tall upper ball joints.

#2. Although the taller upper ball joints can make a positive change in the way the car launches, keep in mind that this change is brought about by enhanced weight transfer potential, and the fact is that only ONE third of the downward hit on the rear tires during the starting line launch comes from vehicle weight transfer, and TWO thirds of the downward hit comes from AXLE TORQUE. And the way that we can manage and take full advantage of the use of axle torque to effect the hit on the rear tires is through the use of the proper INSTANT CENTER LOCATION. Both weight transfer and correct I.C. location are needed and are beneficial, yes. But the I.C. has more influence on the the available rear tire traction during the launch <img src="https://www.chevelles.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Wink" class="inlineimg" />
That’s great info.

Proving every day hindsight is 20/20.
Dragginwagon467 is offline  
post #115 of 121 (permalink) Old Nov 4th, 19, 7:14 AM
Lifetime Premium Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: CT,USA
Posts: 12,561
Re: Using massive torque to improve 60' times

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragginwagon467 View Post
That sounds like a really cool bracket car, exactly what Iím talking about. Iím sure that was fun standing in the staging lanes chatting with others.

Yes that car was a blast both at the track and on the street. I surprised so many people with that car that I couldn't even begin to tell you here without hogging uphalf the bandwith.Haha. That car was 400+ LBS heavier than your wagon. I had people coming up to me in the pits saying things like: "How the heck did you get that car to run that fast?" It was the most stealth vehicle I've ever owned.



Now weíre talking. So maybe 540 or 555? How about a factory block 525/535? I don't know for certain Mike. That was just a guess on my part.





Thatís great info.
Lots of guys here on this board helped me out with info like that, so I usually make an attempt to give back to this board what I've gotten out of it. Another guy who I learned a whole lot from is Dave Morgan, the Author of "Door Slammers: The Chassis Book" which is a fantastic read. Dave is retired now, but he used to give $80 seminars which were 8 hours long. He welcomed and answered all questions throughout the entire seminar. It was so good that I paid for, and attended it a second time, and I took lots of notes.

For an additional $80 you could bring your car to the seminar, and it would be put up on the lift, and Dave would have the entire class in the garage underneath your car, and discuss with you what you can do to get your car to hook better off the starting line. And finally for another additional $80 Dave would meet you at the drag strip and watch you race your car and further discuss with you what you needed to do to improve your 60 foot times and ET's. The guy knows his stuff!!! He also gave his e-mail address to all of us who attended his seminars, and we could e-mail him any additional questions we had. He shared things with us about drag cars that I've never heard anyone else talk about. At least a couple other guys here on this board have also attended Dave's seminars.
Steve R likes this.

70 Chevelle SS clone (632 CI powered).
BillyGman is offline  
post #116 of 121 (permalink) Old Nov 8th, 19, 7:54 AM
Tech Team
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 285
Garage
Step one is under way.

049 heads dropped off
Hot tank and mag
Concentric intake guides, honed for 11/32 spiral k-lines
Similar k-lines for the exhaust
Cut for 2.19/1.88
Chambers de-shrouded for the bigger valves
Bowls roughed in with four angle cutter

From there, I’m going to get going to see how good of a student I am (and how good of a teacher Mark Jones is).

Valves are Ferrea 6000 Series Super Flow, 11/32, stock length. Haven’t decided on springs, retainers or keepers yet.

Intake spring seats will be lowered accordingly, and guides shortened and sized for positive seals.

Cam will be the Isky HR 228/238.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	31E8158F-45B2-4220-8406-A62718452D09_1573213867971.jpg
Views:	6
Size:	82.4 KB
ID:	607338   Click image for larger version

Name:	F353953A-AA56-424E-BA22-24FD04820125_1573213894992.jpg
Views:	5
Size:	74.8 KB
ID:	607340   Click image for larger version

Name:	285015FC-F769-4923-B4C3-DBA47C359A23_1573213915678.jpg
Views:	6
Size:	63.7 KB
ID:	607342   Click image for larger version

Name:	FFFC294B-D314-4DE3-AF18-2DEA8E495E31_1573213952997.jpg
Views:	9
Size:	59.7 KB
ID:	607344  

mr 4 speed likes this.

Proving every day hindsight is 20/20.
Dragginwagon467 is offline  
post #117 of 121 (permalink) Old Nov 8th, 19, 12:58 PM
Senior Tech Team
Rick
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,440
Re: Using massive torque to improve 60' times

Why did you choose this cam?
Do you think that cam is one step higher than you need?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
mrpaticular is offline  
post #118 of 121 (permalink) Old Nov 8th, 19, 1:58 PM
Tech Team
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 285
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrpaticular View Post
Why did you choose this cam?
Do you think that cam is one step higher than you need?
Few reasons really, zero deck, 18cc dome, cast iron heads, crap converter and gear.

I believe the cam will play nice with higher compression, make good low end, and provide respectable mid and upper rpm power. I will have to ensure the smoothest surfaces inside the combustion chamber and keep the oil out.

Proving every day hindsight is 20/20.
Dragginwagon467 is offline  
post #119 of 121 (permalink) Old Nov 8th, 19, 2:16 PM
Senior Tech Team
Rick
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,440
Re: Using massive torque to improve 60' times

I wonder in cam specs. , when they say BB or SB, what cid are they referring to?
I would think BB as 454 and SB as 350.
If so that cam could work in a 496 with your plans.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
mrpaticular is offline  
post #120 of 121 (permalink) Old Nov 8th, 19, 10:28 PM
Tech Team
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 285
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrpaticular View Post
I wonder in cam specs. , when they say BB or SB, what cid are they referring to?
I would think BB as 454 and SB as 350.
If so that cam could work in a 496 with your plans.
I think it’s perfect. I’m not sure how much the 60’ will improve but I’m reasonably certain it will be sub-1.9 seconds though.

Proving every day hindsight is 20/20.
Dragginwagon467 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