672BBC Twin turbo O/L 10.5
09-01-2009, 12:07 PM
#61
FormerVendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Virginia Beach,Virginia
Posts: 2,991
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
As we discussed with rotating assy weight, I was wondering at what point the same issues become relevant.... that's some heavy hardware going in the motor.
Sounds like a fiberglass front clip, and shifting the front suspension foreward a bit might be needed to balance it out some, unless that's against the rules/goal of the car.
Sounds like a fiberglass front clip, and shifting the front suspension foreward a bit might be needed to balance it out some, unless that's against the rules/goal of the car.
car already has a glass frt clip and doors,lexan windows.Can't move the frt clip-wheel base needs to be within one inch of factory measurement.Last yeay the car weighed 3020 race weight,that was with the smallblock.had 52% on the frt with 75lbs ballast up frt.I really need it to be about the same.
I went to meth to get rid of the intercooler and piping,radiators and waterpump.
the down pipes were steel-this year aluminum
the pro mod turbos are 15lbs lighter each
moved the fuel cell up frt-so that's a loss
moved the turbos further back in the car
might have to start using some titanium and drilling holes through bolts
09-02-2009, 05:45 AM
#64
Wheelbase has to be pretty much stock... Please excuse me I haven't read up on the outlaw rules..... it's stuff I'll never get into.
As long as you can make the power you're looking for at a lower rpm, you're always better off. Just a matter of being able to do it.
As long as you can make the power you're looking for at a lower rpm, you're always better off. Just a matter of being able to do it.
09-03-2009, 01:13 AM
#65
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Lawrenceville, GA
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not building it for 2nd place
when you put all 3 together,you get 1 of 2 things.either really quick et's or something close to nuclear fission.
you know how it is Dave-i'll be posting updates as we go
4.0's 200mph 1/8 mile 6.20's 250mph 1/4 all at 3000lbs and stock frt suspension.
I got to thank Brian here at the shop for staying late in the heat and helping with the fabrication-otherwise nothing would still be done.
When we go to the track,Phil will be there helping me get this thing tamed down and getting down the track-hopefully producing some killer et's
when you put all 3 together,you get 1 of 2 things.either really quick et's or something close to nuclear fission.
you know how it is Dave-i'll be posting updates as we go
4.0's 200mph 1/8 mile 6.20's 250mph 1/4 all at 3000lbs and stock frt suspension.
I got to thank Brian here at the shop for staying late in the heat and helping with the fabrication-otherwise nothing would still be done.
When we go to the track,Phil will be there helping me get this thing tamed down and getting down the track-hopefully producing some killer et's
09-03-2009, 07:51 AM
#69
Well..... if Phil's lsx setup with a single 106 at a heavier weight can go 162, I'd think a 672 on alchohol and just abotu 2 of the same single turbo he's running (size wise, they're close) would stand a good shot at 200.
I don't see what Shawn is building coming anywhere under the 3500 hp #, at 3000 lbs, that's more then 1 hp per lb.... that math certainly supports their goals.
I don't see what Shawn is building coming anywhere under the 3500 hp #, at 3000 lbs, that's more then 1 hp per lb.... that math certainly supports their goals.
09-03-2009, 07:50 PM
#71
FormerVendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Virginia Beach,Virginia
Posts: 2,991
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Well..... if Phil's lsx setup with a single 106 at a heavier weight can go 162, I'd think a 672 on alchohol and just abotu 2 of the same single turbo he's running (size wise, they're close) would stand a good shot at 200.
I don't see what Shawn is building coming anywhere under the 3500 hp #, at 3000 lbs, that's more then 1 hp per lb.... that math certainly supports their goals.
I don't see what Shawn is building coming anywhere under the 3500 hp #, at 3000 lbs, that's more then 1 hp per lb.... that math certainly supports their goals.
We will certainly make enough hp to go 200 @ 3000lbs.I'm pretty sure we got the power management figured out-so i don't forsee any problems
I plan on having the car race ready by the first of Jan or so,we will probably take it to Florida to do our shakedown runs,that way when race season is here-we are ready to go.
09-05-2009, 05:40 PM
#72
6 & 8 Second Club
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Illinois, RT 66 dragway area
Posts: 2,284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
A general ??, and absolutely nothing to do with all the computer know it all tough guys posting.
Just looking for an answer from a couple of guys actually doing something, not claiming they know everything.
We were discussing all these huge monster engines, with big boost, being stuck in tiny tired cars.
Either radials or 10" slicks. ?? is, aren't you just wasting a bunch of power & potential.
Hell, some of these engine's would be hard to handle in my car, if they were set on kill.
I have a 465" Pro-Charger engine that would put me way way into the 6's with ease.
Why aren't more guys going smaller, less torque, same HP, type combination's??
Just wondering what the thinking or testing has been showing. I actually just decided last week to sell my engine.
For what I'm doing, it would be much easier and consistent to just throw a basic 800 incher in.
No learning the pro-charger, no learning all new fuel management, no learning all the timing stuff, ect.
Thanks for any thoughts, and good luck on both car's.
.
09-06-2009, 01:20 AM
#73
12 Second Club
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cooper City, FL
Posts: 1,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
holy **** this is amazing...
phil/shawn are you guys coming down to BMP? I may have to drive up to see that beast....amazing it really does show how small an 8/9 second build is in comparison...
Chad
phil/shawn are you guys coming down to BMP? I may have to drive up to see that beast....amazing it really does show how small an 8/9 second build is in comparison...
Chad
Last edited by Fireball; 09-08-2009 at 11:11 AM.
09-06-2009, 01:38 AM
#74
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Rockville, MD
Posts: 4,354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
A general ??, and absolutely nothing to do with all the computer know it all tough guys posting.
Just looking for an answer from a couple of guys actually doing something, not claiming they know everything.
We were discussing all these huge monster engines, with big boost, being stuck in tiny tired cars.
Either radials or 10" slicks. ?? is, aren't you just wasting a bunch of power & potential.
Hell, some of these engine's would be hard to handle in my car, if they were set on kill.
I have a 465" Pro-Charger engine that would put me way way into the 6's with ease.
Why aren't more guys going smaller, less torque, same HP, type combination's??
Just wondering what the thinking or testing has been showing. I actually just decided last week to sell my engine.
For what I'm doing, it would be much easier and consistent to just throw a basic 800 incher in.
No learning the pro-charger, no learning all new fuel management, no learning all the timing stuff, ect.
Thanks for any thoughts, and good luck on both car's.
.
personally, i love following their crazy ideas because, so far, theyve worked very well..lol.
09-06-2009, 08:17 AM
#75
FormerVendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Virginia Beach,Virginia
Posts: 2,991
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
.
A general ??, and absolutely nothing to do with all the computer know it all tough guys posting.
Just looking for an answer from a couple of guys actually doing something, not claiming they know everything.
We were discussing all these huge monster engines, with big boost, being stuck in tiny tired cars.
Either radials or 10" slicks. ?? is, aren't you just wasting a bunch of power & potential.
Hell, some of these engine's would be hard to handle in my car, if they were set on kill.
I have a 465" Pro-Charger engine that would put me way way into the 6's with ease.
Why aren't more guys going smaller, less torque, same HP, type combination's??
Just wondering what the thinking or testing has been showing. I actually just decided last week to sell my engine.
For what I'm doing, it would be much easier and consistent to just throw a basic 800 incher in.
No learning the pro-charger, no learning all new fuel management, no learning all the timing stuff, ect.
Thanks for any thoughts, and good luck on both car's.
.
when running a 3000+lb car you really need alot of tq to hit the tire and get it to 60' half decent,the bigger the motor the easier this is to do.
on the small tire,heavy car you can't 330 near as quick as a 2500lb big tire car,so to make up for that we need to make it up on the top end of the track,so we need alot of power.On the top end of the track we pretty much can use all the power the motor puts out,hence the big mph.
as far as big motor vs small motor and the same hp-to make the same hp from the small motor you have to lean on it alot harder-that means it's going to break alot more-so basically we build alot more motor than we need and just don't run it as hard.
09-06-2009, 10:22 AM
#76
6 & 8 Second Club
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Illinois, RT 66 dragway area
Posts: 2,284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
So all these low & mid 6 second cars with 300-400 inch engines I read about are light and big tires.
That I can understand. I didn't really pay attention to the total package. I just see the numbers reported.
So are the coughlins-morans type cars running big 600"+ motors or since they are real Pro-Mod, carbon fiber,
34.5 monster tires, type cars. They can run smaller, but pushed to the limit engines??
I'm very limited on knowledge for a boosted combination. The exact reason why I'm selling my turbo/procharger engine
before we even try it. People just don't understand how much it really takes running these monsters.
I finally had to admit is was way more than I was willing to do for some dial in class.
Like on my Pro-Charger 465" motor, I wasn't going to push it hard at all. We were looking at ~8000 shift point,
mild cam easy on springs, and rods type power band. Then again, at 2600 lbs (min weight T/S) & big tire,
I didn't need much HP to run 6.80. I guess the 1.03-.05 60' makes a huge difference from what you guys can do.
Good luck, keep at it & ignore all the internet experts.
Everyone with a clue knows there is a huge difference between us & them.
People spending their money to race & risking their butts trying something new.
People sitting around playing Atari and insulting & ripping people when they have nothing but matchbox cars.
.
09-07-2009, 12:10 PM
#77
6 & 8 Second Club
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Illinois, RT 66 dragway area
Posts: 2,284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
Screw the morons & know it all's, just ignore/block them from wasting your time & efforts.
I'm trying to learn something. I honestly have the cars and engines I claim to have.
Like I said, I have zero knowledge on Pro-Chargers and have been getting very valuable knowledge
from this & other threads like it. I'm trying to run 6.80 reliably & consistently.
If I can do it with something I already own, it would save a lot of time & effort.
Instead of the time to sell this one & buy the parts & building something else, I could be learning what it takes.
So again, ignore the dumbass' and keep posting photo's & answering ?? for us real racers.
Thanks,
JBL T/S 368E
.
09-08-2009, 11:10 AM
#79
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cecil County Raceway!!!
Posts: 8,484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've cleaned this thread up at the request of the OP...no need to bash Shawn's goal of 200mph in the 1/8...
If nobody set lofty goals, then whats the purpose of building these things
If nobody set lofty goals, then whats the purpose of building these things