BOTTLE ROCKET

iTrader: (4)

I have read for years that the 97-99 rod bolts were a "weak link" in high hp power levels.
With the latest blower pulley change, and misc. improvements, my 98 SHOULD dyno in the 625-640rwhp range.
As long as I keep the rpms down in the 6200 range, do I REALLY have any concerns of it "letting go" on the dyno?
Anyone have their rod bolts let go??

'Trust'

iTrader: (24)

Rod bolts let go because of engine RPM, not usually because of power. You may be ok, but you may want to search around more on higher horsepower 98's. You're fine as far as how high you're spinning it though.

ChevyChad

iTrader: (50)

what kind of pistons are ya running? Stock ringlands typically dont like much above 500rwhp.

BOTTLE ROCKET

iTrader: (4)

I'm completely stock on the bottom end.
From everything I've read, the ringlands go from detonation from being lean or too much timing (read; bad tune) The tuner I use has a lot of experience with SC, and likes to tune very safe even if it leaves a little bit on the table.
I DON'T want to squeeze every little bit of hp out of it at the expense of reliability
I asked about the rod bolts because I hear a lot of references to them being a weak link, but almost every engine issue I read on SC engines is ringlands

ChevyChad

iTrader: (50)

Well good luck then. All I can say is over the years, I've seen a ton of stock ringlands let go- WAY more pistons than rod bolts. And your statements are totally contradictory. There is no way you will make 625-640rwhp reliably and safely on stock pistons.

Avengeance

iTrader: (4)

See my sig.

The tune is key for reliability.... not so much the HP.

ChevyChad

iTrader: (50)

Whats your mods? Stock internals? How much boost? How much timing?

BOTTLE ROCKET

iTrader: (4)

That is exactly what I said... I had HEARD that rod bolts were the weak link, but from my searches, it seems as if ringlands are the actual weak link, whose failure APPEARS to be directly related to the tune (timing and afr)

And there are a LOT of FI LSx engines in the 600+ rwhp on stock bottom ends, I would just like to be one of them, and since I don't hammer on my car very much, maybe my chances are improved

gnx7

iTrader: (28)

That is wild Avengeance..... my 440rwhp/385rwtq n/a LS1 with cam/heads/headers/tune in an RX-7 at 2950lbs (includes driver) went the exact same number as your "650rwhp" setup.

Hope your car weighs 5,000lbs because something doesn't jive.

Avengeance

iTrader: (4)

Stock block/bottom end. 6.0L heads. 60lb inj. Meth. I dont remember what the timing is, its been a while since I had it tuned.... at least a year and a half.

Avengeance

iTrader: (4)

Yeah... pretty wild... you must have missed the part where it shows the 2.0 60' time. Last I weighed it it was 3800 without me or the cage in it. Full interior... AC... speaker box and amps... leather... fully loaded.... 9". Its deffinitely not a slot car RX7. Last time out it lifted the tires with the 6spd, 60' to a 1.6, but I lost 2nd gear..... hydraulics couldnt keep up... still went 11.3 @ 128 fiddle f'in around to get it into 2nd.

Still doesnt "jive"?

Y2K WS6

iTrader: (33)

Running over 600 HP is just a time bomb on stock internals. "there are lots of them" well there might be. if you do ONE run on it and get it there, but who has a car with that kind of potential and doesn't want to use it.

and yeah. for a 650 HP car 11.4 isn't all that fast. but there are lots of differences in drivers, and how it's driven. Manual 6 speed. can kill a great time with just a few little mistakes.

Avengeance

iTrader: (4)

I agree... which is why the car is getting a FLT 4L80e, Rossler brake, with a Circle D 4C converter.

kwiksilverz

I don't get why everyone is ragging on Avengeance for his ET vs. HP. The MPH tells the story of the power the car is making, not the ET- 128 is a lot faster than your typical 11.4 car... Hell, my GTO went 11.0@137- does that mean it didn't put down close to 800whp either ?

gnx7

iTrader: (28)

60' doesn't affect mph at the end of the 1/4.

My 60' was 1.82 on 7 year old 245/50/16 Nitto DR's and it pulled 99.9mph in the 1/8 mile on the 128.3mph run. 11.42 et road race car

Nonetheless your car should be running mid 135mph with that kind of power. Obviously your car wasn't working properly.

Avengeance

iTrader: (4)

Congrats.... sounds like a smart idea to run almost 130mph on 7yr old tires. I made my pass with street tires mounted on 17" 10 spoke SS wheels.

You said "number", sorry, you didnt specify if your attempt to argue about your point was about MPH or ET.

How about when you get a 3800lb STREET car (read:not a race car, road or otherwise) to run 130+ in the 1/4 then we can have this discussion, or better yet start your own thread about it instead of filling the OPs thread full of BS.

I actually find it comical that youre comparing your 11.4 @ 128mph in a RX7 to the same time ran in a F-body.

Until then....... your argument is nothing but apples to oranges.

lemons12

iTrader: (71)

It is not hard at all to get a 3800lb race weight in the 10s@130+mph..

mike13

iTrader: (27)

60' time can make a significant difference in mph on the top end, let's not assume that once you reach 60' the car hooks and accelerates.

mike13

iTrader: (27)

we have a local guy stock 03 Z06 neven had a valve cover off that makes 717rwhp and runs 9.7's @ low 140's runs a twin turbo at 13psi. He has a couple of seasons of bracket racing on his motor.

Not saying this is normal or what you can expect but he somehow does it.

kwiksilverz

Exactly.. I had eased my GTO to a decent 60', then broke loose like I was on ice on the shifts. Looking at the 60', mph and ET, something didn't seem right for the power it was making, but looking at the 330' and such showed it launched fairly hard then lost it after that. Add in the fact that it is a manual and there are far too many variables to call BS on his numbers. Too many "experts" here when it comes to criticizing others...