Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
If I only had the money...
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2490514257&indexURL=0
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2490514257&indexURL=0
Muscle cars/Mustang lovers, take a look...
- Thread starter manny78
- Start date
T
The Greatest
Guest
not worth 130 k though
You can get one of those for 60-70K same condition bro....
I personally like the 69s better...
I WILL have my classic mustang again one day - but this time I will go for a 69 fastback instead of the 68 I had...
here is a sweet 69 boss 429 (black doesn't look so good in the pics but I would paint it raven black if I had one)
I personally like the 69s better...
I WILL have my classic mustang again one day - but this time I will go for a 69 fastback instead of the 68 I had...
here is a sweet 69 boss 429 (black doesn't look so good in the pics but I would paint it raven black if I had one)
Last edited:
Sweeeeet
So that means the loser probably eithermanny78 said:
a) didn't drive it at all
b) rolled back the miles on it
either way - I hope you WOULD drive it - I know I would - I would drive the crap out of it, to me that is the whole point... not worth paying that much for a practically low milage car - unless you just want to look at it... engines just get rebuilt - etc anways - which is way cheaper than a 100% markup....
I wonder if anyone will really pay that much for it - or if it will get relisted (and if a lot of the bids are shenanigans)....
Also note - "The car owner has given me additional info... This vehicle is an emissions prototype vehicle. It is equipped with a few unusual emissions gadgets that I'm not familiar with. Some of these items are trunk mounted, and are riveted to the car instead of the usual spot-welding...There is also a metal canister mounted low on the RH side of the engine. The car owner tells me this car is #1 (the first) of 50 prototype vehicles built this way."
Maybe the car DOES have something rare - but doesn't sound like he knows much about it or the car at all anyways - also that would NOT make it any good for driving at all anyways if it was especially rare.
[email protected]
New member
The Greatest said:
I agree, not even close
T
The Greatest
Guest
let me think for that kinda loot I could get
1. Used Viper 35k
2. New H2 50k
3. New Vet 45k
And have triple the fun
or a kick ass Ferrari or Mercedes AMG that would turn heads and drop panties alot faster. And don't tell me but its a classic muscle car, to 95 percent of the public it looks like old garbage. Something Tony at the car wash would drive. Now we all know its not, but comeon 130k. shit.
1. Used Viper 35k
2. New H2 50k
3. New Vet 45k
And have triple the fun
or a kick ass Ferrari or Mercedes AMG that would turn heads and drop panties alot faster. And don't tell me but its a classic muscle car, to 95 percent of the public it looks like old garbage. Something Tony at the car wash would drive. Now we all know its not, but comeon 130k. shit.
Last edited:
Sta11ion
New member
I would drive everyday like I stole it.
manny78 said:If I only had the money...
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2490514257&indexURL=0
Pretty fuckin sweet, but a little steep in price.
heard that tiger. I buy an auto trader every moth and drool over what I WILL have again someday.
BTW, did any of you see that shit on the cobra concept lastnight on tv? I think it was on discovery? Fuckin badass!
tiger88 said:
heard that tiger. I buy an auto trader every moth and drool over what I WILL have again someday.
BTW, did any of you see that shit on the cobra concept lastnight on tv? I think it was on discovery? Fuckin badass!
DEEZPAZ
New member
That seems a little bit pricey to me...
I like the shape of the Stangs and Firebirds from that year!!!
I have a '79 TA that my friends father is hooking up...
Once I get the engine work done, I'll patch up the little bit of work needed on the inside and then get a new paint job..
I like the shape of the Stangs and Firebirds from that year!!!
I have a '79 TA that my friends father is hooking up...
Once I get the engine work done, I'll patch up the little bit of work needed on the inside and then get a new paint job..
D
Deleted member 33117
Guest
Nice, but overpriced there. Anywho, I will build up a 68 camaro one day. Has always been my dream car.
D
Deleted member 33117
Guest
DEEZPAZ said:
Cool, when I was 17 I had a streetable 84 firebird my dad and I built that I drove to school once a week that ran mid 10's. My best time was a 10.51@131 mph (on DOT legal tires)
It was a sleeper though. Under the hood just a small-block chevy with one holly on top, no nitrous, no supercharger. Anywho, we dynoed that engine at 603 hp at 7200 rpm.
D
Deleted member 33117
Guest
Ok, it was barely streetable with the .670 lift mechanical roller cam (the 104 degreee lobe seperation was a BITCH in a street car) the 4.56 rear end and the 4000 rpm stall (I had a heavily modified 700-r4 transmittion...I tore it up once though..700-r4's are not known for their durability).
pitbullstl
New member
hardrock said:
Do you pronounce your last name Dirt?? Or all Frenchlike.....like Dirte..??
chewyxrage
New member
Wow I can't believe it got bid up so fuckin high!
Look at the dude is winning right now. He has 1 positive feedback and it's from buying a '65 chevelle for $150,000!
Look at the dude is winning right now. He has 1 positive feedback and it's from buying a '65 chevelle for $150,000!
D
Deleted member 33117
Guest
wootoom said:
I love them. In high school I didn't have a job outside of street racing for $$$, and had plenty of money thanks to every kid with a 5.0 mustang with a stock 302 HO in it, a pair of flowmasters and a bottle of NOS thinking he had a fast car.
I was a dick about it though, I always made them give me 2 car lengths and the move unless they agreed to take the bottle out. "Dude... I don't even have fuel enjection... you can't run me head to head with a fucking bottle...". What is sad is, most of them barely broke into the 12's even with the nitrous. LoL
Yeah - I believe that!ChewYxRage said:
Dude come on a stock 302 isn't shit - stupid ass kids don't know better...BodyByFinaplix said:
I used to do the same to idiots in their riceburners in college with my very sleeper 68 fastback with a boss 302 engine type set up - but that is no match for a car that run's 10s tho...
I don't know how you got 600 HP out of a small block with no supercharger and no bottle, but if you want to build another one (slightly more streetable please - maybe like 450 rwHP) I like 71-73 formula firebirds!
D
Deleted member 33117
Guest
Becoming said:Yeah - I believe that!
Dude come on a stock 302 isn't shit - stupid ass kids don't know better...
I used to do the same to idiots in their riceburners in college with my very sleeper 68 fastback with a boss 302 engine type set up - but that is no match for a car that run's 10s tho...
I don't know how you got 600 HP out of a small block with no supercharger and no bottle, but if you want to build another one (slightly more streetable please - maybe like 450 rwHP) I like 71-73 formula firebirds!
600 hp is very doable with the right heads and an agressive roller cam. I had a set of cnc machined dart II sportsman heads (I picked them up for $1000... that was a fucking steal....). NOthign special really. I got he shortblock from a 78 vette, with a 4-bolt main block. We polished and balanced the crank and rods, punched the block .060 over. I got a sweet deal on a set of .060 over JE flat-top pistons. We decked the block down to a -0.005 piston-to-deck clearance (small block chevies like this...remember a felpro gasket is .038" thick compressed so you still have .030" of clearnace from the head, but there has been alot of research done on doing this to the small block chevy). I ran an edlebrock victor jr intake, and did some modifications to the inside, and extended the runners farther into the plenum since the engire was going to be a street warrior and wouldn't be spinning up to 9000 rpm. To make up for the lost plenum volume, we used a 1" plate under the holly. My carb was a heavily worked over 780 cfm holly double pumper with annular discharge boosters, and we built a cold air box around it to match up to the cowl. All of the intake was coated with vht. I had a set of jet-hot coated anti-reversional headers manufactured my stahl (you should research this design if you want maxium horsepower on the street) with 1 7/8" primary tubes and 3.5" collectors. We welded a 3.5" crossover between the colloctors and ran 3" pips with 3" two-chamber flowmasters and no tailpipes after the flowmasters.
I ran a .670 lift lunati mechanical roller cam with a 104 degree lobe speration, and ran it 5 degrees advanced. I can't remember the duration on it. Due to the tight piston-to-deck clearance we had to machine the slots in the pistons slightly for the valves to clear at tdc with this cam.
We had the car trimmed down to 3000 lbs, and I had a race-ready th-700-r4 tranny with a 4000 rpm stall and a 4.56 rear end. The car was tubed, but the tires barely needed it and it was not noticable until you looked under the back, saw the tires and 4-link with coil overs. Yeah, this was my baby when I was 17... and my mother was PISSED at my dad for helping.
D
Deleted member 33117
Guest
My next project, once I finish school, will be a 3rd generation camaro with an LS-1 (as a 385 stroker). I think I can get 800 hp out of one without a supercharger or a bottle. The engine's design is the perfect smallblock...plus its all aluminum. I've thought of things that can be done that NO ONE else seems to have thought of with this engine. I'll keep these to myself...but some of it involves alterations to the heads and special coatings of key components.
BBF - Okay bro that was way over my head - I don't get that complicated into engine builds... I probably could figure out everything that you were talking about and try to duplicate it if you gave me a couple weeks to read up - but other than knowing what the terms mean, I have no idea how any of the specs are useful as of today... I don't know anything about most of that other than the increased displacement and some of the intake details...
LOL
Mr. DB - Me too - the Boss 302 I think will beat a cj428 or boss429 in the quarter... I have heard of 428 or 429s with 700-800 HP fairly easily tho...
LOL
Mr. DB - Me too - the Boss 302 I think will beat a cj428 or boss429 in the quarter... I have heard of 428 or 429s with 700-800 HP fairly easily tho...
D
Deleted member 33117
Guest
Becoming said:BBF - Okay bro that was way over my head - I don't get that complicated into engine builds... I probably could figure out everything that you were talking about and try to duplicate it if you gave me a couple weeks to read up - but other than knowing what the terms mean, I have no idea how any of the specs are useful as of today... I don't know anything about most of that other than the increased displacement and some of the intake details...
LOL
Mr. DB - Me too - the Boss 302 I think will beat a cj428 or boss429 in the quarter... I have heard of 428 or 429s with 700-800 HP fairly easily tho...
Dude, seriously, I can help you develop a 450 hp small black chevy easily.
God this shit gives me a hard on.
Found it. Check out the GR-1. Saw it on the Learning Channel lastnight-
http://www.acurainspired.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4084
http://www.acurainspired.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4084
IvanOffelitch
Well-known member
Seems a bit on the high side price-wise, but it's not unreasonable given the rarity of the car. For reference, check out this `70 Boss 429 Mustang that sold at B/J.
Hey BBF...interesting small block combination you had there. Just out of curiosity, what did the compression ratio end up at? Also, what did the heads flow?
That .670 cam must have been hell on valve springs lol. What was the ICL after you degreed it in?
Also, who did your carb?
Btw...with the pistons .005 down in the hole and a .038" head gasket, your actual deck clearance would've been .043".
Hey BBF...interesting small block combination you had there. Just out of curiosity, what did the compression ratio end up at? Also, what did the heads flow?
That .670 cam must have been hell on valve springs lol. What was the ICL after you degreed it in?
Also, who did your carb?
Btw...with the pistons .005 down in the hole and a .038" head gasket, your actual deck clearance would've been .043".
D
Deleted member 33117
Guest
Becoming said:Awesome bro - we will keep in touch and when I have the money you can help me out... I will have to go with a 71-73 firebird tho cause i can't put that in a mustang
and no getting hard ons near the car....
You can put a small block chevy in a mustang, but you will catch continual shit about having a "hybred" or a "halfbreed" car.
Car enthusist are such purists. Its fucking stupid. Brand means nothing to me. All I care about is speed...and how fast I can go for x # of $$$. I build chevy engines because they make more horsepower for every $$$ you spend. I've help friends build their ford and dodge engines and have seen that is cost more to build them. Only an idiot spends more money than he has too. Sure what is $500 if you make 6 figues? Its $500 you can spend on somethign else...you are just an idiot with money if you think like that....but in this case it would be an idiot with $500 less.
Until chevy came out with the LS-1 an engine was just an engine, ford vs chevy was just a name, and the chevy parts cost a few $$$ less IMO. The LS-1 is the ultimate small block. I want to play with one because of the superior design and all aluminum block.
D
Deleted member 33117
Guest
IvanOffelitch said:
Fuck, i think it was about 10.8:1 this was when I was 17...so can't remember. I know after maching the combustion chambers came out to 69 cc's.
No I said a -.005" not .005. The piston crowns cam .005" above the deck at tdc. I ran JE ultralight flat tops, but we had to machine the valve reliefs larger for the valves to clear.
I don't remember the specs on the valve springs. I called the company to get advice on that and they sent me the sprigns they though I should use. I used titianiam keepers and retainers.
I had a printout of the flow test on the heads, but can't remember what htey flowed. I THINK the intake ports flowed around 310-320 cfm on a 25 lbs of vaccum flow bench, and I have no clue what the exhuast did.
ICL? If that is what I think it is, it was 99 degrees. 104 degree lobe center with 5 degress of advance.
Becoming said:Mr. DB - Me too - the Boss 302 I think will beat a cj428 or boss429 in the quarter... I have heard of 428 or 429s with 700-800 HP fairly easily tho...
I couldn't care less about the quarter, drag racing means nothing to me. The 302 was a better balanced car for driving through the twisties.
Both are glorified 1960 Falcons, though...
D
Deleted member 33117
Guest
Sorry I couldn't remember more specs. I haven't built an engine in 6 years, other than to help a couple friends with thier transams or mustangs.
BBF- I hear you bro - I don't have a problem with mixing and matching myself... (except for ford/chevy I think gets touchy with people) actually have you seen http://www.renegadehybrids.com/ ?BodyByFinaplix said:
I'd love to throw a 450HP chevy engine in a 944!
Mr DB - again - I hear what you are saying
D
Deleted member 33117
Guest
Oh you asked about the carb. Summit had their own race shop work over some of them to sell. We added quick change jets to a carb they put together for us.
Oh, my entire ignition setup was MSD. Forgot the model. Does MS6 sound right? I had a rev limiter and a driver operated retard and advance by my steering wheel.
Oh, my entire ignition setup was MSD. Forgot the model. Does MS6 sound right? I had a rev limiter and a driver operated retard and advance by my steering wheel.
D
Deleted member 33117
Guest
Bumping for more engine chat.
IvanOffelitch
Well-known member
BodyByFinaplix said:
No biggie on the specs, just curious.
Maybe you meant a MSD 6AL? Top-notch stuff.
Once you start talking cars, you've got my attention. I've been building engines for nearly 30 years on my own, and spent some time managing a pro engine shop a few years ago (machinist and sole engine builder).
Sorry for the confusion regarding deck height. Normally when a piston is out of the hole, it's listed as "+" .005 (or whatever distance), that's what threw me.
Re: The LSA/ICL ?
You'd referred to "lobe seperation angle" ("LSA") initially, which is different from lobe centerlines, that's why I asked where you had it degreed in at. LSA is ground into the cam and can't be changed (unless the cam is reground, then you can only move it a couple of degrees or so), while lobe centerlines relate to where the lobes are in regards to crank position. Again, that's what threw me.
Re: the 385" project you have planned...
LS-series engines are the cats ass. You ever had one apart? Be prepared to forget just abut everything you know about engines when you go to build one. They're a completely different animal.
Since the cylinder liners in the production aluminum blocks are so thin, you can't go any farther than .010" oversize on the bores unless you have the liners completely bored out and have thicker sleeves installed. I know there's at least one company who offers this service, but I can't remember their name at the moment. I do know it ain't cheap.
Pre-oiling is a bitch since the oil pump is driven off the front of the crank, so there's no way to spin it (unless you spin the entire engine over) like you'd do on a SBC. You'll have to rig up a pressurized pre-oiler and run it through one of the plugged oil passages on the outside of the block. I went through the oil pressure sending unit location.
Almost everything is torqued using a torque angle gauge. The head bolts are torque-to-yeild as well. Many of the high-end aftermarket rod manufacturers are gradually going to this process as well (Oliver is one that comes to mind), since it's much more accurate than conventional torque readings. Depending on what you choose for rods, and what you use for main fasteners, you may need to get a torque angle gauge. Believe it or not, Snap-On has them at a semi-affordable price.
One nice thing is, if you're careful during dis-assembly, you can re-use the timing cover and oil pan gaskets, as they're plastic encapsulated silicon. Very good idea, too bad they didn't think of that sooner.
Another neat feature is how the roller lifter retainers are engineered. If you ever want to do a cam change, just remove the pushrods/rockers and spin the cam...the lifter retainers will hold the lifters in the "up" position so you can change cams w/o having to remove the intake.
Anyhow, I could go on about this forever.....
If you're serious about this project, I can put you in touch with 2 of the leading LS-series engine experts in the country (they've done R&D work for GM on these engines if that tells you anything). Shoot me a PM when you're ready, I'd rather not post it on the board.
D
Deleted member 33117
Guest
Cool. Yeah my freind and neighbor has a 2002 TA with an LS-1. I helped him tear it down about 8 months ago... I feel in love with the engine. He is getting 525 horsepower with the factory intake still on it after rebuilding it. I started looking at the designed carefully and reading up on it. Its the perfect small block.
Ok, right I know LSA is ground into the cam and it was 104 degrees. We advanced it 5 degress so the ICL should be 99 and the ECL should have been 109. Does that sound right? I think my ignition might have been the MSD 6AL. Yes it was the shit.
Ok, right I know LSA is ground into the cam and it was 104 degrees. We advanced it 5 degress so the ICL should be 99 and the ECL should have been 109. Does that sound right? I think my ignition might have been the MSD 6AL. Yes it was the shit.
D
Deleted member 33117
Guest
Sleving a cylinder is never cheap. Really the additional bore size would only be to help unshround the valves for me personally... but with the canted valves on the LS-1 is valve shrouding by the cyinder walls even a flow impedence???
IvanOffelitch
Well-known member
BodyByFinaplix said:
Remember one thing.....an engine is nothing more than a glorified air pump. The more efficiently you get air (and the requisite fuel) into the engine and the expended mix back out of the engine, the more power it will make. Bigger bores will nearly always make more power...not only from the additional displacement, but as you mentioned, it helps unshroud the valves. That's why current Pro Stock engines use a 5.00" bore center block...the farther apart the bore centerline, the bigger you can make the bore. The bigger the bore, the better the airflow potential.
(here's a little "secret"....don't believe all the advertised flow #'s you read in the mags...some companies flow their heads on oversize bore fixtures on the flow bench which "puffs up" the flow #'s...unless your engine has the same bore size as the bore fixture they used to flow their heads, they won't flow the advertised #'s. They're most notorious for doing this on BB Chevy heads, using 4.500+" fixtures.)
Re: Sleeving the cylinders...I did a quick search and found the company I referred to earlier. here's the link. Take a look at their rotating assemblies as well.
The LS series engines don't use a "canted valve" head. (A Ford Cleveland motor and Big Block Chevys are "canted valve" designs) It's a "wedge head", but the valve angle is reduced from the traditional SBC 23 degree spec to 15 degrees. This reduces the tendencies for the air/fuel mix to "slam" into the cylinder wall, instead allowing it to have a better approach to the center of the cylinder. Again, more efficient airflow = more power.
Go to www.airflowresearch.com and look at their LS series heads. Look at what they made on the dyno as well. AFR is one of the ONLY companies who publish ACCURATE flow and dyno #'s.
IvanOffelitch
Well-known member
BileStew said:
It's not a Boss 351 car orb, it's a Boss 429 car....and they do bring in that kinda dough. See my previous post with the Barrett-Jackson link.
D
Deleted member 33117
Guest
The cam change on the LS engines is nice. I'm the type of guy who will pick 2 or 3 cams I think will work right, and test them each on a dyno before throwin the engine in, then try to sell them off to friends sicne they were only used during a dyno test. BTW we did that for the 603 hp one, and managed to talk the company into taking one back, and then sold the other.
Honestly I think the 104 lobe seperation angle one producing the best numbers on the dyno (especially peak torque) was due to the anti-reversional headers, since we dynoed the engine with the exhaust and mufflers attached. Have you researched how they change the pulses traveling along the edge of the tubes? Many builders find they have an overscavening problem with these headers, and the tighter angle gives alot more overlap. Overscavening is only a problem if you have a limited carb capacity and are distance racing on limited fuel. It can improve performance by improving volumetric efficency as well as help cool down the exhaust valves.
Honestly I think the 104 lobe seperation angle one producing the best numbers on the dyno (especially peak torque) was due to the anti-reversional headers, since we dynoed the engine with the exhaust and mufflers attached. Have you researched how they change the pulses traveling along the edge of the tubes? Many builders find they have an overscavening problem with these headers, and the tighter angle gives alot more overlap. Overscavening is only a problem if you have a limited carb capacity and are distance racing on limited fuel. It can improve performance by improving volumetric efficency as well as help cool down the exhaust valves.
D
Deleted member 33117
Guest
IvanOffelitch said:
I'm very familiar with AFR. I've used a set of their heads on the engine I built before that 603 hp 350. My dad smoked the engine racing it without the rev limiter (It was on its last leg..was a 475 hp 350 that we had been using over a year for my daily driver and street racing on the weekends). He spun the rode bearings on 7 and 8. We did the same thing with the pistons on this one and hand very little piston to deck clearance. The spun rod bearings took care of the clearance we had. LoL
Oh there is more than just an air pump.
Thermal efficiency. Note my comments about coatings. Actually the thicker sleaves on the LS might be worth a few horsepower just by holding more head in the cylinder during combustion...especially if the valves, pistons and combustion chamber had a way to resist absorbing heat....IvanOffelitch
Well-known member
BodyByFinaplix said:
Tight LSA cams (taking into account the necessity to widen LSA as duration at .050" increases to avoid excessive overlap for any given combination) generally tend to make better midrange power than wider LSA cams do, albeit at the expense of some upper rpm peak power. They also give you that nice, nasty loping idle
Wide LSA cams tend to produce a broader torque curve, but with less peak torque and sometimes slightly better upper-rpm peak power. I'll trade a high peak power figure with a mediocre torque curve for less peak power and a tabletop-flat torque curve any day of the week. (your torque converter builder will love you for this as well lol) Nitrous, supercharged and turbocharged engines do not like tight LSA's and lots of overlap though. Too much overlap + too much nitrous = nasty nitrous backfires! Too much overlap + artificial aspiration = wasted energy out the exhaust pipes.AR headers have been around a long time, but modern header/collector technology has lessened their popularity. Most high-end racers are now using step headers in conjunction with merge collectors.
Go to http://www.burnsstainless.com/ for some interesting reading on header theory and design. Be sure to read this article as well.
Unfortunately, with EFI (as in the case of the LS series engines) tight LSA's don't work very well in a computer controlled environment as they kill low speed vacuum, something most EFI systems require. This can be avoided with most of the aftermarket EFI systems, but then you're getting into some serious $$$. Although if you're serious about making 800 naturally aspirated HP in a 385" engine, somehow I doubt cost will be of much concern to you.
D
Deleted member 33117
Guest
Right, the 104 degree cam produced a rediculous torque curve which is why we kept it, but I think it had 4 or 5 more horsepower than the next best cam we tested. Its hard to remember now, but yes I've very much aware of the dynamics of overlap and how it effects torque curves, idel etc. I beat most guys out of the hole, since I raced other street cars, had the killer midrange torque a 4000 rpm stall with the deep 1st gear on the 700-r4, w/ the 4.56 rear end. Not many high school kids have a package like that.
IvanOffelitch
Well-known member
BodyByFinaplix said:Oh there is more than just an air pump.
Thermal efficiency as well as reducing frictional losses, reducing rotating mass, pumping losses, etc. all contribute to efficiency. That's what I meant when I said:
IvanOffelitch said:
The thicker sleeves could contribute to improved thermal efficiency, but I'd wager they'd show even greater benefits in cylinder wall stability and the resultant ring seal. Thermal coating the valve faces, chambers, piston tops and exhaust runners would be beneficial as well. Anything that can be done to reduce heat transfer to the incoming air/fuel mix normally results in more power. However, there is one exception to this rule: There is a cross-over point where power can be gained by heating the air/fuel mix! Yes, you read that right. See if you can find any information online about the legendary Smokey Yunick's "adiabatic engine principal", a.k.a. the "hot vapor cycle engine."
Just when yu thought you had it all scienced out, someone throws a monkey wrench into the mix
D
Deleted member 33117
Guest
Yeah, I had a nasty staccato idel with a small block chevy using a 104 LSA and a mechanical roller cam. We street racing at new gigs, we would get there early and the first guy to offer to run me for $400-500 would shit his pants when I fired it up after he had looked under the hood and laughed.
Sounded great with the 3" flowmasters. LoL
They always fucked up and asked to see the engine, but never looked under the car at the suspension and such. When someone would take the time to do this they would alway stop and ask why such a conservative looking SBC needed 3" pipes, coil overs and a 4-link and the big tired tubed under the back.
I would just say, "Don't you know... 305's are the baddest mother fuckers on the street". You tend to get snickers and replies..."305...yeah right...no really what the fuck do you really have in that engine? Where are the hidden nitrous lines?"
Once I fired it up they usually understood.
Sounded great with the 3" flowmasters. LoL
They always fucked up and asked to see the engine, but never looked under the car at the suspension and such. When someone would take the time to do this they would alway stop and ask why such a conservative looking SBC needed 3" pipes, coil overs and a 4-link and the big tired tubed under the back.
I would just say, "Don't you know... 305's are the baddest mother fuckers on the street". You tend to get snickers and replies..."305...yeah right...no really what the fuck do you really have in that engine? Where are the hidden nitrous lines?"
Once I fired it up they usually understood.
D
Deleted member 33117
Guest
IvanOffelitch said:Thermal efficiency as well as reducing frictional losses, reducing rotating mass, pumping losses, etc. all contribute to efficiency. That's what I meant when I said:
The thicker sleeves could contribute to improved thermal efficiency, but I'd wager they'd show even greater benefits in cylinder wall stability and the resultant ring seal. Thermal coating the valve faces, chambers, piston tops and exhaust runners would be beneficial as well. Anything that can be done to reduce heat transfer to the incoming air/fuel mix normally results in more power. However, there is one exception to this rule: There is a cross-over point where power can be gained by heating the air/fuel mix! Yes, you read that right. See if you can find any information online about the legendary Smokey Yunick's "adiabatic engine principal", a.k.a. the "hot vapor cycle engine."
Just when yu thought you had it all scienced out, someone throws a monkey wrench into the mix
I had books written by Smokey Yunick when I was 16.
I'm a speed reader and tested at 147 on a stanford-binet. BBF reads a great deal. I had about 50 books on building small block chevies when I was in high school. Right, I was thinking of a ceramic coating on the piston crowns, combustion chambers, valves and exhaust ports. Possibly teflon coating the rods and crank to help shed oil, things like this. I've always used windage trays and crank scrapers.
D
Deleted member 33117
Guest
As far as keeping everything cool, yes, that is why the intake air was always from outside, why I vht coated the inside of the intake, and rane the fuel through a cool can filled with dry ice and methanol prior to it intering the carb.
IvanOffelitch
Well-known member
BodyByFinaplix said:I had books written by Smokey Yunick when I was 16.
Right, I was thinking of a ceramic coating on the piston crowns, combustion chambers, valves and exhaust ports. Possibly teflon coating the rods and crank to help shed oil, things like this. I've always used windage trays and crank scrapers.
I'll save you from having to look it up orb.
http://www.smokeyyunick.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=14
