Why stroke it when H/C cars are making better numbers
10-16-2002, 02:48 AM
#41
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: jacksonville FL
Posts: 1,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why stroke it when H/C cars are making better numbers Hey guys thanks for the all the answers ( well never ment for the whole supra debate but..)I learn alot from the master techs on this site. <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" /> The better idel and broader power band being advantages to H/C cars defantly seems worth it.I think this is the route im gonna try and go with on the T/A. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
10-16-2002, 11:15 AM
#42
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Objects in mirror no longer matter.
Posts: 1,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why stroke it when H/C cars are making better numbers </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by RAGEman:
<strong>Either that or you are UN-skilled. It's not really that hard. I'd just like to point out that the change in acceleration is the 2nd derivative of "distance with respect to time" or, in other words, velocity.
CLARIFICATIONAL NOTE: There is no "derivative" of distance by itself because distance is not an equation. Therefore, the derivative of distance is not velocity. There is a derivative of "distance with respect to time," but it isn't velocity, it's acceleration because "distance with respect to time" EQUALS velocity.
The fact that the change in acceleration is 3 times removed from distance in this string of equations does not mean it is any more complicated to judge by the human eye. In fact, as I stated before, it isn't really that hard.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Since you are so confused, let me enlighten you. "Derivative of distance with respect to time" assuming X is distance means:
d/dt (X) = velocity
Change in acceleration is NOT the second derivative of distance with respect to time. The second derivative with respect to time is acceleration, or more simply:
d^2/d^2t (X) = acceleration
Now what you are so skilled at judging is the third derivative of distance with respect to time, also equal to the first derivative of acceleration with respect to time. Here, I will spell it out for you:
d^3/d^3t (X) = d/dt (acceleration) = jerk
Judging this from a static reference point is hard enough, but since you are judging this from within your own car while racing, we have to modify our equation to show you not only have a moving frame of reference, but your vantage point is not even accelerating at a constant rate. Since you have trouble even arguing in simple calculus terms or understanding what you are saying, I find your claim to be highly unlikely.
But who gives a **** anyways? Sorry you put me off on a tangent but you had to go open your mouth...
<strong>Either that or you are UN-skilled. It's not really that hard. I'd just like to point out that the change in acceleration is the 2nd derivative of "distance with respect to time" or, in other words, velocity.
CLARIFICATIONAL NOTE: There is no "derivative" of distance by itself because distance is not an equation. Therefore, the derivative of distance is not velocity. There is a derivative of "distance with respect to time," but it isn't velocity, it's acceleration because "distance with respect to time" EQUALS velocity.
The fact that the change in acceleration is 3 times removed from distance in this string of equations does not mean it is any more complicated to judge by the human eye. In fact, as I stated before, it isn't really that hard.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Since you are so confused, let me enlighten you. "Derivative of distance with respect to time" assuming X is distance means:
d/dt (X) = velocity
Change in acceleration is NOT the second derivative of distance with respect to time. The second derivative with respect to time is acceleration, or more simply:
d^2/d^2t (X) = acceleration
Now what you are so skilled at judging is the third derivative of distance with respect to time, also equal to the first derivative of acceleration with respect to time. Here, I will spell it out for you:
d^3/d^3t (X) = d/dt (acceleration) = jerk
Judging this from a static reference point is hard enough, but since you are judging this from within your own car while racing, we have to modify our equation to show you not only have a moving frame of reference, but your vantage point is not even accelerating at a constant rate. Since you have trouble even arguing in simple calculus terms or understanding what you are saying, I find your claim to be highly unlikely.
But who gives a **** anyways? Sorry you put me off on a tangent but you had to go open your mouth...
10-16-2002, 11:18 AM
#43
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Objects in mirror no longer matter.
Posts: 1,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why stroke it when H/C cars are making better numbers 99 TranTrany: congrats on the choice! Nothing makes a daily driven hotrod more fun than more cubes! I also rest easier at night with forged slugs under my hood <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />
10-16-2002, 03:21 PM
#44
TECH Resident
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why stroke it when H/C cars are making better numbers Tangent 2A: Derivatives and physics-related stuff
I had already in that same post acknowledged the fact that I had opened my mouth without knowing what I was talking about, and then EuG confirmed the error of my ways. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong, and I have done so here. You are certainly right, and I am certainly wrong. I had "AP" Physics my junior year of high school (Midway High School - Hewitt, TX - '96/'97), "AP" Calculus my senior year of high school (Midway - '97/'98), Calculus II (Baylor a.k.a. Gaylor University - Waco, TX - fall semester '98), and Calculus III - Three-dimensional calculus (Baylor - spring semester '99). All A's across the board with little to no homework ever completed. My short-term knowledge retention is good, but obviously, long-term retention has a little room for improvement. You definitely won that battle, sir. Please accept my apology for challenging you.
Tangent 2B: Judging "jerk," or the change in accleration from a stationary or moving reference point
I still don't think it's as hard as you make it out to be. Especially when the vehicles are moving at high speeds (and each gear lasts longer), the brain has more time to process the information that it is being fed. I notice that nearly every Supra pulls much harder up top than in the mid-range. And the "jerk" is much more significant than in other cars I have raced in the same fashion.
Tangent 1: Supra's having "peaky" setups
You still have not come out and said we are wrong to say that graphs like the one you posted are the exception rather than the rule. I'm not sure if it's because you keep forgetting to, or because we're not wrong. Either way, I wish you'd enlighten us.
The topic
I guess it all boils down to the amount of money you can or are willing to spend on your car. If you have the extra cash, you can't go wrong by increasing displacement.
I had already in that same post acknowledged the fact that I had opened my mouth without knowing what I was talking about, and then EuG confirmed the error of my ways. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong, and I have done so here. You are certainly right, and I am certainly wrong. I had "AP" Physics my junior year of high school (Midway High School - Hewitt, TX - '96/'97), "AP" Calculus my senior year of high school (Midway - '97/'98), Calculus II (Baylor a.k.a. Gaylor University - Waco, TX - fall semester '98), and Calculus III - Three-dimensional calculus (Baylor - spring semester '99). All A's across the board with little to no homework ever completed. My short-term knowledge retention is good, but obviously, long-term retention has a little room for improvement. You definitely won that battle, sir. Please accept my apology for challenging you.
Tangent 2B: Judging "jerk," or the change in accleration from a stationary or moving reference point
I still don't think it's as hard as you make it out to be. Especially when the vehicles are moving at high speeds (and each gear lasts longer), the brain has more time to process the information that it is being fed. I notice that nearly every Supra pulls much harder up top than in the mid-range. And the "jerk" is much more significant than in other cars I have raced in the same fashion.
Tangent 1: Supra's having "peaky" setups
You still have not come out and said we are wrong to say that graphs like the one you posted are the exception rather than the rule. I'm not sure if it's because you keep forgetting to, or because we're not wrong. Either way, I wish you'd enlighten us.
The topic
I guess it all boils down to the amount of money you can or are willing to spend on your car. If you have the extra cash, you can't go wrong by increasing displacement.
10-16-2002, 07:44 PM
#45
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Objects in mirror no longer matter.
Posts: 1,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why stroke it when H/C cars are making better numbers </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by RAGEman:
<strong>You definitely won that battle, sir. Please accept my apology for challenging you.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">About damn time <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
Tangent 2B: Judging "jerk," or the change in accleration from a stationary or moving reference point
Alright, to even further complicate things, the turbos will be under greater load in each subsequent gear and thus will create more boost. The car from which the dyno came from made quite a bit more power in 5th than it did in 4th etc. Or in other words, there is a change in jerk with respect to time as well. If you are confused about what you are actually trying to interpolate and admit to memory retension issues, why is it so hard to believe you are wrong here too?
Here is another scenario: two LS1s race, one has 3.42 gears and the other 4.10s. They keep trading places throughout the race, so what can you conclude about the shape of your opponents dyno?? Nothing with any degree of accuracy, other than the magnitude of both will be similar assuming all other variables are constant.
Why don't you show me a peaky Supra setup that is the norm. Here is another for your viewing pleasure:
<img src="http://www.supraforums.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=656841" alt=" - " />
As you can see, even with a monster turbo like a T78 that put SW in the 9s at 153 mph. Shifting at 7 grand, his rwhp will always be between 650 rwhp and 700 rwhp, that is NOT peaky at all. Now just nod your head and give this tangent a rest <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
<strong>You definitely won that battle, sir. Please accept my apology for challenging you.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">About damn time <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
Tangent 2B: Judging "jerk," or the change in accleration from a stationary or moving reference point
Alright, to even further complicate things, the turbos will be under greater load in each subsequent gear and thus will create more boost. The car from which the dyno came from made quite a bit more power in 5th than it did in 4th etc. Or in other words, there is a change in jerk with respect to time as well. If you are confused about what you are actually trying to interpolate and admit to memory retension issues, why is it so hard to believe you are wrong here too?
Here is another scenario: two LS1s race, one has 3.42 gears and the other 4.10s. They keep trading places throughout the race, so what can you conclude about the shape of your opponents dyno?? Nothing with any degree of accuracy, other than the magnitude of both will be similar assuming all other variables are constant.
Why don't you show me a peaky Supra setup that is the norm. Here is another for your viewing pleasure:
<img src="http://www.supraforums.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=656841" alt=" - " />
As you can see, even with a monster turbo like a T78 that put SW in the 9s at 153 mph. Shifting at 7 grand, his rwhp will always be between 650 rwhp and 700 rwhp, that is NOT peaky at all. Now just nod your head and give this tangent a rest <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
10-16-2002, 08:10 PM
#46
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: jacksonville FL
Posts: 1,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why stroke it when H/C cars are making better numbers Fu#k a supra this a LS1 board <img border="0" alt="[boring]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_zzz.gif" />
10-16-2002, 08:35 PM
#47
Staging Lane
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Summit N.J.
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why stroke it when H/C cars are making better numbers Want to know why to stroke?Heres what a stroker dyno sheet should look like <img src="http://www.cartek.net/images/markb528.jpg" alt=" - " /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="gr_images/icons/cool.gif" /> that would be the the Cartek 427 C5-R,hydraulic rolor with a LS-6 intake manifold,custom Cartek headers and exhaust.no turbos no nitrous ALL MOTOR!!
<small>[ October 16, 2002, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: 1/4milecrazy ]</small>
<small>[ October 16, 2002, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: 1/4milecrazy ]</small>
10-16-2002, 08:46 PM
#49
TECH Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why stroke it when H/C cars are making better numbers that torque dip looks like a solid roller graph. Nice numbers though all the same <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
Chris
Chris
10-16-2002, 08:59 PM
#50
Staging Lane
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Summit N.J.
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why stroke it when H/C cars are making better numbers </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Chris ARE 360:
<strong>that torque dip looks like a solid roller graph. Nice numbers though all the same <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
Chris</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">i can personally gaurantee that that is not a solid roller you could ask Julio or any one of the Cartek guys they all seen the car,but thanks any way i just wish it was my car <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="gr_images/icons/cool.gif" />
<strong>that torque dip looks like a solid roller graph. Nice numbers though all the same <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
Chris</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">i can personally gaurantee that that is not a solid roller you could ask Julio or any one of the Cartek guys they all seen the car,but thanks any way i just wish it was my car <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="gr_images/icons/cool.gif" />
10-16-2002, 09:00 PM
#51
Staging Lane
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Summit N.J.
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why stroke it when H/C cars are making better numbers </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Chris ARE 360:
<strong>that torque dip looks like a solid roller graph. Nice numbers though all the same <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
Chris</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">i can personally gaurantee that that is not a solid roller you could ask Julio or any one of the Cartek guys they all seen the car,but thanks any way i just wish it was my car <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="gr_images/icons/cool.gif" />
<strong>that torque dip looks like a solid roller graph. Nice numbers though all the same <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />
Chris</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">i can personally gaurantee that that is not a solid roller you could ask Julio or any one of the Cartek guys they all seen the car,but thanks any way i just wish it was my car <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="gr_images/icons/cool.gif" />
10-16-2002, 10:06 PM
#52
TECH Resident
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why stroke it when H/C cars are making better numbers For everyone's sake, I'll give it a rest, but I still don't believe you're right. One of these days I'll get you, Fenris Ulf! It is now my lifelong goal. <img border="0" alt="[jester]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_jest.gif" />
10-16-2002, 10:35 PM
#53
TECH Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
Posts: 4,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why stroke it when H/C cars are making better numbers </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by RAGEman:
<strong>[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quickin:
P.S. I wouldn't call a stroker set up for N/A or even one built to handle large shots of N2O blower-ready. Changes would almost certainly have to be made to the compression ratio and perhaps camshaft, etc, etc. Definitely right about the motor (particularly the bottom end) being much stronger. And, not ALL H/C cars "idle like ****."</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I meant that its ready bottom-end wise. Sure, you have the compression issue with adding a blower. About the idle though: a 450 RWHP H/C car will shake your teeth out, where a 450 RWHP stroker will idle close to stock and still have about 450 RWTQ to go with it. Not to mention a 500 RWHP comparison, although I've never heard of a 500 RWHP head cam car. Strokers though, they're everywhere. The only descent, not smooth by no means, idle I've seen on a H/C car only put down about 350 RWHP. Anything more than that, shake, shake, shake!
<strong>[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quickin:
P.S. I wouldn't call a stroker set up for N/A or even one built to handle large shots of N2O blower-ready. Changes would almost certainly have to be made to the compression ratio and perhaps camshaft, etc, etc. Definitely right about the motor (particularly the bottom end) being much stronger. And, not ALL H/C cars "idle like ****."</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I meant that its ready bottom-end wise. Sure, you have the compression issue with adding a blower. About the idle though: a 450 RWHP H/C car will shake your teeth out, where a 450 RWHP stroker will idle close to stock and still have about 450 RWTQ to go with it. Not to mention a 500 RWHP comparison, although I've never heard of a 500 RWHP head cam car. Strokers though, they're everywhere. The only descent, not smooth by no means, idle I've seen on a H/C car only put down about 350 RWHP. Anything more than that, shake, shake, shake!
10-17-2002, 12:19 AM
#54
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Objects in mirror no longer matter.
Posts: 1,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why stroke it when H/C cars are making better numbers The TR224 has a VERY tame idle compared to what I am used to, and I have seen that cam make 430+ rwhp on the boards on numerous occasions.
RAGEman: How about we let our cars do the talking <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> email me
RAGEman: How about we let our cars do the talking <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> email me
10-17-2002, 12:44 AM
#55
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: jacksonville FL
Posts: 1,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why stroke it when H/C cars are making better numbers OK so if i go with a stroker , one like in the magazine,but with better H/C on it. Doing the work my self how about how much would it cost me? Can any of you guys that alredy have strokers give me a idea of what it might cost. <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[chug]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_chug.gif" />
-justin
-justin
10-17-2002, 12:56 AM
#56
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Objects in mirror no longer matter.
Posts: 1,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why stroke it when H/C cars are making better numbers </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 99TranTrany:
<strong>OK so if i go with a stroker , one like in the magazine,but with better H/C on it. Doing the work my self how about how much would it cost me? Can any of you guys that alredy have strokers give me a idea of what it might cost. <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[chug]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_chug.gif" />
-justin</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Figure 2500 for heads, another 400 for cam, then you have to make lots of decisions. Nodular or forged crank? Stock or forged rods?
<strong>OK so if i go with a stroker , one like in the magazine,but with better H/C on it. Doing the work my self how about how much would it cost me? Can any of you guys that alredy have strokers give me a idea of what it might cost. <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[chug]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_chug.gif" />
-justin</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Figure 2500 for heads, another 400 for cam, then you have to make lots of decisions. Nodular or forged crank? Stock or forged rods?
10-17-2002, 01:26 AM
#57
TECH Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
Posts: 4,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why stroke it when H/C cars are making better numbers </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 99TranTrany:
<strong>OK so if i go with a stroker , one like in the magazine,but with better H/C on it. Doing the work my self how about how much would it cost me? Can any of you guys that alredy have strokers give me a idea of what it might cost. <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[chug]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_chug.gif" />
-justin</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My ARE 436 cost $16,000. All the best parts. That included 1 7/8" Grots, ported LS6 intake, ported TB, lid, ASP pulley, 36 lb. injectors and its a fully assembled motor ready to drop in. Close to 500 RWHP with a nice idle, nothing like the rediculous idle of a 420 RWHP H/C car.
Get yourself one.
<strong>OK so if i go with a stroker , one like in the magazine,but with better H/C on it. Doing the work my self how about how much would it cost me? Can any of you guys that alredy have strokers give me a idea of what it might cost. <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[chug]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_chug.gif" />
-justin</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My ARE 436 cost $16,000. All the best parts. That included 1 7/8" Grots, ported LS6 intake, ported TB, lid, ASP pulley, 36 lb. injectors and its a fully assembled motor ready to drop in. Close to 500 RWHP with a nice idle, nothing like the rediculous idle of a 420 RWHP H/C car.
Get yourself one.
10-17-2002, 07:01 AM
#58
TECH Addict
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Fort Worth,TX
Posts: 2,340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why stroke it when H/C cars are making better numbers </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Quickin:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 99TranTrany:
<strong>OK so if i go with a stroker , one like in the magazine,but with better H/C on it. Doing the work my self how about how much would it cost me? Can any of you guys that alredy have strokers give me a idea of what it might cost. <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[chug]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_chug.gif" />
-justin</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My ARE 436 cost $16,000. All the best parts. That included 1 7/8" Grots, ported LS6 intake, ported TB, lid, ASP pulley, 36 lb. injectors and its a fully assembled motor ready to drop in. Close to 500 RWHP with a nice idle, nothing like the rediculous idle of a 420 RWHP H/C car.
Get yourself one.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Somep eople would sya your dumb for spending that much in some cases but what they dont realize is you will spend that much if not more eventually on the car so why not get the good stuff right off the bat.
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by 99TranTrany:
<strong>OK so if i go with a stroker , one like in the magazine,but with better H/C on it. Doing the work my self how about how much would it cost me? Can any of you guys that alredy have strokers give me a idea of what it might cost. <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[chug]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_chug.gif" />
-justin</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My ARE 436 cost $16,000. All the best parts. That included 1 7/8" Grots, ported LS6 intake, ported TB, lid, ASP pulley, 36 lb. injectors and its a fully assembled motor ready to drop in. Close to 500 RWHP with a nice idle, nothing like the rediculous idle of a 420 RWHP H/C car.
Get yourself one.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Somep eople would sya your dumb for spending that much in some cases but what they dont realize is you will spend that much if not more eventually on the car so why not get the good stuff right off the bat.