ZO6 LS7 does not run like I think it should.
#41
I agree completely.....you've misled yourself based on the light weight of the vehicle and a mid 6 second 1/8 mile reflects a very decent time and MPH of 105 for a motor with your power numbers. The aero is killing this truck as evidenced by the 22MPH back end difference in MPH between 1/8 mile and 1/4 mile. It's also possible that your cowl air intake system isn't functioning the way it needs to at high speed either.....did you data log/record any of the track runs?
Last edited by bada; 11-28-2014 at 01:43 PM. Reason: .
#42
◦www.youtube.com/watch?v=VByHYImVWEQ
Maybe this will post. I broke a shock on this run. So I backed out on down track. The pass would probably, have been another 10.00. So this will give you guys and idea, on how the truck runs. This is the stock cam.
Maybe this will post. I broke a shock on this run. So I backed out on down track. The pass would probably, have been another 10.00. So this will give you guys and idea, on how the truck runs. This is the stock cam.
#43
That thing hooks, pulls the tires, needs a wheelie bar and runs low 10s with a cammed LS7? You're doing fine. It runs strong. Your intake is the only bottle-neck I see aside from any tuning issues we're unaware of...and if there are, you're not missing much.
#44
bada, this will put your mind to ease once and for all to show you how much the Aero is killing you....take a look at the simulation below....I took my 1988 Monte Carlo SS and backfitted the actual track MPH into Quarter Mile Jr to reflect the MPH demonstrated at the track when the motor was all stock with headers and it was only down about 27 RWHP from what it did on the chassis dyno (~460RWHP demonstrated vs 487RWHP on the chassis dyno). My car had 4.10's and a T56. I used this same data and swapped your transmission/convertor, gears, weight and aero date (the aero was just a guess using a van as the aero value) and you can see that your MPH is likely where it needs to be compared to my car....my Monte ran an 11.52 @ 121.66 MPH and what's important here is the MPH, not the ET.
#45
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 10,244
Likes: 1,531
From: The City of Fountains
John,
The simulator results are very surprising, even shocking.
Bada, stick that drive line in a second gen RX7 and I bet you'll trap over 130mph. Those little cars are ubber slippery. Mine had a race weight of 3150, 400rwhp, and it trapped between 124-126mph (11.20s et) depending on weather.
Good stuff in this thread.
Andrew
The simulator results are very surprising, even shocking.
Bada, stick that drive line in a second gen RX7 and I bet you'll trap over 130mph. Those little cars are ubber slippery. Mine had a race weight of 3150, 400rwhp, and it trapped between 124-126mph (11.20s et) depending on weather.
Good stuff in this thread.
Andrew
#47
2008 LS7 ZO6 motor converted to wet sump..factory cut crank, factory rods, factory untouched heads, mild .620 lift hydrolic roller cam, pump gas, 4 mufflers, crank driven water pump, and carburetor.....2,800 without me..th400...411 gears....no monster tach...no shift light ....no trans brake.....
9.61@141 on motor......
9.61@141 on motor......
Nice time by the way!
#50
bada, this will put your mind to ease once and for all to show you how much the Aero is killing you....take a look at the simulation below....I took my 1988 Monte Carlo SS and backfitted the actual track MPH into Quarter Mile Jr to reflect the MPH demonstrated at the track when the motor was all stock with headers and it was only down about 27 RWHP from what it did on the chassis dyno (~460RWHP demonstrated vs 487RWHP on the chassis dyno). My car had 4.10's and a T56. I used this same data and swapped your transmission/convertor, gears, weight and aero date (the aero was just a guess using a van as the aero value) and you can see that your MPH is likely where it needs to be compared to my car....my Monte ran an 11.52 @ 121.66 MPH and what's important here is the MPH, not the ET.