Hey John,I'm setting up the Pewter Beast as we speak for an attempt on the 10's..

I agree with u
There's gonna be alot of quick 346CI 's out next yr.

JS

 

Sorry but I have to disagree Colonel; I beleive if Chris tuned the car and dropped weight; he could easily have ran a mid 10. He was running a lil rich and could have picked up a 10th or 2 just on tuning alone; coupled with a great weight reduction it could have been all he needed for that mid 10 sec timeslip. But who will ever know since he has moved to a new combo. Just like we will never know if my 2 stage setup on my 01 could have ran a mid 10 as well after tuning; since I traded it in. These are simply assumptions and speculations.

Hope to see and hear about some great times and setups next season. And I am sure you will hear more about chris and his t76 00 SS, and t100 93Z. <img src="gr_eek2.gif" border="0">

 

"I mean with a lil better tuning, and a few minor tweaks, and possibly light weight reduction; the car would easily gone mid 10's."

"Sorry but I have to disagree Colonel; I beleive if Chris tuned the car and dropped weight; he could easily have ran a mid 10. He was running a lil rich and could have picked up a 10th or 2 just on tuning alone; coupled with a great weight reduction it could have been all he needed for that mid 10 sec timeslip."

I'm not sure we disagree. We might just be calling things differently...

I guess we need to define mid 10s. I consider that to be 10.59 or quicker. Some might call 10.7s "mid 10s." What do you call "mid 10s?"

We also need to define "a few minor tweaks" and "light weight reduction". I would call a few minor tweaks to be not adding any costly parts. I would call light weight reduction 50 lbs or less. Some might call taking off 350 lbs some light weight reduction. What do you call "light weight reduction?" I noticed in your last post you changed from saying "possible light weight reduction" to saying "a great weight reduction." That sounds more like it.

Correcting a "little rich" condition isn't going to help you much. You might pick up 1/2 mph by going from .910mv (what i'd call a "little rich") to .870mv. Certainly not a tenth or 2...not at this level. You'd have to be running more than just a little rich to hurt yourself a whole MPH (or especially a whole tenth since a tenth is harder to come by than a MPH at this level.)

So yes, IF his timing was 22 degrees with O2s in the .950-.960 range before (which I'm almost certain wasn't the case) and he dropped 200 lbs combined with some better weather (how good was the weather for his 10 second pass?) and some minor tweaks, I'd say he could have possibly ran a 10.59. <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0">

Folks, as Raughammer, George, and only a handful of other people in the world can attest, NA 10s with a hydraulic cam and only 346 CI is hard enough...much less mid 10s. Mid 10s will happen for this category but it'll take a very good combo and alot of things coming together at the right time...and a VERY light car! <img src="graemlins/fluffy.gif" border="0" alt="[Fluffy]" />

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Colonel ]</p>

 

Colonel,I have a hard time w/Cmarsh's car to begin with.He builds a 10Sec car over the weekend using his moms car and then takes it apart?If he sez so,then I guess I gotta believe him but it just doesnt sound totally on the up and up..


I also agree w/u about running 10's w/a Hyd. 346CI setup is hard enough let alone 10.50's
Sure w/the right setup and a 3000lb car it can be done but thats not the most ordinary of setups..

I'm setting my car up for a CRACK at running 10.90's and I'll be at a race weight of 3450 to 3400lbs.Thats gonna be tuff but I'm gonna try...
Its gonna take a properly setup up car like George C to run that ET at that weight and I believe I can do it..

Sure there's gonna be some improvements made by manufacture's R&Ding LS1 parts in the next few months/yrs and the benifit will trickle down to the end user..

10.50's is gonna be hard wa 346/Hyd Cam
10.70's is a different story...

JS

 

I've loosely set my goals at 10.6's, but if that comes easy enough, I have a few other minor changes/tweaks in mind to hunt a 10.5x.

My new cam has picked me up approx 1mph (or better) in the 1/8th, with crappy track conditions. There's still the matter of close to 100lbs of additional weight coming off the car soon (k-member and hood). I'm also working on a crankcase evac system that will work better than my generic header mounted setup does now.

 

[quote]Originally posted by JS:
<strong>Colonel,I have a hard time w/Cmarsh's car to begin with.He builds a 10Sec car over the weekend using his moms car and then takes it apart?If he sez so,then I guess I gotta believe him but it just doesnt sound totally on the up and up..


I also agree w/u about running 10's w/a Hyd. 346CI setup is hard enough let alone 10.50's
Sure w/the right setup and a 3000lb car it can be done but thats not the most ordinary of setups..

I'm setting my car up for a CRACK at running 10.90's and I'll be at a race weight of 3450 to 3400lbs.Thats gonna be tuff but I'm gonna try...
Its gonna take a properly setup up car like George C to run that ET at that weight and I believe I can do it..

Sure there's gonna be some improvements made by manufacture's R&Ding LS1 parts in the next few months/yrs and the benifit will trickle down to the end user..

10.50's is gonna be hard wa 346/Hyd Cam
10.70's is a different story...

JS</strong><hr></blockquote>


Sorry you are such a doubter. The car was at the track did run the time just like he took my stock internal A4 to a 10.89@126. If you are such a doubter; come on down to texas next season and you can watch both his 00 SS with new setup, my 02' and possibly his 93 thumper Z. As far as technicalities colonel I realy don't care. The car has a completely new setup in it and we will never know what it's full potential was.

 

[quote]Originally posted by JS:
<strong>Colonel,I have a hard time w/Cmarsh's car to begin with.He builds a 10Sec car over the weekend using his moms car and then takes it apart?If he sez so,then I guess I gotta believe him but it just doesnt sound totally on the up and up..

JS</strong><hr></blockquote>

What part do you not belive? I have provided timeslips, I have many witnesses, dyno sheets, ect. Yeah...I did build the car pretty quick...went 10's 3 or 4 weekends after I first started it. I thought it was pretty easy to get into the 10's...but it must be harder than it looks, because not too many people are doing it <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0"> Actually, we have plans for another car to make an assault on the 10's with a stock block. Should be fun....just this time we will have ALOT more dyno time, suspension tuning, and R&D behind it. Ohhh yeah, did I mention it was with a 6spd <img src="gr_eek2.gif" border="0">

 

"As far as technicalities colonel I realy don't care."

Ok, that's cool. I was just saying that we might not really be disagreeing...just defineing a few things differently. If you don't care to discuss your definitions of those things then I guess I'll never know if we really disagreed or not. <img src="images/icons/confused.gif" border="0">

Chris, what do you think it would have taken you to run 10.5s? I know, it's just speculation but I'm curious to hear your thoughts. <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0">

 

[quote]Originally posted by Colonel:
<strong>"As far as technicalities colonel I realy don't care."

Ok, that's cool. I was just saying that we might not really be disagreeing...just defineing a few things differently. If you don't care to discuss your definitions of those things then I guess I'll never know if we really disagreed or not. <img src="images/icons/confused.gif" border="0">

Chris, what do you think it would have taken you to run 10.5s? I know, it's just speculation but I'm curious to hear your thoughts. <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0"> </strong><hr></blockquote>


I am sure are definitions were similar but prob not exactly the same. BTW I consider a mid 10 a 10.40-50. <img src="gr_images/icons/cool.gif" border="0">

 

[quote]Originally posted by Colonel:
<strong>
Chris, what do you think it would have taken you to run 10.5s? I know, it's just speculation but I'm curious to hear your thoughts. <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0"> </strong><hr></blockquote>

Race weight around 3000-3100 pounds, more tuning (10-20rwhp), and better weather. If I remember right, the night I ran was 79 degrees, like 60% humidity, and a 29.xx baro. Autotap was never on the car......for two weeks I had the stock computer in it, then threw in the ed wright computer. Dynoed, and ran it....guess he got it pretty close...who knows? Would like to put a ported holley on it, suspension work, ect. Car had totally stock suspension.......hence the slow 60'....1.50. So...with a nice weight drop (3475 -> ~3200), k-member, a-arms, suspension AND motor tuning...I don't see why a 10.6 or so wouldn't be possible. 10.9's seem way too easy <img src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" border="0">

Chris

 

[quote]Originally posted by JS:
<strong>Colonel,I have a hard time w/Cmarsh's car to begin with.He builds a 10Sec car over the weekend using his moms car and then takes it apart?If he sez so,then I guess I gotta believe him but it just doesnt sound totally on the up and up..</strong><hr></blockquote>

What is there to doubt? He had a great set of heads, an aggressive cam and stall to match it along with 4.10s and some great traction. His car made 440 rwhp through an auto, so hell yeah its gonna run a 10! That car easily had a 10.70 in it after he pulled out ~200 lbs.

 

Thanks Chris. <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0">

 

edit-made new post

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: z28kid98 ]</p>

 

I said I had my doubts but that I believed him
I just find it unusual that a guy would be a car,run and then take it apart..

No one on this whole site thinks this is a little hard to swallow especailly at a race weight of 3475 and that DA? I can give time slips saying I ran 9's.But did I.I can have shot on my car say it ran 10's on motor,But did I?

It just seems kinda funny
But with 440RWHP I say YES it is true
Where r all these other 440 head/Cammed S2 cars at? I'm waiting?

Chrismreally if u say u went that qucil then I beleive u but u could understnad why i would be skeptical...

JS

 

[quote]Originally posted by JS:
<strong>

Chrism really if u say u went that qucil then I beleive u but u could understnad why i would be skeptical...

JS</strong><hr></blockquote>

I can live with that. Really...I have no reason to lie about it. There are prob a dozen people on this site who saw it dyno, saw it run, ect. Sean Freese dynoed it...so ask him. As for why I suddenly took it apart....it developed a bottomend knock. The motor was a used one from a customers car that was getting a stroker. Who knows how it was treated....but in the end, a main bearing started to tap. I sold the parts off the car, returned it to stock and tryed to get it warrentyed. Got refused...so I decided to keep the car, and am planning a new combo <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0">