[Byfield]

Ok, before you answer, let me explain what I mean.

I'm looking thru the ad's, and I see one for a 580 hp street driven 67 Chevelle. Sounds cool to me, and I'm thinking that it's probable a BBC.

No, it's a 430 hp 383 with a 150 NOS hook up. Now, don't get me wrong, this is a respectable motor, but I fail to see how this can be advertized as a street-able 580 hp.

Am I wrong to expect that 580 (or any other #) be an "actual, real time" HP, or is this just the wayt of the future? In my eyes, this is a 430 hp car, with the ability to hit 580.

And if this is to be really seen as a 580 engine, would any of you like to buy a 455 hp straight 6? I'm sure I can find someone to fabricate a plate for it that'll hook up to a 300 hp bottle system.

So, do you think that NO hould be included in the advertized HP rating of an engine?

Kurt

------------------
The 68 Chevelle info page. [last updated Nov. 30, 98]
www.geocities.com/~68_chevelle/Chevelle/Info.html
Email: [email protected]
T.C. Gold #6
A.C.E.S. #1352

 

[Joe G]

Kurt,

ABSOLUTLY NOT! I personaly think that it could be advertised as a 430HP car w/150 bottle. But, without the bottle it's still a 430Hp car. Unless of course, this guy pipes squirt in all the time, but I highly doubt that. IMHO, real HP is what the car can deliver on pump gas, 92-110 octane.

------------------
Joe Giniel
72 Chevelle SS
Team Chevelle #143
Aces #03056
West Bloomfield, MI

 

[DZAUTO]

Joe G's right.
Ditto. Period. End of discussion.

------------------
Tom Parsons

 

[MANUEL GOMEZ]

Real HORSE POWER should be at the rear wheels WITH-OUT your bottle !!!!!!!!!! Just my .02

------------------
#23 GOLD www.chevelles.com/showroom/70EC1.jpg

 

[ddoler]

Just to be ornery, if Nitrous is an "artificial" enrichment of the fuel/air mixture going into the engine, couldn't supercharging or turbocharging be considered in the same manner ?

The difference being that Nitrous is temporary and a turbo/supercharger is always available.

Food for for though I suppose.

------------------
members.tripod.com/dfdolerjr

 

[Byfield]

See, I don't view either as 'artificial' or fake, but a turbo or supercharger are full time enhancements, and thus, contribute to the constant HP of the engine.

NOS is a momentary HP boost, and thus, more or less unuseable in 'real street driving of the car.

Kurt

------------------
The 68 Chevelle info page. [last updated Nov. 30, 98]
www.geocities.com/~68_chevelle/Chevelle/Info.html
Email: [email protected]
T.C. Gold #6
A.C.E.S. #1352

 

[Ryan Hoskins]

I know this topic has been knocked around for a long time in this newsgroup... but I'll add my $0.02 anyways:

I agree, NOS is not FULL TIME, always under your right foot, but you cannot disagree with the following:

1) it is CHEAP bang for the buck. It instantly brings a smile to your face. The kits are cheap up front, but you "pay for it at the (bottle) pump." Blowers and turbos are always there, but they also cost THOUSANDS, which leads into 2.

2) NOS is not FULL TIME, so it does not put any added stress on the engine when not in use. I've personally owned a high horsepower naturally aspirated small block, and I had to live with high stall convertors (4000+), very lumpy cams that wouldn't idle below 1500, no idle vacuum, constant valve lashings, broken valvetrain parts when you buzz 8000 all day on the streets. I'd rather drive around with a 400 HP engine with 200HP in NOS than a 600HP engine nat. asp'd. 400HP is more than enough for street tires and fun on the streets, and you can still run with the big boys at the strip with the bottle.

3)Blowers and turbos are the ultimate, and I was very close to buying a 10-71 for my BBC, but I opted to go for a 600+ HP streetable stroker with an extra 300 HP of bottle for the track. It'll make lots of power, be piles of fun, and I don't have to send my blower in every year for a rebuild.

My problems with NOS are the following:

1) cost. It IS cheap to buy the kits, but if you use it regularly on the street, you will be broke. It costs about $5.50 CDN / pound here.

2) if you choose to run lots of it, you need to buy timing computers, etc. The costs are not so attractive at this point.


Hey, if you can afford a blower or a twin turbos, POWER TO YOU! I'd love to be able to do that, but maybe you should consider adding the BOTTLE TOO! They LOVE the funny stuff too!

I don't know ANYONE that's used NOS that doesn't have respect for it. Most people that trash-talk the stuff have been whipped by a car with it! Sore losers??

Ryan

 

[Bob Bryan]

Well here's my 02. I have blowers on both of my hot rods and the one on my Vette has been on it for four years now and does'nt even need a rebuild. Yeah, they cost more up-front but in the long run I think they practically pay for themselves. Rememember a blown car is only under boost when your're under hard acceleration; the rest of the time it produces vacuum in the intake manifold just like a normally aspirated engine. And when you want it, it's ALWAYS there. Just my .02!!

------------------
Bob (Creedmoor,N.C.)
65 Vette B&M Blown, Richmond 5-speed
68 Malibu B&M Blown, Turbo 350 10" converter

 

[MIKE_D_67]

kurt,

Your post brings up another interesting question in my mind.
I would like to know if anyone has DYNO-PROVEN a 150 hp. kit to actually produce a "real" 150 hp.? Not that I don't believe that it COULD make 150 hp. on a certain engine, but I highly doubt that it will make 150 hp. on any engine you put it on.
My whole point is that I don't agree with the idea that simply putting a 150 hp. kit on an engine gives a person the right to advertise a hp. rating of "whatever it was before + 150" (without prooving it on a dyno.)

Just curious!,
Mike

 

[Byfield]

That's a good point Mike.

A good friend of mine has a 91 5.0 LX that he's been building up. I've noticed that in all of the magazines, the parts are advertized as will add 20 hp! or a similar statement. I've also noticed that none of the ads have backup for their claims.

I'm guessing that 99% of the parts aren't even tested, and that the claims are based upon calculated results in perfects conditions, etc.

And even if the kits were an exact and true addition of 150 hp, I still don't think it can be included in the advertized hp of the engine.

If I can't use it 100% of the time, then it's not part of the true engine hp.

Kurt

------------------
The 68 Chevelle info page. [last updated Nov. 30, 98]
www.geocities.com/~68_chevelle/Chevelle/Info.html
Email: [email protected]
T.C. Gold #6
A.C.E.S. #1352



[This message has been edited by Byfield (edited 08-31-99).]

 

[Ryan Hoskins]

Bob Bryan,

Blowers rule. I wish I could have afforded one. Is your blower on your vette a 'street' blower with the teflon seals? I heard they last pretty good. If I do, I'll probably run it on injected methanol and get the full effect. How much boost do you run on pump gas (and what is your static CR)?

Thanks,

Ryan

 

[Bob Bryan]

Yes Ryan, both of my cars are using B&M blowers and all of their products use teflon seals on the rotors. I'm using their largest blower on my Vette, the Megablower with two double pumper Holley 650's. The engine is a 333 (327 .040 over) with flat tops and 76cc heads. The compression on this motor is about 8.3 to one. The blower on my Chevelle is a Powercharger; their smallest blower. The 355 in this car has TRW dished blower pistons with 64cc Sportsman II's and a comp ratio of about 8.5 to one. I've got a 750 vacuum secondary Holley on the Chevelle. I run 11 pounds of boost on the Vette and 6 lbs on the Chevelle; both on pump gas. Send me an e-mail if you're interested and I'll send you some .jpgs.

------------------
Bob (Creedmoor,N.C.)
65 Vette B&M Blown, Richmond 5-speed
68 Malibu B&M Blown, Turbo 350 10" converter

 

[MIKE_D_67]

Hey Bob,
All this talk has got my mouth watering!
Why don't you post your pic's in "Bench Racing" or something for all to drool upon!
Thanx,
Mike

P.S. My Apologies to Kurt (Byfield) for getting a little off the subject.

 

[68chevelle]

There was an article (car craft i think) that ran a series of dynos w/ different size jets....125, 150, etc... If i remember right it wasnt a 125 horse, but instead 125 ft-lbs of torque and about 100 horse. Seemed like the horsepower was down but the torque was there. Had the higher levels too but i dont remember what they were. Anybody Know?