Lets talk about Nitrous 6 speed cars and Gear and tire combos.
03-19-2012, 02:37 AM
#41
I can tell you that with 138 mph and 10.10 et your combo is not optimized completely. If it was then you could run that et with about 5-6 mph less trap speed at least. OP you would be alot better off to go with 3.89/3.90 and 28 in tire and run 200+ shot and keep rpm lower than 4.30/ 150 shot and spinning it to 7000 through the traps. It will stay together longer if the tuneup is there.
03-19-2012, 02:47 AM
#42
I have seen more damage to LS1 from bad nitrous tunes and broken rod bolts/ rods from too much rpm than pistons from cylinder pressure... LS1 will take much more than 150 safely if the tuneup is right and rpms are kept reasonable. Are you saying it is safer to spray 150 and spin stock bottom end LS1 to 7000+ rpm than to spray 200 and spin it to say 6500 -6600 rpm? In case you haven't heard nitrous makes alot of torque and you don't need alot of gear or spin on to the moon to run good et's. Next time you dyno yours see where it makes peak power and torque on the dyno.
03-19-2012, 02:58 AM
#43
It wont go back to the dyno, but regardless of what the dyno shows I know from past experiences and trial and error where my car likes to be shifted to provided its best et. I also know it will be harder to get the car off the line with that gear and a normal clutch. Also I am not suggesting any way will last longer than the other once you start spraying nitrous on stock pistons it is probably smart to accept that your engine is living on borrowed time. And thanks for enlightening me that nitrous makes alot of torque. Also I guess you consider shifting at 66~6700 rpm on n2o spining it to the moon???
03-19-2012, 03:02 AM
#44
One thing you need to remember ren87 is that you have ARP rod bolts and not stock ones so you have a little measure of safety at 7000 rpms over a completely stock bottom end. Also with your T-rex cam yours would be a little pain in the *** to drive around on motor. T-rex loves nitrous though. You goal is also to get a cetain timeslip (9 sec)on a certain size shot (150). Your car does run good and I would be willing to bet it would run quicker with 3.89 gears on the same size shot if you raised your launch rpm from 6000 - 6300 -6500 on the kit as you would utilize the torque of the nitrous better and you would have your 9 sec timeslip.
03-19-2012, 03:05 AM
#45
It wont go back to the dyno, but regardless of what the dyno shows I know from past experiences and trial and error where my car likes to be shifted to provided its best et. I also know it will be harder to get the car off the line with that gear and a normal clutch. Also I am not suggesting any way will last longer than the other once you start spraying nitrous on stock pistons it is probably smart to accept that your engine is living on borrowed time. And thanks for enlightening me that nitrous makes alot of torque. Also I guess you consider shifting at 66~6700 rpm on n2o spining it to the moon???
03-19-2012, 03:09 AM
#46
how would I be able to utilize the torque better? If I switched to a 3.89 I am loosing mechanical advantage off the line and picking up wheel speed. which all lead to worse 60ft times. maybe an auto could benefit from a 3.89 but not my car.
03-19-2012, 03:11 AM
#47
While your times are good, I just don't see the point in stressing a stock bottom end without even rod bolts by revving a motor with a LS6 intake, stock heads, and 1 3/4 pace setter's to 7000rpm.
Now if it had a Fast 92 on it at least, a set of ported 243's or aftermarket heads and a bigger set of headers in a more max output type set-up on the stock bottom end then it'd b worth wringing it to 7k to get the power.
Take my set-up for example since we are comparing. I have 4.11's with a TH400, but I have a ported Fast 92 which takes it out to 96 a 96mm throttle body, and 1 7/8" ARH headers with 5" extensions with v-bands at the track, but I am planning on trying a longer set of extensions with bullet's or one chamber's instead of my vibrant turbo mufflers and I turn it 7000-7200 for it's sweet spot.
It's been 10.29 on motor with a worse 660' time than my personal 660' best which is 6.38@105 vs. the 6.49@104 on the 10.29 run. Granted you have a 6 speed.
Now if it had a Fast 92 on it at least, a set of ported 243's or aftermarket heads and a bigger set of headers in a more max output type set-up on the stock bottom end then it'd b worth wringing it to 7k to get the power.
Take my set-up for example since we are comparing. I have 4.11's with a TH400, but I have a ported Fast 92 which takes it out to 96 a 96mm throttle body, and 1 7/8" ARH headers with 5" extensions with v-bands at the track, but I am planning on trying a longer set of extensions with bullet's or one chamber's instead of my vibrant turbo mufflers and I turn it 7000-7200 for it's sweet spot.
It's been 10.29 on motor with a worse 660' time than my personal 660' best which is 6.38@105 vs. the 6.49@104 on the 10.29 run. Granted you have a 6 speed.
03-19-2012, 03:34 AM
#50
The difference in wheel speed @6000 rpm launch from 4.30 to 3.89 is +4 mph. I believe the right clutch , tire pressure , shock /suspension settings could control spin and 3.89 would allow a stock bottom end car to keep the revs down a few hundred on the big end. I would think that the difference in torque multiplication from the 4.30 and an extra 50 hp nitrous , but going down in gear would prob be a wash so don't see why tire spin could not be controlled with the right setup.
03-19-2012, 03:47 AM
#51
Oh yea ren987 this is a calm technical discussion. Definitely not rying to argue with you, just comparing theories and setups. I used to have a 6 speed formula and had it trapping really good , but sold it before I had a chance to do many suspension mods othe than the basics , control arms, torque arm, reloc brackets. Stock shocks. I was able to get it to 60 ft in the 1.5 on a decent track and it weighed 3600 raceweight. I was thinking about buying the car back and finishing the chassis, some weigh treduction, and putting a kit back on it. It did run 10.60 @132 on a 150 shot. LIke you there was a slight delay on the kit coming in. My launch rpm was 5500 and I had 3.89 with M/t et st. I think they were 27.5 inches tall. Bias ply , not drag radial.
03-19-2012, 10:38 AM
#52
I can see this isn't really going any where productive any more OP if you have any questions as to what worked for me I can certainly point you in the right direction my car went bottom 1.5x 60's stock weight, with stock worn out shocks on motor alone I never sprayed it with stock shocks so I can't speak for how it would have done. I am by no means an expert on the subject but I do know what is best for my set up and this has worked very well for me!
03-19-2012, 10:55 AM
#53
Staging Lane
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Weaverville,NC
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03-19-2012, 02:12 PM
#54
I can see this isn't really going any where productive any more OP if you have any questions as to what worked for me I can certainly point you in the right direction my car went bottom 1.5x 60's stock weight, with stock worn out shocks on motor alone I never sprayed it with stock shocks so I can't speak for how it would have done. I am by no means an expert on the subject but I do know what is best for my set up and this has worked very well for me!
