Hi there

[red91sit]

You must also have a roll cage, new SFI approved pressure plate, flywheel scatter sheild, driveshaft loop, and a multi-point race harness.

Not exactly something I'd want to drive on the streets, considering the roll cage and highly stressed powerplant.

[onegammyleg]

Originally Posted by red91sit

You must also have a roll cage, new SFI approved pressure plate, flywheel scatter sheild, driveshaft loop, and a multi-point race harness.

Bobs cool ride



¨Description : 1969 Buick Special 4-door w/ 455 (7.6 ltr). 4300#, 15 MPG highway. Quiet, and docile enough that my wife and mother will drive it too. Automatic transmission, quiet mufflers, and plenty of other daily-driver necessities.¨

http://www.forum.nitrous-advice.com/...ry&image_id=30

[onegammyleg]

Originally Posted by theclencher

Horsepower discrepencies over 100- maybe all the calculators suck- or the dyno?

The 1/4 calculators are usually quite accurate , but they do assume near ideal traction (not possible with road tyres) and strip gear ratios.

Normally you aim to be going through the lights at full rpm in top gear - which would mean 3.5 to 4.1 diff gears.

Bear in mind that a similar spec Buick Skylark barely breaks the 16 second quater mile mark.
http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z...k/default.aspx

Now this is an 11 second car.
http://www.ls1.com.au/forum/printthread.php?t=57652
In this article it gives an extensive list of the modifications to get this car to do those times.

I personaly cant imagine an old gen vehicle with limited mods equaling
that.




or

[bobc455]

Hey guys!

Didn't expect my thread to get so much response!

Yes, that is all true. No BS.

I've always been a jack-of-all-trades (master of none) kinda guy, which is why I don't drive a 9-second drag car that gets 2 MPG, nor a 4-cylinder that gets 50 MPG. I like the 50 MPG concept, but I GOTTA have my power! So this is my compromise. (and it's nice to be able to carry 5 passengers, albeit a bit cramped)

I chose the 2.56 gears because it is a real, honest-to-goodness daily driver. I drive about an hour to work each way, all interstate, and much of that is 75 - 80 MPH. And since it is a REAL car that is driven every day (not "street legal" or whatever other name you call your garage queen), and not a race car, I don't have to worry about launching at the racetrack. Sure, I could probably pick up a few tenths in the 1/4 by going to a 3.42 or 3.73 rearend, but that would not be good for my MPG. And besides, with the amount of torque that a big-block can produce, I don't really need the extra torque multiplication anyhow. It just smokes up my all-season radials (and even drag radials when I throw those on, but never slicks).

15 MPG is my real day-to-day number with back roads, cold starts, playing around with the throttle (and with this much HP the temptation is too big). However a few times in the past, I have taken long trips (driven the car from Boston to the GS Nationals in Bowling Green, KY) with the intention of getting the best MPG possible, so I drove 55-60 MPH and stayed very conservative on the acceleration and braking. In this case, I have gotten 19 MPG a few times.

Yes, I do supplement the engine with nitrous oxide - and I'm proud! It is the best way to allow the rest of the engine to be built mild enough to get good gas mileage. Getting this much HP without some sort of boost (supercharger or turbo etc.) would require a camshaft and head porting setup that would kill MPG. So I stay fairly conservative with that, and add a bit of extra exhaust duration to the cam to help with the nitrous flow (which doesn't have too much bad effect on MPG).

I know that 20 MPG is not very impressive for a website dedicated to saving gas, but considering that I am pushing both ends of the spectrum, I'm happy with the results.

By the way, my nitrous setup is a 2-stage system - one stage adjustable 75 - 150HP, and the other stage is 100 - 300HP. The 11.65 run was on a single stage 150 shot! I didn't go more because I had the wrong plug heat range. Going with that much nitrous does require a colder heat range than I like to run otherwise.

Interesting comments about the fuel injection. I do run MSD already (thanks RED). And omgwtfbyobbq, my FI system is so programmable that the same mapping setup can cover lean highway cruising and racing. The only time I have to change programs is if I decide to run race fuel and crank up the timing a few degrees, but I don't do that very often (lead kills my O2 sensor).

theclencher, I've thought about a manual tranny before, but with the amount of torque I'm generating I would just break them apart. Of course I could go to a lenco or something, but then my wife won't want to drive the car! Besides, I would need a left leg the size of a tree trunk to overcome the clutch pressure necessary to hold against that kind of torque! I am just sticking with my automatic for now.

red91sit, I do have a lot of the engine mods and whatnot. But I don't have a cage or harness or anything- fortunately my local track is IHRA, so I can run to 11.59 without a roll bar. A harness isn't required until the 10s.

JanGeo, the controller I use (Speed-Pro, now FAST) for my FI is not capable of a dual-injector setup. I run 36# injectors, and on the highway I usually have around 15% duty-cycle on the injectors, which is okay. Originally the Speed-Pro controller was supposed to handle dual-injector setups but they didn't implement it due to lack of demand. The one place where I could pick up substantially would be a sequential system instead of bank-to-bank, since some of the injectors just squirt against a closed intake valve- it would be better to time the injectors to always squirt when the intake valve is open.

By the way, a good way to make a heavy car go fast is with torque- I don't really focus my thinking on HP (although they are obviously related). A flat torque curve will give you good street manners and MPG, and good acceleration. I don't care much about peak HP numbers- they are fun for racing on barstools, but on the street it is torque that moves your car. (And a flat torque curve is MUCH better than a peaky curve IMO.)

theclencher, I am definately looking at aerodynamics. I have some front springs that will lower me about 1/2" (but I have to clear the speed bumps with the headers), and I'm trying to think about spoilers and air dams and whatnot. Before coming to this site, I didn't realize there was so much drag due to the underside of the car, and I think that might be my key to better MPG (besides a better cam design). As you can imagine, aerodynamically right now I am approximately a brick.

-Bob Cunningham

[red91sit]

20mpg is pretty impresive to me haha, I'm getting consistent 12's but that's due to wrong sized fuel injectors. Got that fixed now though :-)

As far as aerodynamics go, my car started at .48, but since then I've added a front underbody, still having troubles with the exhaust area and rear end (note these are not the same area). I'm trying to think of some good solutions that don't add excessive frontal area. Underbody's are also virtually invisible to average passerbys. If you are able to drop your c.d. an appreciable amount, you should also notice much better passing power and faster trap times with no sacrafices having to be made!

Check out my garage sometime. I think you'd see we have a bit in common, well as long as you go to "the champion" the other one's not very closely related at all, haha


BTW- just cuz it's only got 4 cylinders ain't saying it's slow, this is a little pet peeve of mine.

We got nearly identical power/weight ratios (yours using n2o), but my total investment is under 1/2 yours, I get 30 mpg still, anything over 90mph and the smaller frontal area, more aerodynamic car will eat up the luxury liners, it's in a sense "always on" no tank to open, or solenoids in between the power adder and motor, just a gas pedal. Oh yeah, and it can turn ;-)

Just something to consider that the next time you stereo-type "4 cylinder" as slow

[onegammyleg]

[psyshack]

Big Iron can move! And its impressive when it does.

A buddy of mine had a huge big body Cutless with a 455 in it. Two speed AT that he bracket raced at 12.5 sec.

Ive owned more than my fare share of ubber big iron. My favorite, was a 1969 Chrysler Newport Sedan. Plain Jane. Stock from the factory 383 low compression 2 barrel. But lucky me,,, it had a LSD in the rear end. I bought the car from a little old lady with 60k miles on it for $600 bucks. It also had over sized drum brakes on it front and rear, with a giant radiator and a over sized Chrysler Airtemp A/C system. It had all the makings of a State Trooper undercover interceptor with out the high out put 440 in it. What a find!

My intention was to resale the car when I bought it. Clean it up, tune up and double my money. I did this a lot when I was younger. The car turned out to be so sweet we kept it.

Anyway,,, In stock trim hwy mpg was about 19 mpg and city about 15. I then found a set of ram air intake manifolds and a new set of AFB Carters. That led to a set of headers, exhaust and electronic ignition. All the sudden. Loafing down the hwy with basic hypermiling would return 28 mpg and city driving one could get 18 or 19 mpg pretty easy. Once you got the sled moving all it needed was just a tad bit of throttle off idle to keep it moving. Turned out to be a great car!

The Newport would run solid hi 12's and low 13's at the strip. It had a top end of 157 mph and would run all day north of a 135 mph. The secret to getting good 1/4 mile numbers out of the big sleds was not to focus so much on the hole shot or the 60' time. But to get all the mass moving then pour the coals to them. At a 1/8th mile you had your hands full as the torque came on.

My Newport spent most of its time as a hwy hauler. And most of its racing was done at distance high speed interstate runs. I only lost once with it. A Fairlane 500 put it to me good one night between Sallisaw, Ok. and Henryetta, Ok. on interstate 40. Lost $500 bucks on the run. Not bad seeing the car made me close to $10k over the course of ownership.

I ended up putting 330k miles on that car or better and never had the heads off of it or the engine out of the car. The 727 was never pulled out either. I did go thru several motor mounts and tranny tail piece mounts. I ended up selling the car for twice what I paid for it. It's all good.

So you folks keep playing with your calculators. Scratching your heads. If you ever pull up against a sleeping giant and piss it off. Your likely to get squashed.

[bobc455]

Originally Posted by red91sit

20mpg is pretty impresive to me haha, I'm getting consistent 12's but that's due to wrong sized fuel injectors. Got that fixed now though :-)

As far as aerodynamics go, my car started at .48, but since then I've added a front underbody, still having troubles with the exhaust area and rear end (note these are not the same area). I'm trying to think of some good solutions that don't add excessive frontal area. Underbody's are also virtually invisible to average passerbys. If you are able to drop your c.d. an appreciable amount, you should also notice much better passing power and faster trap times with no sacrafices having to be made!

Check out my garage sometime. I think you'd see we have a bit in common, well as long as you go to "the champion" the other one's not very closely related at all, haha


BTW- just cuz it's only got 4 cylinders ain't saying it's slow, this is a little pet peeve of mine.

We got nearly identical power/weight ratios (yours using n2o), but my total investment is under 1/2 yours, I get 30 mpg still, anything over 90mph and the smaller frontal area, more aerodynamic car will eat up the luxury liners, it's in a sense "always on" no tank to open, or solenoids in between the power adder and motor, just a gas pedal. Oh yeah, and it can turn ;-)

Just something to consider that the next time you stereo-type "4 cylinder" as slow

Red91-

Sorry, I didn't mean to insult 4-cylinder engines as being slow- there are plenty of examples of very quick 4-cylinders (esp w/ turbos). But because I am a v8 kind of guy, if I were to buy a 4-cylinder it would be strictly for the fuel economy and I'd leave the power to my v8. Just my ownperspective. In fact, I have a Saturn as a winter car- not because the ol' Buick doesn't do great in the winter, it's just because of the awful rust issue. A Plastic saturn holds up much better to the sand/salt spray.

I love the Lincoln- quite a cool car. I bet I could learn a lot about aerodynamics and stuff from you, 25 MPG is impressive for sure.

psyshack, great stories there. Someday I'd love to take the car on a long high-speed run (Silver-state-classic sorta thing). Never had the chance to open it up for a long run. Someday...

Thanks for all of the interesting comments, guys- see ya 'round the board.

-Bob C.

[red91sit]

Originally Posted by bobc455

Red91-

Sorry, I didn't mean to insult 4-cylinder engines as being slow- there are plenty of examples of very quick 4-cylinders (esp w/ turbos). But because I am a v8 kind of guy, if I were to buy a 4-cylinder it would be strictly for the fuel economy and I'd leave the power to my v8. Just my ownperspective. In fact, I have a Saturn as a winter car- not because the ol' Buick doesn't do great in the winter, it's just because of the awful rust issue. A Plastic saturn holds up much better to the sand/salt spray.

I love the Lincoln- quite a cool car. I bet I could learn a lot about aerodynamics and stuff from you, 25 MPG is impressive for sure.

psyshack, great stories there. Someday I'd love to take the car on a long high-speed run (Silver-state-classic sorta thing). Never had the chance to open it up for a long run. Someday...

Thanks for all of the interesting comments, guys- see ya 'round the board.

-Bob C.

Sorry for freaking out on you, I have the exact opposite setup as you! I use the lincoln for the winter car because it warms up faster and has a lot more metal to rust through before it falls apart! Not to mention, RWD is a lot more fun in the snow haha.

I'd also LOVE to go on a silver state classic event. Around here we have plenty of wide open roads with no fun corners. Before my MAF conversion, my car got the same gas mileage going 60 as it did going wahtever it topped out at, so I would just drive it wide open alll the time. Unfortunately, the speedo only goes to 85 so I had no clue just how fast it was really going. My best guess is 110-130, which is great for it's horrible aerodynamics. This was right before a huge storm so the road was completely empty and i had about a 30 mph tail wind haha. The little civic easily burried its speedo too (130+ naturally aspirated) Now that it's got a turbo, top end testing it is just plain dumb.

[onegammyleg]

Originally Posted by theclencher

OK I thought Bob's claims were a bit over-the-top, but you win!!!

I was going to chase this up , but ime too darn tired. ZZZZZZZ

,, but you must admit , a 50mph increase in top speed from a low compresion economy model v8 with just an intake change is rather remarkable.

This model with the high performance 440 only managed about 120mph , so the econo model with the lowest powered engine in the line up probably didnt make it much past 105.(down a hill in a vacuum)

¨The Newport would run solid hi 12's and low 13's at the strip.¨
..but the 383 only made 255hp. (some sources say 270 , some say 230)


Another example of 100 to 150hp less than what is needed.